(mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com) writes:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> Mark Sobolewski (mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com) writes:
>> > In article ,
>> >  dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>> >>  (mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com) writes:
>> >> > greg1...{at}yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> bluesmama wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > guy's limits were, as far as how far he was
willing to
>> >> >> > compromise himself in order to
(possibly)laid? Frankly, a guy
>> >> >> > I can walk all over is not a guy I'd want
to date twice,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ah hah!!  Such refreshing honesty.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not totally.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed.
>> >>
>> >> > She says she didn't want wimps but at the same time wanted
>> >> > guys who caved into her demands.
>> >> >
>> >> > Does this make a lot of sense?
>> >>
>> >> No, but neither does the ideological underpinning of sexist
>> >> "bluesmama"'s views make any more sense.
>> >
>> > Let's give her some credit however: Her views work.
>>
>> Do they ? If they do, is that why female pop writer after pop
>> writer, from Susan Reimer to Maureen O'Dowd, is bitching about
>> men not " following the Rules " ?
>
> Can you read ahead a bit?

Sure. I was just pointing out that, for an awful lot of well
connected women, its not working for them, and they're not that
quiet about it.

> I said at least for her in a
> limited fashion.  Not necessarily for every woman.

Ah, but I'm trying to suss out trends...

> This brings up the point that American women live in an incredibly
> elitist world: It doesn't really matter if other women are happy,
> or most other men, or the slobs they don't care about.  It's just
> their tiny universe that matters.

Sure.

>> All that suggests to me that, while one might find occasional
>> women who believe that it works, they're either in the minority,
>> and/or not in the game.
>
> See above.  Their attitude is that they're "special" and therefore
> it doesn't matter if they're in the minority or not.  Heck, they
> probably even prefer it that way.

Indeed. My question is more of, is that minority shrinking or not ?
Evidence seems to suggest that it is shrinking, so it's likely that
more and more such women will become unhappy.

>> > At least for now.
>> >
>> > She's got her fantasy world, it works for her, and I respect it.
>>
>> Why ? Why would one respect living in a fantasy world ?
>
> If it makes them happy, why not?

Well, because it's at variance with facts and truth ? The difference
is non trivial, as is the difference between accepting that someone
is choosing fantasy over reality, and haveing to respect that choice.
I can do the former, as a part of my accepting reality, without doing
the latter.

> It's when the fantasy implodes that it's not worth respecting.

No, thats when it fails to be even acceptable. See above.

>> > The first or second guy who came along with the Joe
>> > "sensitive but self-confident" act won her heart.
>> > After a dozen dates
>> > or so, such women quickly start to doubt the sincerity
>> > of anything they do.  Is the "sensitive" act fake
>> > or is it the "confident" part?  She may not have had
>> > time to develop suspicians.
>>
>> Agreed. And, the flip side is that many younger men may not have
>> had time to develop their own suspicions.
>
> Which makes it interesting, doncha think, if these poor
> bastards divorce later and hit the dating market after
> a long absence and chase after women who've been
> through the dating wringer?  Yikes!

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* ! ". 

>> True. Often she rewards no one but herself. Such women have
>> the same person to blame for their aloneness.
>
> But bluesmomma isn't alone and that's why I'm respecting her
> fantasy.

OK. I'm not, because setting up such a scenario seems to me to
be making the odds of it's failure worse. Not to mention the
fate of the poor Feminised pussy-boi...

> I gave up dating the 30 something clock tickers because
> these women didn't carry around fantasies by then.  They
> carried around BAGGAGE.  They wanted to punish the next
> poor bastard for all the things these jerks had done
> or lied about (real or imagined) and then punish the jerk
> after that for the jerk who didn't pick up her bags
> beforehand.

Sure. Lots of that pathology around. Should we " respect " their
views, too ?

>> Indeed. The key point is that, if the start of any relationship
>> is done by methods that *deny* honesty and open communication,
>> the situation will never get any better than that.
>
> Now you're sounding a bit geeky (ok, we're both geeks)

 Yep. My S/O has said that she likes geeks. Heck, shes
a gamer, and an SCA-er, too.

> I think it is possible for a relationship to mature into
> a more open and honest one.

Yes, it *can*, but it does have much better odds of that happening,
if it starts as an honest relationship, free of mind games, and
the like.

As no humans have infinite time, we cannot place our few years
into such low trend line odds, and expect more than a few wins.

> Also, maybe it doesn't kill
> a relationship if the man BS's the woman about the first
> date or pretends to enjoy watching girl films with her.
> Maybe a little dishonesty is good and healthy for most
> couples.

I don't think so. Its one thing to pretend to like what you
don't, in an effort to make another feel more comfortable,
but IMHO, its better to make an honest effort to share such
fare, with the stated caveat that not all things will be so
shared, and that some avocations will be more about one than
both. And, that thats OK, too.

>> Ouch. One promo for Dr. Phil's " teaching idiots how to
>> raise their kids " had a guy who bought a 6 year old a cell
>> phone. Reason ? " The other kids had them. " Feh.
>
> This depends upon the strength of the parent.  All things
> equal, if the parent didn't buy the cell phone, the
> child would then be singled out as a "loser" and his
> self-esteem would suffer.  It's ugly, but that's reality.

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.

> If a parent is going to have a child stand out, then
> he should do it in a way that gets the child ahead of
> the game.  Don't just buy him a cell phone.  Buy him
> a PDA! :-)  That will put him on top of the alpha
> pack.

Or, teach him how to stand up for himself, as an individual,
not a pack herd creature...

>> > Nearly all the women I know tend to move much less often
>> > than men and will stay in a rotten neighborhood or
>> > with their families because it's comfortable to them.
>>
>> The same can be said of their jobs, and thats a major reason
>> for the " wage gap ". Women often choose non cash comforts
>> over more cash.
>
> Well, they choose the more cash in their relationsships than
> man by comparison.

Sure, to make up for what they chose not to be a part of, in
their own " careers "...

> regards,
> Mark Sobolewski

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/24/05 12:46:05 PM ---