American Women Suck

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Kablooey wrote:
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.[/quote]

Hmmm… I was going for the idea that we as a society should not look down on women who choose to start a career rather than a family, but… okay. Fair enough.

Well fine, then, but the thread is entitled “American Women Suck”. Nowhere in his ineffectual post did the originator single out “feminazis”. He used the broad term feminism like it was something bad which is f’ing up our country. Draw your own conclusions.

62

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree with jj360. You can?t blame it on women alone. For every negative I have observed in women I also observed the same degree of negative in the men I know, myself included
My biggest complaint with women, especially in management is they did not learn on the playground if you get in a mans face and bitch at him he will feel like punching you in the nose
[/quote]

Exactly.

63

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
DeepRiver wrote:
Anyways, Prof. X is right, women in the South are loud and bitchy. Worse yet, they pass it on to the kids who are just as bad.

DeepRiver,

That may or may not be right, but living in the North currently - I am a native Southerner - all the Northern women tell me hate they hate about Southern women is that they are too brainless, compliant, dependent, deferential to the man, weak, meek, etc.

I can’t figure it out…

[/quote]

They hate getting their men stolen.

64

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Kablooey wrote:
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.

Hmmm… I was going for the idea that we as a society should not look down on women who choose to start a career rather than a family, but… okay. Fair enough.

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.

Well fine, then, but the thread is entitled “American Women Suck”. Nowhere in his ineffectual post did the originator single out “feminazis”. He used the broad term feminism like it was something bad which is f’ing up our country. Draw your own conclusions.[/quote]

Heheh, I think we all did. I’m sure many of us don’t agree with him, and others see the initial post simply as a troll trying to provoke a reaction and gain ten minutes of internet notoriety. I can’t say I agree with the OP either.

65

[quote]doogie wrote:
Ninjalaney wrote:

Want proof? Take a look outside, notice how many fat, bitchy moo’s there are that think they’re gorgeous and “deserve” a “tall, dark, rich, handsome man”.

Read through this thread and most in the Sex Forum and see how many whiny, little men think that just because they lift weights they “deserve” a “big tittied, horny woman” who’ll love them even if they still live with mommy and work at McDonalds.[/quote]

Good point… I really, really didn’t think of that. I suppose the problem with people is that they want what they can’t always have or deserve, but don’t see that as a problem and continue marching on anyway. Me? I just like the idea of meeting somebody and being able to settle down and start a family… Wether that’s smart or not I don’t know, but I’d like it anyway!

Huge boobs suck anyway. You only need a handful… Or two. :stuck_out_tongue:

66

My wife is a university professor and I couldn’t be more proud! She is published (in the journals) and has fortunately passed on these brains to our children. I would despise the notions that relegated her to some menial position in life – what a waste of extreme intelligience and personality!
So, do American women ‘suck’? Any system that prevents them from living their dream ‘sucks’.

67

Let’s look at this another way for a moment. The majority of the middle class in this country are becoming the working poor. As cost of living continues to clime, salaries have not. Medical care has become prohibitively expensive for many. It has now become a NECESSITY for a good majority of families to earn a second income just to pay the bills. If women did not work, honestly, it would be the american family that looses first.

The true decline in the american family, as I see it today, is the complete lack of cohesiveness. Each member seems to function only in as much as they feel obligated to do so, and then no more. Many parents toss their kids out at 18 in (at best) a completely misguided attempt to teach them how to deal with the real world and to obtain financial independence. Others foolishly feel their role as parent has been fulfilled.

One learns best from the example set forth by their parents not only how to face the challenges of life, but how to love a mate, raise children, and construct their own morality. Tossing a child to the wayside for any purpose is to shift YOUR role as teacher onto an unforgiving society.

Worse yet, it sets up a standard by which children now believe it correct to EVER disregard their responsibilities to family in favor of self. Once becoming a parent, you are ALWAYS a parent. Your children are YOUR heritage and should always be able to seek protection, comfort, and tutelage at home first and foremost.

This is the difference; american families have lost any commitment to each other. It is sad now more than half of all marriages end in divorce. Divorce destroys a family irrevocably. I don’t give a crap what people might think, but as the child of a divorced family I know full well how it tears apart bonds whose strength a child should never have to doubt.

How can any be expected to understand commitment and how to truly love family when examples are so few and far between.

I live for my family. It is for my mother, brothers, and future children that I work to build a career. It is for them that I seek to improve myself so that I may ever be that shelter they rightfully deserve. If every american believed this, as do a good majority of mid and east asian cultures, the american family evolve beyond a grouping of self-interested individuals to more than the sum of its parts.

68

The problem is that women and men are pursuing their dreams at the expense of their traditional, and many would argue natural, roles. For some this doesn’t seem to be a problem, because humanity is evolving in character and needs.

For many people, it seems that human beings are infinitely pliable, and there are no fundamental drives or needs that must be filled for a person to function. For others of us, we believe that people have some fundamental, underlying nature that does not change with the political climate.

When both parents work, and a child is left alone all day, or even with a babysitter, there is a problem. When gender roles are reversed to the point where a child learns to act non-functionally, that is a problem.

I wouldn’t generalize to say that all American women suck, but I do know a large number of women who expect a free ride. They sit at home all day watching TV while the kids are at school, and they get mad if their husbands suggest that they fix dinner when he comes home. After all, they say, the chores should be split “fifty-fifty.”

Many women want the benefits of traditional roles without the responsibilities. So do many men, but I see this particular problem in more women than men. “Some animals are more equal than others,” I suppose.

In my dating experience, European women are guileless compared to American women. You don’t get tons of games from the Europeans the way you do with so many American girls. European women, I’ve found, are very friendly, even to men they aren’t interested in… to the point that it can be confusing for foreigners.

When I lived in Italy, I mentioned to some of my Italian friends that American men must think Italian women love them, since the Italian women would sit and talk with you, actively trying to continue the conversation and be friendly. I don’t think I’ve ever had that experience with an American woman.

There is something to be said for having a sweet, nuturing woman. Not a mother, just someone who cares for you and isn’t shy about it. So many American women are caught up with trying to be men… sexually, emotionally, economically… that they can’t give a man that side of themselves without thinking that they’ve lost their “edge.” Just some things to think about.

69

[quote]swiperfox wrote:
Let’s look at this another way for a moment. The majority of the middle class in this country are becoming the working poor. As cost of living continues to clime, salaries have not. Medical care has become prohibitively expensive for many. It has now become a NECESSITY for a good majority of families to earn a second income just to pay the bills. If women did not work, honestly, it would be the american family that looses first.
[/quote]

I think the causality goes the other way. So many couples work now that cost of living has gone up to compensate.

70

I’ve never thought of it that way. I suppose it could happen. More money floating around so people are able to raise costs. Either way, this generation is stuck with the need for dual income.

71

[quote]swiperfox wrote:
I’ve never thought of it that way.[/quote]

A couple of years ago I explained my theory to my bosses and their banker. They had MBAs all the way around, and they thought I was full of it. Now one of them quotes me almost verbatim as if he thought of it himself ;).

72

[quote]boingogirl1 wrote:
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.

That is funny!
[/quote]
Funny? I recall it was you who started the thread about the protein content of “organic” shakes… :wink:

73

[quote]nephorm wrote:
swiperfox wrote:
I’ve never thought of it that way.

A couple of years ago I explained my theory to my bosses and their banker. They had MBAs all the way around, and they thought I was full of it. Now one of them quotes me almost verbatim as if he thought of it himself ;).[/quote]

Nephorm–

This deserves its own thread. this is very interesting and something I’ve never seen conceptualized before. Could there be a way to compartmentalize
data to show this as a possible causation?

74

[quote]swiperfox wrote:
I’ve never thought of it that way. I suppose it could happen. More money floating around so people are able to raise costs. Either way, this generation is stuck with the need for dual income.[/quote]

Not the need, just the want.

Disconnect the cable TV, take simple vacations (if any at all), get rid of the monthly cell phone bill, stop buying new gas guzzlers every 3 years, buy a house you can afford (not a starter mansion), don’t buy an ipod, don’t smoke cigarettes, pay off your credit card each month (or don’t use it at all) etc.

Life is America is very affordable if you are not so insecure that you need to keep up with the neighbors.

75

nephorm, I have had the same thoughts myself regarding dual income. I think it has contributed to inflation due to the extra income allowing for extra demand.

Of course many “new” jobs that actually provide goods and services will also increase the supply side of the equation, so I don’t think it is a 1:1 ratio.

76

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
swiperfox wrote:
I’ve never thought of it that way. I suppose it could happen. More money floating around so people are able to raise costs. Either way, this generation is stuck with the need for dual income.

Not the need, just the want.

Disconnect the cable TV, take simple vacations (if any at all), get rid of the monthly cell phone bill, stop buying new gas guzzlers every 3 years, buy a house you can afford (not a starter mansion), don’t buy an ipod, don’t smoke cigarettes, pay off your credit card each month (or don’t use it at all) etc.

Life is America is very affordable if you are not so insecure that you need to keep up with the neighbors.[/quote]

But you can’t deny the escalating C.O.L.
and it’s dramatic effect on what is now affordable.

Health care certainly being the most dramatic in recent years, but many ‘staples’ have far exceeded actual value. Some may say that gas at 2.50 a gal. is still a bargain. Fine. But why has the price gone up almost 100% in 2 years? In referencing nephorm’s logic–is it simply because we can afford it?

77

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

Nephorm–

This deserves its own thread. this is very interesting and something I’ve never seen conceptualized before. Could there be a way to compartmentalize
data to show this as a possible causation?[/quote]

I’m not an economist, but I think our economy largely works based on fundamental units… which in many cases is the household. In an economy where only one person works, one income supports the lives of multiple people.

So let us take a commodity as an example: toilet paper. In a more “traditional,” 1950s economy, a man would be paying for toilet paper for three or more people (himself, his wife, and his children). The need expands proportionately with the size of his family. As such, the cost of toilet paper would need to generally be low enough that the average family man could afford it (since families comprised a large portion of the consumer economy).

So for a single person, toilet paper would be relatively cheaper… same salary, lower cost. With a large number of double-income couples, there is twice the amount of money to spend, and the price should go up correspondingly. But now the relative price of toilet paper for a single person is much higher, because he’s essentially paying the same price as a married couple.

This is even more obvious with housing prices. Previously, a single man would cover the mortgage for a larger house that would comfortably fit a family. Double incomes, at first, meant that families could afford larger mortgages (double the house).

But with double incomes on the rise, and becoming the norm, housing prices went up to compensate. This locks many single people out of the market, or forces them to buy smaller, “starter” homes that aren’t really meant for a family.

If someone really wanted to study this, I imagine they’d have to study historical inflation trends and compare inflation with household versus individual income. If I’m correct, you’d see household income surging ahead of individual income and the rate of inflation increasing with, but lagging behind, the increase in household income.

I know there are some economists on the board, and if any of you would like to start a separate thread and debate this, please feel free.

78

fat disgusting attention whore pigs with a serious me complex and the princess attitude that think every man is thier personal atm. that’s why american women suck.

79

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
swiperfox wrote:
I’ve never thought of it that way. I suppose it could happen. More money floating around so people are able to raise costs. Either way, this generation is stuck with the need for dual income.

Not the need, just the want.

Disconnect the cable TV, take simple vacations (if any at all), get rid of the monthly cell phone bill, stop buying new gas guzzlers every 3 years, buy a house you can afford (not a starter mansion), don’t buy an ipod, don’t smoke cigarettes, pay off your credit card each month (or don’t use it at all) etc.

Life is America is very affordable if you are not so insecure that you need to keep up with the neighbors.

But you can’t deny the escalating C.O.L.
and it’s dramatic effect on what is now affordable.

Health care certainly being the most dramatic in recent years, but many ‘staples’ have far exceeded actual value. Some may say that gas at 2.50 a gal. is still a bargain. Fine. But why has the price gone up almost 100% in 2 years? In referencing nephorm’s logic–is it simply because we can afford it?[/quote]

Inflation exists, gas/oil is a special case given the current problems in the middle east plus increasing global demand (China). This cascades into many other areas, but I suspect not as much as the doom and gloomers like to predict.

You can still live in America on one income. If your income is flipping burgers at McDonalds, don’t start a family, don’t expect to enjoy all of lifes luxuries.

80

[quote]nephorm wrote:
So for a single person, toilet paper would be relatively cheaper[/quote]

By chance, have you met any bodybuilders?