Talk about sweeping generalizations. This thread is full of em. There are plenty of intelligent, pretty, generally amazing women in this country. Both North and South. There are also a lot who suck. And not in the good way. Personally, I haven’t encountered a plethora of these angry, bitchy self-righteous creatures with an overblown sense of entitlement. And I grew up in the north. And spent four years down south. So, where is their lair?
[quote]Yorbabarbell wrote:
I could not have said it better myself! I have found american women suck really well-and swallow too-as long as you are worthy to them-ie successful, confident and genuine. It’s like the old saying -the harder I worked the luckier I got-that is so true. You reap what you sow-if you are successful -as YOU define sucess-at being a well rounded postive and productive person you will meet plenty of american women who will gargle your DNA. SO get off your ass and become someone-the person YOU wish you could be-and then you will meet a worthwhile vixen. Stop projecting your shortcoming onto anyone else-especially women. Before you point your finger hold up a mirror and realize you are pathetic not american women. [/quote]
Well-said, Yorbabarbell.
I suspect that any legitimate complaints about American women in general apply equally well to American men in general.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Or a subserviant pussy?[/quote]
LOL Fuck you Gregus! I know what I like, and it’s not a shrinking violet. Nothing more satisfying than making a bitchy girl fall in love with you, dude. You should try it.
[quote]T-Raven wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
As you can tell from my username, I just might have a bit of a soft spot for the fairer sex.
… extremely unfortunate choice of words.[/quote]
Why, T-raven? Too old-fashioned for you?
Speaking of men without dicks, how bout that Hillary Clinton? I think this is all his fault.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Speaking of men without dicks, how bout that Hillary Clinton? I think this is all his fault. [/quote]
Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought of Hillary as an “it”.
As an aside, living at home with your family (“mommy”) until you get married is a normal way of life in many, many cultures. I think you’ll find a lot of this in your ethnic communities.
I used to live in a rental/apartment neighborhood, and virtually everybody was white. This is interesting because this city (Vancouver) is probably 50% white. One day I was talking to an East Indian guy and he said, “In our culture we simply do not believe in renting, that’s why everyone where you live is white.” I believe that not only him but his married brother and sister in law lived at home, saving until they could afford ownership. Given the average house here is $600,000 with most new homes over $1M, that’s probably going to take a while.
A lot of praise for “foreign” women. Nevertheless, I guess they have their shortcomings as well, albeit somewhat different in nature, partly due to the different cultural backgrounds. Perhaps they are just harder to detect as one tends to focus on one’s pet peeves regarding native women. Birds of a feather flock together? Not necessarily true here…
[quote]old_dogg wrote:
vroom wrote:
What’s wrong with women that suck? I like women that suck…
The one’s that swallow are even better.[/quote]
That is funny!
Fat chick in a thong… Damn you OneEye. Damn you to hell. No I have to go back to therapy. Great.
[quote]John K wrote:
As an aside, living at home with your family (“mommy”) until you get married is a normal way of life in many, many cultures. I think you’ll find a lot of this in your ethnic communities.
[/quote]
In deep South Texas it is not unusual for Hispanic guys to live at home with mommy until they get married to mommy #2 to take care of them. Just because some cultures do it doesn’t make it any less manly.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
The thread title isn’t going to make this a popular topic, I’m afraid. Then again, maybe it’s the chauvinism that’s going to do it. Tough call.
I’m a sucker for a good argument, so here’s my take:
As you can tell from my username, I just might have a bit of a soft spot for the fairer sex. Regardless, my opinion on this matter is definitely on the side of pro-feminism. I think that women who overcome biological and societal pressures to try to achieve something special with their lives instead of being breeding cattle for more future Wal-mart shoppers is an exceedingly good thing. The “decline of the American Family”, as you put it, would be better worded to say “the change of the American Family”.
Just like any healthy organism, our family structures are adapting to changes in the environment. This is not 1954 anymore. The world is changing whether we like it or not, and that means that the sub-units of our society are going to change too. You can point a finger at any negative statistic, like high school drop-out rates, and blame it on any number of factors, but consistently, many church groups and conservative organizations have singled out feminism as the so-called “root cause”.
So we are going to hell in a handbasket because mom has a career, and sister wants to go to grad school? This does not make sense. What does make sense is these groups’ agenda in undermining the feminist cause in other issues such as abortion rights, et al, which these groups are fiercely opposed to, so they will as a due matter of course come out against anything the feminists have to say… even if it sounds retarded to somebody who isn’t drunk.
Plain and simple, I look at it as a matter of how much of a pussy some guy is. If he’s a pussy, he will necessarily feel threatened by a smart and empowered woman who is in control of her destiny; while a stronger, non-pussified man will find those “frightening” qualities admirable and quite stimulating. I guess you could say that it’s in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
A woman having to get a job has nothing to do with feminism.
A woman wanting to get a job may have something to do with feminism. Depends.
Either way, equating feminism with women simply existing in society or not cowering in a corner is a bit of a stretch.
[quote]Kablooey wrote:
A woman having to get a job has nothing to do with feminism.
A woman wanting to get a job may have something to do with feminism. Depends.
Either way, equating feminism with women simply existing in society or not cowering in a corner is a bit of a stretch.[/quote]
Okay Kablooey, but the original poster said:
The feminist movement, as stated by several folks already, was an offshoot of women’s suffrage. Then it transformed into equal opportunity in the workplace, and really, it’s more of an empowering women to be an “equal to a man where applicable” thing now. This is absolutely about women in the workplace, and really, choosing to work instead of starting a family or juggling both which the original poster was blaming on the “downward spiral” of the American family.
My whole point was that the original poster is full of shizzle. My contention is that the American Family as an institution is merely changing, not being flushed down the toilet. This is not the end of the world.
Make sense now?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Abaddon, I think that those comparisons arise from the two sides (pro-feminist vs. not pro-feminist) trying to caricaturize one another. That’s what I certainly did. It’s just metaphor… no one actually believes that women fit neatly into some extreme category.
I will say that nothing is sexier for me than an outspoken, even bitchy, woman with confidence in herself. I LOVE women like that. There’s a few here at work, and even when they’re dead wrong about something, I still admire them. Perhaps I was a lion tamer in another life? Who knows.
Confidence? Yes. Bitchy? Hell no. I can’t stand the attitude SOME women have in the south. I have seen the ugliest women act as if they are the shit and it is irritating and disgusting.
As far as being outspoken, I would hope most intelligent women know when to speak up and make their voices heard. From many of the posts, this site seem to attract some very intelligent women…who I actually wish would post more. Without that intelligence, however, being outspoken just makes you LOUD. I hate “loud” women.[/quote]
I see what the professor is getting at here. I can’t stand people being obnoxious whether they’re male or female – which is actually something a few T-Nation dudes might do well to think about. I normally think the idea that if a man does something he’s strong and if a woman does it she’s bitchy is 99% hooey, but there is that 1%.
Being outspoken I think is the glory of a free society and a free human spirit. It’s just idiotic to abuse it by being merely loud, though, as the professor might say. Who the hell needs to smell anybody else’s stink when we’ve already got our own? The truth is, women do regularly cross social boundaries via gossipping or outright social abrasiveness that men rarely broach, because men are raised from at least the schoolyard onwards knowing that violent results come from such things, or even misinterpretations of such things. Sometimes justly, sometimes not, but all but the jerkiest men typically give each other some breathing room and try not to let things get out of hand. Whereas women don’t face punch-outs for much of their life at all, if ever, and from any but outright criminal men it’s a virtual guarantee that they’ve got a get out of jail free card when it comes to physical repercussions for their misbehavior.
So women are used to nasty gossiping and directly violating boundaries men usually don’t have violated unless it’s all-out war. This confuses both sexes, because when a man calls a woman’s bitchy behavior exactly what it is, in her world, it really isn’t that much of a severe violation, as she and her friends engage in that kind of crap with each other all the time. And so women are likely to think men are singling them out unfairly in a sexist way for their bad behavior, when really they very genuinely would react very strongly at a man’s doing the same thing – might even try to knock his block off, or have tried it long before it reached the level that women take for granted as just part of the game of life with each other.
And men, for their part, often sentimentalize women in the way feminism and simple canniness encourages women to think or or at least speak of themselves, especially around men. So men often think that female aggression is not only not as normal and prevalent as it truly is, but that any particular woman being bitchy is especially far out of the realm of the ordinary and entirely conscious of how far she has violated the codes of conduct society has inculcated in men and made them internalize. Behavior women exhibit that is normal with each other is seen as excessive by men, because they have different ways of relating to each other that each applies to the opposite sex. And women, for their part, get confused and blame it on men when they get jumped on for behavior they think is not really all that bad.
Of course, many women use and abuse their power, too. A lot of bitchiness has got nothing of misperception about it. Men can get quite peeved at this, as women’s forms of aggressive misbehavior are of course abusive but also feel unfair. Men are not supposed to strike back against women, physically or in any other way. Women’s styles of abuse are far easier to get away with than the way men misbehave – not with destructive gossip, mean-splirited talk, active attempts at social ostracism not just by the individual but by the group, and other such behavior that men would instantly label as “acting like a pussy.” Men are raised either to stay away from crossing certain lines or expect a severe beating or at least a punch or two and an instant public humiliation to come out of it.
Women cross those lines all the time and sometimes relish it, but sometimes wonder why men are making so much of a fuss about it. Men wonder how women could even dream of acting like that without expecting to get shot for it, and call bullshit when women say they’re sexists for calling women bitches. Different social structures between the sexes make the sexes mystified at what the hell is wrong with each other and why the other is always going too far.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Kablooey wrote:
A woman having to get a job has nothing to do with feminism.
A woman wanting to get a job may have something to do with feminism. Depends.
Either way, equating feminism with women simply existing in society or not cowering in a corner is a bit of a stretch.
Okay Kablooey, but the original poster said:
What are your thoughts on “Why American Women Suck” and the downward spiral of the American family caused by the feminist movement?
The feminist movement, as stated by several folks already, was an offshoot of women’s suffrage. Then it transformed into equal opportunity in the workplace, and really, it’s more of an empowering women to be an “equal to a man where applicable” thing now. This is absolutely about women in the workplace, and really, choosing to work instead of starting a family or juggling both which the original poster was blaming on the “downward spiral” of the American family.
My whole point was that the original poster is full of shizzle. My contention is that the American Family as an institution is merely changing, not being flushed down the toilet. This is not the end of the world.
Make sense now? [/quote]
It always made sense. I was just addressing the overstatements in your post.
The thing is, one overstatement, like the original post, always tends to bring out opposite misstatements quickly. Feminism is and has been many things; it has never been monolithic in any sense – neither completely unified in spirit nor set in stone and unchanging. I wanted to be sure that when we are talking about feminism, we don’t simply equate it with a woman’s dignity, right to pride or self-sufficiency or anything like that. There are anti-feminists, both men and women, who believe in those things yet in little else about feminism. Your post was veering into equating feminism – in whatever its incarnations of the moment are – with something like concern or love or caring about women. And with challenging feminism as basically manifesting some real crumminess. Feminism is both a loaded keyword and issue and something that leads to people misunderstanding each other when it is spoken of loosely. Though I believe your intentions were good and there was a lot that was good about your post, I felt you were using the term feminism too loosely in your post to signify things it might not be, and heading off into unproductive territory. Feminism by your definition encompasses a lot that is good, but of course that definition leaves out some of the more radical aspects of feminism which are specifically what people who might disagree with you might be talking about. No productive discussion can come if you’re both using the same words and understanding them in ways that are completely different.
[quote]mica617 wrote:
The Feminist can be defined much like any other group. There are the “fundamentalists” that give it the negative connotation. A “Militant Feminist”, or “Womyn” does not speak for most independant women that I’ve come across (same with Islamics, Christians, etc), but the TRUE feminist isn’t an outright bitch for the sake of being a bitch “just because she is a woman”.
She doesn’t think the world owes her anything that she didn’t earn, and certainly isn’t owed anything “just because she is a woman”. BUT, she doesn’t let being a woman hold her back. She doesn’t let just being a woman prevent her from following a career goal or any other goal. She doesn’t let anyone trample on her because she is “just a woman”. She does deserve respect, but only because she earns it.
I liken it to me being a Christian, but certainly NOT wanting to be associated with that group that protested at the marine’s funeral.
I was raised in the deep South, as a traditional, stereotypical “Southern Gentleman”. You would think, given the stereotypes out there, that my house would be my castle and my wife my servant.
It was not his way for my Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, etc. The only difference between the sexes came in the form of “a man doesn’t hit a woman” and the “opening of doors”. (for the record- I was raised with two sisters (one older) and have still to this day never struck a female. I may have missed about 20 doors in my entire life and those were because I wasn’t paying attention (this has been the hardest one for EVERY one of my past girlfriends to get used to- wife included))
My wife has a career. Our home life is a PARTNERSHIP. In her independance, she has NEVER tried to manipulate, control, or take away from my role as “man of the house”. If anything, she would be disappointed in me if I didn’t act like the man of the house (she has told me she wouldn’t have married a pussy). BUT, she would never let me abuse that, as well. (Something I’m sure that we BOTH consdered before marrying each other).
But to answer the original question: American women only suck if they think well enough of you. [/quote]
I like the way this guy thinks. You marry a woman, not a pussy, and she doesn’t want to marry a pussy either.
I’ve known many women who love guys who act like pussies, and often tell all guys they should act like pussies, but the truth is, in my experience and the experience of all the many women friends I’ve had, women are extremely attracted to Men with a capital “M”. Being a good guy who’s sensitive is nice enough, but if you’re a pussy forget it. You get relegated to friend or desperation status, and if you get in any long-term relationship, it might very likely be to a woman who wants someone to dominate or isn’t picking you as a partner because she’s attracted to you, but for other reasons
Frankly, even the most radical or modern people tend to fall into the natural stereotypes nature has blessed or cursed us with quite a bit, and like that roleplaying in others. Men by and large still like women soft and nurturing and often at least a little submissive, and sometimes even ones who are very emotional and even clingy. Women still expect men to be quick and decisive in general, and the one to take the physical risks and do the hard physical labor even if they’re perfectly capable of doing it themselves. They don’t care for whining and endless yapping and drama out of men, and usually aren’t too fond of clingy guys.
Many women are quite content to let guys be guys and to get a lot of their emotional needs meet by their women friends and maybe their children. They may not only expect it, but passively demand it by not staying in relationships with guys who don’t have enough of the solidness or even dullness about them that makes women feel they’ve got someone to cover their back. They don’t want to be the one holding you up; nobody really wants that, and women out of their partners the least. They’d rather just do touch up work around the edges to someone who’s a pillar of good sense, strength, and reliability who can serve as THEIR port in a storm.
They may rail against stereotypes, but like men, by and large, they retreat into the more beneficent versions of them sooner or later. That’s because they work, and are quite natural. A woman running away from the village the band of male hunters telling her hubby to stick the bull here, no here, no not like THAT! is of no help to her children, and the man listening to her is not going to be bringing home any meat for supper. We’re modern people with lots of subtlety to our behavior and in the needs of our loved ones, but whether you call them standards, goals, or roles, we all try to fit the good ones into our lives. Society changes radically over time, but the biological basics hold true. Women still like clearly masculine men the most, and men still like clearly feminine women the most. And you can be either without being a slave or a caricature.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
This is a silly assertion as no one forces women to be feminist, baby machines, etc.
This is the USA where you are free to do what you want with your life.
On a side note - If all woman did ‘suck’ then I think the world would be a more peaceful place.
Just my $0.02[/quote]
Some religious groups are being allowed to operate by their own laws in Canada, Europe, and the U.S. Belong to a fundamentalist group of any religion, even in the U.S., and your ability to do what you want could be severely curtailed or even eliminated. Beat your wife or daughter for “immodesty” or to get Satan out of her for exercising her free will, and you could face a much lighter punishment, if any, if you use religion or culture as an excuse.
[quote]hedo wrote:
I think we all like women who can stand up for themselves and are strong in mind, body and spirit.
Feminism isn’t about that. It’s about control. A Feminist doesn’t want equality she wants advantages.[/quote]
Quite often. Feminism is a business like any other. It sells books and magazines and movies and television shows, earns tenure, and encourages preferential treatment. Almost all movements become corrupt and opportunistic in time, devoted to perpetuating themselves and the wealth and power of their adherents.
Equality isn’t an “ism” and doesn’t need one. It doesn’t need pseudo-science or a revolution against a vast conspiracy. It’s just and easily understood as so by all but a minority of misguided people. “isms” are for fanatics and opportunists. Equality is something we can all get behind without a lot of baloney and axe-grinding.