Mark Sobolewski (mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com) writes:
> Hello Andre,

Hi Mark.

> There's some juicy stuff in here, but I'm going to
> need to trim the fat:

OK.

> In article ,
>  dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>>  (mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com) writes:
>
>> Well, I'm not exactly dancing in the streets over it. I'd
>> rather that men and women knocked off the bull/cowshit and got
>> on with the business of making better lives for themselves.
>
> I agree but as you and I both know, we live in a pretty
> sick society.  For one thing, it's incredibly misandric
> combined with its women who desire and need strong men.

Agreed. But, the essence of any person's choices is, do they
decide to buy in, or stay out ?

To quote Capt. Kirk, " Yes, we're killers, but all we have to do
is say 'we're not going to kill... today. ' "

> People can't just "move on" until our society is radically
> restructured and this includes killing some very sacred
> cows including the notion that women can "have it all"
> and that men are disposable.

If we're going to get there, its likely that much of the
task will be individuals shifting their own views, before
they can ask for others to join them. Grass roots action,
that sort of thing, and one small example has resulted in
not a few Feminist harridans demanding why aren't the men
they " deserve " marrying them ?

Answer: Those men have... wised up, and are saying no to
such harridans.

> That's a dream similar to marxism for a lot of people:
> They don't want to let it go.

REality often forces such letting go.

>> But, I can take a certain karmic satisfaction in the fact
>> that the misandrous harridans have managed to all but breed
>> themselves out of existance. Even fertility clinics are almost
>> out of sperm... 
>
> Yeah, but that's kind of like salting the earth too.

Only ther part that doesn't use " organic plowing ". 

> it is kind of neat how it's happened in our lifetimes, eh?

Definitely.

> This isn't like the roman empire (or even the British
> Empire) that took centuries to collapse.  This is a matter
> of a single generation or two.

Quite. Its somewhat analagous to the fall of Communism, which
in it's superpower form, didn't really last any longer, say,
1945-1991.

>> > The goal I think for now
>> > is to try to figure out which women are becoming "happy"
>> > with men and how.
>>
>> Generally, thats easy. Look for people who are honest, and
>> who *actively reward* honesty in others. They'll do well,
>> with no need for cults of victimology.
>
> Here's the thing: I think a lot of women now are so arrogant
> as to be completely honest.

I'd agree with that, with the caveat that said " honesty "
only really manifests itself in statement of outward
negativity. Its not present, however, when it comes time
for reasoned introspection.

> I think many of them
> don't even bother with the "sensitive but strong"
> BS crap: They just want rich professionals to breed
> now.  Many don't even care about politics.  They went
> to school because that's what was available to them
> and it was a backup.

With regards to what I said above, agreed.

> Yet, even so, they still come across as golddiggers.

Of course. How could they not, when they demand " equality ",
when it comes to getting, yet avoid it, when it comes to giving ?
That resulting conclusion is precisely reasoned.

> The notion of women being able to marry and quit their
> hobby job was a mostly upper middle class notion.

Sure. One they rather liked, once they had the " choice "
to do without it.

> For most of human history, women worked for a living.

Well, everyone did.

> That's another sacred cow that will need to slaughtered:
> The notion that being a spoiled, pampered housewife
> is somehow a reasonable fallback position.  Or even
> just marrying a decently wealthy guy.  These
> were products of the mid 20th century that existed
> for a few women.

In the 50s-early 70s, that was a fairly common opportunity.
Until the Feminist economy made it impossible for men to
provide that. Congrats sistahs ! 

> For most women, it's going to be about a lot of compromises
> especially with the mess feminism has created.  It's a buyers'
> market for professional men for these kinds of women and
> it's only getting better.

Again, agreed. Basic genetic celebrity only gets a woman so far.

>> >> Indeed. I'm reminded of an old Harlan Ellison essay on early
>> >> video dating, where he had to tell one woman who chose him,
>> >> " Lady, you're too mean even for *me* ! ". 
>> >
>> > If we do a comparison for cootie covered men in their 30's
>> > today, compared to maybe 10 years ago, the situation has certainly
>> > improved, eh?
>>
>> Possibly. I can't say that I've paid as much attention to that
>> topic, to really come up with reasonably firm conclusions for
>> myself.
>
> The notion of women placing a personal ad was considered
> scandalous a mere 10 years ago.  Most women wanted to
> consider themselves too attractive to bother with such
> a thing.  They should have been able to just go about
> their daily business and have a guy hit on them.

OK, that matches what I do know.

> As other posters point out, it was mostly the women in
> their 30's onward that did this kind of thing.  It's a sign
> of the times that now many young women are hitting them
> as well.

True. Payback's a bitch. 

>> > Lots of geeky guys went to the personals in the past and it
>> > was ugly.  Today, many of these men are frustrated but I think
>> > it's workable.  The women are certainly a few inches down
>> > from their pedestal than before.
>>
>> Theres still many feet for many of them to go, yet...
>
> Yeah, but they've lost their grip.  That means quite a bit.
> It starts slow...

" The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the
pebbles to vote. " Kosh, Babylon 5. Hows that ?

>> OK.  Seriously, I more watch how their lives play out. Sex
>> And The City was a wonderful microcosm of that...
>
> I find the series reasonably intersting and even
> self-critical of these women.  It's amazing how women
> such as Charlotte, who are materialistic as hell,
> can wind up having a decent relationship.

To be sure, she was more able to do that, once she got
the fab Park Avenue apartment from her first ex. I doubt
that loads of modern women have that prospect at hand...

> However, I think the series is a little overoptimistic:

 Of course. The grrls have to win, its a show about them...

> It wants to put a smiley face on everything and presume
> that these women won't have REAL serious problems
> or wind up burned out.  That's because it's entertainment,
> of course.

Quite. In Carrie's case, I am reminded of a MASH episode
where a journalist is interviewing them all, and asks
" what has changed about you, from being here ? "

Frank answers " nothing at all. " Thats Carrie.

> When I lived in California, I knew literally a half dozen
> women on Prozac in their 30's.  No kidding.  This curbed
> their depression and lonliness but also made them
> emotionally worthless.

Indeed. Smart women unpack and store away their baggage,
Feminist ones drag it all wherever they go. Then, they
wonder why a guy doesn't want to haul all that... for her.

>> > I think you're making a mistake and buying into the Parg
>> > "equality" "egalitarian" nonsense.
>>
>> Oh, Hell no. Rather, while men's and women's experiences
>> socially will be different, that simple honesty and rewarding
>> returned honesty can, when it's a shared value by both, make
>> both's lives better, and easier.
>>
>> When you remove the eggshells on the floor, the fear of their
>> noise kinda goes away, too...
>
> The fact is, if I had confronted my wife on some of her
> little lies I think she would have been devestated.  However,
> I did keep on eye on them.  They were little things
> that were important to her but not really important.

Ah. My S/O and I have well explored pretty much aspect of
our lives, histories, and persons. We have both found that
process to be wonderfully refreshing and very informative.

With us, literally nothing is off the table, and we both are
clear in our behavior that we want the honest answers. And,
honest questions, of course.

>> >> Not really, in this case. 6 year olds with cells ? Come on,
>> >> I don't see the likelyhood of such " peer pressure
". And,
>> >> teaching a kid to resist such, stands the kid in good stead
>> >> to resist more dangerous peer pressures later on.
>> >
>> > Trying lead from a position of poverty is a lot harder
>> > than success.  I know.  It's tough to stand up to the crowd.
>>
>> Sure. " We choose to go to the Moon and do the other things, too,
>> not because they are easy, but because they are hard. " JFK.
>
> Yeah, but how many 6 y/o kids have trillion dollar budgets,
> a father who breaks his opponents' legs, and
> a team of adoring press agents turning every gesture
> he makes into a legend?

OK, so I was using metaphor. Its the exhortation to do whats
not easy, that was my point.

> As you can tell, I don't worship JFK.  I think he was
> basically first "movie star" political figure
> in the states (perhaps other than George Washington.)

Oh, I'm no slave to any pol. But, sometimes, any one
of them can say something, well, right.

> Go to the moon?  No problem!  Blow a few trillion dollars

$24 Billion. Including Gemini.

> of martyr money and set up juicy contracts to grease
> the home districts of various senators, and it's not
> a big problem.  I don't buy into this hero nonsense
> about it being so hard.  Well paid engineers and
> glory seeking astronauts can do quite a bit without
> breaking a sweat.

Hmm... Ask Dave Scott and Neil Armstrong, who nearly
died in space, in the tumbling of Gemini 8. It was
great skill, and balls, that saved them. Loads more
such experiences to mention, too.

And, the bulk of the engineers, and asttronauts, didn't
cash in from the effort, they were too busy doing the jobs.

> In fact, we should give credit to
> the fact that this isn't really all that exceptional.
> This kind of technical accomplishment should be commonplace.

Oh, you have no idea how much I wish that it were commonplace.


>> " If you never say what you mean, you can never mean what you
>> say. " Centauri Minister, B5.
>
> Oh, now that's REAL geeky!  Yuck, I'm going to wipe off
> my screen.  I'm seeing acne medication!

What can I say, I like good literature in all it's forms...

And, my S/O likes smart guys... Win, win. 

>> If one never teaches one's charge(s) to stand up for themselves,
>> then what stops such later grown charge(s) from being functionally
>> little more than sheep ?
>
> Then again, are you (in this hypothetical situation)
> telling him to stand up for himself _OR_ to stand up
> for YOUR opinions and values?

Well, theres two parts to that. One, obviously, I like
my life values, because I've worked hard, and paid hard,
for them, and they're well tested. That said, two, as
long as folks make choices that have good shots at making
them long term good and happy, thats all good.

> It's real easy to
> you to tell someone else to stand up but harder for
> him to do it especially if he doesn't yet have the resources.

Sure. I've been there. One reason I write here, is to do
some small amount of providing such resources, or help
in finding such. I got both, by being here.

> I guess this keys into honesty with women and "tact".
> I accepted that sometimes, the men do have to cave in
> and give the ladies what they need and crave.

Of course. That goes both ways, too, but yes, its reasonable
to get the ladies what they need. Which is not the same as
what they might say that they want, though....

> They
> need to feel "special" and important and the man
> taking care of them in a sexist fashion AND some
> "equality" too.

Agreed. Though, my S/O doesn't want to have the illusion
of " equality ", rather, shes happy with being my better,
in areas where she really is, and allowing me to be the
better, when I really am.

We're both happier, being who we are, and not trying to
play games, with skill sets that we can't cash a verbal
cheque in.

>> > The best thing to do may be to give the kid a PDA and then
>> > ask him to set an example and maybe trade it in for
>> > a calculator.  In other words, by staying ahead of the trend
>> > and then abandoning it, he helps to transcend it.
>>
>> This, of course, assumes that theres some kind of trend of
>> cellphones for 6 year olds. The data that I saw simply said
>> that " The older kids had such, so 6 year old demanded it,
>> too. " Good parents say " no " at the appropriate times.
>
> Certainly.  I'm not saying otherwise.  I wouldn't want
> to teach them to follow the crowd (especially at his
> parent's expense.)

OK.

> What may be neat about the mobile phone
> thing would be to try to buy him a killer PDA and then in
> the future, not have him follow some other trends.
> In other words, mix things up a bit and give him
> the opportunity and freedom to decide which trends
> he likes and doesn't want to follow.  Who knows, maybe
> he likes some of the trends?

Sure, but starting with a demand for a thing that isn't really
appropriate to a 6 year old, without even trying to earn it,
isn't a help there.

>> > A lot of this is about building self-esteem too.  It's easy
>> > for you and I, adults, to lecture and pontificate about how
>> > they should set and example and stand up to the crowd but
>> > we're talking about 6 y/o's here!!!  They simply don't
>> > have that emotional strength yet.  Maybe help them get it
>> > first, with guidance, and then discard the crowdthink
>> > at their leisure.
>>
>> Indeed. Howevere, my point wasn't about the kid demanding it.
>> Many kids demand many things that they oughtn't have, and
>> don't have the maturity to have. Rather, the point was the
>> adults caving in, and giving the kid the cell, for *no other
>> stated reason than* " he wanted it, and screamed until he
>> got it. ". What lesson did that teach the 6 year old ? Scream
>> and you'll get.
>
> Oh, agreed there.  If they act like that, then the lesson
> to teach isn't about how to manage dealing with trends
> but rather in respecting their elders.  I would then
> go a little further and take away their designer shoes
> and give them generics and let the other kids have at 'em
> for a day.

That works. Let them learn, play that game, and lose a prize.

> Isn't this interesting?  I can see how women love playing
> some of these head games.  The key here is that the kid's
> interests need to be taken at heart unlike these women
> who seem to view men as objects.  They come across
> as sociopaths at times, yes?

Very much so, yes. Starting with " meal ho-ing "...

>> >> Sure, to make up for what they chose not to be a part of, in
>> >> their own " careers "...
>> >
>> > Provided they are doing this reasonably, and accepting

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100