Sunday, January 23, 2011

Restoring Women

Commenter, A Light Shining in the Darkness, posed the following on a previous post:
"And Laura, you mentioned our society going back to the days of couples marrying at 20. While I agree that waiting to marry and start families is one major way society has shifted lately, I wonder how we propose to go about convincing young people to marry so young? With such a high divorce rate, especially among the young, what's to convince a young woman to make a mature decision to marry at such a young age? (Most teenage girls and 20-somethings I know are MUCH too immature to be wives and mothers.) And what of the rest of us who simply haven't met The One yet? I'm 25 years old, single, and have no prospects in the near future. Not of my own decisions (I would have loved to be married out of high school), but simply because God hasn't placed me with a man yet. Am I contributing to society's "buck wild"nature? I certainly hope not. I consider myself to be modest, hard-working, intelligent, sexually pure, and feminine. (Especially within the realms of current society, though I guess that can't really be saying much.) How can we start turning society around from its sex-crazed ways and begin creating good, modest, pure, holy citizens? I hope to do my part by one day having children of my own and teaching the Biblical values of God femininity and masculinity. But how can we turn around the lives of others?"
Good questions; to which I have no easy or cheery answers, but will attempt to do so by breaking her comment into three main questions.

1. How do we restore a virtuous society?


Short Answer--by restoring its women. Which, is why I put so much emphasis on calling women out for their sins and getting them to realize that they have the capacity for great evil, just like men. It may seem common sense, but I do believe a good deal of women live in some sort of bubble where they think they are immune to evil forces. It's not a fight against women that I engage in, but a fight against sin.I focus more on sin in women, because they hold the key in restoring the society. There is talk that men aren't doing their part in restoring society because they are refusing to marry ungodly women. One should not marry just the sake of marrying. You first need good stock; good wife material in the culture and that we do not have. Probably only 10% (and that is being generous) or so of women qualify. Women bear the burden of returning themselves to good stock and exhibiting qualities that men will find as an asset. For the 10% who are assets, they end up getting lost amongst all the liabilities. A man finding such a woman is like searching for a needle in a haystack; where the needle is the asset woman and the hay are the women who are liabilities. It's hard for a man to recognize a needle amongst all the hay. What we need is for all assets to become hay and for the needle to become the liability. The good qualities in the few will not be recognized until the good qualities are in the many. It used to be this way, before feminism spearheaded our cultural decay. In order for men to do their part, women need to first do their part. They can then select a quality women once women en masse make it desirable to do. They will make the waters safe to swim in again.

The women who are assets also bear the burden of getting the other women to shape-up. Why should we care about the other women? Because, for one, they are potential sisters in Christ, and two, what they do directly or indirectly affects us. They are like the one bad kid in class whose actions end up punishing the whole class by having recess canceled. The modern women today ruins it for traditional women, because their actions eventually cause men to be turned off to all women. Due to our sex starting the the whole disconnect between the sexes, I believe we have the power to finish it. It is not required for men to help, we are big girls, right? Further, modern women will no longer listen or do anything for men, but they are more likely to listen to a fellow sister. 
I found the following from Susan Fenimore Cooper as an example of how bad women can bring down good women:
"Let us suppose that to-day the proposed revolution were effected; all women, without restriction, even the most vile, would be summoned to vote in accordance with their favorite theory of inalienable right. That class of women, and other degraded classes of the ignorant and unprincipled, will always be ready to sell their votes many times over--to either party, to both parties, to the highest bidder, in short. They will sell their vote much more readily than the lowest classes of men now do. They will hold it with greater levity. They will trifle with it. They will sell their vote any day for a yard of ribbon or a tinsel brooch--unless they are offered two yards of ribbon or two brooches. They will vote over again every hour of every election day, by cunning disguises and trickery. And thus, so far as women are concerned, the most degraded element in society will, in fact, represent the whole sex."
If I didn't know she was talking about the vote, I could easily read this as a modern woman's dating hook-up life and how her poor choices and actions affect women as a whole, including the virtuous women.

With a few word changes we get:
That class of women, and other degraded classes of the ignorant and unprincipled, will always be ready to sell themselves many times over--to either man, to both men, to the highest bidder, in short. They will sell themselves much more readily than the lowest classes of men now do. They will hold it with greater levity. They will trifle with it. They will sell their soul/body any day for a yard of ribbon or a tinsel brooch--unless they are offered two yards of ribbon or two brooches. They will fool men over again every hour of every election day, by cunning disguises and trickery. And thus, so far as women are concerned, the most degraded element in society will, in fact, represent the whole sex.
This is what is happening today; the most degraded women are ending up representing the entire sex.

So, if women bear the brunt of restoring society, this all leads to how do we convince a culture of amoral women that society needs saving and that they are part of the problem. Largely these women can't see outside their bubble and their immediate life to recognize there is something larger at stake. In their own personal lives, they may be getting by just fine and naturally are happy with a hedonistic lifestyle. A sign of a mature woman is one who can see the bigger picture and that a loss of a hedonistic life will eventually be not only best for society, but her as well. Rejecting such a lifestyle is like quitting any sort of drug cold turkey. There will be some serious withdrawal pains. A world of careers, materialism, sleeping around, and doing whatever she wants when she wants does not end quietly.

I have no quick answers. I think all we can do for now is to continue to write and speak our views. If out amongst some women we disagree with, politely call them out. If they are bashing men, let them know you do not approve. The negative energy that comes by negatively talking about men is radiated out to men. They pick up on that, whether you are actively participating or just standing by listening. It is like dealing with a bully; not speaking up against the bully makes you no different than the bully and part of the problem.I  guarantee you won't be making many friends, but at least you are standing up for something more important. A woman who stands on principles and convictions, despite popular opinion, is rare and refreshing.  All I know for sure, is the culture is going to get worse, before it gets better.

2. How do we convince an amoral society to marry young?


See above. First we have to restore women to get back to a moral society. This will take generations. Once morals are firmly back in place, marrying young will come naturally. The reason why so many are ill-equipped to marry young nowadays, is because our society does not prepare them. By age 20, you should have acquired all the skills to run a home, educate children, and love and support a husband. It's not the age that matters, but how that person is brought up in our culture. "Too young" is a common exclamation upon hearing about a 20 year old marrying. Well, who made he/she "too young"? In linear time they are old enough. A society that claims people are old enough to vote, drink, and go off to war, ironically says one is too young to marry. The longer society lures us to push off marriage, the more independent and set in our ways we become, which later makes it difficult to merge two lives together.  For more on this topics see the following posts:

The Importance of Marrying Young (Part 1)

The Importance of Marrying Young (Part 2)

I wish I had a better answer, but I firmly believe it all comes back to the quality of women and getting them back on track first. Even if you think you are a quality women, it does not matter, because the modern women are holding you back, they are hindering you in your search for a spouse, and hence is what makes modern women liabilities. These women turn men off to all women, to the point where they no longer care how virtuous you are, you are still a women. Is it logical? Of course not; but what about sin-filled human nature ever is?

3. What about those who are prepared for marriage, but cannot find a spouse?

This is a problem that greatly affects the women who are willing to take on marriage at a young age. For those women, with their hearts set on wifehood, motherhood, and homemaking, they are often trapped. Unlike the career women, they cannot easily go to school and enroll in courses to accomplish their dreams. They can't even go to college to get their MRS degree, because most guys there are too busy going through all the hay and then rolling in it. And who can blame them? Why should they get serious about marriage, when they can get the milk for free? Men have embraced feminism just as much as women have because it lets them have all the benefits of marriage without the commitment (just like it does for women). It all comes down to a loss of interdependence. Nobody needs anybody anymore (at least modern women like to think so).

It might be said that a woman with asset qualities will shine through all the other women, she will stand out as being unique and different and will be able to attract a man who are seeking those qualities. So why aren't men noticing her amongst all they hay? I think because there is no real incentive for men to notice her or because after awhile they all start to look the same. The hay dust clouds their vision.

So, what's a girl to do? All I can suggest is what worked for me. Look for a man older than yourself (seven years plus). The older the more likely he will have grown tired of all the hay gals and be able to see asset qualities more easily; but on the other hand, he also may be more likely to have given up on marriage all together, because of those hay gals. It can still be a pickle, but I think it at least gives you a better shot. I also suggest looking online (as unorthodox as it may be). List flat out and very bluntly what you can offer a man; what your asset qualities are. State your views and opinions on everything, no matter how non-PC or 'offensive' they may be. No listing favorite foods, movies, etc. All that is meaningless. By being up front, at least you know any man who responds will be in step with your views.
Of course all of the above is based on the premise that you believe society is worth saving in the first place. In my more pessimistic moods, I tend to think not. Negative? Perhaps. Ye of little faith? Perhaps. Humans cannot reverse a society on their own. They need it to be God's Will. All our efforts to bring back society will be futile, if it is also not God's Will. All we can do, whether it is saving society or trying to find a spouse is to continually say, " Thy Will be done".

Caveat: I don't think this was my strongest piece. It involves complicated issues with some kinks to work out, but I wanted to give it an honest shot. 

117 comments:

Jennifer said...

You say it's not you best post? I say, encore!

MarkyMark said...

LGR,

This is a good post. I would especially concur that guys see ALL women as being the same. Why wouldn't we when 99.99999999% of them are amoral, selfish sluts? The number of women who are, as you put it, assets, is asymptotically close to ZERO; from where the average man sits, the number IS zero good women available.

That, and the good women out there do NOTHING, and I mean nothing, to call out their sisters when the man bashing and other hateful acts start. Since they're being silent, in our minds that means that they have no problems with what's being said; if they did, wouldn't they OBJECT to it? Ergo, we think that silence on women's part equals assent; silence equals agreement.

Oh, and as for men painting women with a broad brush not being logical, you're wrong; from where we sit, it is totally logical. From where we sit, there are no good women. For the average guy under 40, the odds are that he's never ENCOUNTERED a woman who's an asset; from where he sits, such a creature is every bit as mythical as a unicorn. Ergo, it's logical to assume that there are no good women out there...

MarkyMark

The Deuce said...

Hi, Laura,

I left a relevant comment on Alte's blog on the subject of marrying young, and the factors making it difficult, right here: http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/close-but-no-cigar/#comment-2604

The blog post itself is somewhat relevant too.

Laura Grace Robins said...

"Oh, and as for men painting women with a broad brush not being logical, you're wrong; from where we sit, it is totally logical."

Good point. I guess it is logical for men, but probably not for the women. The asset women,I think, are largely unaware about the current relationship market for men. It may seem easy to separate the wheat from the chaff, but the chaff is hiding all the wheat.

Simon Grey said...

I know that you're questions and answers are primarily addressed to women, but I thought I would take a crack at answering your questions from a more general perspective.

Anonymous said...

Historically, affluent families did not consider their young ones educated until they had lived in another culture or cultures for a year or two.

We are all products of the culture we are raised in, and strange as it sounds, we usually do not understand our own cultures. Until we live in a different one, and begin to understand many things we assume are laws of the universe are actually just quirks of our own culture. The idea that women cannot be ready to marry until they are in their late 20's is just one of them.

Part of the problem in reference to this EXCELLENT posting, is most men and women simply have no reference to use for evaluating women in the US.

That is one main obstacle to women changing their ways. For the most part, AW think they are perfect in every way. Even the great number who are slutting around.

I am saying women simply have no idea how bad they look to thinking men.

So, if a man or a group of men tries to tell them they are messing up, they really think he is some sort of mentally ill woman-hater.

In line with what Markymark said, even if a man thinks a specific woman is good, the cost of a mistake is beyond horrible, with having his kids snatched away, and being forced into a lifetime of bondage.

I have been married for 35 years, yet I preach anywhere I can, do not marry anyone in the Anglosphere.

Anonymous age 68

Hestia said...

Excellent points. Something I'd add to your thoughts, LGR, would be the fact that young people need to take a good hard look at their relationship with money, material possessions, and how status comes about from these. Marrying young, raising a family, and developing wise financial habits demands a young person examine their consumption habits and envision a different life for themselves than what is being offered in the picture of the American Dream. "Your Money or Your Life" is one fabulous books that addresses this point. (Building a good life in general for a fellow Gen Yers requires this, young marriage or not. We're not going to have the same lives our parents did.)

Your thoughts about finding a good mate are also very good and true IME. MovingTarget and I met online while he was stationed in Baghdad, a situation that made it very easy to discuss in-depth the most important and essential of compatibility topics before we ever had the opportunity to meet in person.

I never expected to meet somebody online and never thought I'd marry a soldier. I didn't think I would have gotten married quite as young as I did (I was eighteen on our wedding day and will soon be celebrating seven years of marriage at 25). In light of this having an open-mind would be another bit of advice I'd give. You never know where you might a compatible partner and they may not be who you would have thought. Life has a funny way of changing plans.

It's also a good idea to make your desires known to older people, especially parents, grandparents, and their friends, doubly so if you have the benefit of being part of a religious community as did I. Such people can not only serve as matchmakers but offer wise counsel should they see red flags with potential mates. (MT was not my only suitor; there were others who expressed interest who my parents and I wisely turned away.)

Anonymous said...

Good women are only 10% of all women. Finding one is like finding a needle in a haystack?

Um. . . .Laura. 10% of haystacks are not composed of needles.

Janine said...

In 1958, about 1.8 million people in the US got married.

In 2008, 2.2 million got married.

This data is from the US Census Bureau.

People are getting married just fine. Women don't need to change to "catch" a husband. There's no problem, other than the one you've invented.

More men and women are getting married than ever. Men who are disgusted by "hay" or "needles" can stay single! There are plenty of men willing to marry, and plenty of women--marriage happens more often than it did in the 1950s.

Jennifer said...

"Oh, and as for men painting women with a broad brush not being logical, you're wrong; from where we sit, it is totally logical. From where we sit, there are no good women"

This is why I appreciate blogs like Alte's: she calls out women (the comment that women never do so is utterly false), but she also doesn't put up with the mud-slinging that "manosphere" blogs launch against women. Men don't get a pass at insulting an entire sex based on bad experience anymore than women do; femmies could argue that it's "logical" from where they sit to insult men all day long, but who here would buy that kind of logic? No one. After listening to so many disparaging comments of an entire sex, you really do have to leave such blogs for your own sanity, as she put it. Yeah, people of both sexes suck, we know it. Now it's time to focus on correcting what we can instead of saying "this whole gender is bad, there's no point, forget it".

Ping Jockey said...

So, what I'm reading here essentially boils down to the old argument of "Not All Women Are Like That".

Sorry to disappoint you females, but nowadays TOO MANY women ARE "like that", and they are so devious, dishonorable, dishonest, and underhanded that it is too difficult to tell the 'sheep' from the 'goats'. (And it doesn't help matters that the 'sheep' don't do anything to distinguish themselves from the 'goats' -- what appears as a 'sheep' could actually be a devious 'goat' in disguise.)

The price (financially, mentally, psychologically, and spiritually) that a man has to pay for making the wrong choice has become too great to be risked.
And for many men (and more as time goes on) it has become wiser to not make any choice, than to risk making the wrong one.

Anonymous said...

Marriage is not declining. Look at the census numbers.

So there is no reason for women to change. It seems like you've invented a problem, so that the "solution" can be women changing (in exactly the way you want them to).

Don and Shelly said...

I'm glad to hear of women stepping-up to try and repair what is broken. I, however, believe that men should take the lead and not expect the ladies to venture out on the "emotional limb" by themselves... which is why the posts on my blog have been directed to men on this matter. While this blog post was a starting point of sorts, there is still an active influx of lies being perpetuated that will hurt us in the long run. It seems to me that as long as the public schools are left to continue teaching their pagan world-view to the kids, we're left trying to plug pinholes in the dam while water is running over the top. Couple that with the fact that pastors will not touch on this subject out of self-preservation, popularity or paycheck... good grief.

Pickle said...

Bravo. I have chased a few "friends" away this year because I took some serious time to re examine my life style and why I was having struggles with happiness. I've been calling out every woman I know.

AS of January first I was blessed with the ability to stay home and I will tell you I have received some snarkey comments about it. These women just don't know what's best. I will continue to call them out and help guide who I can.

Walenty Lisek said...

"People are getting married just fine. Women don't need to change to "catch" a husband. There's no problem, other than the one you've invented.

More men and women are getting married than ever. Men who are disgusted by "hay" or "needles" can stay single! There are plenty of men willing to marry, and plenty of women--marriage happens more often than it did in the 1950s."

Once again feminists prove they are stupid and need facts thrown at them.

According to the USA Today article:

"The U.S. divorce rate is 17.7 per 1,000 married women, down from 22.6 in 1980. The marriage rate is also on a steady decline: a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9, says the report, whose calculations are based on an internationally used measurement."

Add to this that we are not making enough babies to replace the population and we can clearly see that if anything Laura is understating the real problem.

Stephan said...

A while back, I recall thinking looking for a good woman was a royal pain in the neck. In Proverbs there is something that compares women to springs of flowing water.

Statistically, the kind of woman I wanted to find would be already married. Most of the rest had muddied or poisoned the wells to an extent, if they could help sustain me at all.

Of the few who remained, fewer still would have the basic qualities I'd want in a companion, and there would be no guarantee she would return my interest, or that the current situation and timing of our lives would allow dating to occur.

Yet, I'm engaged at this point. Praise God.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Simon, Deuce, in your comment you linked to, I am glad your brought up the points about just how hard it is for a young man to marry young. Those were all good reasons why marrying young is not feasible.

Hestia,
Good thoughts, as usual!

Janine,
I assume you are looking at this chart.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005044.html

While you are correct, more people are marrying now, but we also have a larger population. Using absolute numbers doesn't help much in these matters. By looking at the marriage rates, which is a steady decline (and lowest since 1900) you get a better sense as it is adjusted for population growth.

Jennifer said...

There's no need for you to insult another poster, Walenty.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Laura,

A great post and I've argued similarly that restoring women is the first task of our society.

Also, not to be too much a self-promoter, but Part 2 is up and Part 3 is planned for this coming Thursday.

MarkyMark said...

Jennifer,

Walenty is only speaking the TRUTH. Since the truth hurts, it only feels like it's insulting...

MarkyMark

A Light Shines In The Darkness said...

Thanks for trying to answer some of my questions from your last post; this post was very good. I understand and completely agree with your mentioning that there are so few good, Godly women these days. I hope that I can include myself in that 10%, and that's what is so frustrating. I am constantly being bombarded with the other 90% of the female population, and watching all of the male population fawn over them, that I've just become cynical. All the men I'm surrounded with are enthralled and ensnared by women who aren't like me, that it can make me think that I am the problem, not the rest of the women. It seems that all of the good, Godly men are already taken by the few good, Godly women, and the only men left are those who are blinded by the unholy things of the world and can't see the good things they really need in a companion.

I agree with your point of trying to find sanctuary in the older circles. I live in a college town, however, and most of the men who live here are college-age (18-24). And the only males who have shown interest in me have been younger than me, by at least 2-3 years. I know that's not what I want or need in a husband, because in those situations I always feel like I am the one doing the leading, guiding, educating, etc. and the guys are the ones following. Not to mention that guys at that age don't understand the responsibility of a wife and family yet. They are still living under their parents financially, and don't know what it would take to support a family of their own. Not to mention that most guys that age don't even want families for many years to come.

I've had multiple people tell me that online dating is the way to go these days, but I just can't see myself doing that. I'm not so sure about it right now.

Another part of me believes that I shouldn't be concerned with finding a mate in the first place. If I keep myself focused on God and on His will, then everything will fall into place as He wants. Maybe that's what's needed most in women these days, what will jump start this societal change. If women became more and more focused on the things of God and not of the world, then they would naturally become better women, the women God wants them to be, and He would shine through them bright enough for the men to see and desire.

Janine said...

I'm aware that the statistics I cited showed absolute numbers. However, the fact remains that more people are marrying now than ever before. So the "crisis" you describe doesn't actually exist.

You also need to remember that women are freer to remain single nowadays. So many unmarried women may be single by choice. Since they are called to be single, trying to pressure them into marriage would be bad for these gals and their potential husbands.

More women are marrying than ever before! Crisis averted!

Terry @ Breathing Grace said...

Yes, people are getting married like never before.

But they're also getting DIVORCED like never before. What's more, it's mostly women filing for these divorces, and the children who are suffering from all these "empowering" and "freeing" dissolutions are left more emotionally damaged and isolated, making marriage even more precarious going forward.

Laura is not inventing a problem. Have you read a magazine or a newspaper lately? The fact that marriage is becoming "obsolete" is not a figment of our imagination.

From where I sit, weddings do not mean the state of marriage is just peachy. The divorce statistics and the statistics on the lives of children of divorce is where the real story is.

The "family courts" that allow women to take children and move far away from their fathers. That take so much from an ex-husband in child support that he can't live comfortably or start a new family.

What I appreciate about Laura is that she understands that this affects us all. The fact that she (and I, and Hestia) are happily married doesn't mean that there isn't a priblem or that the problem isn't going to touch us all in some way going forward.

"Invented a problem..."

This is not a make-believe problem.

Jennifer said...

Why would an insult against another woman hurt me, Mark?

Anonymous said...

"List flat out and very bluntly what you can offer a man; what your asset qualities are. State your views and opinions on everything, no matter how non-PC or 'offensive' they may be."

Very good advice. Speaking as a man, this is probably the best advice any woman could give any other woman. You can't imagine how many women don't realize that they have to offer US something as well.

"And what of the rest of us who simply haven't met The One yet?"

There's your problem.You're looking for a fairy tale myth. "The One" is a creation of Disney. Try looking for a man that actually exists and you will find him.

"More women are marrying than ever before!"

Yeah, that's because more people survive to adulthood than before, you dunce. 40% of households are headed by single mothers and you're telling me there's more married people at any given time than before?

You're an idiot.

"They can't even go to college to get their MRS degree, because most guys there are too busy going through all the hay and then rolling in it."

This,right here, is a big part of the reason why 80% of the homeless are male. Feminists demanded women get easier enrollment into college so they can use our institutes of higher learning as a dating scene. That's also why college degrees are becoming worthless, (Women:"Yeah, I'm just here to date a bunch of men, do you think you could come up with academic coursework that requires ZERO intelligence or work to complete so as not to detract from my abusing your institute of higher learning in order to extend my teeny-bopper adolescence into my 20's?" Colleges:"Why yes, missus, I's gon' get right on that for you,ma'am.") and it takes more money to survive,women diluting the workforce and academic environment with their adolescent foolishness searching for "The One", who doesn't exist. Shamelessly, I might add. They don't care that "The One" is probably starving to death on a street corner somewhere while they sit in a climate-controlled office chatting men up and doing their nails instead of working.

Oh, I forgot. These mystical "soul mates" always turn out to be wealthy for some reason. Funny how kind "fate" and "destiny" and these pseudo-mystical relationship angels whose sole task is to make sure women find "the right man" are to women that way.

"Men don't get a pass at insulting an entire sex based on bad experience anymore than women do; femmies could argue that it's "logical" from where they sit to insult men all day long, but who here would buy that kind of logic?"


We aren't insulting your entire sex. None of us here would dream of insulting LGR,Hestia, or any of the other good women who speak up for us.

We aren't saying "A woman is a machine, a walking sex doll.". Or,"all women are whores and that's ALL THEY ARE". We are saying good women are exceedingly rare. And I don't mean "exceptional women", I mean just good women. These women of the MRM are exceptional. If you are personally insulted by the condemnation of evil women, chances are you count yourself among them.

Those are the women we are insulting,women whose actions deserve not only insult, but possible legal action directed at them as well. Women who have earned every bit of the vitriol directed at them with selfish, immoral, or sexist behavior.

As I said, if that bothers you, then perhaps you should try treating men like human beings instead of exemplifying the behaviors that are being trashed.

Anonymous said...

Lol, now I know why the US education system is ranked behind the likes of Shanghai, Singapore , and SOuth Korea. If Janine is a good representative of the system, I really fear for our future.

A 3.0L BMW and a truck with a 6.0L engine : Which accelerates faster?

Hint: It's not the truck.

Going by your logic (looking only at absolute numbers), the truck would accelerate faster because the engine has a higher torque and power output.

Anonymous said...

I'm a 40 year old bachelor. Pretty much celibate and don't really understand the women. Oh I try and reach out and am blunt but women of today believe they are the catch. Are they? Are the typical women of the US catches? Not in my honest opinion.

What really gets me is I would like a family and could actually afford a lot of the cost involved. Not all mind you but my SO would not have to contend working full time and yet still have a roof over her head and all the basic necessities already provided for. I really and truly don't believe women even understand what that is. Sad but men like me are becoming less and less because of it.

Women need to take a long hard look around them. They have no one else to blame. Nor does the lame all men are pigs or no good men are around apply. There are many such men around. Women just don't want them.

A Light Shines In The Darkness said...

Anon~ When I refer to The One, I don't refer to fairy tales. I refer to The One Man that God has chosen for me to be my life-long mate. I do this to symbolize that I don't intend to marry The One Of Two Or Three, that I choose myself, divorce, then choose another, divorce, then choose another until I find one I like.

Also, I have a four-year college degree. I did not get it by sitting in a classroom doing my nails. Yes, some (many? a majority? I don't know.) women get what I like to call BS degrees... dance? Really? That's a major?! But I, and almost every woman I know, did not. I studied history, philosophy, Latin, Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, social sciences, and literature with my degree. Some women don't come to college for their MRS degree, or in order to get a job later on (many people, both men and women, end up in jobs not related to their Bachelor's degrees), but in order to further their understanding and knowledge of a certain area, or many areas of interested study. Do I think less people (men and women, but mostly women) should go to college? Yes. College isn't for everyone, no matter how much our culture tries to pressure it on its citizens. However, do I think it should be available to everyone who meets the requirements of admission? Yes. And do I think all women (you never once referred to "some" "many" "most" or "almost all" women, but just women in general) go to college and are lazy, stupid, and out to demand that which they don't deserve? Absolutely not.

Anon #2~ I realize that too many women these days believe they are catches when really they aren't. But for those of who humbly seek out men, or desire men to seek them, in an honest, meek way sometimes feel the opposite. I know plenty of men. I know most of them believe they are catches as well. I know most of them aren't, because they are so caught up in their society and culture, and not in the ways of God, that to even get involved with them would be ignorant. Because for those of us who aren't giving the milk out for free if you will, we know that it'll be extremely difficult to mire through the muck of the male "catches" around us in order to find a masculine, holy, mature man of God to let pursue us.

Anonymous said...

"I'm a 40 year old bachelor. Pretty much celibate and don't really understand the women. Oh I try and reach out and am blunt but women of today believe they are the catch."

I'd suggest--very kindly--that you stop focusing on blaming women for your problems. You will have more success if you focus on changing yourself--you are the only one you can change, anyway.

Jennifer said...

"As I said, if that bothers you, then perhaps you should try treating men like human beings instead of exemplifying the behaviors that are being trashed"

LOL I do no such thing, nor do I approve of comments that say 99.99999999% of women are amoral, selfish sluts. That's VERY obviously most of them. If I said that percentage of men were stupid pigs, you'd be on the other side.

Anonymous said...

"... dance? Really? That's a major?!"

My good friend in college majored in dance. She went on to teach for many years, and eventually opened her own studio.

What's wrong with that?

It was actually a good major visavis being a mother. She taught dance during the days, when the kids were at school.

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with this

Jennifer said...

Yes, dancing is a major and a good one, and it requires intellignece. It's called bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.

Laura Grace Robins said...

EW,
Yes, I remember that article. Very applicable. I hope to comment on your new post when I get some more time.


Light,
I understand your focus on God's Will and that is very good, but I also think you have to meet God halfway. God may have the man in store for you and he may even be in another state, but by not actively attempting online dating or putting yourself in groups of older people (don't know how you would find those), it just seems you are not doing all that is possible at this point. And don't get me wrong, I mean all this in good faith, just an honest observation. I met my husband online and he lived 2,000 miles away. Crazy, I know ;-). I didn't care where he was or what it would take, I was going to find him. I wish I could recommend a good site. The place I met my husband has since shut down. I don't want to push you into it, I'm just trying to say there are so few options these days for good women. The dating market caters to bad women and gives them plenty of real life places to hook-up at(literally and figuratively), such as bars, events, etc. I honestly think if it wasn't for online, I'd still be single.

Terry,
Right on! Thanks for bringing all that up.

Anon 10:03,
I liked your comment. Not much I can add.

"Women who have earned every bit of the vitriol directed at them with selfish, immoral, or sexist behavior."

You earn respect and you earn disrespect. The choice is theirs based on their actions and words.


Anon 11:35,

First, I apologize for Anon 7:30.
She may have said that in good faith, but it also doesn't help matters.

"Oh I try and reach out and am blunt but women of today believe they are the catch. Are they? Are the typical women of the US catches? Not in my honest opinion."

That's another way of saying women aren't assets. They don't present anything of value, or at least not something they can't just get from the next girl.

Anon 7:30,
How exactly should he change himself? How many times and why does a man have to change for a woman? Women aren't changing for men. So, we have a standstill.

Men are choosing not to marry cause they are fed up in trying to comply with the ever changing wish list of women. Men are never good enough for them. This affects women such as "Light", because they are tired of playing the game, they just pull out all together. There is no real incentive for men to change for a women.

Jennifer said...

Anon 10:03 made insulting assumptions and IMO false statements about marriage. God does have one particular mate in mind for those who get married and women like Light are polite and hardworking, not delusional dreamers.

Laura Grace Robins said...

"IMO false statements about marriage."

And in his opinion, they were true statements. He is allowed to state his opinion.

Yes, God has one particular mate in mind, but he was trying to say for women to not always expect that mate to look or even act like Prince Charming. He may not be exceedingly good looking, or romance you all the time with flowers, etc.

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MarkyMark said...

Anon2203(10:03PM),

That was beautiful, just beautiful! I couldn't have said it better myself...

MarkyMark

papabear said...

"Yes, God has one particular mate in mind, but he was trying to say for women to not always expect that mate to look or even act like Prince Charming."

I wonder if this is even the case, given the contingency of human free will. I think God gives us more room than that to discern for ourselves, especially since marriage in itself is not necessary for salvation, though it can certainly be a means for salvation. If a woman refuses to consider "the one" because of her pride or her inordinate desires, there is no guarantee that God will lead that man to stick around until she changes her mind. He may lead him to someone else.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Papabear,

I can see your point there. I wonder about the women who insisted they were marrying "the one", but then can easily turn around and divorce him years later. Did God all of a sudden not make him "the one" or did she use her free will and chose him to no longer be "the one"?

Anonymous said...

"Anon 7:30,
How exactly should he change himself? How many times and why does a man have to change for a woman? Women aren't changing for men. So, we have a standstill."

I don't know. I don't know him. However, focusing on himself is far more productive than writing complaints on a blog.

"He may not be exceedingly good looking, or romance you all the time with flowers, etc."

Why are you always talking about men giving women flowers? Women can buy their own flowers, nowadays.

Anonymous said...

It's true that divorce rates are up from the past. That's not because men and women of the past were so much more wonderful.

It's because women back then had fewer options to get out of bad marraiges. I'd never want to go back to the days where a woman had to stay in a bad marriage. The only person who'd want to go back to that are abusive men--I'm sure they'd love to go back to those days!

Nowadays, thank goodness, a woman generally has the skills and education to support herself is she needs to leave. Unless, of course, she takes Laura's advice about skipping college and marrying young!

Women who take Laura's advice are pretty much trapped in a bad marriage, possibly to be a punching bag for whenever their husband is in a bad mood.

Jennifer said...

She uses her free will and changes her mind. Also, falling in love doesn't always mean it's meant to be; this is why it's better to wait until full adulthood if you can (love in teen years can be true, but also mistaken more easily, I think). Judy Blume's "Forever" and "The Dive from Clausen's Pier" are excellent examples of this. There can be more than one person you love, deeply enough for a lifetime, especially if one is stubborn (like PapaBear said) or one dies (Elisabeth Elliot has had three true loves). But there's generally just one at a time and I don't think we can settle with anyone just because we have the same beliefs. Great thoughts, PB and Laura.

"I think God gives us more room than that to discern for ourselves"

We discern for ourselve anyway.

Jennifer said...

"Nowadays, thank goodness, a woman generally has the skills and education to support herself is she needs to leave. Unless, of course, she takes Laura's advice about skipping college and marrying young!"

Now knock that off. I agree with your points about more options, but this society downgrades marriage, upholds whims, and Laura has NEVER even implied that she condones violence.

Jennifer said...

In honor of working men and the rebound of lost jobs on them, here's an awesome Irish song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaWSKbeiDTQ. It's not about our current state, but hardworking men unfairly laid off.

Our economy is in a BAD state; I didn't even see Obama's full speech or hear comments on it from my dad (Obama's sharpest critic), but Alte saw it and recapped, "Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah… blah… Sputnik. More spending, fewer cuts, blah, blah."

Anonymous said...

"And do I think all women (you never once referred to "some" "many" "most" or "almost all" women, but just women in general) go to college and are lazy, stupid, and out to demand that which they don't deserve? Absolutely not."

What should I have said,"MEN should stop using college to date"? Men aren't forcing women out of college so that they can date. Men are there to get a degree so they can get a job. What men can actually go to college these days are,anyway.

Nor did I actually say what you think I said. If you read more carefully it will be clear that I was saying that the WOMEN who use college to date,not ALL women,not even MOST women, just the ones who are using college to date, are guilty of selfish,lazy,and stupid behavior.

And yes, to answer the question that you did not ask,but some might, I would condemn a man who was keeping people out of college who want to learn in order to pursue some frivolous activity like dating, in EXACTLY the same manner.

"However, do I think it should be available to everyone who meets the requirements of admission? Yes."


"It's because women back then had fewer options to get out of bad marraiges. I'd never want to go back to the days where a woman had to stay in a bad marriage. The only person who'd want to go back to that are abusive men--I'm sure they'd love to go back to those days!"

You have employed disingenuous rhetoric here. Let me break it down for you and the others here:

Your comment ASSUMES that:
(A) The only marriages women want to "get out of" are bad marriages. It is a logical and mathematical impossibility that SOME women don't just divorce because they're bored or because they want to see other people. In fact "boredom" was the #1 stated reason for most women divorcing until recently, when the economic downturn quashed the epidemic divorce that has been steadily climbing since the 70's. How does that square up with what you said? Did the women's husbands beat them into saying they were divorcing because they were bored?

(B) Women had to stay in bad marriages.This is simply idiotic. Before no fault divorce,divorces were frequently granted for abandonment. If the man left for a certain period of time, or the woman did, a divorce would be granted,no questions asked. I know most men, if their wives took off and left and didn't take everything they owned, those men would be quite relieved. I doubt they'd wait 30 years or so for her to come back, even if they WERE abusers. Divorces could also be granted for financial hardship,irreconcilable differences,and any number of things that you are either not aware of or purposely omitting.Women were never forced to stay married. Even if they had been, it would only keep them from getting married again. There weren't any cops roaming around looking for stray wives to return them to their abusive husbands. That's ridiculous.

(C) You assume that only an abusive man would want to "go back to that",unfortunately, women who REALLY MEAN "til death do us part" disagree with you. They,like most men, want marriage to mean something and not just be another hookup culture.Men who love their families also do not want to see them ripped apart for selfish and frivolous reasons like "boredom". In fact, abusive men would probably prefer no fault-divorce. If it really is about power and control, then why stick to controlling just ONE woman? Why not dozens? Hundreds?

Your entire comment is based on foolish assumptions, if it is not purposely constructed this way in order to demonize men.

Anonymous said...

"When I refer to The One, I don't refer to fairy tales. I refer to The One Man that God has chosen for me to be my life-long mate. I do this to symbolize that I don't intend to marry The One Of Two Or Three, that I choose myself, divorce, then choose another, divorce, then choose another until I find one I like."

This is admirable. You sound like a decent person if that's the case. When I ask most women to describe "The One" that they are referring to they usually rattle off a list of unobtainable and often contradictory qualities. If you say you are looking to get married to only one man and stay with him for life I will take your statement at face value and I offer my encouragement.


Anon from 10:03

Michelle said...

Extremely valid points. Excellent piece. "He who findeth a wife," meaning, all men have in their hearts a valiant search for a woman, but where in our now corrupt society can a wife be found? Though both sexes share in their responsibility for corruption, I imagine the ultimate responsibility to be upon women. Because men search for a bride, and the "think like a man" philosophy has invaded the outlook of women, we have coerced men into promiscuous relationships for generations now, yet we ask why none of them want to marry anymore. Every man is taught how to treat a woman by none other than a woman. If this is what he is taught, how can there be an argument against a man for not wanting a wife anymore? You are correct, there are plenty of women in our society that are willing to act the part of the wife without actually being a wife. As mothers of daughters, it is our duty and honor to restore our daughters and roll back the tide of promiscuity and feminism, and be such a strong example of a Godly woman that our sons are blinded from the temptation of the ungodly women he will encounter in his life. It is an awesome responsibility that we as mothers share, at which we cannot afford to fail. God bless!

Jennifer said...

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts, 10:03.

"If it really is about power and control, then why stick to controlling just ONE woman?"

That's not how their minds work; more often than not, they're obsessed with one woman and employ drastic, even wooing messages to make her stay.

Jennifer said...

"we have coerced men into promiscuous relationships for generations now"

Are you kidding me? Uh-uh. There have been promiscuous men for millenia and blaming women is old as dirt and flat as Kansas.

MarkyMark said...

Jennifer,

Men couldn't be promiscuous if women didn't help by SPREADING their legs-duh! How's about growin' a brain, Darlin'?

MarkyMark

Jennifer said...

Mark, needless insults are the trade of feminism and immature males. The male sex provides the wide market for whoring and it finally started biting them. With your blog of swearing, mass generalizations, and your visitors freely spurting graphic sexual invitations to the female visitors they hate and call feminists, which they claim to despise above all else, my position is proven: loose males are so pathetic in their desperate lust that they'll even drool for women they hate. They are, in every way, pitiful and deserve whatever fate their useless loins buy them.

MarkyMark said...

Jen Darlin',

You didn't answer my MAIN POINT: to wit, if women didn't spread their legs for men, men couldn't be promiscuous. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not...

MarkyMark

Jennifer said...

I know what your point is, and while it's true, it's also true that women aren't responsible for men's lust. Again: there wouldn't be a market for leg-spreading if it wasn't well-known that men would buy so incredibly easily into it. I thought this was obvious. Women have loose sex for a variety of reasons: money, power, OR pleasure. Men do it loosely only for pleasure, the weak ones apparently crippling all other senses. If women are so obviously predatory, men should have learned to keep their own pants up by now.

MarkyMark said...

Jen,

You're blaming men for women's failure to keep their legs shut. Feminists do that. Is that what you are, a feminist?

MarkyMark

Anonymous said...

That's telling 'em, Jennifer.

I really expected Marky to know that when it comes to love making, it takes two to tango. But maybe Marky doesn't know how to tango.

Anonymous said...

"As mothers of daughters, it is our duty and honor to restore our daughters and roll back the tide of promiscuity and feminism, and be such a strong example of a Godly woman that our sons are blinded from the temptation of the ungodly women he will encounter in his life. It is an awesome responsibility that we as mothers share, at which we cannot afford to fail. God bless!"

Speaking as a man, I can say that you are 100% correct.If most women were as you suggest then most men would feel a deep sense of shame in fornicating with the ones who weren't. These men would again be looked upon as bottom-feeders instead of lionized as heroes.

"If women are so obviously predatory, men should have learned to keep their own pants up by now."

We are learning that. 35% of Japanese men want nothing to do with women at all. All you have to do is read the news. The reason it seems like we hadn't learned that lesson until now is because we naively wanted to think the best of all women. We wouldn't believe our own eyes and ears until recently when the mass spread of information made it impossible to avoid running into the truth everywhere we turn.

Now, we are beginning to eschew predatory women,and if the human race survives this transitional period the new heroes of men will be celibate thinkers, just as things were in times past.

Men are coming around. If you look closely during this period, and I want you to, you will see that it is certain women who will rail against the men who do this. They will call these men "wimps" or "babies" and every shaming tactic in the book to get them to have sex promiscuously again;proving, just as we men have been saying, that the traits we are often excoriated for by the opposite sex are encouraged, promoted, and demanded of us by the very same people who condemn us for it.

This time, it won't matter to us what they say. The majority of men will seek after godliness,purity, and honor, and the rest of the world will either follow or be left in the dust.

"They are, in every way, pitiful and deserve whatever fate their useless loins buy them."

Don't worry, men will be keeping their "useless loins" to themselves and women who don't hate,envy,and fear male sexuality which will put a lot of women who badmouth male sexuality into the very awkward position of begging those same men to find them attractive again.


Either that, or those women will have to learn to pave roads,change tires, mine ore and drill for oil themselves. I really doubt men who break their backs at thankless jobs for society will seem useless then. In fact, I believe they and their "useless loins" will be very appreciated. Just remember that you made this comment when they decide you aren't worth their time,because that attitude will be the reason why.

35% of Japanese men are celibate, and it won't be too long before it's 50% of American males, and then it will be harder for a gold-digging woman to find a man to exploit than it is to get a gambler to save his money.

Anonymous said...

There are so many comments about "gold digging women"

And so many comments about how women should skip college to marry.

If you deny someone a college education, doesn't it make sense that they'd need to be "gold digging"?

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

"The new heroes of men will be celibate thinkers, just as things were in times past"

Most great thinkers were very healthy in procreation.

"proving, just as we men have been saying, that the traits we are often excoriated for by the opposite sex are encouraged, promoted, and demanded of us by the very same people who condemn us for it"

Actually men have been encouraging male promiscuity longer than women, right back to the days of sleeping with the chamber maid.

"I really doubt men who break their backs at thankless jobs for society will seem useless then"

Anon, I was very clearly speaking of LOOSE men, not men in general as having useless lions, which should be obvious to anyone not wishing to slant my words. There will always be healthy men who are Godly and have a balance between using discernment with the zipper and honoring Godly women. They are the survivors. Men who put down all women, blame them for their own whoring, and sexually proposition the very women they hate are not deserving of desire in any case; let them go the way of the celibate.

Thank you Anon 9:08.

Elusive Wapiti said...

LGR, the third and final part is up.

Cheers, EW

Jennifer said...

No, I don't blame one sex for another's choices Mark, though it sure sounds like you did. What I said is that men are perfectly responsible for their own mistakes, most especially sexual ones. Men and women can make it easier for each other to stumble by promoting/practicing sexual promiscuity themselves, which I acknowledged when I said there was truth to your main point, but we are each responsible for our OWN actions.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:37 A.M. writes:
"We are learning that. 35% of Japanese men want nothing to do with women at all. All you have to do is read the news. The reason it seems like we hadn't learned that lesson until now is because we naively wanted to think the best of all women. We wouldn't believe our own eyes and ears until recently when the mass spread of information made it impossible to avoid running into the truth everywhere we turn."

Anon, had you dug a little deeper you would know that these celibate Japanese men are not interested in women and sex mostly because they can't get any in the first place. The overwhelming majority of these young men are known as "girly guys." Japanese women are not interested in them. They want manly men.

This new breed of Japanese men lacks the ambition of their hard-working dads. They are passive and wimpish. They don't know how to behave with women. They've had no training and they lack experience. They are not interested in money either or status symbols such as nice cars. They would rather get around town on their bicycles and spend endless hours chatting with each other about desserts.

You give the impression that these particular Japanese men are "on strike" regarding women and sex. Shoot! They're not even employed.

Anonymous said...

I Married my high school sweetheart right after graduation, we were both 18. We were mature 18, though! We didn't party, we had goals and we wanted a future together. Getting married so young essentially forced us to grow up together. We have been married 17+ years now, have 5 children and are serving the Lord, my husband is about to become a Pastor. As a side note, remember that women today aren't the only ones "slutting around"...it takes a MAN, too! So all of you guys who are complaining about the loose morals of women and inability to find an "asset", the same goes for you. Do you live up to your own standards? If I were single today I would have a really hard time finding a man whom I would consider suitable material for a husband. Just the porn addiction alone in this country says a lot about the pool women have to choose from. Talk about a needle in a haystack!

Double Minded Man said...

Wow, lots of comments here. Haven't even tried to read them yet, but I do like the post. And agree with your advice to seek someone older (is that self serving of me? lol)

Personally I tend more towards the view that there aren't enough good women out there to even really try for. Sure there are a few women like yourself but for every one of you there are many more who are not worth anything outside of the bedroom.

Ecc 7:26-29 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her. Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, [counting] one by one, to find out the account: Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

I figure that if Solomon couldn't find one, what hope have I? (Tho he apparently did tend to get sidetracked by his lust) I'd rather follow his advice a few verses later:

Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that [is] thy portion in [this] life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
Obviously I lack the wife, but persevere on my own looking to live out the days of my own vanity.

Double Minded Man said...

Anon January 27, 2011 7:51 PM

Yes, the so called Grass Eaters of Japan aren't employed, nor do they have experience with women. Seeing as their economy has been dead their whole lives, it makes sense that they would be unemployed. Which of course makes them undesirable to women, which explains their lack of experience.

But the phenomena still exists. Men are being disenfranchised from society at a rapid rate. So what happens next when the men of a nation cease to participate? What happens to the infrastructure and the nations civilization? They both will cease to exist. Either crumbling into itself or being absorbed by a more structured society (read that as "patriarchy") Its happened countless times throughout history and will happen again. We are seeing the beginning of that here in the US where many men are deciding that the Xbox and WOW are more fulfilling than dealing with a woman and that living such a life means that one need not work so hard thereby leaving more time to pleasurable pursuits, even if it is only gaming or even porn.

After all, the xbox wont leave him and take half his stuff with it and leave him paying out large sums of money on a monthly basis with no benefit to himself. And I could be wrong, but I don't think that anyone has ever committed suicide because his life was so destroyed by a gaming console. (Men have a MUCH higher rate of suicide than do women, and a divorce puts him at a higher rate yet again)

Jennifer said...

Solomon??! Solomon deserved what he got; putting shiploads of women on shelves, never treating one like a real wife, and then boo-hooing because he couldn't find one to suit his needs, maybe because he didn't give himself TIME to do so. That's what you get. Time wounds all heels.

Jennifer said...

It's an interesting statistic about suicide: women are more likely to consider it, but men are more likely to actually go through with it.

Anonymous said...

Anon: "You give the impression that these particular Japanese men are "on strike" regarding women and sex. Shoot! They're not even employed."

The same can be said for anybody not doing something. They are not saying "no", since nobody asks them an wants them to say "yes".

It might be true, it might not be true.

Lavazza

Anonymous said...

>>Janine said...

>> In 1958, about 1.8 million people in the US got married.

>> In 2008, 2.2 million got married.

Um, Janine, don't do numbers, okay?

Here are population figures:


1960 - 179,323,175

2010 - 308,700,000

Population went up by 72%, and marriages went up by only (I am accepting your figures only because it is late) 22% and you interpret that as marriage on the rise. Hahaheeheehoho.

Dearies don't do math very well.

In fact, here are the most relevant figures:

Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:

1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (Rutgers 2010)

Yes, indeedy, marriage are just soaring! Oh, wait a minute!

Since you don't do numbers, let me explain. The marriage rate of unmarried women has dropped more than in half since 1960. And, it dropped over 3% just between 2008 and 2009. You call that marriage on the rise? Hahaheeheehoho.

Oh, sorry, you don't do percents very well. If you have a college degree, you need to sue that college.

Anonymous age 68

The truth is marriage is rapidly going away. And, it is men turning their backs on marriage, despite desperate feminist lies that it is women who want nothing to do with men. Few men are complaining about inability to marry, but many women are, except in standard feminist logic, they simply say men are such losers, they refuse to make a commitment.

Anonymous said...

Jennifer, thanks for helping me out. I have long been telling MarkyMark that it is a total waste of time to discuss these issues with women. You see, most women are totally devoid of any empathy for men, and are incapable of understanding men do not exist to be their chattel property.

I tried for many years, starting in the early days of the Great American Man-haters, to discuss things with women.

Maybe a handful of times over the decades, I managed to convince a woman of what I was saying, I could tell by the look on her face.

The next words out of her mouth, always, were, "Yes, but..."

Yes, but is strictly dearie logic. We even outed a woman on a man's board, who had held herself out as a man, when she said, "Yes, but..."

I was active on a really busy men's board for several years. I used to write little anecdotes about my life here in Mexico, far away from the mostly psychotic American women. Things like how the women treat men. Things like when I walk down town, little girls run out for forehead kisses, while their mommies smile because I adore their little girls, instead of calling the cops and having me arrested as a pedophile.

The board owner kept reading my stuff, and one weekend flew into Guadalajara to see for himself. He reported my observations were if anything understatements.

The board went under, because he and his moderators no longer live in the US.

My son saw numbers that a million people, almost certainly mostly men, left the US last year, up from 250,000 in the mid-90's.

The statements many of you make about how bad men are, actually are true. For the most part, the only men who are marrying in the US today are the idiots.

Anonymous age 68

Double Minded Man said...

Anonymous age 68

Why don't you have a blog? I am sure that it would be in my favorites if you decided to start one.

Jennifer said...

I have a great deal of empathy for men, which is why I've stuck around this blog and given Laura support for most of her posts. But it is indeed a waste of time to tell me that it's women's fault some men are trashy, and then try to nail me for blaming such men for their own actions. There's no "yes, but" about that; it's simply fact.

Jennifer said...

And btw, Mark's words to me didn't closely resemble "discussion". Which made them another waste of time.

Anonymous said...

Anon 68, the trend toward fewer marriages is less a rejection of marriage and more a case of delaying marriage.

My grandmother who lived in the hills of Kentucky was married at age 14. Today she would delay marrying until she was well into her twenties. Today she would be able to do that because she would be less dependent on a man economically.

Don't forget that a lot of couples are living together rather than marrying.

As your statistics indicate, the older people get the more likely they will marry.

People used to marry to have sex. Now the major reason to marry is to have children.

Anonymous said...

Let me repeat here, I have told MM many times, don't even bother to discuss nor debate women. It's a waste of time. So, if he is not discussing things with you, good for him.

And, to be honest, few of us older men need to listen to anything you have to say. We have had your misandrist insults crammed down our throats for up to 45 years. There is nothing new for you to say or for us to hear.

However, almost none of you have ever heard the viewpoint of men, and as we see here, when you do encounter it, you view it as an opportunity to put us in our place, or if you could get us fired from our jobs, or sent off to mental institutions.

Alvin Toffler wrote a book FUTURE SHOCK, quite a few years ago. He said when change occurs too fast, many people can't deal with it.

That is the modern women with men today. Women are used to compliant, obedient men, and are incapable of dealing with a man who has said, "ENOUGH!!!"

Anonymous age 68

DMM, do you know what DGM-3 is? I am there under another name. And, I have my own low-traffic board, which for all practical purposes constitutes a blog.

I am actually being nice here out of respect for Laura, hee, hee.

Anonymous said...

"If you deny someone a college education, doesn't it make sense that they'd need to be "gold digging"?"

Don't try to pull that one.As has been said before,a lot of women are going to college to dig gold from professional men. They are gold diggers whether they are educated or not.Some of them just dig more gold from a much bigger vein.


"Anon, had you dug a little deeper you would know that these celibate Japanese men are not interested in women and sex mostly because they can't get any in the first place. The overwhelming majority of these young men are known as "girly guys." Japanese women are not interested in them. They want manly men.

This new breed of Japanese men lacks the ambition of their hard-working dads. They are passive and wimpish."

/\See? I rest my case. \/
\/
\/
"Men are coming around. If you look closely during this period, and I want you to, you will see that it is certain women who will rail against the men who do this. They will call these men "wimps" or "babies" and every shaming tactic in the book to get them to have sex promiscuously again;proving, just as we men have been saying, that the traits we are often excoriated for by the opposite sex are encouraged, promoted, and demanded of us by the very same people who condemn us for it."

Jennifer tries really hard to shame and blame men, but when it comes down to it,she cannot demonstrate her borderline misandric ideas in the form of a hypothesis,an if>then statement. I have already proved that part of my hypothesis is true,id est that it is indeed women who expect men to behave promiscuously and call them "wimps" or sissies to negatively reinforce the idea that celibacy is the "wrong" choice.

That is to say, I have proved my hypothesis that men are not responsible for the behaviors Jennifer denigrates us for,as they are a defense mechanism against the tendency of the female to psychologically abuse any man who is not promiscuous.

The proof is right there. So Jennifer has no specious reasoning to justify her misandry anymore. Now,the ball is in her court. She will either continue to try to justify her prejudicial feelings against men using her specious reasoning or she will be the bigger person, admit she has these feelings of hatred toward men and attempt to work through her prejudice, that is, if she want men to treat her with any respect.

If she doesn't treat men with respect, or want men's respect, then she has no right to complain, and men have the right to be disrespectful or indifferent toward her.

Anonymous said...

>>Anon 68, the trend toward fewer marriages is less a rejection of marriage and more a case of delaying marriage.

Hey, thanks, Jennifer for the help. Once again we demonstrated dearies don't do numbers very well. Also, that most of you memorize things you read in your feminist media, without even understanding it, and regurgitate it when any nasty, ole' man pulls your string.

Maybe Laura does numbers, which might be why she is capable of understanding the male viewpoint?

For those who do numbers, I am going to explain the marriage table and why her argument, one shared by normally very intelligent MRA dalrock, alas, is not correct.

Look back that table to the beginning. You will see the peak is around 1969. Since then the marriage rate, per 1,000 unmarried women, has been dropping.

The average age at marriage has been going up very slowly. I don't have time to dig out the exact figures, I can't spend my entire life on math classes for dearies. I think the average age at marriage has actually been holding steady between 25 and 28 years old, most likely around 26, for a lot of years.

1969 was 42 years ago. And, those numbers include everyone of every age who got married. That 14 year old girl who got married a few years ago, and whose husband went to jail as a result. She was there. My 78 year old aunt Kate who married her 3rd husband in 1995 or so, after the first two died, she was on there.

Any woman who delayed marriage but eventually married at any age is on there as well. Yet, the numbers go down, down, down.

The marriage rate has been dropping slowly and steadily since 1969.

So, when do the delayed marriages start, and the marriage rate bounce back up to 90 or 100 to catch up?

They don't. They haven't and they won't. Marriage rates are down, in almost all age categories.

How far will they go down? New Zealand, the most misandrist nation in the world, is running around 28 last time I checked.

This is just another desperate attempt to hide the fact from panicky women that marriage is going away thanks to anti-male marriage; DV; false rape; and divorce and c/s laws.


Anonymous age 68

Anonymous said...

Anon 68 says:

“See? I rest my case.
Men are coming around. If you look closely during this period, and I want you to, you will see that it is certain women who will rail against the men who do this. They will call these men "wimps" or "babies" and every shaming tactic in the book to get them to have sex promiscuously again;proving, just as we men have been saying, that the traits we are often excoriated for by the opposite sex are encouraged, promoted, and demanded of us by the very same people who condemn us for it."

Anon 68, you are always resting your case (prematurely). Is it really so hard for you to accept that Japanese women are not interested in these celibate “girly guys?” They are not using shame tactics with these men order to get them to have sex with them. They DON’T WANT to have sex with these “girly guys?” Japanese women find them repulsive.

These young men go from one extreme to another. Either they are walking around with dirty fingernails and stringy hair or they are getting their eyebrows professionally styled and groomed. Get the picture? They are a giant turn-off to women.

Japanese women want manly men. A man does not need to be promiscuous in order to be viewed as manly by women. Wherever did you get the idea that women judge a man’s manliness based on how many women he has laid? That is one of those male fantasies.

Anonymous said...

>>Don't forget that a lot of couples are living together rather than marrying.


YYY. That means Triple Yawn. Don't you have any good ideas?

Reading female media, one quickly learns that most women who are shacking up do not think they are the same as married.

They ask advice columnists, "How do I get him to pop the question? We have lived together for years, yet he avoids marriage."

So, if shacking up is the same as married, why does a woman who is shacking up want to marry?

Answer: women do not think shacking up equals marriage

Another desperate attempt to hide the fact that men are avoiding marriage in larger numbers every year.

Anonymous age 68

Double Minded Man said...

Anonymous age 68

I don't know what DGM-3 is. Please email me at doublemindedman09 at gmail I'd like to have a link to that.

Anonymous said...

>>Anon 68 says:

>>“See? I rest my case.
Men are coming around. If you look closely during this period, and I want you to, you will see that it is certain women who w

No, I did not say any such thing at all. That was Anonymous January 30, 2011 9:55 AM

Not only don't do numbers, don't have high reading skills. Sue your college.

I put my Anonymous age 68 on Anonymous postings so people do not get confused with what I call Anonymous Anonymous.

It was originally Anonymous age 64, and next year it will be Anonymous age 69.

However, your posting does mandate a response.

>>Wherever did you get the idea that women judge a man’s manliness based on how many women he has laid?

I didn't get that idea. A large number of men on MRA boards have been watching women, and exchanging information.

No one knows the percent figures for sure, but among young American women today, somewhere between 80 and 95 percent of them are sleeping with somewhere between 20 and 5 percent of men, the ones who have by far the most lovers. The "lucky" ones are what we call Bad Boys, the men who are "hell-raisers" in every way.

Druggies; highly promiscuous; don't work at much of anything; will never marry or attempt to support their offspring. But, do they ever excite young women.

And, that is why nearly 2/3 of young women have at least one STD, much higher than for young men.

The 80-95% of young men who are about as likely to get hit by lightning as have sex are what is called Nice Guys. They are the guys who stay at home nights, because going out where the women are is a waste of time.

They are also the type of men who work hard; study hard, with the hope of being a family man. They are ignored until the modern woman hits 30, realizes she has had her average 11 lovers, and now it's time to find a Nice Guy and marry, until she gets her kids, then divorce him and move Bill the Biker into the house he gets to pay for.

They are also the ones we successfully convince not to marry used up 30 year old women after an average of 11 lovers.

The second reason we know women prefer promiscuous men is because a standard part of Shaming Language 101 is the statement, "You can't get laid." As an insult.

Years ago, things like this were called Freudian Slips. Anyone who would insult a man by saying he is not sexually promiscuous prefers promiscuous sex partners. And, it is likely those "girly men" are considered as girly men because they are not sexually active.

Anonymous age 68

Jennifer said...

"Hey, thanks, Jennifer for the help. Once again we demonstrated dearies don't do numbers very well"

I never said anything about marriages, nor do I read feminist media. And I'm no "dearie".

Jennifer said...

You amazingly apply the same prejudices to women you claimed I did to men. Glad to have this clarity.

"you view it as an opportunity to put us in our place, or if you could get us fired from our jobs, or sent off to mental institutions"

Oh yes, I'm WELL-known for that, what a kick.

"I have proved my hypothesis that men are not responsible for the behaviors Jennifer denigrates us for,as they are a defense mechanism against the tendency of the female to psychologically abuse any man who is not promiscuous"

Now that's the most hysterical piece of nonsense I've heard in a while: loose men are loose because they're afraid of female scorn. All those years of promiscuity in male-dominated societies because they were afraid of female opinion. You really do take the cake for blaming the other sex for your own problems; classic blame games, projection and yes, shaming language. I couldn't care less if males like you are indifferent to me; I learned long ago that if you don't insult women enough, you'll get nailed by bitter misogynists. By all means, go your own way.

Jennifer said...

Some adorable little actor on Twitter said, "I'm a one girl guy, always was. Hope that's a good thing and you all will still love me just the same!" I told him it doesn't matter, that's the way it should be.

Anonymous said...

If you read anything, and watch anything on TV, you are reading feminist media, because it is in every part of our culture. It is on TV; it is on bill boards; it is on the radio; it is on the Internet; it is in every conversation that women have, even if it is so subtle they don't realize it.

I realize dearies are immune to misandry, that has been established for decades. No matter how extreme the insult directed at men, they sit there with happy smiles on their faces. "We're just expressing our feelings." As we men are increasingly doing.

I forgot to mention in the marriage data that those numbers as low as they are, include second and ensuing marriages, and the first marriages there at least 40% are going to end up in divorce.

As far as dearies, I didn't ask if you wanted to be called a dearie, just as the women of this country never asked if we men wanted to be called pigs or rapists.

I came up with this term, and it is indeed intended to be very sarcastic, in the 90's, because AW really think they are morally superior to men. It has spread, and I see it various places on the Web. They are not superior, but they sure think they are.

Just as you do in your postings on this blog.

As Laura said in another posting, we really don't care any more if you like us or not.

My personal goal is to get men to expat. Several years ago, about a man a month was doing it, in response to my writings. Now, it is down, but every one helps. I call it Operation Rescue.

Anonymous age 68

Anonymous said...

>>You really do take the cake for blaming the other sex for your own problems;

What problems? All my problems disappear when I hit the bridge going south. Life here is wonderful. I have been married and faithful to the same woman for 35 years, have grandchildren, life is good here in Mexico. I am respected, and I can walk down the street while little girls run out for a forehead kiss, while their mommies beam that the old North American man adores their adorable little girls. The police are not called, and no rocks are thrown at me.

I can even sit in the park where kids are playing, and no one threatens me. In fact, kids run up and ask me how to say different words in English.

You are assuming that men who are sick and tired of 90% of American women being what they are, must have personal problems. Did I mention any personal problems? Nope, I commented how modern feminism, supported by at least 90% of women, while 90% of women deny it, has destroyed marriage, and no truly informed man will marry in the US under the current legal system.

Heaven forbid 90% of women could really be that bad! Nope, it's the man's fault.

In fact, the best of men, the Nice Guys, the men who live moral and even religious lives, who work hard to deserve a wife and kids, are the ones who are treated the worst by American Women, because they are dull and boring. And, they are the ones who learn not to have anything to do with modern women. Those marriages in the table, most of those men are from the bottom of the heap.

Now, Bill the Biker, there is a real man!

Now, let me add here, if you are not like that, you are making a big mistake saying the things you are saying to us, because your language is exactly like women who are like that.

Laura is, I think I can correctly say, trying to urge women to change their attitudes towards men. She thus attracts men who have similar attitudes towards the behavior of women, and are sympathetic to her words. Yet, instead of using her blog as a learning opportunity to learn what many good and moral men think and feel today, you take it as a personal project to "set them straight."


Anonymous age 68

Jennifer said...

You presume greatly too, Anon 68. Men who speak like you have blamed women for male problems, like promiscuity. This is a lame excuse as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps we should both agree at this point not to presume anymore.

I have also never called men as a whole "pigs" and certainly not rapists; you can ask my family how I've gotten bent out of shape at the treatment of men in our media (mainly sitcoms and certain dramas).

"you are making a big mistake saying the things you are saying to us"

What I have said is that promiscious men cannot blame women for their actions and that loose men are pretty useless; I didn't even speak so sharply on this matter, until I was told I didn't have a brain for not blaming women for male sexual looseness. When I'm disrespected blatantly, I respond very sharply.

"Yet, instead of using her blog as a learning opportunity to learn what many good and moral men think and feel today, you take it as a personal project to "set them straight."

I have done no such thing; look around and you'll see it's been a while since I disagreed with Laura's posts or purposes. I like this blog and understand Laura's purpose. It seems you (and perhaps another Anonymous, I'm not sure) have mistaken my comments for one or more of the female Anon's, but I have not posted anonymously on this blog for some time.

Don't be so certain that Mexico is totally innocent of misandry and that America is totally rotten, btw. Everyone I know loves grandpas, and I heard from one in the Spearhead that somewhere in Mexico, at least, women can imprison their husbands for not sexually fulfilling them enough.

Jennifer said...

"In fact, the best of men, the Nice Guys, the men who live moral and even religious lives, who work hard to deserve a wife and kids, are the ones who are treated the worst by American Women, because they are dull and boring"

LOL What bad company you've kept. Those are the men who have survived through the ages; the non-patriocentric and wishy-washy ones, anyway. As for the bitter ones turned misogynist, I really don't care if they like me either.

Laura Grace Robins said...

"Laura is, I think I can correctly say, trying to urge women to change their attitudes towards men. She thus attracts men who have similar attitudes towards the behavior of women, and are sympathetic to her words. Yet, instead of using her blog as a learning opportunity to learn what many good and moral men think and feel today, you take it as a personal project to "set them straight."

That is correct; at the very least, to get women to a point where they will let men have their say without jumping all over them. That is why sites like The Spearhead are around, so men can speak their mind without the interruptions. It should be eye opening to women to see all these men expressing such strong distaste for women, but no, rather than deal with the problem, they feed the problem.

Jennifer said...

Laura, what the Spearhead men spread is often inexcusable; they insult women as a whole and many promote porn, yet we as women are supposed to want to improve matters with men like that? Identify them with most men? I don't think so; other conservative Christian women like you have acknolwedged that those kinds of men really deserve the kind of women they hate. I don't want their liking or respect.

Laura Grace Robins said...

"As far as dearies, I didn't ask if you wanted to be called a dearie, just as the women of this country never asked if we men wanted to be called pigs or rapists."


"I have also never called men as a whole "pigs" and certainly not rapists; you can ask my family how I've gotten bent out of shape at the treatment of men in our media (mainly sitcoms and certain dramas)."

Based on the above, I just want to point out that this is why Restoring women is so important. When men say such things they are not necessarily referring directly to you, but since you are a women, you assume it is you. If women don't want to be lumped in with all the bad women, they need to focus on restoring women, so that men will no longer be compelled to say such things.

Jennifer said...

"When men say such things they are not necessarily referring directly to you, but since you are a women, you assume it is you"

Laura, that's because he called me "dearie", which was the same term he used for women he strongly didn't like ("dearies" aren't good with numbers) and he made it clear more than once that he saw me as being in the same group as the women who think themselves superior and look down on men. I didn't misunderstand anything based on the fact that I merely happen to be the same sex as the people he spoke of. I'm not in the least angry and I'd be happy to leave misunderstandings behind, but I'm surprised you thought I somehow misunderstood his meaning.

MarkyMark said...

Jen,

You can cry till you're blue in the face that you're not 'like that'. However, given your ACTIONS; given the content and tenor of your comments; as Anon68 said, you come off as being EXACTLY 'like that'...

MarkyMark

Jennifer said...

And why is that? Because I don't blame women for the urge in loose men to plant their rods wherever? Because I don't buy the crock that male promiscuity is due to female pressure? If THAT is your definition of a feminist, you need a dictionary. I'm not going to pander to any blame game, nor will I blame women for a millenia-old problem that certain males have. Deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Jennifer, you are right. You have been right about so many things here.

You are a good, conscientious woman with a good head on your shoulders. Remember that and don't let these folks get to you.

But for your own sake walk away from this blog and any other blogs like this one. They are poison as far as I am concerned.

Take a deep breath and walk away and don't look back. Give it over to God.

MarkyMark said...

Jen,

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck-well, you know the rest, Darlin'... ;)

MarkyMark

Jennifer said...

Anon, thank you so much. It's refreshing to see a kind Christian woman disagree with this nonsense. But Laura's blog itself is not poison and neither is she. That's why I've stuck around; silly people who happen to hang around it don't faze me.

Jennifer said...

As I said, Mark, if that's what you call a femmie, too bad; mark me down since I don't pander to anti-womanhood. Quack quack.

MarkyMark said...

As I said, Mark, if that's what you call a femmie, too bad; mark me down since I don't pander to anti-womanhood. Quack quack.

Thanks for finally telling the TRUTH, Darlin'... ;)

Laura Grace Robins said...

Thanks, Jennifer. I appreciate that. For those who think I am poison, I do wonder why they keep coming back and poisoning themselves.

I am curious as to why you don't have your own blog? Have you thought about it?

Jennifer said...

No problem, Laura. I have indeed thought about having a blog; I know little about computer stuff as far as detailed blog maintenance, but I suppose I could hold one. My problem is, I'm afraid I'd either spend too little, or more likely too much time on it. It can be hard to get off the Internet sometimes and I'm hoping to get a job sooner or later in any case. With a blog, I fear I'd become hooked, but I think I do need to pressure myself to write more in general; as it is, I sometimes post things on Myspace and create customer reviews on Amazon, where my beliefs about different issues are voiced.

King Alfred said...

Laura,
Thank you for the excellent effort to address these issues. I am arriving late on the scene, but perhaps I can provide some useful thoughts.

Q. 1. How do we restore a virtuous society?
A. We as individuals must be virtuous regardless of how others behave. Laws and nagging will ultimately fail to instill virtue in the hearts of the people. It must come from within each of us. Our virtuous example can inspire others around us to attain greater virtue than they now possess.

Q. 2. How do we convince an amoral society to marry young?
A. We do not, nor should we try. Moral values- loyalty, trust, compassion, understanding, forgiveness- are the basis of marriage. Take those away, and marriage is meaningless. We need to restore value and meaning to marriage before we undertake to push amoral young people into marriage.

Q. 3. What about those who are prepared for marriage, but cannot find a spouse?
A. Ms. Light, I have been a celibate Christian for at least a decade longer than you have (almost 36 years), so I can truly understand your feelings. Please try to understand mine.

First of all, we choose our spouses; God does not choose them for us. He can help us in making the decision, but ultimately it is our responsibility. Some of us will not have the opportunity to marry, not necessarily through any fault of our own. I could have benefited from having a loyal, loving wife by my side many years ago. During those years I worked my way up in the world , from digging ditches in the freezing rain, to rebuilding engines, to finally earning my doctorate. I now occupy an enviable position at a very prestigious institution. This came at a high cost of personal sacrifice, drenched with blood, sweat, and tears. It would have been so much easier and sweeter if I had had someone who loved me to share my joys and sorrows, my triumphs and my failures, along the way. But, instead of caring companions, women have been my cutthroat competitors; instead of providing healthy friendships they have spewed hateful feminism. The amount of completely unwarranted hate men of my generation have received from women is simply incredible.

After nearly 18 years of relentless (and fruitless) effort, I am done looking for a wife. I haven’t slammed the door on good women; I’m just not actively knocking on their doors anymore. I attend church every Sunday, so good Christian women will know where to find me if they are interested. If they are not interested, they are quite welcome to leave me in peace.
Some years ago, a leader of my church told young men to “rejoice when young women reject you.” I now understand why this is so. When a woman rejects me, she shows that she does not love or value me. Even if I truly loved her, she would not have reciprocated. It is therefore for the best that she rejected me. Her rejection saved me from a fate worse than death. I thank Heaven that I did not marry a woman who did not love me. So, Ms. Light, instead of complaining that so many young men are uninterested in you, you would do well to be grateful that these men have excluded themselves from your pool of potential husbands, and focus your attentions more effectively on those who remain in that pool. Be kind to them and respect them. They are not perfect, but neither are you. Finally, and most importantly, never lower your moral standards. We are wise to take a lesson from Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, as described in the book of Daniel. We can say, “I believe that my God, whom I serve, is able to direct me to a person who could make a suitable spouse for me, and bring me lasting happiness through the union of holy matrimony. But if not, know this, O world, I will not defile myself in unholy fornication, nor will I worship at the altar of feminism.”

Jennifer said...

I disagree; if we are meant to marry, then God does have someone specific in mind. Without His help, we might as well just wander in a cave.

MarkyMark said...

Jen,

God can't help you; you're BEYOND help!

MarkyMark

Anonymous said...

I'm on Jennifer's side in this situation.

Feminists have painted all men with the same brush in the past, which was clearly a serious wrong on their part. By doing the same thing to all women, we may be gaining some small form of revenge, but is this name-calling banter really worth the negative feelings that it engenders? How can you expect relations between men and women to become more civil when insults are being perpetually hurled between the two?

I like what Laura has to say in this post. She suggests that we restore women by approaching their false views or attitudes with honesty, but also with politeness. You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. A stubborn woman is more apt to listen to someone who speaks the truth with kindness than to someone who is vulgar, angry, and accusatory.

Jennifer is being addressed in the latter fashion on this forum by some of the posters. She is not denying that women carry fault for providing temptation to men. She is merely saying that one cannot ignore that men also are at fault for choosing to give in to temptation. I am sure that nobody is holding a gun to promiscuous men to force them to act the way they do, as nobody is coercing women to behave lasciviously toward them.

Nobody is going to get anywhere or accomplish anything productive in this society with all of the finger-pointing that takes place. The back-and-forth slighting and name-calling is not adult behavior, nor is it very Christ-like.

MarkyMark said...

Anon1636,

You can preach your civility BS all you want, but I have one, simple question: where were you when the feminists were painting us MEN with a broad brush? Where were you when they were bashing and trashing us? Where were you when the man bashing amongst your fellow sisters started? If you were there, did you say ANYTHING remotely supportive of men? Did you say anything remotely CRITICAL of the BS your fellow women were saying? Yeah, that's what I thought!

Well, as a man, I'm SICK & TIRED of having been on the receiving end of this misandry for all my adult life; I'm SICK & TIRED of having had it shoved down my throat for all of my soon to be 49 years! I'm sick & tired of the fact that you and your sisters didn't see fit to stick up on our behalf. I'm sick & tired of having been blamed for all that's wrong in the world because I committed the heinous crime of being born with a 'Y' chromosome and a penis! I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. Time for the shoe to be on the other foot, it seems to me. How does it fit, hmmmm?

Oh, and one other thing, Darlin' (you HAVE to be a woman!): we men didn't start the War of the Sexes; women did! You've been waging it against us for decades; for decades you've been doing your best to hurt and debase men. Now that we're FINALLY starting to fight back, you want to cry 'uncle'?! I don't think so! You've sown the wind; now prepare to reap the WHIRLWIND!

In this life, we reap what we sow. If you sow corn, you're not going to reap tomatoes; you're going to reap corn-duh! Well, women, for all my adult life, have sown hatred, disrespect, and contempt towards men. They cannot and should not be surprised that this is what they are now reaping. You know what I say to you, Anon1636? Welcome to MY world, Darlin'! Have a good day now...

MarkyMark

King Alfred said...

@ Jennifer: Mark is right. If God has someone specific in mind for you and you haven’t found him yet, it can only mean one of three things:
1. For some reason this is not the right time; which could be because:
A. You are not ready for him, or
B. He is not ready for you.
2. God has chosen a mate for you, but you didn’t want him. Maybe God wants you to marry a “loser!”; or
3. God has chosen a mate for you, but he doesn’t want you. This is unlikely, as God knows everything, and this case would suggest that God made a bad choice in selecting your mate. Or, maybe he just wants you to find your own. Or maybe you simply weren’t cut out for marriage. Some godly women weren’t (Mother Teresa and Florence Nightingale come to mind).

So, you can wait and prepare yourself (case 1), blame yourself (case 2), or blame God (case 3).

Good luck with your philosophy.

@Anonymous:

“A stubborn woman is more apt to listen to someone who speaks the truth with kindness than to someone who is vulgar, angry, and accusatory.”

I have never seen or heard of a case where a stubborn woman listened to kindness or reason. Stubborn people listen only to the painful consequences of their own actions- and only when they can’t find someone else to pin the blame on.

“The back-and-forth slighting and name-calling is not adult behavior, nor is it very Christ-like.”

What version of the New Testament are you reading? In mine Christ makes accusations abundantly, calls people “vipers,” “whited sepulchers,” and even calls a woman a dog and completely ignores her. I seem to recall that he also made quite a mess and destroyed property in the temple in Jerusalem, and gave people a thrashing with a whip. Christ was more concerned with right and truth than he was with civility. We men generally prefer civility, but we must never do so at the expense of truth. We comment and post here and elsewhere in the hope of guiding others to the truth. We have no malice toward you, but we are tired of the hate that has unrelentingly pounded us into the ground us from the cradle on, and we want it to stop. Whether you accept this is entirely up to you.

Jennifer said...

Alfred, my philosophy is Biblical: God knows best and His timing is perfect. And trust me, lol, I'm no nun. Thanks for your nice thoughts. But I don't know how they fit in with Mark's words, which are that I'm beyond help (you said he was right).

Thank you very much Anon, for the encouragement and the balanced words. Already you've been attacked, even though you acknowledged that both sexes are at fault, that feminism is bad and that Laura and her advice are cool; with some folks, you can't win. Don't be discouraged by ugly words; I do indeed know that Christ was blunt and honest, but He was also not bitter. This is why I don't allow all blame to be placed on one sex and don't mind making rude ppl angry by telling them that such remarks aren't true. Some men tend to automatically assume that if you're a woman, you must never have stood up for men (Mark was wrong about me in this regard, too) and it's pointless to argue with them. Since we're not making bitter and nasty-worded blogs causing more division, I'd say we're doing pretty well. Current feminism is awful, but the originals had reason to do what they did: after centuries of practices in different countries like chastity belts, polygamy, bride prices and restraint, women finally started to fight back. And some men don't like that. Of course, they have the perfect right to hate feminism for what it's become now. But ppl who speak of women going back to no jobs, no votes and little choice? You know you're dealing with rotten eggs then.

MarkyMark said...

Jennifer,

You're wrong about the early feminists; they were just as radical, if not more so, than their contemporaries. Read LGR's outstanding AFU series if you don't believe me.

Two, the CONDUCT of modern women shows the wisdom of the ancients who did away with women's rights in the first place; every time it's been tried (e.g. ancient Rome), the fall of that civilization soon followed. J.D. Unwin, a liberal sociologist/anthropoligist (who SYMPATHISED with women's emancipation, BTW), did research on this; he studied some 80 civilizations in which women had been emancipated. Not ONE survived! IOW, women cannot have rights, because they're incapable of EXERCISING them. We don't give children the same rights as adults for obvious reasons; the same applies to women as well. Sorry if you don't like that, Sweet Pee, but that's the way it is...

MarkyMark

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

Actually, I just read comments on Unwin's work. He did NOT claim that female emancipation was what caused societal decay, but that the utter sexual freedom which accompanied it was (like the sexual freedom that came with modern feminism!). In short: women having freedom isn't the problem, too much sexual freedom is. Both men and women who abuse power and sex cause trouble. So the solution? Both men and women need to take responsibility and keep it zipped. Which has been my solution from the start. Your theory is that if women are given freedom in civil matters, they'll become sluts. God in a person's life makes all the difference. Unwin was pretty cool.

One jerky guy who reviewed Unwin's book suggested that Athens was so successful because it had unlimited prostitution for men and utter repression for women. Don't you love jerks like that? Men should sleep around and women be restrained, because society works best when men are happy. Thank God fools' philosophy is punished. And don't expect me to feel sorry for Rome's fall either.

Jennifer said...

Well, Unwin was cool in his beliefs that women were worthy of leadership, at least. Not so smart in the idea that a man could fairly deal with more than one woman.

Anonymous said...

>where were you when the feminists were painting us MEN with a broad brush? Where were you when they were bashing and trashing us? Where were you when the man bashing amongst your fellow sisters started?

When all this nasty business got started, I wasn't even born yet. Pray tell, am I also to be held accountable by the African American community if my ancestors owned slaves, or did not at least speak out against the practice at the time?

>If you were there, did you say ANYTHING remotely supportive of men? Did you say anything remotely CRITICAL of the BS your fellow women were saying?

I can assure you that on the occasions when those around me have spoken unfairly of men or have touted feminism, I have responded with criticism.

I also try to start conversations with people around me to discuss ways in which men are treated unfairly in comparison to women in current events. It turns out that when you start speaking against feminism seemingly at random, people tend to feel uncomfortable and start looking at you as if you've been hit with the crazy stick. On the other hand, when there's a current affair that can set a context, it provides for a much smoother flow of conversation about gender-related flaws in society. Especially with false rape cases, the conclusions that point to misandry practically draw themselves in those discussions.

You may not realize, but I am only one person, so I apologize if you personally were unable to experience any effects from the dialogues in which I defended men and spoke against feminism.

Anonymous said...

(Continued reply to Mark)
>I'm sick & tired of the fact that you and your sisters didn't see fit to stick up on our behalf.

How exactly do you know that I personally have not stood up for men and criticized when given the chance? You know what they say when you assume...

>Time for the shoe to be on the other foot, it seems to me. How does it fit, hmmmm?

I am sure that the sense of revenge you feel for treating women largely the way they have treated men as a result of feminism is satisfying. I am not entirely sure that it makes you much better than the feminists who started these conflicts, though.

>You've been waging it against us for decades; for decades you've been doing your best to hurt and debase men. Now that we're FINALLY starting to fight back, you want to cry 'uncle'?! I don't think so! You've sown the wind; now prepare to reap the WHIRLWIND!

If it makes you feel better to hold me accountable for things that happened before I was born and while I was a young child, go right ahead. I don't know what you mean by "crying 'uncle'", though, as I am not personally hurt by the insults you use against women, and expressing any hurt at these words was not my initial point.

My original point was this: if you want to start a productive conversation in mainstream society about the ill effects of feminism and the misandry it has lead to, you aren't going to have a lot of luck if you do so by blindly insulting every woman who participates in such a discussion.

For instance, Jennifer, a woman who is sympathetic to your cause-she says something a few people disagree with, and the automatic response is to call her names and insinuate that she is stupid and a feminist. I'm not suggesting that people on here are wrong for voicing their opinions on what she had to say, I'm just pointing out that turning what could have been a productive conversation into a flame-war is...counter-productive. As it is, the majority of women are not incredibly likely to support your cause. However, even those who do share your sentiments against feminism may largely be less than sympathetic if every time someone disagrees with them it is expressed through name-calling instead of civil conversation.

If continuing to be rude and condescending to women like Jennifer makes you feel better, carry on. Do not be surprised though, if women like her who were once impassioned about fighting misandry grow tired of being belittled every time they say something that is not completely and perfectly in line with your own opinions and decide to walk away from your cause.

Anonymous said...

@King Alfred

>What version of the New Testament are you reading? In mine Christ makes accusations abundantly, calls people “vipers,” “whited sepulchers,” and even calls a woman a dog and completely ignores her.

I'm aware of Christ's actions. However, I do not on the whole characterize him as a spiteful and vengeful entity.

>We comment and post here and elsewhere in the hope of guiding others to the truth. We have no malice toward you, but we are tired of the hate that has unrelentingly pounded us into the ground us from the cradle on, and we want it to stop.

I understand this. I am merely saying that people may have a hard time being guided to the truth if every time they stumble or falter along the way they are met with resentment, abrasiveness, and insults. Or even one such as Jennifer, who I think it is fair to say has already found the truth, but says something that others disagree with. What could have been a thoughtful discussion that may have led to better understanding on all sides became a bitter argument. I don't take any of the negative things said on here personally, I just feel a little bad when discussions end with little more than fighting words when they had more potential than that. That is only my evaluation of the situation, though. I understand if you feel differently about it from your standpoint.

Jennifer said...

Anon, you are sensible and empathetic. Thank you for your wonderfully mature and grounded responses.