RE: Hilarious Example of Modern-Day Feminism
The problem is that the patriarchy really exists, in the heads of feminists.
They are fighting an invisible boogyman that only they can see.
To them, it is everywhere. Everywhere they go, they see it.
The reality is that unmarried females are the largest voting block. And the voting variance is lower than any other group. They have basically decided all of the elections.
What they are upset with is that men have gone out and conquered the world. Men have made the world safe. And they resent that, because they cannot do the same. (it isn't enough that they exclusively make babies)
So, self destructively, these, the safest women who have ever lived, want danger and excitement. Narcissistically they want to put it all out there and get all of the attention, while remaining safe and further, they want to decide who gets to see their public displays.
It is my understanding that the people's vote is really just for show, and that it is the electoral college that ultimately decides on who will be president. Am I misunderstanding this? And if not, why would it matter about keeping a redundant voting constituency happy?
Layers upon layers.
Currently, each state has so many electoral votes, and so they hold an election to see who those electoral college people will vote for. Some states have laws that say the electoral college must vote the way the people said. However, those people do decide who will be president. But, there has never been a time they have gone against what the media has reported as the winner during the election.
So, in theory, we vote for the president indirectly.
However, do the people who we are allowed to vote for taken from the ranks of the people? No. All of them where selected to be presidential candidates well before hand. Any not in "the big club" are not allowed to rise up in the primaries. You can know this because of the number of presidents who have been in the "Skull and Bones" club. And the number of presidents who were part of Bohemian Grove. The odds that this is random would be similar to all the presidents being born on the same day of the year.
It's a good thing aunt-deb muted son of satire or you would have a most unpleasant conversation ahead of you, LOL.
I do agree with your second statement. Though your third...I find it hard to imagine the feminists I have encountered voting for our current president. They hate him. Unless you think they did it to have something further to complain about?
Ha, I'm not a feminist by any means- aunt-deb muted me too for defending the author of this blog and men in general- but even I'm cringing at statement number four.
I doubt the reasons for what they do are quite as simple as you summed up in your last statement. Though I've met my share of narcissistic feminists...I suspect there are a good number of narcissistic chauvinists as well ;)
There is a lot of study behind my statements. However, I do recognize that I am not the best when try to state things that are not already in the greater public sphere.
A few things on this last election.
On #4, let me try to put it another way. In a fight for your life kind of world, women are at an extreme disadvantage (individually). Men are stronger. Men can provide for themselves, even with no support. Men have the minds that think of community helping things (houses, etc). And, the society of men was built around this hierarchy of meeting needs. Basically, women are upset at their own bodies, for not measuring up (in a man's world) But, this seems to be more based on that we lost the woman's world. What used to be the feminine groups that held communities together. So, the two together have made women resentful and unhappy.
I do not put men above women. Men, indeed, have a great number of problems too. What I have seen lately, in the "rape hysteria" has been women who go out and get falling down drunk, and their response is to say, its men's responsibility to not rape me. Further, if you are not one of the top 20% of guys, approaching a woman can often get you a nuclear rejection. Its not, sorry, I am not interested... Its thanks for buying me a drink, now drop dead, because I wouldn't even give you the time of day if you were the last man on earth, and stop staring at me (and my extremely low cut blouse and shortest skirt) because you are being a real creep.
I think the generalizing is what will get you in trouble, saying 'women' rather than 'certain women'. I suspect you're right about a lot of what you say in terms of feminazis, and to a lesser degree women who consider themselves very independent.
The rape hysteria annoys the hell out of me, I do not believe that having sex when you're wasted is the man's fault or should be considered rape of any kind. If it were me I would take responsibility, I'm sure there's a good chance that the guy in the situation is pretty loaded too. If a woman is held down and forced when she clearly doesn't want it, that's rape. Using that word in all of these other situations is an insult to women who have actually been raped, which I imagine is a very traumatic experience.
Yeah, obviously when a woman dresses provocatively she is doing so to attract attention, and if she thinks she's only going to get the attention of those she wants attention from she's either a special kind of stupid or highly deluded.
I'm not really clear what constitutes a top 20% guy, do you mean wealthy? And I have to say it sounds as if you've had some bitter experiences. Maybe it's your location? What you're describing isn't as common where I'm from.
I actually think the real problem is men and women no longer know their roles in today's society. It's natural for a woman to want to be protected and provided for, to take care of the children and the home, but they're being taught that it's degrading. It's all part of an agenda to break down the family, which is evidenced by the extremely high divorce rates. Girls from a young age are being taught to use sex as either a tool or a reward, rather than it being a natural act of love. Over the years I've had a number of friends that withhold sex from their partners until certain conditions are met, then they're shocked when their men cheat. I try to explain to them that a guy needs to feel desired, and that most cheating is not about the other woman being more attractive but rather she makes them feel attractive.
Seriously, who would you rather go to bed with, a beautiful girl who's like "Fine, get it over with" or a cute girl who's like "Come here you sexy man". (Considering what you wrote at the end you might also want to think about the kind of women you're approaching and broaden your search a bit? Look for the ones with genuine smiles and especially laughter)
Good advice. But, its not about me. My mother destroyed me from ever being able to form a loving, sexual relationship.
There are studies and on going research.
Like one, that gave a random sampling of photos to guys and girls.
Men said they would date 80% of the those pictured.
Women said they would date 20% of those pictured.
This also holds with data from plenty of fish and other such sites.
You do realize that when you put together the two points you made :
and
together they make the point that women are completely justified in being very particular in trying to pick the the right man for her future needs as they (the women) are going to pay a high price if they choose badly. Many men seem to resent that women are so choosy if a woman decides on meeting him that another man might better suit her future needs. You don't end up married to the guys you don't date.
I would agree with you, accept for math.
Sure, from a woman's point of view, aiming for that top 20% is the thing to do.
Accept that, 80 women, (of each 100) are trying to marry 20 guys.
60 women are going to fail.
Unless of course, we start allowing multiple wives.