xpanda said:
You might not like the yapping, but it's better than shooting at people to change them.
It's only better if it feels natural and it works. For a woman, nothing is more natural than yapping and when it even leads to men moving mountains of resources to try to satisfy them, then they would be fools to stop. I can hardly blame them. It's like when a bratty kid destroys everything in the house, who do you blame, the kid or the parents who failed to prevent it? I blame the parents mainly. So I guess I blame men mainly for this feminism thing getting out of hand. Women can hardly be expected to become long-term, large scale rational thinkers (nor would that even be desirable, for I can't imagine getting turned on by them in that case).
For a man, what feels natural is to just put up with all the sh*t until a critical mass is reached and then blow up. That has a long history of success as well, so it can hardly be knocked as a method. Each side does what comes naturally. Right now men's collective sh*t cup is about 80% full, and when it reaches 100% there will be some swift action which will turn feminism into a fading memory for a while until the cycle repeats again, hopefully with each side learning from its past mistakes but undoubtedly making new ones.
I suppose I'm guilty of assuming that when you rationally explain to a woman the sh*t cup idea, then they may use that information to observe the cup and manage it so that it never gets full. I'm beginning to realize this is naive. It's about as realistic as being able to teach my dog to read.
You're blaming the current US deficit and personal credit issues on feminists???
Absolutely! Female instincts + nagging and men's reactions are at the root of 90% of irresponsible and frivolous spending. Moving to a bigger house, making renovations, elaborate interior design plans...let's be real...how many times is that the woman's idea and how many times is it the man's (in a heterosexual relationship)? I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say 9 times out of 10 it's the woman's. The man of course goes along with it because it's manageable and he wants to satisfy the woman, makes him feel important, helps him to hold on to his woman etc., but nonetheless the woman's needs are what fuels it.
On the positive side, feminism is also responsible for the US having the world's strongest economy (on paper, ignoring the house of cards as traditional economics so nicely manages to do), but there is no doubt in my mind that under true cost economics, the world economy would be healthier if feminism were less successful.
Interesting, because I thought it was about obtaining freedom of choice and the right to pursue the same options as our male compatriots. Silly goose I am.
The part I don't get here is that you've had this stuff now for at least 3 decades. Why are you not satisfied and what more do you want!?
Ninety percent of feminists wear bras and makeup and still like the feeling of a strong man.
Yet they seem oblivious to the fact that these strong men get turned off by feminism and naturally chase after women who don't want to compete with them. You say men are "afraid" to get into a battle of wits because of fear they might lose. There is no fear involved unfortunately, it's simply a pragmatic choice. A rational person only uses large amounts of energy when he sees a point to it. Given two equally desireable women, a man would be a fool to go after the one that requires more energy. There are enough battles of wits going on at the workplace and enough places sucking out his energy which at least provide something in return like a salary for example. At home a man tends to look for other things like peace, harmony and comfort, something that non-feminists are better at providing.
The difference these days is we want to have real orgasms,
Nothing wrong with that IMO. Some women get orgasms from pimps putting them in their place while others from achieving dominance over a man. Whatever works.
make our own money, and determine our own fate.
This part tends to turn men off because they like to be a greater part of a woman's life than just being Mr. jar opener. Raising a family requires a multitude of skills. Too much overlap between the two parents is inefficient. The classical set-up of one full time breadwinner and one full time nurturer is an efficient allocation of resources IMO, especially when 10,000 years of evolutionary history have honed the skills to make each role natural, fulfilling and seemingly effortless. When one is faced with the prospect of such efficiency, it actually moves to the sexual dimension. A large percentage of women get turned on by men with money because they see someone who is very good at something they are not and which they need, just as men get turned on by women who make them good food and take care of their home for them.
Feminists should not be surprised at the lack of satisfactory male companionship they are experiencing. Rather than attribiute it to a deficiency in the male species which leads to chronic dissatisfaction and depression, they should seek to understand the underlying forces and develop a plan which accepts men's nature as a given and works around it. But I guess that would be too forward-thinking and rational, something that does not come easily for feminists.
