| | Men lie about having more sex, women lie they get less. Three quarters of wives cheated on take back the male, only one quarter of males don't divorce their cheating wives. Hmmmm.
I happened across a link to a quite amusing site by a guy named Fred, who has some interestingly obviouse, elephant-in-the-living-room, naked-emperor observations.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
http://www.fredoneverything.net/SexAndSociety.shtml
Training Neutered Poodles
Instinct And The Politics Of Sex
... The premise of the current adventure is that men and woman are fungible -- that, perhaps after a bumpy start, and with the temporary encouragement of affirmative action, the sexes will work happily, and interchangeably, side by side. Any doubts regarding the probability of this sunny consummation are held to represent the most retrograde of social thought.
...
Women neither like nor respect hierarchy, particularly male hierarchy, and their mere presence short-circuits it. Sexual tension is inescapable among humans. Sex generates equality. A male colonel regards a male private as a subordinate. Instinctively he regards a female private as a woman. Both feel the age-old contract, that women trade sex for anything they want, and men trade anything they have for sex. Most women in varying degrees will use the equation, while insisting otherwise. Men can’t. The greater the degree of hierarchy, the greater the divisiveness.
The key word in all of this is instinct: We are wired to behave in these ways. When footsteps are heard downstairs at night, it is invariably the man who grabs the pistol and goes to adjust the burglar. A man, with a little encouragement, will open doors for a woman, take her coat, hold her chair. Only with the aid of powerful drugs could one imagine a woman doing these things for a man.
...
This isn’t simple gold-digging. Rather, women seem by instinct to expect to be cared for by men, and men expect to do it. It no longer makes economic sense. The instinct remains.
The conflict between the instinctive desire to be protected, and the political determination to have no part of it, plays a large part in sexual politics. Note the near-hysteria of the hostility to Deadbeat Dads – that is, men who don’t meet the expectations of instinct.
We are dealing with inbuilt behavior, and telling ourselves it is politics. Note that women unendingly demand more funding for medical research into diseases peculiar to women. Yet it is common knowledge that men die some seven years earlier than women, suggesting starkly that men, not women, need more research. Never in fifty years on the planet have I heard any woman, ever, say, “My god, our men are dying. We must do something.” Why not?
Either (a) women are grotesquely selfish or (b) they are wired to look after their own physical well-being, and that of the children, while letting men take care of themselves. Since women do not in general seem to be selfish, I’ll take (b).
Finally, and crucially: The women’s movement today is no longer a quest for equality. It was, but isn’t. It has become instead a drive for revenge, for power, and for domination over and humiliation of men. It is never phrased this way, of course. For tactical reasons, feminists trade in the highly solvent currency of rights, justice, discrimination, and victimhood. Men say little. They cannot afford psychologically to admit the extent to which they are being walked on.
But think about what is actually happening. For example, the campaign to force Virginia Military Institute first to accept girls and second, to retain pregnant ones, was hardly founded on a pent-up desire among women to be in the infantry. The intent was to humiliate a profoundly male institution, and force men to swallow it. It worked.
The campaign of humiliation has succeeded all across the country, too wildly for easy explanation. Males in offices tremble in fear of charges of harassment. Powerful editors are afraid to be alone with a woman in their offices. A female officer in the military can complain that a morning run is demeaning, whereupon the Pentagon will obediently stop the runs. Think carefully about this: The Joint Chiefs of Staff are afraid of a woman who doesn’t feel like running. Something strange is happening.
The truth is that men are crawling like neutered poodles, and feminists are quietly laughing. They are instinctively contemptuous of men they can push around, which today means almost all of them. It’s fascinating, twisted, almost kinky. One thinks of a dog rolling over to bare its throat to appease a bigger dog.
Whatever it is, wherever it is going, it is not as simple as we pretend. It is not even close.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml
Will Someone For God's Sake Marry Maureen?
...Maureen Dowd, the professional spinster of the New York Times, will soon birth a book, no doubt parthenogenetically, called Are Men Necessary? The problem apparently is that men have not found Maureen necessary.
...
She makes a career of being disagreeable about men. What’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, say I.
Reading her unending plaints, one concludes that she is deeply in love—with herself, and too loyal ever to cheat with a man.
...
“I’m so smart, I’m so powerful, I’m so, sooo elite, so talented, so…special.”
...
“I’m successful, shriek. Men hate me because I’m smart. They feel threatened because I’m so wonderful.”
...
Maureen’s agonizing does however provide exegesis of the American female mind at a curious moment. Again and again their question seems to be, what form of pretense is needed to achieve marriage? Must I feign sex-kittenhood? Be a calculated suck-up who always laughs at his jokes? Hide my brains? The underlying idea is that they must commit some fraud to attract a man. This of course implies that they aren’t attractive without committing fraud.
...
Those of us who have wives from Mexico, Thailand, the Philippines, Chile, or China view Maureen as being a very strange creature indeed, perhaps expelled from a geothermal vent.
...
By contrast foreign women are psychologically coherent. They are sexy because they are women and like being sexy, not as a Vaudeville act or marketing tool. Resentment is not their primary emotion. They love their children and regard raising them as a pleasure, not an imposition of which they are ashamed.
If you read Maureen and her littermates, you realize that they are those most uncomfortable of women, heterosexual man-haters. For example, Maureen, from her new book:
“Men, apparently, learn early to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women. The girls said they hid the fact that they went to Harvard from guys they met because it was the kiss of death.”
Who would marry that? Yet it is classic Maureen, snotty, catty, hostile.
...
The drumbeat of animosity is never missing from her hetero-anguished feminism. Men are vain, frightened, immature, unreliable, treacherous, fascinated by gewgaws, obsessed with sex, and unfaithful. Several questions arise. If men are so bad, why does Maureen want one?
...
This confusion and hostility has made the American woman into an internationally acclaimed shrew. Yes, there are degrees, and perhaps more exceptions than examples, but talk to white men from Washington to Hong Kong and you see the same shudder.
No, life isn't equal or fair, but A is A, and likely to be less-painfull for those not so stupid as to pound square pegs in round holes.
Scott
|
|
