The Men's Rights Movement

[lisa needs braces]

What I don't get is why so many women care so much about a guy's social status.

Greg, don't say this when you ignore the article that elegantly explains these things! 

[lisa needs braces]

Fraternities are freaking retarded to begin with. Just beyond stupid. Just because a guy doesn't like to go out and be social all the time doesn't make him creepy or a loser. Why would I waste my time at parties with people doing nothing interesting but acting stupid and playing terrible music? I know I don't have a problem if a woman stays inside much of the time and could care less about their social status, and as far as I know it isn't that important to other guys, as well.

But there is a purpose to those stupid boring parties where loud music is played -- it's a jungle like scene where mating games happen. Lot of social dynamics are at play. The girls get to "display" themselves by wearing sexy clothing, dancing, etc, in short, preen for the men. The males likewise preen for the females by socially jostling with each other, playing subtle dominance games, all the while giving each social proof to impress the ladies (i.e, go to the party with a pack of their friends.) The ostensible reason for the party (for fraternities anyway) is merely an excuse...the real allure is the mating dance.

edit:

I remember a coworker (who is probably in his 40s or so) telling me that when he was in college, he was in a fraternity and very popular because of it. During that time, he had about 4 girlfriends at the same time, but at no other time in his life has something like that happened.

Indeed!

[ibanezmonster]

Greg, don't say this when you ignore the article that elegantly explains these things! 

But it's too long to want to read. 
(yeah, I know, my problem lol)

But there is a purpose to those stupid boring parties where loud music is played -- it's a jungle like scene where mating games happen. Lot of social dynamics are at play. The girls get to "display" themselves by wearing sexy clothing, dancing, etc, in short, preen for the men. The males likewise preen for the females by socially jostling with each other, playing subtle dominance games, all the while giving each social proof to impress the ladies (i.e, go to the party with a pack of their friends.) The ostensible reason for the party (for fraternities anyway) is merely an accuse...the real allure is the mating dance.

People are fucking stupid and disgusting.

[Karl Henning]

As "elegant" as that book you linked us to? LOL

[lisa needs braces]

As "elegant" as that book you linked us to? LOL

No, I didn't link it for everyone...just for you. Your fits of giggling over the phrase "war on men" are outrageous. 

[lisa needs braces]

People are fucking stupid and disgusting.

That's really harsh, Greg.

[ibanezmonster]

As "elegant" as that book you linked us to? LOL

Hey Karl, I'm interested in your opinion on how the payment between a first date between a man and a woman should be carried out. Also interested in other people's thoughts, just so I can get a grasp of people's reasoning.

[Sammy]

Hey Karl, I'm interested in your opinion on how the payment between a first date between a man and a woman should be carried out. Also interested in other people's thoughts, just so I can get a grasp of people's reasoning.

I don't know what you mean by "payment".

[Karl Henning]

Hey Karl, I'm interested in your opinion on how the payment between a first date between a man and a woman should be carried out. Also interested in other people's thoughts, just so I can get a grasp of people's reasoning.

Depends on the woman.  And the thing is (IMO) not to have a pre-set in your mind how it is to go, but to be mentally flexible. You should be be ready to pick up the entire tab, but you should have the grace to let the lady pay her share if that is what she wishes to do.

I don't know what you mean by "payment".

That provoked a smile, but I read that as "who pays the check." 

[ibanezmonster]

I don't know what you mean by "payment".

Depends on the woman.  And the thing is (IMO) not to have a pre-set in your mind how it is to go, but to be mentally flexible. You should be be ready to pick up the entire tab, but you should have the grace to let the lady pay her share if that is what she wishes to do.

This is definitely the way to go in the real world. But is it good that it is this way? I probably should have specified that I'm curious how you think it should go ideally; I mean, if societal customs were ideal (according to you), what would be expected in terms of how the payment is done?

[Sammy]

This is definitely the way to go in the real world. But is it good that it is this way? I probably should have specified that I'm curious how you think it should go ideally; I mean, if societal customs were ideal (according to you), what would be expected in terms of how the payment is done?

There isn't any should; each person is free to have his/her own standards.  Personally, I'm with Karl - be ready and glad to pay for the entire evening; if the woman wants to pay for her share, that's fine too.  UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD I ALLOW THE WOMAN TO PAY FOR IT ALL.

[Mirror Image]

Greg, let me ask you this: do you basically want to live alone for the rest of your life with no chance, or aspiration, of cementing a bond with another woman? I mean for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would want to be alone for the rest of their life. You may have friends you hang out with or don't mind doing things with, but that intimate connection with a woman takes that time with friends and blows it out of the stratosphere IMHO. It's a wonderful, joyous feeling to be in love with a woman and I think we all deserve to give and receive love in our lives. It makes all the disagreements, general ugliness in the world, etc. seem rather insignificant.

Don't be afraid to open your heart up, Greg. That's all I'm saying. You'll find a woman. She's out there somewhere. I, too, have this feeling about myself. I'll find a woman someday and if I never find her then at least I know I tried.

[ibanezmonster]

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD I ALLOW THE WOMAN TO PAY FOR IT ALL.

Why not the same emphasis for the man? If women and men are equal, why should the man sometimes have to pay the whole bill and the woman never have to pay the whole bill?

If I had a date, I'd like for them to also be my best friend, and when I go out to eat with a friend, we each pay for our own food because we are both adults who have jobs and make money. If I had a kid, I would pay for them, but women aren't kids. Why does society simultaneously treat women as children and place unnecessary burdens on men?

Greg, let me ask you this: do you basically want to live alone for the rest of your life with no chance, or aspiration, of cementing a bond with another woman? I mean for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would want to be alone for the rest of their life. You may have friends you hang out with or don't mind doing things with, but that intimate connection with a woman takes that time with friends and blows it out of the stratosphere IMHO. It's a wonderful, joyous feeling to be in love with a woman and I think we all deserve to give and receive love in our lives. It makes all the disagreements, general ugliness in the world, etc. seem rather insignificant.

Don't be afraid to open your heart up, Greg. That's all I'm saying. You'll find a woman. She's out there somewhere. I, too, have this feeling about myself. I'll find a woman someday and if I never find her then at least I know I tried.

I wouldn't mind going on dates and am considering trying to find some online sometime next year, but I'm very busy with my own stuff. I hang out with one friend and sometimes even that is too much. It would have to be someone that doesn't expect me to go out too much (a little is good, though) because being out around people all the time would just feel unfulfilling and empty. Gotta do my own stuff- it's the only thing that keeps me going.

[Sammy]

Why not the same emphasis for the man? If women and men are equal, why should the man sometimes have to pay the whole bill and the woman never have to pay the whole bill?

Once again you are using "should" as if there is some general standard (which there isn't anymore).  I offered my own personal standards on the matter; you are entitled to your own standards as well.

Also, you seem to be thinking of the male/female relationship primarily in terms of money which I consider a very small feature in the larger picture of the relationship. 

My niece is in town the week and was telling me about her most recent boyfriend.  The "last straw" was that he expected her to do his laundry, so she dumped him to the curb.  His expectation clearly told her that his respect for her was insufficient to continue the relationship. She now considers him a major jerk. 

[North Star]

Why not the same emphasis for the man? If women and men are equal, why should the man sometimes have to pay the whole bill and the woman never have to pay the whole bill?

If I had a date, I'd like for them to also be my best friend, and when I go out to eat with a friend, we each pay for our own food because we are both adults who have jobs and make money. If I had a kid, I would pay for them, but women aren't kids. Why does society simultaneously treat women as children and place unnecessary burdens on men?

Well I think it matters quite a bit that you are asking her out - it would be a bit strange for her to pay the whole bill.

[Karl Henning]

Why not the same emphasis for the man? If women and men are equal, why should the man sometimes have to pay the whole bill and the woman never have to pay the whole bill?

If I had a date, I'd like for them to also be my best friend, and when I go out to eat with a friend, we each pay for our own food because we are both adults who have jobs and make money.

Well, with my best friends, since we grab a bite to eat periodically, in fact at times one or the other does pay the entire tab (generally if some convenience is thereby gained);  which just means that the next time, it's the other fellow's tab.

[lisa needs braces]

Wow!

Peter Hitchens on the death of marriage:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2523836/PETER-HITCHENS-A-tax-break-rescue-marriage-doomed-decades.html

[ibanezmonster]

Well I think it matters quite a bit that you are asking her out - it would be a bit strange for her to pay the whole bill.

I see.
I once went out to lunch with someone who asked me if I wanted to go to lunch. When the bill came, I was about to pay for my stuff and he said that he would pay for everything since he was the one who invited me. Kinda weird, but I guess it makes sense.
This would be the only reason I can think of, though, to justify why one person should pay for everything. I would probably feel comfortable about paying for everything only under this reason.

Well, with my best friends, since we grab a bite to eat periodically, in fact at times one or the other does pay the entire tab (generally if some convenience is thereby gained);  which just means that the next time, it's the other fellow's tab.

Kind of a silly thing to do IMO, but then again, if the next guy pays the next tab, though it would probably even out and be equal-ish, anyways.

Also, you seem to be thinking of the male/female relationship primarily in terms of money which I consider a very small feature in the larger picture of the relationship. 

If only everyone thought that way... 

My niece is in town the week and was telling me about her most recent boyfriend.  The "last straw" was that he expected her to do his laundry, so she dumped him to the curb.  His expectation clearly told her that his respect for her was insufficient to continue the relationship. She now considers him a major jerk. 

Yeah, that's dumb. I do my own laundry. Why would I expect someone else to do it? She's not his mom.

[lisa needs braces]

John O' Sullivan: Our post Christian society.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366263/our-post-christian-society-john-osullivan

Interesting passage:

"Family breakdown is in fact the largest single social disaster plaguing the post-Christian society. The family is a natural way of regulating and disciplining us and our ambitions in the activities of everyday life. It makes us frugal; it encourages saving, wealth creation, and the deferment of gratification; it compels us to provide for the future; above all it ensures that children are brought up and taught to become self-reliant, and that the weak, the sick, and the elderly have others to succor them. When the family breaks down, we get crime, drug-taking, impoverishment, psychological problems, and much else at the personal level; and we get a cycle of deprivation, the growth of an underclass, spiraling social-welfare costs, over-government, and severe budgetary problems at a national level. The result of family breakdown is that we have to replace the family with regulation after regulation. Our remedies — easier divorce, better financial arrangements for women after divorce, increased welfare for single mothers, bureaucratic agencies to compel men to make child-support payments, laws and regulations that disadvantage natural family relationships in court decisions on child care and adoption, and much else — never work as well as the stable families they replace. Indeed, very often they make the situation worse."

Perhaps family breakdown is also tied to women getting cushioned after divorce, or getting support for being single mothers, by the bureaucratic agencies in a different way: These compulsory (i.e, men still being forced to financially act like husbands post divorce or to women they have kids with) and welfare policies substantially supplant the need for husbands, and a sure way of returning family stability would be to return to women the need to stick with men they expect to support them financially by abolishing no fault divorce, child support, and welfare for single mothers. Instituting these policies abruptly would be cruel but if done by piecemeal over a decade the culture could very well change as to affect the motivations women have about having children out of wedlock and engaging in frivolous divorce.

[lisa needs braces]

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal is on a roll.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304403804579262291294720488?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

In contemporary America, then, girls and young women act in ways that meet with the approval of Hymowitz and her economists, because doing so accords with both economic self-interest and biological instinct. That was once true of boys and young men. It no longer is, because of the same social changes--feminism and sexual liberationism--that transformed the incentives for women.

Hymowitz laments that young males are insufficiently interested in "becoming reliable husbands and fathers." Imagine somebody opening a piece with the converse lament that young females are insufficiently interested in "becoming reliable wives and mothers." The author would be attacked as a misogynist and a dinosaur. Why, critics would demand, should women set their sights so low?

Well, why should men? Except perhaps in very conservative communities, men with sufficient social skills can find sex and companionship without need of a matrimonial commitment (and for those who lack social skills, a willingness to marry is unlikely to provide much compensation). The culture's unrelenting message--repeated in Hymowitz's article--is that women are doing fine on their own. If a woman doesn't need a man, there's little reason for him to devote his life to her service. Further, in the age of no-fault divorce, "reliable husbands and fathers" not infrequently find themselves impoverished by child support and restricted by court order from spending time with their children.