Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The Day of the Cougar

Is it a trend or an anomaly?

Christine Wicker reports that more and more middle aged women are, shall we say, redefining their marriages: "A lot of midlife women in my acquaintance are leaving what appear to be perfectly good and loving husbands. Or thinking about it. Or cheating on them. Or wanting to. Or staying married and faithful but buying their own houses, which they either live in or keep as a bolt hole." Link here. Via Dr. Helen.

It is fair to say that thinking about cheating, wanting to cheat, even cheating itself is not the same as leaving a husband and getting a divorce. Many marriages survive affairs. Almost no marriages survive divorce.

Let's stipulate that these women are at a stage in their lives when their children are grown up and in college. They could be looking for new challenges; they could be investing more in their work; they could be preparing for grandparenthood. Surprisingly, they are not. According to Wicker, they are looking for a romantic adventure, if not for the occasional hookup.


What is it all about? Are these women getting their second wind? Are they thinking that they can now find the love they have been missing in their marriages? If they are in their mid-forties, they may think that it is their last chance at true romance.

Or perhaps they are anticipating the possibility of being dumped for younger women and are trying to pre-empt the pain of rejection. After their husbands get over the shock of a broken home, many of them, as Dr. Helen points out, are going to do just fine out there.

Just as college girl hooking up, supported by feminists as a step toward liberation, is a boon for teenage boys, so perhaps is this new trend among their mothers a boon for middle aged men.

Then again, perhaps these midlife women are trying to recover their lost youth by emulating their daughters. At times, if they are what are now called cougars, competing with their daughters for the same men. Of course, this would put them in conflict with their own daughters, and would open the door to unimaginably painful emotional turmoil.

As Wicker reports, this tendency for women to redefine their marriages unilaterally seems to be far more prevalent among women of more progressive political leanings. Women who have more traditional ideas of gender roles in marriage seem to be happier with their marriages, and are not yearning for their liberation.

It might be true that more traditional marital roles foster greater and more durable love and affection? Making the kitchen into a battleground in some kind of politicized domestic warfare is not the best way to sustain affection and intimacy.

Dare we point out that progressive women are, almost by definition, feminists. In fact, today's midlife women were the first generation of women that was brought up on feminism, thus that had their expectations, their hopes and their dreams about marriage defined by feminism.

Perhaps their youthful feminist enthusiasms suffered something like a latency period while they were raising their children, only to re-emerge in full flower once those same children had gone off to college.

But they were also the first generation of women to have had their views of marriage imposed by an ideology, and not an ideology that was very congenial to marriage.

One woman explained that she got divorced because: "I realized my husband was of no added value." To which Wicker responds that we would all be outraged if a man said that of a woman, that is, if he implied that a wife was something to be used and discarded when she was no longer useful.

But, reflect for a moment on the concept of added value. It is a peculiar idea, one that comes to us from economics, and that easily evokes the famous Marxist idea of "surplus value." [Marx wrote in German, of course, and his German word mehrwert is normally translated as added value.]

Let's ignore the fact that this woman is using the term incorrectly. By using it at all she is identifying her own ideological proclivities, the prism through which she sees her world and defines her experience.

This recalls, for me at least, Joan Didion's famous essay on, "The Women's Movement," collected in: The White Album. The essay dates from 1972; thus it offers a view of the early childhood of today's feminism. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Didion disputed the notion that the women's movement was about a "collective inchoate yearning for 'fulfillment' or self-expression.'" There was, she continued, "an idea, and the idea was Marxist, and it was precisely to the extent that there was this Marxist idea that the curious historical anomaly known as the women's movement could have any interest at all."

Having lost faith in the proletariat, and lacking any other class to lead the revolution, feminism invented a class out of thin air, by making women feel like they were the new vanguard of the revolution.

Many women did not understand or care much about the ideological underpinnings of the movement, but Didion was surely correct to see the "idea" as the basis for the movement.

The ideas continue to exert considerable influence today, even detached from their Marxist underpinnings. As Didion explained: "If the family was the last fortress of capitalism, then let us abolish the family. If the necessity for conventional reproduction of the species seemed unfair to women, then let us transcend [it] via technology...."

Clearly, the progressive women in question are prey to something like a class consciousness. They all seem to feel that marriage has been constructed to oppress them, that they sold out their hopes and dreams and sexual liberation in order to raise their children, and that now it's time for them to find self-actualization

Of course, if this is the attitude that these women brought into their marriages, if they offered grievances and complaints about their roles in their marriages and if they were never satisfied with anything that their husbands contributed to the marriages, it is not very surprising that love and affection, romantic and otherwise, would have long since been lost.

Wicker recounts a conversation she once had with an older woman. When the woman explained that it was now time for her to live her "real life," Wicker asked, somewhat incredulously: "What have you been living?" The woman responded: "I've been my children's mother. My husband's wife. Now I'm going to be myself."

What a remarkable statement. And ask yourself where she ever got the idea that when she was a mother and a wife she was not herself. What ideology persuaded her that those roles were alien identities? And if they were alien identities, does that mean that she should feel no sense of accomplishment for having fulfilled them well? Can she now feel no pride in her children because being their mother forced her, against her will, not to be herself?

What about the bright future that Wicker's friends and acquaintances are now looking forward to? I will allow Joan Didion to offer her comments on that dream, especially as, in her eyes, it represents a failure to accept adult responsibility.

Remember, Didion wrote this nearly four decades ago: "The childlike resourcefulness-- to get a job in publishing, to become a gifted potter!-- bewilders the imagination. The astral discontent with actual lives, actual men, the denial of the real generative possibilities of adult sexual life, somehow touches beyond words."

And finally: "These are converts who want not a revolution but 'romance,' who believe not in the oppression of women but in their own chances for a new life in exactly the mold of their own life."

[A warm welcome to all of you who have arrived at my blog via Instapundit or Dr. Helen.  My thanks to Prof. Glenn Reynolds and Dr. Helen Smith.]

120 comments:

Robert Pearson said...

In addition to whatever ideas these women have absorbed from explicit academic or news media feminism, a lifetime of "romance" novels, chick flicks and Cosmo, all more or less explicit in their message that meltingly hot sex is the epitome of life, may have even more influence. Hardly what we'd think of as feminist material, but it's results that count.

JohnJ said...

So, essentially, they selfishly use men to help them fulfill some desires,and then abandon those men to pursue other desires. And they shroud their selfishness in terms of being someone else's wife or mom, as if they never wanted to be someone's wife or mom.

Brendan said...

Yep, basically they are saying (esp some of the women who commented on this article at Dr. Helen's blog) that once the kids are of age, we men are either up to be thr court jester, or we're toast.

Aren't the women of our generation (I'm 43, and I suspect that most of the women in question are between my age and 55) just such everloving sweethearts?

Stuart Schneiderman said...

Thanks, guys, for the comments.

I certainly agree with Robert (aka Wahrheit) that the culture and the media influence the way people conduct their lives. Fictions, movies, magazines do communicate clear messages to women about the importance of sex in their lives.

I see these media as purveyors of ideas and messages that were articulated elsewhere, by feminists who are more involved with the world of ideas.

Certainly, the value of sex and its meaning in life goes back at least as far as Freud. Well before it was saturating the media it was being presented by Norman O. Brown and Herbert Marcuse.

After that, the ideas got picked up, repackaged, and disseminated through the broader media, producing an alternative world where the only thing that mattered was hot sex and romance.

globalman100 said...

Wicker recounts a conversation she once had with an older woman. When the woman explained that it was now time for her to live her "real life," Wicker asked, somewhat incredulously: "What have you been living?" The woman responded: "I've been my children's mother. My husband's wife. Now I'm going to be myself."

Yep..that just about summs up the 'modern woman'. They have been brainwashed into thinking being a 'wife and mother' is an 'illegitimate profession that should not exist'.

On the other hand. My mother told me every day in every way that being a mother was the 'most important and satisfying job a woman could have'. My mum told me being a mother was a privilege above all others as she got to stay in the home and look after the kids. She did a good job too. Two of us boys finished up leaders in our field in the country. The 'dumb one' went on to be a doctor and run the largest emergency department in the country for years and then went into specialist practice. When the 'dumb one' finishes up a doctor with a wife and 5 kids? The mother did a pretty good job. The 'smart one' never married and quit working at 34. Wish I had done that!!!

Stuart Schneiderman said...

Thanks, globalman100, for refocusing our attention on that statement. In many ways it's the most extraordinary line in Wicker's piece.

People like to say that feminism does not devalue being a wife and a mother, but the woman who made that statement clearly has gotten the message that they are not to be valued.

Truly appalling... and a gross insult, as you pick up on, to all of the women who have been great wives and mothers, who have been happy in their roles, who have been proud of themselves, their husbands and their children, and who, incidentally, have also held down jobs and pursued careers.

globalman100 said...

Stuart,
I was talking to a young Indian man the other day who told me 'women were oppressed'. The conversation went as follows:
GM: You hope to have kids right?
YM: Yes
GM: Tell me. Would you like to be there to teach your son to say his first words? Would you like to be there to teach him to take his first steps? Would you like to be there to teach him to read? Would you like to teach him to write? Would you like to take him to the zoo and show him an elephant for the first time and see his face in wonder at this huge animal? Or to show him a giraffe for the first time? Would you like to give your son all you can give and have him be the best man he can be?

(By this time I swear he was almost crying at the mental pictures he had created in him mind)

YM: Yes....these things would be wonderful for me, to give my boy what he needs, to help him grow, to give him more opportunities than I have had. This is what I want.

GM: This is what women call 'oppression'. This is what women would have you believe you should be sorry for previous generations allocating as their task. I can tell you this because I have been there. No day at the office is better than a day spent with you son helping him become a man. None. The truth has always been that it is the men who are oppressed, and the way to distract them from that is for the women to claim THEY are oppressed.

YM: Hhhmmm. I see. I have never thought about it like that before.

Anonymous said...

Part of this may be due to the apparent fact that women change with age much more than men do---I'm not talking about looks but about personality. I've read that hormone changes, especially reduced oxytocin, lead to reduced emotional depth and range and less need for emotional bonding. So perhaps as women move beyond reproductive age, they simply feel less need for a man in their lives. Maybe this was always the case but economic realities and social pressures usually kept them from acting on the disconnect.

Men can be surprised and bewildered when the 25 year old they married turns into an entirely different sort of person at 50. Yes, this happens to men too, but observation as well as reading suggests that the effect is much stronger in the case of women.

--Trying to Understand

globalman100 said...

Anon,
"So perhaps as women move beyond reproductive age, they simply feel less need for a man in their lives."
They have less 'need for a man in their life' because the state will extract from from the man with threat of incarceration and give that money to her. Hence. No 'man' needed. She gets her money anyway.

If women are 'equal' why does 'alimony' exist? Because women are liars and hypocrites. That's why alimony exists.

In US states where there is presumption of 50/50 shared parenting and split of assets and no alimony these women seem to 'need' their husband just as much as they used to. In states that rolled back heavy child support/alimony the divorce rates dropped like a stone. Please do your research if you are 'trying to understand'.

Anonymous said...

The interesting, and/or sad thing in all of this, is that women might be looking for that romance, and shagging when they are in their 40's+ They probably are trying to ignore the fact that the one person interested in shagging them and being romantic when they are that age, is the guy they just abandoned. That cougar phase is really short, and doesn't lead anywhere, and then? What then?

They may run headlong into the fact that evolution has wired our brains to prefer the young, becasue they are fertile, regardless if we actually want to procreate.

So, if they ditched boring old mister normal so they can look for that romantic dream in their heads, who is going to fulfill that? Who are they going to blame when no-one steps up to make their dreams come true?

You guessed it, theose nasty men and their interest in young women. They will never take responsibility for their own decisions in this matter. IMHO anyway.

Anonymous said...

GM1000: the thumb-of-the-State-on-the-scales approach does not explain why the woman who is happy with her husband at 30 decides to divorce him at 50, the legal environment being basically the same.

You focus on one particular variable, an important one to be sure, and ignore other variables.

globalman100 said...

Anon,
"does not explain why the woman who is happy with her husband at 30 decides to divorce him at 50, the legal environment being basically the same."
Your ignorance is showing. The legal environment has been getting more and more hostile to men over the last 30 years. In my divorce 95% of the families assets were given to my ex. Clearly a crime. That said. In Australia today the STARTING POINT is 70/30 in favour of the woman no matter what has happened. The notice of 'lose half my stuff' is now a lie. It is 'lose 70% of my stuff'.

Secondly, your own comment shows me you know women are liars and hypocrites. Your own comment shows me that you know full well women do not take their vows seriously. You comment 'she decides to divorce him'. In that statement you make it pretty clear to me that you think a woman has a right to divorce a man whenever she 'wants' to for specific reason at all except perhaps 'unhappy' with him. They are called marriage 'vows' for a reason. But women break them based on 'how happy he makes princess'. You comment shows you know this. Men like me are now educating young men this is exactly the case. When princess is 'not happy' she will divorce him and take minimum 70%.

Anonymous said...

Pardon me for being frank but let the b*tch*s leave.

The older I've become (49) the more I've seen many (not all) grown, highly educated, married adult women become childlike, unappreciative and oblivious to the unexplainable "magic power" that creates their amazing standards of living ( ie. the "magic" that is their working stiff husbands). Truly jaw-dropping at what they take for granted.

I've seen a number of men that can afford it give these unappreciative ladies the opportunity to live out their pretend dreams in the actual world on their own (Usually a shock for the ladies). The rest of us if we are burdened with such a wife should find a legal way way to become one of these high achieving happier husbands!

A New Jersey Husband in an affluent suburb

Anonymous said...

"After their husbands get over the shock of a broken home, many of them, as Dr. Helen points out, are going to do just fine out there."

Oh, nonsense. They'll be broke, is what they'll be.

This is precisely why virtually none of my friends intend to marry - because it's not worth the risk that their wives will one day decide to cash them out and retire. Those few that did - already got cleaned out and learned their lesson.

We've watched it happen all our lives, and we're not letting it happen to us. If the game is rigged, you don't play.

Anonymous said...

Ah. So that's what it was. After 14years, my wife took off, declared the 2 kids and me and the very nice house and club to be 14"wasted" years. I believe she thought life was all about her: working to pay bills was someone else's problem. We sold the house and I support the kids. She triumphantly remarried while receiving spousal support from me, her new husband is now unemployed, she is working full time to support him and his kids. My spousal support is over. She is often frazzled now, and wonders and sometimes cries about the distance between her and her kids. Shame.

globalman100 said...

"My spousal support is over. She is often frazzled now, and wonders and sometimes cries about the distance between her and her kids. Shame."
LOL! Tough shit bitch.

My ex got 95% of the assets of the marriage and is 'unhappy' by all reports. LOL! And she is about to be a LOT unhappier as I own the web site of her name and I am soon to publish all her lies, including such things as the photocopy of the check she used to steal EUR18,000 from our company...oh...and the small matter of the evidence she was also doing prostitution for a while...the wimminz will LOVE that.

On the up side. Since I learned that paying income taxes were voluntary and stopped volunteering my working year has declines from about 2,500 hours to 300 hours. Poor me!! Only a few men are as lucky as me. And I intend to use my luck to help those less able to help themselves.

VeracityID said...

I don't think it's a feminist vs. non-feminist thing. I believe that the average woman looks at marriage through an economic lens: how to bear and raise children, how to gain security. Once they've got that, they often look upon their husbands as used up - of no further added value. And the law gives them the perfect vehicle to take what they value and run away. It's much, much harder for the man to do the same.

GM Roper said...

Excellent post Stuart. I suspect I'll have to lead off the next Tour of the Psychbloggers with this one.

I'm wondering, and if you know, please respond, how many of these "wondering" women would wonder if their husbands took them less for granted, romanced them more and were genuinely more appreciative.

I've had two marriages, the first ended in the death of my wife after 27 years of marriage, the second is ongoing for some 13 years now. I've been both guilty of not being appreciative enough (which fortunately my wife was instrumental in correcting) and in feeling powerful because she romanced me.

All marriages have their ups and downs, but most of us learn from the downs and make the ups so much better.

Cheers and well done sir.

irmik said...

WOW seems only men have responded. Now here is a woman's view of this. I have been married and didn't leave my husband for another man or because I was tired of being a housewife or mother. I believe that no matter what I was being myself. I think why some women in their 40's are looking for an affair or a younger man is because they want to know if they still have it.
I am not proud to say that I had an affair while I was married and it wasn't because I needed to be myself but because of wanting to be wanted. Some men might not show their wife that they are still interested in her the same way they used to. Marriage sometimes becomes a routine and it might work for some women but not all. I have tended to date younger men in the past but in honesty it gets old, nothing real in common with a man that is 20 years younger ... what can we talk about..But I think sometimes we as women want to have a challenge, and want to be rewarded. So some advise to men... Once the children are grown.. why not go for some adventure with your spouse... bring back the inner child... go on dates that you think you are too old for but hey they might be fun and put some spice in your marriage. All we as women want is to be wanted, desired... we want to have some adventure and spice. Take your wife to the adult store, make out in the movie theater... I believe then you will find that the woman doesn't need or want to go out for some new meat... she will want to be with her man...

Anonymous said...

I don't have a "let the bitches leave" view. I evidently screwed up when I married since lots of great women are still married. I just didn't pick well I suppose. But here is what I don't get: on the economic end, I was a great provider; she never had it better economically; on the other end, I know I was a good dad and I really tried to be a good husband. I didn't want to get divorced: The divorce was hard on the kids, I lost everything, and fell behind on taxes in trying to keep the kids where they were. The marriage wasn't perfect but little is: it was a terrific house where the kids had been raised, we had a great beach club and she was no lightweight as an intellect. She was smart. Sex was fine-not explosive but fine after 14 years. But there was the weirdest disconnect: after making it possible for her to stay home and not work, I was told that I worked too much. But no one ever said "let's get a smaller house," "we don't need to go to Europe this year," or "the kids don't need to go to college." She had an affair with a total sleazeball with no kids who drank a lot and somehow this is what she wanted: freedom from the kids, from responsibility from assets, and I guess from me. Not from the money, of course, since i had to pay thru the nose and buy her "half" of my law practice from her. Now, as I pay for all the kids college, medical etc costs, she is a no show. Her new H is out of work: she is barely keeping her head above water. And yes she is "unhappy" again. I cannot remarry because I cannot afford a second divorce. I mean, what did I do wrong? What explains this sudden attack of adolesent "its all about me?" Why am I the one that nearly went broke?

GM Roper said...

Uhhh, that should read "wandering" not "wondering." Good thing I'm a therapist and not an English teacher.

globalman100 said...

Anon,
"I mean, what did I do wrong? What explains this sudden attack of adolesent "its all about me?" Why am I the one that nearly went broke?"

The sad fact is that in all likelyhood you did nothing wrong. Just like me, just like millions of other men. The family law system in place is the west is bolshevick family law and it is designed to destroy the family as Lenin proudly proclaimed he wanted to.

My proceeds of 25 years of labour was MINUS EUR40K or so. LOL!! And you know what? Western women LAUGH at me for this being the case. And then they wonder why I don't like them? Well? How would women like it if I LAUGHED at women who were raped? And divorce is much harder on a man than rape is on a woman. The suicide rates of men being divorced are all the evidence you need for that.

globalman100 said...

Irmik,
"Now here is a woman's view of this."
Who cares what the womans view is of this? I certainly don't. And as you point out. You are a liar and an adulteress. Why would any man bother listening to your cow-shit?

Men like me listened to you these last 40 years. You know what we realised when we really listened? You are cowards, liars and hypocrites in the main and men like me want nothing to do with you western women. Good luck with your cats and vibrators. I date eastern european women. They are lovely. They are not complete bitches like you western women.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

It's fairly clear from the comments, and it should not be news, that the divorce system has been rigged against men. Perhaps not always, but far too often.

I consider, unless proven wrong, that this has been affected by feminism.

I doubt that anyone would disagree that men can be more affectionate and loving, but I am also struck by the fact that women can also be very cold and calculating about their options.

No one is against a woman's weighing her options, but the coldness of these calculations also tells me that these women are not bringing a lot of love and affection into their marriages, and perhaps, as they complain about their husbands, they are getting back what they are putting in.

I am happy that one woman chose to write in about what men can do to remedy a marriage that has gone cold. And I believe that men can and should make an effort in that direction.

If it doesn't work, at least he will have tried.

Yet, I also believe that women are fundamentally in control of the game of romance. Women are masters of the erotic. Some of you might disagree, and some women especially, but a woman who knows what she is doing can retain a man's erotic interest and affection.

I am not saying that it is easy to do it over time, but as much as I would encourage men to take steps in this direction, I hesitate to blame men for not being masters of a domain that is not, in my view, their home field.

As some of you have pointed out, and the point deserves emphasis, marriage is about vows, and vows should mean something. They should anchor one's moral being. They should be respected and taken with the greatest seriousness. Apparently, in far too many cases, this is not happening. It seems that the culture, and the way certain anti-marriage values have been institutionalized in the legal system, has encouraged women in particular to see their vows as some kind of contingency. It also tells them that they will receive some kind of immediate reward if they break their vows.

Of course, in the long run, many of the women who choose that course discover that they have entered into a devil's bargain. Sometimes the best we can do is simply to point this out.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "GM1000: the thumb-of-the-State-on-the-scales approach does not explain why the woman who is happy with her husband at 30 decides to divorce him at 50, the legal environment being basically the same."

Even assuming that the legal environment hasn't gotten progressively more lop-sided against men (there is some evidence that it has), there s also the fact that at 30 the typical man has an increasing income potential, while at 50, that income potential will tend to be at it's maximum.

Also, when a man is thirty and planning to be married forever, he tends to put more of his earnings into a retirement plan. At that age, it typically won't be a very large amount of accumulated wealth, but, by age 50, twenty years of more aggressive investing is likely to have netted a healthy "nest-egg". Conversely, if a man divorced @ 30, with his ex being guaranteed half of his retirement (even if only when he does retire), a man is far less likely to put more into that account, and will likely invest his money in new accounts that his ex has no right to.

Buy low, sell high. Er..., marry low, divorce high.

Be sure and check out the likes of Suzie Orman for more female-advantaging divorce strategies.

irmik said...

to Anon: I don't think you did anything wrong maybe not compatible with your ex. I do think that it is unfair that the man has to pay out of the nose when the wife does the cheating etc etc... I wish I would have had the husband that was responsible and take on the bills... I did that in my marriage and when I left I paid all the bills to $0. There are good women and good men out there. I believe what makes some marriages fail is the lack of communication and compromise. the old saying comes to mind: "You don't know what you have until you lose it". I am an independent woman and proud of it. But I know that I am who I am today because of 2 failed marriages. I have no need for a younger man or to have a man to pay for it all. Marriage is a contract of I give and you give then we can share. I believe when you are younger you fail to discuss the important things of what one wants in a marriage. Me I would get bored by staying at home not working so it would be one of the topics to discuss, vacation in Europe that would be great but vacation as a couple at a spot where I can enjoy my spouse would be much better. See little things will please me... but I know I am just one of many women. What I can tell you from discussions with my female friends is: We want a challenge in our man, we want to be needed, and we want to need. We want spice adventure but also security. But all this should be accomplished by working together and the only way you melt as a team is thru open communication in the beginning then communciation throughout the relationship... just my thought on this.

globalman100 said...

Stuart,
"It's fairly clear from the comments, and it should not be news, that the divorce system has been rigged against men. Perhaps not always, but far too often. I consider, unless proven wrong, that this has been affected by feminism."
If you care to you can go here:
http://freemanireland.ning.com/forum/topics/globalmans-documents-to
and you can read the transcript from my so called 'court hearing' in the Australian Federal Magistrates Court on 2009-11-26. You can see the criminal scumbag calling himself David Dunkley, also acting as an Australian Federal Magistrate say "Talk of inalienable rights is a nonsense". He mens my right to life, property, liberty.

In that transcript is the PROOF that I correctly reclaimed my corporate strawman and also that the magistrates consider themselves above the law. You will also notice that he refuses to answer the question as to whether he is operating under oath TWICE. The Federal Police Officers in the court were truely gobsmacked he refused to answer that question.

I also took video evidence of this hearing proving by they way that the transcript that was first issues contained a bunch of lies. I pointed out to them that they have a nice little scam going claiming no recording devices were allowed while then issuing bogus and fraudulent transcripts. LOL!!

The family courts are designed to destroy families as is family law. This is in response to the 1974 directive from the UN to all member states to 'ensure equality of participation in the public work place' which was issused from the first World Population Council for the UN in Bucharest in 1974. Of course Romania being behind the Iron Curtain at that time making sure there were no pesky reporters around the meeting.

The 'laws' we have in place are intended to reduce the birth rates. If you look at Germany you will see they have been spectactuarly successful. Maybe you want to watch these videos as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkVWz0uXiEA Part 1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F36gT5EpDLI Part 2 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4rj6JjnIdU Part 3 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNfr5UE195g Part 4 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9BB30J5Eao Part 5 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLbuWiUABVA Part 6 of 6.

I am amazed how men are so willingly ignorant of what is really going on.

Teresa said...

I remember being around the age of 11 or 12 (late 1960's) when the big push was on for women to "find themselves". This was manifested in television shows, movies, sit-ins or love-ins covered by the news media, books, you name it. I distinctly remember watching some show with a woman blathering on about "I have to leave so I can "find myself"" At which point I shouted at the television - "Look in the mirror you idiot!" Which did no good of course. It didn't even make me feel better. heh.

Even as a child I knew that "finding oneself" was merely an excuse to do some off the wall thing and make it look like it fit into the norms of the day. Rebellion was presented as the highest form of fun and games. "Finding yourself" was the ultimate rebellion as this meant anything goes.

However, as the words themselves are illogical, it's a phrase that still invokes a sense of severe irritation when I hear it. And now I find it's coming back into vogue. Just dandy.

Oh yeah... I've been married for over 30 years, raised 2 terrific kids, and I have zero interest in dumping my husband to go "find myself". I guess progressives would call me a cliche. So be it. I'm happy and I know who I am. This makes life so much easier.

irmik said...

globalman100: I see you are bitter towards woman and yes I used to be a cheater... learned from it and haven't cheated in any relationship for 17 years. BTW I am a European woman.

And yes Stuart.. we as women need to keep the romance going and we as women should. I learned alot from my male friends and in talking to them. I have made my mistakes and learned. I listen to the man I am with and even tho sometimes I do not feel like doing what he asks I do it because I do want to please him. It is a two way street. And yes some women calculate in relationships just as some men do.
I know of some women who will hold SEX over their man's head... "you will only get it if you do" that is stupid in my eyes but hey I am not them. Both genders need to learn from eachother. I learn everyday when I talk to my married male friend who has some issues with his wife as you ANON he does everything in the relationship all his wife has to do is be there...and she accuses him of not being there for her.

globalman100 said...

Gents,
Irmik said: "There are good women......out there."
I rebutt this for all western women. There are so few 'good women' as to be none.

Why? One of the most important duties a member of a community has is to remedy situations where crimes are committed. When a community member commits a crime it is up to the other members of the community to punish that member and to remedy the situation for the victim as nearly as is possible. Men do this ALL THE TIME for women. For the last 5,000 years AT LEAST men have sought to 'protect' women from 'bad men' via law systems.

My ex committed many crimes. Perjury, kidnapping, extortion and theft being the ones that I have irrefutable evidence for. I have asked THOUSANDS of women to serve on juries to try women who commit crimes against men. Guess what? I have 6 in nearly a year.

On the Irish Free Man group, were I did a 2 hour interview and have since hammered the women into submission for their lack of honour and integrity, I asked the 200+ women to form a jury to try my ex for the crimes she committed. I got three in 5.5 months. One of those three reported she was abused at the idea that trying my ex for her crimes seemed like the fair thing to do.

I rebutt there are 'good women out there'. I take the position that any woman who stands by and allows 100M men to be abused, to have 10s of millions of men have crimes committed against them and allow those crimes to go unpunished can in no way claim the title 'good'. Women know EXACTLY what is going on and they LIKE it. The 'Not all women are like that' cow-shit is exactly that. Cow-shit. All western women are EXACTLY like that and they know it. It's about time men knew it too.

I am establishing the rule of law in Australia and Ireland and a part of that is common law courts and 12 man juries to settle matters of law. Many other men are trying to do the same in the US. Try these links.
http://www.restoreamericaplan.net/
http://guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/front-page.html

I am going to form courts and give all those men who have had crimes committed against them by women a path to justice. If we don't we will get more of this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304432/Father-strangled-wife-fled-leaving-children-house-told-baby-his.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304314/Father-kills-son-5-splitting-partner.html

Women are too stupid to realise that if they keep committing crimes against men that we will end up killing them and the children. Only men, it seems, are intelligent enough to know that endlessly committing crimes against men is not a good idea. It is now up to men to form courts and juries outside the corrupt 'law society' to give men a path to justice. Without this? Look forward to more dead women and children killed by men who have been pushed too far too often.

Anonymous said...

This is tremendous. I'm looking forward to 5 years of stories like this, then in 10 years, 5 years of stories about how desparate 60-something women are casting around desperately to find someone to spend The Depends Years with them, the men in their lives having abandoned them - THOSE BASTARDS!

Personally, if my wife felt this way - or comes to feel this way - I'd be happy to be rid of her. I can accept change but there's no point in living with someone who is your enemy.

irmik said...

slwerner: You have a valid point. But here is a scenerio that I faced.

left my husband only took my clothes with me even tho I bought everything in the household, put clothes on his back paid all the bills and gave him spending money (he quit his well paying job when he realized that my income would pay the bills) now wanted to file divorce... and am faced with maybe having to pay for alimony... he is the one that cheated on my had a baby with another younger woman and didn't work. But when I left him he became homeless. So can one of you men explain to me where this is fair?
There are always two sides to everything.

globalman100 said...

Irmik said: "I see you are bitter towards woman"
Shove it where the sun does not shine Irmik.
I don't listen to women like you any more. You all run the same cow-shit. You are 'bitter', you were 'hurt', you have a small penis and you can't get laid. I LOVE eastern european women. I don't like people who collude to commit crimes. I don't like people who promote hatred based on gender. I don't like liars and hypocrites. I don't like cowards. And those are qualities you western women have IN ABUNDANCE. I don't like men who are cowards, liars, hypocrites, criminals and general scumbags either. But that is only a small percentage of men. It is pretty much ALL WESTERN WOMEN. So few are any different as to not count. Your eastern european sisters make you western women look like the crap people you are.
You can go tell all your sistas men like me are totally done with crap women like you.

After you have punished ALL the women who committed crimes like perjury, kidnapping and extortion in the family courts? Then get back to me. You know how many women are helping me do that? NONE. Count them. NONE. NADA. ZILCH. THAT is how crap you women are and I am quite prepared to say so.

irmik said...

Gent100: i do not disagree with you that there is alot of crime done to men by women. How can I? You read it in the paper see it on the news. I also believe that the law should go both ways.

I have compassion for a man that has to pay half of his worth to the ex who has never contributed to it and gets half just because there was a marriage certificate. Again I have male friends and I do listen.
Example: One of my friends is retired military, been married 22 years the marriage went sour.She could get a better job, could go without the big house but... she doesn't want to because she feels she earned to have it all.

My thinking on this is: when you get divorced you should only receive what you put into the marriage. IE:we both worked and bought the house together paid equal then both are entitled to half. if the man is the only bread winner and the kids are grown then the woman should have to get up and get her own... If the kids are still young then both parents should be equally responsible. But this is drawing it all out of the subject. Some men and women want something new and exciting I guess because the marriage became routine or the physical attraction left or who knows.
In the end it takes work to stay in a marriage/relationship and as long both parties are not willing to work on it together the marriage/relationship will fail.
Some men want younger women just as some women want younger men...

slwerner said...

irmik - "So can one of you men explain to me where this is fair?"

Just because the system is rigged against men (who assume traditional roles) certainly doesn't mean that women who take on the "primary bread-winner" role will some how be immune for the same fate. Sorry you got burned; but, a great many men would have little more to say to you than, "Welcome to the club".

"...he is the one that cheated..."

Of course, you also let on that you cheated as well. Would you have us judge him more harshly than we would judge you?

Welcome to the wonderful world of "No Fault Divorce"! Doesn't matter who cheated on who - just who makes more money (that part swings both ways, as you are now aware); and who has the female genitals when there is an issue of child custody/support.

Check out the plight of thousands of men who discover that the children aren't even theirs, but still have to pay child support to their cheating ex's for someone else's kids. Just be glad you're immune from that injustice.

globalman100 said...

irmik:
"I have compassion for a man that has to pay half of his worth to the ex who has never contributed to it and gets half just because there was a marriage certificate."
Take your cow-shit 'compassion' and shove it where the sun does not shine. The criminal scumbag known as Australian Federal Magistrate David Dunkley fraudulents sent 95% of my assets to my ex. This is a crime. How many women are supporting me remedying this crime? None. Like I said. You western women are crap. You will not address crimes committed where the woman benefits. I have more than enough evidence of this.

So. Take your compassion and shove it. Men look for justice. Not your cow-shit compassion.

PS. The reason we got divorced was my wife claimed the 'right' to lie to me and to steal from the family. This was not acceptable to me so we agreed to divorce amicably. Only later did she make it hostile. And ALL the women around her supported her. It was the women AROUND her that tipped me off just how much women hate men now.

globalman100 said...

irmik:
"My thinking on this is:"
Sweetie. Women are incapable of 'thinking' as men understand it. They just pull opinions out of their arse and call it 'thinking'.

Here's something. How about women are treated as 'equal before the law to men'? How many women support that notion? NONE. ABSOLUTELY NONE. I've yet to find ONE WOMAN who truely wants to hold ALL WOMEN 'equal before the law to men'.

If you don't like my 'abrasive attitude'? Shove that too. We've listened to your cow-shit lies for 40 years and your abrasive attitude toward us. Now you women are getting a bit back you don't like it. This is what you woman are like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9fTasi-N6o

How many women are willing to waive their privilege of not being 'hit back' by a man? None that I have found so far. You western women are cowards, liars and hypocrites. Men like me are not interested in what you 'think'. We are interested in whether you will form juries and hold women accountable before the law on an equal basis with men and punish women who have committed crimes on an equal basis to men. And so far your answer has been a resounding 'NO'. This is one of MANY reasons I have no respect for western women.

knightblaster said...

left my husband only took my clothes with me even tho I bought everything in the household, put clothes on his back paid all the bills and gave him spending money (he quit his well paying job when he realized that my income would pay the bills) now wanted to file divorce... and am faced with maybe having to pay for alimony... he is the one that cheated on my had a baby with another younger woman and didn't work. But when I left him he became homeless. So can one of you men explain to me where this is fair?

I have seen a case like yours as well. In general, where there are no children, the law favors the lesser earning spouse in a divorce. That is most commonly the woman, but not always so, and there are some cases like yours where the woman is the payor spouse. This is because of no-fault divorce laws, which were instituted to benefit women, really, but the impact of them is that the financial issues are determined on divorce regardless of behavior during the marriage -- meaning that your lazy, faithless ex is entitled to your money after the divorce anyway. It's a more or less completely insane system, but there you go.

Where children are involved, the practice of the courts in most places overwhelmingly favors the woman due to the overwhelming award of mother custody, which usually has cascading effects like the mother getting the marital residence, and of course child support payments, which are calculated as an income tax is. The cases where I have seen this deviated from are cases where for some reason the mother is either clearly unfit (very rare) or where the mother wants shared physical custody and, because she earns more than her ex-h, ends up actually paying the ex-h. But the latter case requires the woman to approve of the joint physical -- courts won't award it unless the parents are in agreement, and that means, when taken together with the "default setting" of mother custody, that the mother has a veto right over joint physical. As a result, almost all of the joint physical couples I have known involve a high-powered career woman who wanted to split the time so that she had more time for her career; the garden variety situation generally works out better for the woman if she gets custody and child support payments.

So, yes, women can get screwed in divorce court, too, if they are the higher earning spouse and there are no kids. But if there are children, it's usually the woman who is more or less in complete control of how the divorce plays out financially -- at least in the US.

irmik said...

slwerner:I was married twice second husband cheated.

irmik said...

novaseeker: Thank you. for your feedback.

slwerner said...

irmik - "I was married twice second husband cheated."

Again, makes no difference - "No-Fault" means just that.

Also again, you can take solace in the fact that even though there was cheating involved, resulting in a child who is not biologically yours, since you are a woman, you will not have to worry that the Anti-family courts would order you to pay child-support for that child.

I am firmly against all injustices. Thus, I do feel for you as the wronged individual. But, it's as Novaseeker points out, the system is actually rigged against whomever is making more money - especially if the other (misbehaving) spouse make no money.

BTW, @ Novaseeker:

Good to see you posting again. I've always admired your ability to clearly and rationally get points across. Any chance you'll start blogging again. I, for one, always enjoyed and appreciated your work

irmik said...

slwerner: thank you and I just wanted to point out that the system is screwy in some ways no matter what gender.

Back to the subject "the Day of the Cougar"

For the longest I didn't know what it meant, then a couple of years ago I met this young man who always said age is nothing but a number "bull crab" he said oh my I am with a real cougar... so I sat there and asked what does that mean and he explained it. Weird, again it was fun but only for the one part and even then the age difference and experiences are way too different.
So... my question is ... what is a Man called that goes for much younger women?
and why is a man looking for a younger woman?

Just curious.

slwerner said...

irmik - "So... my question is ... what is a Man called that goes for much younger women?"

A Man.

"and why is a man looking for a younger woman?"

Simple answer: It's a matter of biology and millions of years of evolution. When it comes to women, men have become hard-wired to seek younger women as they are the ones who are fertile - thus, for a man (throughout pre-history) his efforts in pursuing a younger women could pay-off in his genes being propagated. Guy's who put their efforts into older women were less likely to have their genes passed on.

M. Simon said...

Coldness of calculations?

My mate told me that given the choice between 3 men (I knew the other two) she chose me because of my earning potential. The other two had personal styles and physiques similar to mine.

We are still going strong 35 years later. 4 kids. One is currently teaching English Lang. and American culture at a Russian University. One is an excellent drummer who is also doing well in his electrical engineering studies. One is studying to be a chemical engineer. One is a poet. Not bad.

How did I head off the mid-life crisis. One - I flirt a LOT this lets her know other women find me attractive - still. Second I always told her: go and try other men if you want. You will NEVER find one better for you than me.

She never tried. But just the thought has made her think about her options. And she has kept true to our most important vow - no secrets. If she is unhappy she tells me and I work to do something about it: change her mind or mine. And I do the same with her.

As a friend of mind told me once: the most attractive thing about a man for a woman is that other women want him. The hotter the better. Keep that in mind. Stay attractive. If not in body then in mind. Best if you can do both.

Anonymous said...

As a man near 60, I can say that the pool of available women in their 50s has pretty much dried up . . . unless you're a male in your 20s or 30s.

RebeccaH said...

I went through all that 70s feminism stuff, even at the same time trying to maintain a marriage and a family. Not that I didn't learn anything from it, but I wasn't willing to go as far as what I was being urged to go by younger, usually divorced, and sometimes basically fatherless, women who had conceived of a world in which men had no real part.

The movement and I parted ways because I knew that I loved and respected my father, my husband, my son, and eventually, my grandsons, and the same for my mother, sister, daughter, and granddaughters, who, according to feminist theory, needed all my militant attention to offset their oppression and lack of opportunity (which conditions would surprise all of them).

My 42-year marriage hasn't been perfect. No marriage could possibly be. But it is my marriage, and encompasses my family (yes, he is my family). I believe now, after all these years, that "feminism" as it's understood today, misses the real point.

Anonymous said...

When the term cougar came around, it was used to refer to the phenomenon of women in their early to mid 30's pursuing men in their early 20's. Both parties wanted a non-committal fling and the women got an ego boost by bedding a young stud. But the chances of this happening for a woman over 40 seem to be extremely slim. None of the men I know have engaged in this sort of thing, or at least admit to it, and I don't know any women that age who've been with a significantly younger man. And I have a relatively large circle of friend and acquaintances, many of whom are single. Which makes me suspect that Cougarism is largely a fiction promoted by women's media.

Not to be cruel, but how realistic is it to expect that a middle aged woman, having had children, and after many years of being settled, and likely aging in the way that American women do, is going to be attractive to young men? It's delusional.

COUGAR said...

A cougar (woman) or a silver fox (man) is a person who exclusively and actively "prowls" for much younger flesh - out of their age range.

Age range is 10 years up or down - a generation.

I've always dated men younger than me and I've married a man younger than me but I'm not a cougar.

Why? All of the men I've dated and married have been within my same generation (within 10 years younger) and I have NEVER actively "prowled" for much younger flesh.

Nor was I closed to dating men my own age or older - it just never worked out like that. (not that I'm complaining - wink).

A man or woman who organically dates with in 10 years younger cannot be considered a silver fox or cougar.

Until or unless a person in-organically prowls for much younger flesh, they are not qualified to wear those crowns.

Susan Walsh said...

Great post, Stuart! I confess I felt shame when I read, in the original article, that one woman walked away from her marriage because she found her husband "reclusive and dull." Before divorcing, she lived on her own for nine years, during which time she sang professionally and "became an excellent ballroom dancer!" The narcissism of this behavior is astounding. Back in March, Novaseeker wrote a post at The Spearhead about a woman who stayed married but got her own apartment, a nice little nest where she could self-actualize. All on her husband's tab, of course:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/15/staying-married-but-moving-out/

As it happens, I just read Andrew Hacker's book Mismatch. He says that men regularly report higher levels of satisfaction in their marriages than women do. But why? According to Hacker, women expect to grow and learn more about themselves as a result of being married. They view marriage as something that will broaden their horizons. In contrast, according to Hacker, men want companionship, and a comfortable nest. They have a much shorter list of requirements for marriage than women do.
Hacker identifies several specific reasons why women leave their marriages:
1. Selfishness. Our culture rewards and promotes egoistic indulgence.
2. Lack of egalitarianism. Many women refuse to be subordinate in any way to their husbands, but Hacker notes that many men are having difficulty relinquishing this traditional role.
3. Women prefer communication more than men do, and wish to engage in intellectual discourse with their husbands. Men are not as interested in this, especially after a tiring work day.

In summary, Hacker says:
"All too many men are unwilling or unable to become the kinds of husbands modern women want. And that, in turn, goes a long way toward explaining why wives end up filing most of the petitions for divorce.”

Of course, the question is: do modern women want too much? I think they do. Never before have women even been able to contemplate marrying, having a family, having a career, and becoming an excellent ballroom dancer.

Hacker sums it up quite well:
“The force propelling our times have eroded the dispositions that once enabled the sexes to live amiably together. The most notable changes has been among women, whose hiehgtened aspirations have no parallel in human times. They now spend a longer span on their own, finding out who they are and how to navigate their lives, which in turn creates a confidence they bring to their relationships. If many men say they support these outlooks and attributes, the reality is that most still hope for a measure of deferences that women are no longer willing to give.”

I wish I felt more optimistic about the state of marriage, but I fear we'll see many more stories like this in the next few years.

COUGAR said...

Interesting that women seek "growth" through marriage while men seek "companionship and a nest". That goes against previously conceived ideas about the sexes that men want to explore and expand while women want companionship and a nest.

I don't think it's a bad sign that women are seeking self-actualization through marriage. In all the world's major religions the spouse is viewed as a spiritual partner and a support on the path toward enlightenment.

Ironically enough, most of the same religions also have a meme of "enlightenment via family renunciation" and thus we see from Christianity to Hinduism to Buddhism to Jainism, several orders of renunciates.

Another cultural meme is that women are more growth oriented than men, women are more open to change, etc.

What do you do when you feel "stuck" and want to grow but your partner is happy as a pea in a pod being stuck?

A couple having a second place where one or both of them can "escape" to individually when they need their quiet-go-within time is a great idea.

There's no reason why a couple, especially an older one, has to be joined at the hip.

In fact, in Hinduism this very stage of a marriage is called "vanaprastha" (forest dwelling) and it is indeed recommended to spend time separately.

Americans may be doing it for the wrong reason (sexual liberation instead of spiritual liberation), but I think the very fact that they are doing it validates the system.

knightblaster said...

I think that the main difference (in my own personal experience as well as from what other married friends have expressed to me) is that men often have fewer expectations or "musts" from their marriage in order to feel "satisfied about it than women do -- thus we get the situation where men are happier about their marriages than women are, or where you find a couple where the wife is (typically) less satisfied than the husband is.

Men are ... simpler when it comes to what we "need" to feel a sense of well-being than women are, I think. Especially from relationships. I don't expect that men are going to fundamentally change, and become fabulous emotional communicators, crave self-actualization and personal growth via their relationships with their wives and so on -- I think these different expectations are not new, really. The difference today is that women have the power (economically and legally) to pursue their own desires if they wish. In other words, I'd be surprised if previous generations of wives also didn't feel these kinds of "is this all there is?" kinds of feelings in their marriages, too, but they couldn't do anything about it. As I say, I don't think men as a group are going to change all that much in this area, and so what I'd expect is that it's going to gradually become more normal for us to view marriage as something that people do from, say, their mid 30s to late 40s/50 and then go single again once the kids are done with -- so a life pattern characterized by singlehood in youth, followed by marriage and children in early and mid-middle age, followed by singlehood again in late middle age and older. With marriage being reduced to its core of supporting the raising of children, and people freed up at other times in life to pursue their self-actualization pilgrimages in a more free way (which allows them to, well, pursue them more effectively).

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: COUGAR
RE: Say WHAT!?!?!?!!!????

Ironically enough, most of the same religions also have a meme of "enlightenment via family renunciation" and thus we see from Christianity to Hinduism to Buddhism to Jainism, several orders of renunciates. -- COUGAR

Please explain how Christianity promotes "family renunciation". A search on the term brings up a LOT of Hinduism and Buddhism, but damned little Christianity.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[And the two shall be one flesh.]

Anonymous said...

I'd expect is that it's going to gradually become more normal for us to view marriage as something that people do from, say, their mid 30s to late 40s/50 and then go single again once the kids are done with

hmm..

Those are typically the years when a man is making the most money, developing a career, and can have lots of opportunities to be with a variety of women.

It seems like a sucker's bet to me.

The better strategy for men would be to stay single and build a life until 40 something or 50ish, marry a younger woman to have kids with, and simply anticipate that she may leave you when you're old. You'll have acquired your assets before you met her, and so will have enough to live comfortably until you die. You can hire sexy nurses!!

Actually that's what a lot of wealthy men do, maybe they're onto something.

sestamibi said...

"The eminent gastroenterologist has left Mrs. Otey for his twenty-four-year-old receptionist. This was back in Rosemont, Pennsylvania, a high-toned town, apparently outside Philadelphia, when Jill was fifteen. Doing her best to cope, Mrs. Otey had become intoxicated by a faddish notion spread by books, women's magazines, and television shows: namely, that such a divorce was not a defeat but a rebirth, an exit ramp from the Rut, a chance for a new and wonderful life. Suddenly, with Jill in tow, Mrs. Otey had moved to California, to the East Bay, to the brown hills of Walnut Creek, fifteen miles east of Oakland. Reborn!--free of the ogre Arnold Otey!--until one day she woke up to the fact that she was now an obscure woman in her forties, in a strange place, on her own, hunched over a word processor in the circulation department of The Harvester, a Contra Costa County shopping newspaper. At this point she began to work into any and all conversations the information that she was, in fact, the former wife of the eminent Philadelphia Main Line gastroenterologist Dr. Arnold Otey. . . "

Tom Wolfe, "A Man In Full" (2001) p. 160

The only difference here is that her husband dumped her (wise man). Today she would do the dumping and be well-rewarded for it.

COUGAR said...

Chuck, Jesus was a renunciate. He encouraged his followers to detach. Indeed, they roamed here and there like fakirs and dervishes, creating their own "alternative communities".

Priests, nuns, monks in Catholicism.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: COUGAR, et al.
RE: Yeah....

Jesus was a renunciate. He encouraged his followers to detach. Indeed, they roamed here and there like fakirs and dervishes, creating their own "alternative communities". -- COUGAR

Christ also said there was a better life for Christians on the 'other side of the pale'. But that doesn't mean we were supposed to commit suicide in order to get there sooner.

Indeed, Christ's comments on marriage are that in the life beyond the pale there is no marriage. But in this world there is.

There are some that are not to marry, but it is not their decision. Rather, as He speaks to the matter in Matthew, it is "given to them". All others....three guesses, first two don't count.

RE: The Roman Catholics

Priests, nuns, monks in Catholicism. -- COUGAR

And look what it got them. Or have you missed all the pedophilia and homosexuality inside their religious organizations?

Hope that helps....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?]

globalman100 said...

Anon,
"is going to be attractive to young men? It's delusional."
In '86 I had a flatmate who was a new zealander and he had a kiwi mate who used to come around. My flatmate used to say 'you can always get laid if you lower your standards far enough' and his mate used to say 'I only have sex with women over 40 because they are so desperate they will put out right away'.

These guys were quite happy getting what they got. But uugghhh, some of the women that I had to eat breakfast with!! LOL!! Any there was, of course, a new one every week or two. They would have sex with any woman that said yes. It really was pretty gross.

The best one I ever saw was this chick who was AT LEAST 100kgs who had army boots that were painted white. I kid you not. White painted army boots. I just shook my head when I saw that.

globalman100 said...

Susan,
"3. Women prefer communication more than men do, and wish to engage in intellectual discourse with their husbands. Men are not as interested in this, especially after a tiring work day."

This is the kind of rubbish that makes me puke. Men spouting rubbish like this ough to be taken out and shot. Really. What man-hating drivel. Women do NOT 'prefer communication' more than men do. Women prefer TALKING more than men do. TALKING is NOT communicating. It's just talking. My ex used to want to TALK all the freaking time. I called them 'the sky is blue, the grass is green, the kids got fed today' conversations. One time I was on assignment in the US and the phone bill was bigger than the mortgage. This when she had access to email to me. Women TALK, TALK, TALK, TALK and then TALK some more....only they aren't saying anything. I said to my ex, if you are such a good communicator then how come you have to talk to your mother for 2 hours a week every bloody week, and have done so for 20 years and STILL have not got the message across. She claimed 'I love my mother more than you love your mother because I talk to my mother more'. What a crock of shit THAT is! LOL!! Men don't talk as much because we say what needs to be said and then we SHUT UP.

The #1 complaint I hear of men in marriage, even more than 'lack of sex' is 'the wife simply does not know how to shut up'. Men joke that when we get 'fem-robots' it will be great because they will have an off button.

"All too many men are unwilling or unable to become the kinds of husbands modern women want."
This is more man-hating drivel for which Andrew should be shot. Men like men bent over BACKWARDS to 'be the husbands our wives wanted'. Women HATE men who try and appease them. Beta-males. They HATE them with a passion. And by the way? When was the last time a women said:

"All too many women are unwilling to become the kinds of wives modern men want?" Never.

I counselled MANY couples in their marriages and relationships. I also went to MANY marriage counsellors and ministers for my own marriage. I did everything that was suggested of me. My wife? Zippo...apparently men are expected to 'love women as they are' even if that includes lying and stealing, while, men are supposed to 'change to be the man the woman wants'. Cow-shit Susan.

Here is what I counselled hundreds of couples with.
"Ask you husband/wife what it is that you can do for them that would have them be happy and then do it if you can." Note 'CAN' as in able to not 'will' as in 'wish to'. A husband AND a wife are obliged to do what they CAN for their husband/wife to make their life better.

Interestingly. Of the 100+ couples I said this to? ALL of the men took it on board. I have had men married 25+ years cry on my shoulder for sharing that sentence with them. Only about 10% of the women would take that on board. I was confused about this at the time. I no longer am. Women are selfish and greedy and they don't want to make their husbands happy in the main.

globalman100 said...

Anon,
"The better strategy for men would be to stay single and build a life until 40 something or 50ish"
Actually, an even BETTER strategy is to have children by surrogate like Ronaldo just did. Ronaldo has, in only fell swoop, legitimised surrogacy to tens of millions of young men called 'soccer fans'. With the cost of a surrogacy from your own sperm at around USD20,000 that makes my divorce costing EUR300K look cheap. Not to mention the EUR2M or so I earned in the 20 years of my time with my wife that was all spent on 'the family'. I would be a millionaire if I did not have 'a beloved family' the children of which couldn't even be bothered to take my 'merry christmas call' just one month after separation. THAT is how much a 'father' means to kids nowadays. Women are brainwashing kids 'fathers are un-necessary'. Well? Lets give these women the husbands and these kids the fathers they deserve. None.

Any man getting married is a complete idiot. Period. There is no need for it at all. Single life beats the hell out of married life. As a man who was with one woman for 23 years and married for 18 of them and raised 4 kids? My opinions about marraige and living single carries some real weight with the young men. Men who have 'been there, done that'? The young men listen to. That's why the wimminz tell lies about me trying to discredit me. All intelligent men read what I write and realise I am honest soon enough.

Susan Walsh said...

@sestamibi
Honestly, we could probably learn pretty much everything we need to know about contemporary American life and human nature just by reading Tom Wolfe. I Am Charlotte Simmons is the book that got me thinking and reading about hookup culture. I think perhaps his greatest gift is his ability to make us laugh even as he describes our self-destruction.

Unknown said...

Globalman, you slander my wife, daughter, mother, sisters, and female friends with your blanket invective against women.

You failed in your relationship. You. You aren't a victim. That's the bottom line. I don't know if it was in the early stages, when you should have opened your eyes and heart to understand the woman you were about to marry, but didn't, because you were besotted with sex or neediness of some other kind. Or perhaps it was after the wedding, when your unrealistic expectations and self-deceit poisoned the waters. But it was you, not her, who screwed up your life. Because it is YOUR life, your responsibility, always.

No man worthy of respect would be so cowardly as to foist his own burdens upon his mate, as you are doing with such bitter abandon. You have channeled all the shame you should properly feel for yourself into an obscene crusade against an entire gender. I'm addressing you in this message, but I'm talking to the rest of the readers, as it is clear there is no way you can allow the simple devastating truth to penetrate your armor of hysterical (and I use that term pointedly) outrage.

You married badly. You divorced badly. You proved unequal to the task of responding to emotional pain with maturity, and thereby reneged on your share of the blame. You have probably allowed your lack of self-reflection to sour other relationships in your life, as well; who could long abide your relentless, pissy whining?

I have a number of friends who had a bad first marriage, assumed the pain of loss, learned from the experience, and married again into a happy and lasting relationship (by which I mean 30, 35, and 28 years so far). I respect these people for their dignity and strength of character, as much as I feel contempt for your lack of same.

My wife and I dated for five years before marrying. We broke up several times, got counseling (some of which was useful and some of which was stupid), drove our friends batty with the back-and-forth, but by the time we walked down the aisle we were each ready to take that journey.

For my part, I will not marry again; I have one wife in this life, and she is it. I married her because I know I am a better person for having committed myself to someone of her worth, and because I grew to love this person who I always had liked. There have been bad periods and hard work in the last fifteen years, but what true achievement does not require that?

You were badly hurt, and deserve empathy for that. But you aren't entitled to be insulated from the truth, which is that the person who hurt you was you, and all your tilting at the windmill of "evil woman" is an elaborate dodge, a shell game you are playing against yourself and any chance you have for future happiness with some lovely (outside and inside) woman.

I suspect you will reply with more vehement invective, and I can't stop you, though I can assure you I won't read it--for the same reason that I would not linger over the scene of a car accident. As I said, this comment is for everyone else reading, as I suspect you are too far gone in your hateful delusion to handle the cognitive dissonance of the truth.

For the rest of you: Globalman is a cautionary tale. Do not follow him into his hermetic cul-de-sac of misdirected hate. Instead, do the courageous thing and carry what wisdom you can derive from past mistakes and misfortune into the stream of life and find someone you can be happy with, and whom you can make happy.

madeleine said...

Thank you, John, for adding some much-needed maturity to this conversation. I wish you the best in the coming storm of villification you will receive from Globalman et al. ;)

globalman100 said...

John,
"Globalman, you slander my wife, daughter, mother, sisters, and female friends with your blanket invective against women."
Man-hating, white knighting, mangina apologists like you disgust me. Slander is only slander if it is not true. If you can find one thing I have said that is not true and you can prove that? Great! But you can't. So indeed, you are the liar here.

Gents,
let's take just one lie of Johns to expose him for what he is. A liar. Men know that among men it only takes ONE lie to destroy his credibility. Well? Here we go. So simple. Shooting fish in a barrel.

"But it was you, not her, who screwed up your life."

My ex was lying to me and stealing money. Not the least of which was she stold EUR18,000 from our company. She was also taking overseas holidays without my knowledge. The bills would just 'turn up'. When challenged on these told me "I can do whatever I like, there's nothing you can do about it, and you have to pay the bills because you are my husband". LOTS of men have wives like this by the way.

John would have you believe that her actions are some how MY responsibility. John would also have you believe her crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion and theft are some how MY responsibility. John would have you believe that the criminal family courts which took 95% of my assets were somehow MY responsibility. John is a liar. It's that simple.

And far from my life being 'screwed up'? Now that I am sans the 'leeches and albatross' of 'wife and children' I am happier than I have ever been. I have more cash at the bank than I have ever had. I will, in all likelyhood, have more than EUR 1M cash at bank inside 5 years. I've never had it so good. I've never been so happy.

I take the position that MEN who do not denounce man-hating, white knighting, mangina apologists like 'John' for the liars they are are also pathetic whimps. It's about time REAL men spoke their mind fearlessly and did not 'cower' under the pathetic assaults by the likes of 'John' who is very likely a woman using a mans name anyway. He writes like a woman.

globalman100 said...

madeleine,
its very typical of women to support liars against honest men on honour and integrity. I point this out to the young men all the time. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point out that a woman will support a man who has proven he is a liar in his 'white-knighting' rather than support an honest man of honour and integrity working to bring the rule of law back into two countries.

Your post just gives men more evidence that women do NOT want the rule of law and do NOT want to be 'equal before the law'. Well done.. ;-)

sestamibi said...

. . . and Madeleine too!

slwerner said...

John - "You failed in your relationship. You. You aren't a victim. That's the bottom line. I don't know if it was in the early stages, when you should have opened your eyes and heart to understand the woman you were about to marry, but didn't, because you were besotted with sex or neediness of some other kind. Or perhaps it was after the wedding, when your unrealistic expectations and self-deceit poisoned the waters. But it was you, not her, who screwed up your life. Because it is YOUR life, your responsibility, always."

While it may be true that an individual is ultimately responsible for his/her own well-being; it seems you have tried to judge Globalman NOT on the available information, but rather from the assumption that he, as "the man" must be at fault. Is that, in fact, yout starting point for analysis?

If so, it would seem that Globalman is right about one thing - your are a "Man-hating, white knighting, mangina apologists". Would you say the same of the ex-husband of femo-narcissist Elizabeth Gilbert (the "hero" of Eat, Pray, Love), that it was he who failed her?

I'm seriously doubting you would suggest the same thing to a woman who's husband cheated on her, stole from her, and abandoned her. No, for her you'd be able to see that it was the husband who was at fault. I'd have to imagine Madeleine would be the same WRT - if something goes wrong in a relationship, it must have been the man's fault.

It always amazes me how hard-core gender-feminists & Social Conservative (Christians) seem to be in lock-step in that misguided view.

globalman100 said...

slwerner,
nice to see there are some other men with a brain around here.

will never divorce said...

My parents divorced when I was 2. Then my dad turned around and did it again, left my stepmom (and the 7 kids) for his sexy 20s girlfriend. Imagine the chaos. We are still dealing with the fallout now some 40 years later.

I always say: I have been through 2 divorces; I won't go through another. (But I tell my husband that I do believe in separation ... just to keep him on his toes when he gets extra annoying.)

As for the Cougars: every day brings closer the day when the feminists all die out. Woo-hoo!

COUGAR said...

Chuck, I don't really get what your gripe is. I simply stated that many, if not most of the world's major religions have as one of their themes of "liberation/enlightenment via family renunciation".

I didn't put a value judgement on it like "good" or "bad" either way. It's just there.

There's nothing I can do to change that. You can take the issue up with those religions if you like. I'm neutral.

slwerner said...

Globalman100 - "nice to see there are some other men with a brain around here."

I'm just trying to be intellectually honest, and I tend to take umbrage with those who seem to reflexively "blame it on men".

It's to be expected of gender-feminists, of course. But, what I find puzzling, and quite troubling, is that so many Social Conservative Christian-types, who label themselves as being anti-feminist think the exact same way as do feminists.

I don't know who this John character is, but he certainly strikes me as one such white-knighting (he rode in to save Susan Walsh, although she a quite competent women who certainly does not need to be "saved" by the likes of him) mangina (looking to score points with women by doing so). I'd gather that he subscribes to teaching of Christian pastoral heretics, like Joel and Kathy Davisson ("The Man Of Her Dreams; The Woman Of His" - for a good scriptural debunking check out TheAssOfBalaam's multi-part video series).

Now, just to be clear, you (Globalman) post a lot of stuff which I disagree with, and your venomous anger can be rather off-putting at times. But, what I do agree with you on is that your ex-wife was the one who must at fault (~95%), and that you, like a great many men, got Royally screwed-over in the Anti-family courts.

As I noted earlier, I feel the same way about irmik in her situation.

Neither gender is inherently "better" than the other - despite what one hears from feminists and SoCon Christians - who both place women on pedestals, without any regard as to actual virtue vs. vice of any given woman.

globalman100 said...

will never divorce said...
"But I tell my husband that I do believe in separation ... just to keep him on his toes when he gets extra annoying."
Gents,
take notice of this comment. WND took a marriage VOW to 'love and honour' her husband, presumably. Perhaps where she comes from 'marriage' is this cow-shit "we will do what, you know, we want, until we don't want to any more". But she admits openly to telling him she would be quite happy to move out of the family home, presumably on his dime, if she felt like it.

This is called 'poking a man with a blunt stick'. And it's not advisable. Men can only tolerate so much provokation. And a man provoked too far is very dangerous. Women claim total denial of responsibility for men who 'hit back' at them. Cow-shit. WND, like so many other women, know full well they are provoking the man and they are quite happy to say so. Shows you just how little women care about men that they happily point out such provocations. I did not say anything like this in my 18 year marriage. Yet....my ex at one time DID relocate the remainder of the family back to our home town against my wishes and clearly stated non-consent.

Women treat men like shit now. And it's about time OTHER men made this clear to the young men.

slwerner said...

will never divorce - "But I tell my husband that I do believe in separation ... just to keep him on his toes when he gets extra annoying."

So, I take it your "marriage" is not based on Love, Honor, nor Respect, but rather (your) control. Nice!

I wonder, what does he say to you when you get "extra annoying"?

globalman100 said...

slwerner,
"your venomous anger can be rather off-putting at times"
Interesting you say that because I am not 'angry' at all. People nowadays are so unused to seeing people express opinion forthrightly, articulately, STRONGLY, with conviction and passion they immediately assume 'anger'. That is their assumption. In this case, your assumption. It is not true. People are now so shit scared of 'offending someone' (by which you can read a woman) they put they say what they have to say like an 'oatmeal argument'. So plain it can barely be tolerated.

Lots of men are sick to death of women saying "You can't talk like that, there are women present." Well? Get lost women if you can't hack how men talk! If women are 'equal' why do men need to 'not talk like that in front of women'? Eh? Answer me that one.

Did you know? In the UK where these empowered and independent women are so plentiful? If two guys at the pub for a beer tell each other a joke that that bar maid HAPPENS to over-hear and happens to 'take offense' to that she can SUE THE BAR OWNER for SEXUAL HARASSMENT! This is how 'powerful' and 'independent' these precious petals are. It's all about destroying 'manliness'. You might try reading the UNs Agenda 21 and noticing there is no place for men in the future according the the UN. ;-) The UN is ordering ALL member states to make it a crime to 'offend a woman'. All a woman has to do to have a man arrested is claim he 'offended her' or 'frightened her'. Check it out. What is 'sexual harassment' all about other than the woman using the fraudulent legal system to abuse men via the state? Why can't I sue all those women who hit on me over the years for sexual harrassment eh?

I was 'angry' for about a month in 07. The reason I was angry was I had worked very hard to give my kids a better chance than my dad gave me. I planned to put both my kids though the best university in Dublin. I looked like being able to do that. I was angry because I knew that a when my divorce was taken 'hostile' that money would go to liars and not to my kids. I worked very hard for 20 years to give my children a chance to not have to work their way through uni and it was taken from them by their own mother. However, once I dis-owned my former children I couldn't care less about what they do for their education. Why should I? They are nothing to me.

How about you read what I write and check your assumption of 'he is angry' at the door. I am not angry.

Unknown said...

Slwerner,

"...it seems you have tried to judge Globalman NOT on the available information, but rather from the assumption that he, as "the man" must be at fault. Is that, in fact, yout starting point for analysis?"

It depends on what you mean by "fault." You have also jumped to a fairly revealing conclusion by ascribing some kind of gender bias to me.

Let me be blunter than I should have to be: each person, whether he or she, is responsible for his or her own happiness. This goes for Globalman AND his ex-wife. Does this mean that his ex deserves happiness built on having abused him (if this is truly the case)? Of course not. But it also does not mean that Globalman can heap onto his ex's shoulders all responsibility for whatever deluded emotional state he is now wallowing in.

How is this not obvious? How do you read Globalman's denunciation of millions of people he has never met, his undisguised glee at plotting harm and humiliation of his ex, and not see a person so hurt he has lost not only his rationality, but his best chance for healing?

And you're defending him in his ultimate weakness. You do him no favors.

I've had more than one relationship that has ended badly, and not just romantic ones. I hardly covered myself with glory in my behavior during those stressful times, because I was hurt and lashing out, making excuses, doing all the childish things that hurt people do. Then, eventually, usually with the help of friends and family who acknowledged my pain and at the same time reminded me that I was an adult and ultimately in charge of my own life, I moved on, having traded a few scars for a stronger and hopefully more forgiving and graceful outlook.

Do you think that Globalman's on that path? Or is he on a different journey, to someplace darker? Are you laughing at the comments he ends with "LOL"? Do you think he really is?

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: COUGAR
RE: Gripe?

Chuck, I don't really get what your gripe is. I simply stated that many, if not most of the world's major religions have as one of their themes of "liberation/enlightenment via family renunciation". -- COUGAR

And in that statement you specified Christianity, as well as Hinduism and Buddhism. To which I replied that you were wrong on the Christianity.

When you tried to defend your argument, I cited scriptural reference and clarification thereof.

It's rather simple....

....if you understand Christianity.

RE: 'Good'? 'Bad'? I'm the guy with the gun. -- Ash, from Army of Darkness

I didn't put a value judgement on it like "good" or "bad" either way. It's just there. -- COUGAR

As for 'good' v. 'bad', your original comment came across as to the 'good' of it.

Hope that helps....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For more information, please read this comment again.....]

slwerner said...

John - "Do you think that Globalman's on that path? Or is he on a different journey, to someplace darker? Are you laughing at the comments he ends with "LOL"? Do you think he really is?"

It's not really my place to say (as it certainly wasn't your's either). I believe me is on an ultimately destructive path. He says he is not longer angry, but it's hard to see it that way from reading his posts.

however, YOU did come charging in, accusing HIM of being the one at fault - even though he has gone into excruciating detail regarding his ex-wifes betrayal. He may not be dealing with it the way you may believe he should; but chastising him as the one who failed in his marriage was a class A A-hole move on your part.

It's the sort of thing I've seen a lot of from Social Conservative women-worshiping Christians; thus, I did assume you were of that ilk.

Yes, I made and assumption of you; but, of course, you did the same of Globalman. Hey, I'll own-up to being the proverbial "blackened" kettle; so I certainly don't need some equally besotted pot trying to shame me (as is the preferred practice of both feminists and SoCon's - one more thing they seem oddly to have in common. hum???).

BTW, are you not, in fact, A Social Conservative Christian who places women on pedestals?

globalman100 said...

Gents,
John said: "his undisguised glee at plotting harm and humiliation of his ex"
Here are the kind of lies mangina apologists like John will tell. This is a lie. Indeed, I was offered by no less than 4 men to arrange an 'accident' for my ex. I forbid this. John is lying as I have never proposed any harm or humiliation of my ex. I am proposing she is held accountable for her actions. Something manginas like John do NOT wish to happen. Pretty much everything else he says is lies as well. 'John' has discredited himself. And men who attempt to 'argue' with someone who has so clearly demonstrated they are willing to lie are stupid and wasting their time. Period.

Unknown said...

Slwerner,

I am socially fairly liberal. I am not Christian, but am not antagonistic to most Christians nor to most of its philosophy. I put women on pedestals if it gives me a decent chance to look up their skirt (only mostly true).

It is one of my guiding principles that it is not being an A-hole to tell someone when they are engaging in A-holery. I meant it when I said that Globalman was insulting the many good women I know and love. I defend their good name by calling him out for slandering them. And you again confuse what I am faulting in him.

I did not accuse him of being the sole or major cause of his breakup (how would I know?). Rather, I accuse him of the kind of moral cowardice or immaturity that could lead him to heap blanket abuse upon half the population of the Western world, instead of looking into his own wounded heart and determining to risk again to find love.

I recently had a good friend and business associate who "suddenly" ended our relationship over money. It hurt like hell, partly because he proved undeserving of the trust I had granted him, but mostly because I was ashamed of not having seen all the warning signs that he was not to be trusted where money was concerned. I took myself to be a good judge of characxter, but was wrong in his case and, what's worse, I had blinded myself to the way he treated others by my vanity in thinking that he would treat me differently because I was special, somehow. Acknowledging, after much resistance, that he could not have hurt me without my active help and complicity made it easier to recover from the experience, because it put me back in control.

I wish the same enlightenment, and assuagement of pain, for Globalman, as I received through the grace of self-reflection and honest, loving friends and family.

As regards me making assumptions about Globalman: I waited for about five or six long, acid-soaked comments from him before making my comment. I "assumed" to the extent that anyone commenting on any blog at any time is "assuming," but you have to admit there was a large body of evidence to draw from by the time I piped up.

globalman100 said...

John,
"But it also does not mean that Globalman can heap onto his ex's shoulders all responsibility for whatever deluded emotional state he is now wallowing in. How is this not obvious?"
It's not obvious because it is not true. Indeed, pretty much everything you have said about me is a lie. I have published plenty with respect to my specific case to educate young men. But you didn't bother reading any of that, or asking for pointers, before making up lies about me.
As far as my opinion of western women? I judge women on the same basis as men, as THEY demanded, as 'equals'. By the standards of men? Western women are cowards, liars and hypocrites in the main. I have established that with the women on the Irish Freeman Site I linked to. I'm not going to bother establishing that anywhere else. That place is enough. If women wish to chance my opinion? They know what they have to do.

globalman100 said...

John,
"I meant it when I said that Globalman was insulting the many good women I know and love."
The truth does not 'insult'. The truth is just the truth. 'Insult' is something you made up. If you can point out to anything I have said that is NOT TRUE then rebutt my error. But to make up cow-shit and throw it out? To make up lies and throw them out? I will point them out. Like 'acid-soaked' comments? Pure cow-shit John. Just cow-shit emotional tantrumry so typical of women.

Here's the truth. There are so few 'good women' left in the west that they are hardly worth counting. The opposite is true of eastern european women by the way. My comments are not about 'women' they are about 'western women'. A small minority that we could all do easily without. They have swallowed the lies of the MEN at the top like cats licking up milk. Now? They are really quite horrible people in the main. Go take a look at http://www.the-spearhead.com/ and notice just how horrible men now know women are. Women like these 'cougars'. They are really quite repuslive to men like me.

slwerner said...

John - "I defend their good name by calling him out for slandering them. "

Oh Plu-leeeze! He did not name one single women you know, so he DID NOT slander them. The tendency of many posters to refer to the general character of a group (in this case, women) is simply way, way too common for you to try to use it as an excuse to go after Globalman. I'm having a hard time "buying" that your intention was to defend your women, but rather just to attack GM for making some supposed misogynistic point.

"I did not accuse him of being the sole or major cause of his breakup (how would I know?)."

Yet, it was YOU who wrote of him:

"You failed in your relationship.

I suppose the same way Elizabeth Gilbert's ex failed in not seeing it coming?

BTW, nice projection of your business mistakes onto GM for his supposed marital mistakes. You should go back and re-ask your self the question you posed above (hint: "how would I know?")

Yes GM can be caustic. He vents about injustices he's experienced and/or seen. Is it really hurting you? It certainly isn't hurting your loved ones, who remain blissfully unaware of his tirades.

Maybe you have a substantive counter-argument to make? Or, do you just wish to shame him into silence?

globalman100 said...

Stuart,
because it lines up so closely with your article. Try reading this:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/08/20/feminists-on-the-defensive-as-eat-pray-love-widely-panned-by-critics/

"but to get offended over Liz leaving her husband is both to miss the point and to apply an unhealthy dose of moralism"

See. If a woman divorces her husband (women bring 75-90% of all divorces depending on who you listen to) and then goes sleeping around all over the place and men 'criticise' the women for this they are applying an 'unhealthy dose of moralism'.

Like one of the commenters. I didn't know being 'moral' was 'unhealthy' and I did know there was a new 'ism' that was bad called 'moralism'. I sure am glad this women taught me that 'moralism', like 'sexism' is such a bad thing eh?

As the article points out. If it was a movie about a man dumping his now not so attractive wife there would be outrage from the wimminz. This movie and the wimminz attitude to their breaking their marriage vows, which can only be called frivilous at best, is all the evidence anyone needs that women are liars and hypocrites in the main. The book sold 9 MILLION copies. A book about breaking wedding vows and betraying your husband now less. Then being a slut and sleeping your way around the world. And it was promoted on Oprah no less.

This endless indoctrination of the wimminz into 'empowerment' such that they destroy their families is having the desired result. Destroyed families. The evidence is all around you.

globalman100 said...

slwerner,
as you point out 'John' contradicts himself within two posts. This is very typical of women on internet sites. Men do this very infrequently as men understand what 'credibility' is about. Most western women have no idea of the value of credibility.

I sincerely doubt John is a man. If he is? He must have been badly educated by women.

Unknown said...

Slwerner,

If you're saying that, when I hear some blowhard at the checkout line or at a bar spouting off about how all women are bitches, I am unjustified in replying to him that he's behaving like an A-hole unless he actually is saying it to my wife, well then we part company on that particular topic.

I don't know who Miss Gilbert is.

If you maintain that the statement, "You failed in your relationship" as applied to Globalman is untrue, given what you can derive from his personality as evidenced by his own comments, then I'm afraid we must not be using words in the same way.

You seem to imply that I should not respond to Globalman's tirades because they don't "really hurt" me. Let's not begin defining what constitutes valid free speech in a blog comments area. That's just annoying. Especially when you follow up that emptiest of all "why don't you just shut up" arguments with a call for me to provide a "substantive counter--argument," whatever the hell that could possibly be within this online bull session format.

Christ, I don't want to fight with you. You sound like a sympathetic person trying to defend a broken man, and that's big-hearted even if I think it's wrong-headed. I call truce if you do.

globalman100 said...

John,
"Globalman was insulting the many good women I know and love. I defend their good name by calling him out for slandering them."
When women say 'all men are bastards' or 'all men are potential rapists' or 'all men are potential wife beaters' do you jump in to defend the 'good name' of the many good men you know? All those men who are NOT bastards, never raped a woman, never beat their wives? No. You don't. Nor does anyone else. Men can be demeanded in ANY WAY a woman likes and they are supposed to 'take it like a man' but a man say even the slightest thing that 'upsets miss princess' and it's 'off with his head'. Have you any idea how many forums I have been banned from because the wimminz got upset. On one forum a woman specifically stated that she placed the life of DOGS above the life of men and I was banned for being a 'woman-hater' calling her out on such a disgusting statement.

It's called 'hypocrisy', 'sexism', 'discrimination'. That manginas like you see a 'need' to jump in and 'defend the good women you know' when you don't do the same for men. That's why men like you disgust me. You are just as bad as the women you are 'defending'. Guess what? They have an ARMY of police, lawyers and politicians to 'defend' them. With literally BILLIONS of dollars of funding to 'defend them'. Dollars stolen from men by unlawful taxes by the way. And let's not even mention male-hating, unlawful, legislation like VAWA in the US and every other country to 'defend' the 'poor victim women' who also pretend to be so 'empowered' and 'independent. Face it 'John', under any level of scrutiny pretty much all western women are liars and hypocrites. About time you noticed too.

slwerner said...

I don't know who Miss Gilbert is.

That’s Ms Gilbert to you, thank you.

Really? You don’t know who she is (I did note that she is the author of “Eat, Pray, Love” in an earlier response to you.

Anyway, much like the women who walk away from their marriages (as discussed in Stuart’s main post above), she found her self bored and unhappy in her marriage (it’s also rumored that her husbands wanted to have children and she did not. I’ve also heard that she was already having an affair, but I have no confirmation of either). So, like so many other women mentioned throughout the discussion, rather than try to talk with her husband and try to work out the details of their relationship, she went behind his back to plan for Her divorce on the most favorable terms for her (it should be noted that there are three undertakings for which women actually do more planning-ahead than do men: weddings, vacations, and divorce).
To that end, she arranged with her publisher for a book-deal advance so that she could take-off and travel; then she blind-sided her husband with a divorce petition (or, going by your previous remarks – “he failed” in that he did not see it coming).
”I call truce if you do.”
I’m fine with a truce.
But, just to try to clear up some of the things we might be misunderstanding about one-another, when you stated: ” Especially when you follow up that emptiest of all "why don't you just shut up" arguments…”; were you thinking I was telling YOU to “just shut up”, or were you referring to your telling GM to “just shut up”?

Nova said...

looking into his own wounded heart and determining to risk again to find love

This is a bit that I don't really agree with, in terms of applying to everyone. Not everyone should get remarried or look for a new relationship, really. It really depends on what you want from life, and what your risk tolerance is based on your prior experiences.

As a divorced man I can quite honestly say that the prospect of ever again subjecting myself to the regime of US family law is not appealing, regardless of the context. That doesn't mean I avoid women or relationships with them, but I certainly am highly skeptical of how family law works, as well as highly skeptical of marriage in general as it applies to *me*.

Different strokes for different folks, it seems to me.

globalman100 said...

Gents,
this is how women/manginas lie.

John: "trying to defend a broken man"

Women/manginas slip in little 'facts' that are lies into their conversations all the time, just like that one. There is nothing 'broken' about me. Indeed, those who know me wish they had my life.

My 'crime', for manginas like 'John', is that I have come out of being with one woman for 23 years, though the abuse of the divorce process, through the abuse of crimes such as perjury, kidnapping, extortion and theft, through losing everything that those manginas see as 'valuable', my kids, my home, all assets, and I am happier than I have ever been. I am healthier than I have been in 15 years. And I am dating hot young women to boot. I LOVE my life now. THAT is the 'crime'. The wimminz and the manginas have to hate on me for being such a happy camper.

One of the things I have taken it upon myself to do is to talk personally with men who have felt suicidal during their divorce. (Brought on by cruel women such as some of these cougars are) I tell them my story. Each and every one of them has been profusely thankful and told me words to the effect 'talking to you and hearing from you gives me hope my life will get better'.

John, how many suicidal men have you helped of late? (Me? 3) How many are you giving work to? (Me 2) How many are you helping with their court cases? (Me. 2)

knightblaster said...

I hate it when I use the wrong email, sorry about that.

To that end, she arranged with her publisher for a book-deal advance so that she could take-off and travel; then she blind-sided her husband with a divorce petition

My understanding is that she also set up offshore bank accounts into which the advance was placed and cleared the marital accounts before she left for her trip. The latter is standard practice (my ex also wiped the marital bank account when we separated), but the former is not.

slwerner said...

Novaseeker - "My understanding is that she also set up offshore bank accounts into which the advance was placed"

Since the negotiations for the receipt of that money preceded the final divorce decree, if she had not hidden the money then her boring provider husband would have been given half of it as a marital asset.

Interestingly, men go to prison for trying to hide marital assets. I guess Ms. Gilbert must have been granted a "p*ssy-pass" for the crime?

globalman100 said...

swelmer,
"I guess Ms. Gilbert must have been granted a "p*ssy-pass" for the crime?"
Women get a pussy pass for murder now. Or are you not aware of the very famous case here in the UK where a woman learned how to make napalm (I kid you not) and she poured it over her husband and set him alight. Note pre-meditation.

This woman was given an award by none less than Cherie Blair, the then prime ministers wife who is ALSO a QC so she should know the meaning of the word 'vigilantee'. She as hailed as 'an example for all women to follow'. And they are. Women are killing their husbands and maiming boyfriends at a rapidly increasing rate here in the UK. One woman recently pulled her ex boyfriends testicle out of his scrotum and placed it in her mouth to 'teach him a lesson for not wanting to be her boyfriend'. Who would want to be the boyfriend of a psycho bitch like that? She claimed "I am not a violent person" in court. I beg to differ.

Then there was the recent case of a woman dragging a guy home on a one night stand and carving her NAME into him with a STANLEY KNIFE because she now 'owned' him. Or how about the one in Australia where a woman set he HUSBANDS penis on fire because she didn't want him having any OTHER women. (Obviously she didn't want sex either). Oh..lets not forget the recent case of a woman in Australia who killed and dismembered her mothers boyfriend and never faced any charges.

NONE of these women were seriously punished. And women wonder why men are pissed off? It's because you claim you can KILL US with impunity. Something we, quite rightly, take exception to.

Unknown said...

Slwerner,

I think that when you make a statement like "Is he really hurting you," what you mean is "Can't you just be quiet?" I apologize if I'm wrong about that, but does the statement not call into question a person's right or justification to speak out in the first place? Which I think of as quite different from disagreeing with me.

Globalman is free to write and believe whatever he wants, and I'm free to observe that his world view, however forcefully stated, is not one of strength but of tragic weakness.

Ms. Gilbert sounds like an unpleasant person. I hope the husband learns as much as he can about how his actions/personality/tendencies/weaknesses contributed to his being blindsided, so that he can guard against it happening again. If he can't or won't look into himself for strength, and concludes as Globalman does that he is helpless to prevent future abuses unless he walls off all women forever (excepting those temporarily pliant women looking to escape the dehumanizing squalor of Eastern Europe), he risks perpetuating his current pain.

I accept Nova's point that some men do not (even should not) pursue a romantic relationship after a messy failure. I know men who I would not wish on any woman, and vice versa. For those who do, however, their best chance of success will come not from the guarded "get what you can and watch your back or they'll screw you" or "I only date Latvians because they know their place" attitudes, but from rigorous and painful self-honesty and openness.

slwerner said...

John - "Ms. Gilbert sounds like an unpleasant person. I hope the husband learns as much as he can about how his actions/personality/tendencies/weaknesses contributed to his being blindsided, so that he can guard against it happening again."

Geez!, Could you soft-peddle it any more?

Try Total Bitch for Ms Gilbert. How about criminal, as she purposefully hid marital assets?

Yes, men should learn how guard against the many vices of women in their lives. But, you act as if woman routinely "telegraph" their devious plans. That's simply not always the case - it's probably not even that common that they do.

Your emphasis on placing the onus onto men (alone) necessarily means that men will have to become a) distrusting of women, b) constantly be spying on their women, or c) refuse to marry women of engage in long-term relationships with them.

A more reasonable approach, IMHO, would be to actually change the laws so as to remove the incentives women have to "set up" and divorce their husbands, and perhaps put in place some meaningful (financial) disincentives for either spouse to be unfaithful or to abandon a marriage.

slwerner said...

John - ”I think that when you make a statement like "Is he really hurting you," what you mean is "Can't you just be quiet?"”

It was a rhetorical question, meant to challenge your assertion that you and your loved ones had been directly targeted and slandered.

I’d note that your response was NOT to challenge GM’s statements, but rather to attempt to psycho-analyze and shame him. That seems much more like: “Can't you just be quiet?”

Anyway, since we’re trying to clear the air here…

I’d make this point about your ”I hope the husband learns as much as he can about how his actions/personality/tendencies/weaknesses contributed to his being blindsided, so that he can guard against it happening again.” comment – it sounds way too damned close to the standard “You need to learn to take your lumps like a man and shut up and ponder what YOU did wrong as a man” sort of shaming that many, many women have given to men who have felt aggrieved by divorce and Anti-family courts.

I’m not implying that you’re a woman pretending to be a man, but I can see why GM might think that you are.

globalman100 said...

slwerner,
Johns your classic mangina. If this woman hid assets that's a crime and she's a criminal. Manginas like John and pretty much

ALL western women like to call me all sorts of names because I want to 'hurt' my ex. Not true. I offered 200+ women the opportunity to try her justly. I will now offer men to try her fairly and justly. Trying someone fairly and justly before a jury of 12 men where the MEN decide what to do and I agree with their decision prior to the start of proceedings means I am NOT in a position to influence the punishment. I am only in a position to present evidence and testimony.

Meanwhile, on the reverse side, women want to be able to put men in jail based on lies. This happens every day. How many men are being released from jail based on DNA evidence that they didn't commit the rape they were accused of? Lots of them. Manginas like John would have 'oh, she just made a mistake' and cow-shit like that.

globalman100 said...

slwener,
"I’d note that your response was NOT to challenge GM’s statements, but rather to attempt to psycho-analyze and shame him."
You missed 'made many false statements about his and made statements for which you have no evidence'. ;-)

knightblaster said...

I accept Nova's point that some men do not (even should not) pursue a romantic relationship after a messy failure. I know men who I would not wish on any woman, and vice versa. For those who do, however, their best chance of success will come not from the guarded "get what you can and watch your back or they'll screw you" or "I only date Latvians because they know their place" attitudes, but from rigorous and painful self-honesty and openness.

It's not just that, though, it's actually *wanting* to do so. A rigorous process of self-honesty and openness can also reveal that one does not wish to be married. Not everyone is the same in this area, really.

knightblaster said...

Since the negotiations for the receipt of that money preceded the final divorce decree, if she had not hidden the money then her boring provider husband would have been given half of it as a marital asset.

Interestingly, men go to prison for trying to hide marital assets. I guess Ms. Gilbert must have been granted a "p*ssy-pass" for the crime?


No idea, really, whether he was able to re-open that after the fact. Gilbert is mum about anything relating to her first marriage other than what she says in the book (which is almost nothing), which makes me suspect that the entire thing is under a pretty restrictive gag order.

COUGAR said...

Chuck, a few qoutes about husband and wife becoming one is nice, but it doesn't subtract from the fact that Jesus himself was not family oriented, chose the renounced path, as well as many of his followers. Unless you believe he and Magdelene married, which is a common trend now.

You are aware that in Jewish culture of the time it was common for boys to marry in their teens and marriage is an obligation in Judaism. Judaism being one of the religions that does not like celibacy and monkhood. So Jesus' choice to remain single and not pro-create would have been a controversial one for his culture and community.

All major religions glorify marriage and family life (if it's God or liberation centered), and some of those very same religions glorify renouncing it for those so inclined.

It's not a contradiction, just 2 different ways of getting the same thing or 2 different stages in life.

Religious/spiritual people tend to naturally detach from their families as they grow old anyway.

Jesus certainly did not preach to his followers to marry and set up hearth and home. He was a renunciate.

(unless you're in the Magdelene camp and even then he and Magdelene lead a renounced and detached life, even while being married)

globalman100 said...

Novaseeker,
I personally believe that any intelligent man who sits down and looks at the cost benefit analysis of having a 'wife' (let alone a used up, burned out 'cougar') can not help but come to the conclusion that a 'wife' is such a high liability that she has to be rejected purely on financial grounds, let alone anything else. Women are in complete denial about this well evidenced opinion.

The ONE and ONLY reason a man would take a wife is to produce children. Now? Men with guns will take a mans children off him at the whim of the woman. And cops get real narky when you shoot one of their mates.

Women proclaim loudly their 'value'. I think I have mentioned to you but it bear repeating here. I have asked for 18 months for women to name ONE THING they offer a man like me. I put a post on spearhead and asked the same question. No responses. When NO WOMAN can give me and example of ONE THING that they offer a man like me? Well? That tells you all you need to know the 'value of a woman', let alone a 'cougar'. There isn't any. They are nice 'companions and play things'. But after that? I'll spend my time with men thank you very much. Having listened to women talk for 32 years? I simply can not take them seriously any more.

Anonymous said...

Things would not be so bad if the courts were not so lopsided. I mean awarding the former Mrs Spielberg 100 million on the theory that she "contributed to" the amassing of the fortune is rather silly. So was allowing that tennis star to sue the billionaire, Kerkorian, for child support for a kid that wasn't his, and then when Kerkorian established it wasn't his kid, to sock him with her attorney's fees since he was worth more. No ethics; no accountability. So is the idea that some over 40 mom who decides to blow up the family ought to be able to sit at home for the next 25 years while her ex works to support her. The courts give the mom ndless freedom and little responsibility. So the trick is not to marry or to at least get a good trust that holds all your assets.

Anonymous said...

The simple answer is that this behavior is indicative of a mid-life crisis. We tend to think that only men experience these, but I know that women do as well.

But whereas men are warned that they should not act on their impulses, that they're experiencing something that will pass, and should behave responsibly and consider their obligations, women are encouraged to do whatever we feel like, that we're 'brave' for acting selfishly and impetuously.

I've seen this play out among my girlfriends, several of whom have destroyed their marriages for silly reasons. They've become as self absorbed as teenaged girls and noticeably regress. I think that much of it comes from a fear of getting old.

globalman100 said...

Anon,
"I've seen this play out among my girlfriends, several of whom have destroyed their marriages for silly reasons."
Thank you for your contribution. It's about time some women spoke out about how women are ending marriages, usually to the massive detriment of the man financially, for 'silly reasons'. Pretty much EVERY women will say cow-shit like 'he must have been abusive' to give women a 'pass' for breaking their vows. Today? Women and vows are like oil and water. It is you 'good women' who will suffer most as you ARE being tarred with the same brush as your sistas whether you like it or not.

Women I have talked to tell me they are afraid to speak out against the crimes women are committing because the women then attack them. How pathetic is that?

Marsh said...

'Cougar' Trend of Women Chasing Younger Men a Myth

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,599825,00.html

Excellent posting John! You are spot on in your posts.

globalman100 said...

Ah yes...women can do anything men can do...including doing sex tours to Africa..LOL!! Go 'cougars'. Um? Did anyone tell these women the rate of aids in africa?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-who-travel-for-sex-sun-sea-and-gigolos-407202.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2638979720071126

Anonymous said...

'Cougar' Trend of Women Chasing Younger Men a Myth

This purported trend has always struck me as a polite fiction intended to make women feel better about themselves as they get older.

What's telling is that the supposed motive for young men finding older women attractive is that these women have money and status. This tells you that it's women projecting their preferences onto men. That because young women find affluent high-status men attractive, young men should value these attributes in the same way. But they don't and never will. The pretty young waitress is going to win over the middle aged executive every single time.

COUGAR said...

The main reason I'm hearing from younger men why they date older women is because they are "less drama" than the younger ones. At least that's what all the younger men who have dated me and my friends say. It's certainly NOT because of our "status" because none of us are wealthy or CEOs or anything like that.

But again, I don't qualify as a "cougar" because I date within my 10 year age range, and I NEVER prowl for men or pursue them like a predator - they pursue me.

But I'm married now so those days are over - and I won't divorce my hubby for a younger man, he IS a younger man.

:)

Anonymous said...

The main reason I'm hearing from younger men why they date older women is because they are "less drama" than the younger ones.

That would make more sense if it were true ;)

Older women still provide plenty of drama.

Cougar I have the impression that you're describing the phenomenon of a younger man dating an attractive woman in her early 30's or so. I've seen that happen. But that possibility has been exaggerated in the popular media to promote the idea that young men are hot for 40 and 50 somethings as well. That just like women, young men are seeking out older women of means. That's what Cougars have become. The meaning has shifted. For instance you'll notice that Demi Moore and Madonna are cited as the archetypal cougars, and both are much older than 30ish.

This all goes along with the newly found white hot libido of middle aged women. The theory here is that, in contradiction of observations made over thousands of years, women's libidos and sexual prowess increase well into old age leaving men in the dust at about 40, or even earlier in their 30's. So of course they need young studs to sate them, and conveniently the studs are obliging because of womens new found financial independence.

That's the story at least.

COUGAR said...

Anonymouse, I know several (more than 10) women who are dating younger men. And some are indeed in their 50s, but granted, the younger men are in their 40s. The women I know who are married to and date younger men are within a 12 year difference so it's not that a 52 year old woman is going to have a 27 year old boyfriend (though that would be nice...)

But I'm seeing women who are say, 36 married to 30 year old men being called "cougars" and that just ain't right!

As far as the libido, everybody's different. Many women do in fact experience a "peak" in their 30s or 40s. A few women in their 50s and 60s have told me that they experienced a peak after menopause. Perhaps that has something to do with feeling "worry free"???

At any rate, I guess men will have to learn to "buck up" and adjust to the changes.

globalman100 said...

Cougar,
"At any rate, I guess men will have to learn to "buck up" and adjust to the changes."
Nope. We are just going to ignore you fat, old, used up 'cougars' and date hot young eastern european women. They are plentiful in Germany.

COUGAR said...

Germans? LOL!

Have had 'em ol' boy!

I got mine!

globalman100 said...

Cougar,
"Germans? LOL!"
You women really can't read can you. I said 'in germany'. I only date women in the 30-35 bracket who were born behind the iron curtain and spent most of their life there. These women are really lovely women. Sure, they want 'babies and money' but that's what pretty much ALL women want. At least they are honest about it. These are women who had their 'career'....usually as retail sales or service industry like waitress and barmaid. How any woman can call being a barmaid a 'career' is beyond me but lots of what women do is so stupid as to be beyond me. Now they are 30-35? They realise they have no money, no prospects, no man and most importantly NO BABIES. Or, in my fav#1s case only ONE baby and she wants more. So they are very aggressive and on the lookout for a man who fits the 'babies and money' bill. With my great track record as a father and husband? They figure they are a chance to talk me into changing my mind. My fav#1 tried for about a year. She has finally said that she sees no future with me....meaning no more babies....and it looks like we will go our separate ways. But I got what I wanted for 2.5 years. She was invited into my life as long as the deal was 'no marriage and no babies'. The babies was the deal breaker and that's fine. There are tens of thousands more where she came from.

COUGAR said...

I'm with you on the "no babies" part.

Anonymous said...

Aren't the women of our generation (I'm 43, and I suspect that most of the women in question are between my age and 55) just such everloving sweethearts?

Well, I'm 44 and female and simply have never "gotten" the whole feminist thing myself...I'm married, have kids and absolutely adore my husband, and he me. I can't imagine leaving him, cheating on him, or doing anything but continuing to enjoy our life together until we're old and grey.

We married each other to be together until the end - he and I have a great marriage....and it's in many ways "traditional" - I do more of the house stuff, he's the breadwinner....although he does help with things in the house (without me ever having to ask) and I do have a small part-time business I run that allows me most of my time raising our son.

It's interesting to see so many comments, especially over at Dr. Helen, that highlight the destruction of divorce IMO. Most whom agree with the concept of disposability of a relationship are either products of divorce or miserable marriages. I think that's what makes my husband and I work so well - both of us were raised in intact, happy marriages - both of our parent sets, now well into their 70's, still married and happy with their marriages.

globalman100 said...

Anon,
"both of us were raised in intact, happy marriages"
Thanks for you post. Nice to see a 'good woman' post. :-)

This is an interesting comment. In my particular case I absolutely believed that my fiancees parents had a 'good marriage'. I knew them since I was 12. He was a hard working, salt of the earth baker, and she was the 'home-maker'. I was very close to her family.

What I didn't know what her mother was an absolute tyrant inside the house. My ex NEVER told me such until many years after our children were born. Indeed, not until about 15 years in to the marriage. My ex let slip that her mother had asked her father if she could have another dog in the house. They had always had dogs. He said no as he was getting older and it was time to not have so many pets as they were work and cost money. Her mum got the dog anyway. My wife made the comment that her mum had always been 'domineering' in that way, using the dog as an example.

When I heard this I was completely shocked as my wife had done the same to me. She asked me if we could have a dog and I said no and she brought on home anyway. So I pressed her MUCH more on the topic of her mother and how she REALLY was. In that pressing it came out that her 'accidental pregnancy' at 16 was not accidental at all. She told me she had lied to the boy about being on contraception to get pregnant to get married and to get away from her 'domineering mother'. I was totally and utterly devastated by this whole conversation. I looked at her and said "You LIED to EVERYONE, and you have kept up that LIE these last 25 years?!?!?!"

I realised at this time that my wife had NEVER been the person she pretended to be. That her mother was a 'domination and control freak' and that my wife knew it and was exactly like her mother. And no-one told me and they took great pains to hide this. I recall thinking at the time whether it was at all possible that my wife could, from this point forward, somehow actually choose to be honest. It's a cautionary tale for any young man. No matter HOW WELL you know the mother, all those around her will lie to protect her image at all times. I had no idea her mum was such a control freak. Only after this did my father in laws actions take on a whole new meaning.

How are us men supposed to select a good wife when everyone around the mother and the woman will lie about her and she will lie her head off herself? And when we call women liars even the 'good women' will come in and defend them. One of the reasons I tell young men not to marry AT ALL is because the WOMEN will not expose and denounce the 'bad women' so as to earn the trust of the men. Tom Lykis had and entire show about this.

zed said...

Your emphasis on placing the onus onto men (alone) necessarily means that men will have to become a) distrusting of women, b) constantly be spying on their women, or c) refuse to marry women of engage in long-term relationships with them.

TFH has surmised that as the femini-chivalrist paradigm progressively fails that a certain group of men will simply double-down on their white knighting. This thread is pretty good proof of that.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together who really cares about women and their chances to have decent relationships with decent men would be busily clamoring for legal protections for those men. In the absence of such legal protections, feminists, manginas, and white knights have no means other than harassment to try to force men to engage women. As a general social strategy, that is an extremely weak one because there is a limit to how far it can go before men just tune it out.

I think we have pretty much reached that limit, and the rise of Game indicates a generalized distrust and contempt for women.

globalman100 said...

Zed,
"the rise of Game indicates a generalized distrust and contempt for women."
Nice of you to drop by.
Any man who does not distrust women is a complete idiot. Dumber than a rock. Just like I was.

The single BIGGEST mistake I have made in my life is to place trust in my wife. I tell every young man that. And you know what? They are listening. I have now released many of her perjuorus claims and her lying emails to the web under a web site in her married name....oops..I owned the domain name for her...how about that!! The first few people to read this material are like "WTF it is THAT BAD?????"

Oh yes...my ex is the 'poster child' for 'DO NOT MARRY' :-)

Anonymous said...

No matter HOW WELL you know the mother, all those around her will lie to protect her image at all times. I had no idea her mum was such a control freak. Only after this did my father in laws actions take on a whole new meaning.

Believe it or not, I totally get what you're talking about - in my case it is my MIL who is protected by the women around her and shielded by the men. She's bat-shit crazy - for real - BPD with malignant narcissim to boot! So you're right - and intact, happy "appearing" family - isn't necessarily what it seems.

In my case, before we married, I noted things were off with my soon-to-be MIL and talked to my soon-to-be husband about my concerns. He being a doctor fessed up to all the fucked up stuff his mother does and had done her whole life and had been in therapy (first time I learned of this in his history) for years to understand her and how to deal with her if he was going to have a normal life with a normal woman.

Yes, I worried about marrying him because of his mother....but I believed in him and believed in us and now, almost ten years later, can't imagine my life without him....her, well that's another story - she came with his package and I deal with it, and he does do his best to protect me and our family from her antics, tantrums and craziness. So does my FIL, whom my DH is close to - growing up it was my FIL who protected DH from his mother as best he could and now he's taken the role of protecting me too.

I think our marriage works as well as it does because we're both commited to each others' well-being and we know sometimes it takes work - but at the end of the day, we like each other and enjoy being with each other, so the times we're not so happy are blips on the larger life map.

globalman100 said...

Anon,
"Believe it or not, I totally get what you're talking about"
Yes, I believe it's quite common. Unfortunately I married the DAUGHTER and she was as controlling as her mother, only she didn't 'come out of her shell' until after the second child was born. I have talked to a LOT of men who have a similar story. Once the kids arrive they turn into complete bitches because they know the 'laws' dramatically favour them. Well? No more. I am putting an end to that in the former british empire lands. :-)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.