Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Mothers are the reason there are so many single women

A guest post by That Teowonna!:

“To the Virgins, To Make Much of Time” by Robert Herrick:

GATHER ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old time is still a-flying :
And this same flower that smiles to-day
To-morrow will be dying.

The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun,
The higher he’s a-getting,
The sooner will his race be run,
And nearer he’s to setting.

That age is best which is the first,
When youth and blood are warmer ;
But being spent, the worse, and worst
Times still succeed the former.

Then be not coy, but use your time,
And while ye may go marry :
For having lost but once your prime
You may for ever tarry.

I agree with Herrick 100%. Young women should not put off marriage; they should get married while they are still young, pretty, and marriageable. Getting older does nothing for increasing your chances of being married and having a family.

There are a number of theories as to why young women, especially black women, remain unmarried. There aren’t very many suitable partners; too many black men are in prison; blah, blah, blah. But let’s talk about root causes here: mothers!

Black mothers raise their daughters to go to college to get an education – “so you won’t need a man”. Huge mistake. In that statement alone, mothers downplay the importance of men in our society. They are instilling the value of independence.

I understand why mothers encourage their daughters to be independent. They want them to be successful, and happy, and all the other things that they feel like they missed. But how happy do you think she will be when she is 45 with two or three degrees and no husband, no children, and no prospects for either?

Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong with going to college and getting an education. I highly endorse education. But I denounce education over family.

So mother, when you send you daughters, and sons, off to college, in addition to encouraging them to get an education, encourage them to meet someone special and fall in love. Happiness and success can still be found within the walls of marriage and family.

As much as I love Robert Herrick, his poem needs a 2010 update:

“To The Sistahs, To Make Much of College” by That Teowonna!

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, times ain’t like they used to be
Chase a career like your mother say, yo’ ass gonna end up free
Your mother sent you off to school so you can get an education and ‘won’t need no man’
She’s trying to live her dreams through you, but a family, she already has
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no hater; Getting an education is alright
But keep in mind that piece of paper sure can’t keep you warm at night
I’m not saying settle or accept less than you deserve
But don’t wear ‘independent woman’ like a medal; To black men, that’s the new ‘N’ word.

See also:

589 Responses

  1. I think this issue is minimal, at best.

    Especially with black women: most of their mothers make it very obvious that they want them to find a “good man.” Sometimes they start saying this after the woman has graduated from college, sometimes they say it before, but they definitely push this idea. I’m sure many of the black women here will agree with that.

    In addition to a shorter supply of marriageable men, some women just don’t feel the need to get married. It seems like people believe a woman who is 40 or older and unmarried is unhappy that way, but this is not so. Some women enjoy the freedom and autonomy that comes with a single life. Also, another reason more women married in the past because marriage was needed to secure a stable lifestyle. As women have made gains in education and in the workforce, this need to rely on men is becoming less and less. Subsequently, their marriage rates have gone down (although of course this isn’t the only reason for the declining marriage rate).

    Like


  2. You know I’ve seen what white women go through when divorced, those who weren’t prepared to go into the work force, whose looking for a husband was their main goal in life. I have also worked with white women that didn’t finish high school, whose husbands has gotten laid off or the plant closed that had those good paying jobs that allowed them to stay at home. Its nothing like trying to play catch up 30 years later.

    You are wrong about black women’s mothers preparing them only to not need a man. In case you forget in most Black households for much of time in America it required both spouses to work just to get the American dream. A mortgage, decent clothes and to save money for old age and to send their children through college. Later on to get that car.

    I was raised to be able to help to support the family.

    What you also don’t realize that many years ago death as much as desertion or divorce could leave a Black woman to support herself?

    Education for Black women has been a matter of survival for Black people.

    Who do you think were going to be the teachers, the nurses, or the social workers (Black women worked with Black people in the welfare system)?

    In the 19th century getting a ninth grade education was considered an advancement and education never before seemed to an impediment to getting married until recently. All of my older relatives with a college education didn’t fail to get married, it has only been my younger cousins.

    I think it is not Black women who have changed, it is that in this so called post racial era, Black men think they can be as misogynistic as the white counterpart. They have been told since slavery that Black women are too independent, bossy and not feminine, not like their women.

    BLACK WOMEN ARE NOT DARKER SKINNED WHITE WOMEN!
    GET OVER IT!

    Like


  3. I must admit I disagree with the post. Completely. People need education, and while I agree family comes first, you must have financial resources to raise them and give them security. You can do it yourself, or you can wait for a man to do that for you.

    And while I’m one of those people who think a child needs both parents, women proved themselves more than capable of raising their kids alone. So being independent is only a plus. It can never be a bad thing. Education doesn’t prevents you from having or wanting kids.

    But then again maybe it’s about black women only, and I don’t know much about the black women community, so maybe I should just STFU.

    Like


  4. Rubbish.

    I have a University/College education. My mother and father are also University educated. so, I highly doubt they were trying to live their dreams through me or any of my other siblings, although parents teach you to aspire to greater things.

    The reason why we can’t find good men is because a lot of us are not going to settle for two-faced, conniving, cheating, lazy, lying, layabout men who have NO ambition. When I say no ambition, I am not saying the man has to have a degree for goodness sake, but at least do something with yourself and BE a man.

    In these modern times, some men are happy and content to sit around doing NOTHING, while the women go to work, cook and clean and do everything.

    Show me a hardworking decent and honest guy who doesn’t cheat or think the world and women owes him something and I am happy to marry him.

    Take my ex boyfriend for example, this guy is one of the laziest, sneaky, conniving, lying, cheating, layabout guys I have ever met, and I actually met him when I was at University. I was graduating that year, he was repeating the year because he was chasing women left and right and failed everything. He is still there now….LOL.

    My roof was leaking and this USELESS boyfriend (ex), could not even sort this out. Instead he wanted to move in with the roof leaking into the house….USELESS person.

    Also, I later found that this guy makes money, but hides it away and says he is broke. Do I want to marry a man like that?

    You decide!

    Like


  5. Now, happiness, not all men are useless….. Maybe not even majority of them. But the thing is, women finally reached the point when they don’t desperately need men in order to live a normal life (by normal, I mean… normal, to be able to buy yourself and your child clothes, food, to have a place to live, and to be able to get an education and work to provide for them and for yourself).

    This doesn’t mean men are useless, but that they became companions rather than necessary providers. They are here to give emotional, moral and general support and love to a woman (and their kids), and of course, to help them raise the kids (both with parenting skills and financial resources). But the fact is, women today have a choice, and they are not forced to be with a man who doesn’t respect, love or care about them because they can take care of themselves.

    Also, I disagree that women has to marry while they are young and pretty: women should marry whenever they feel like it, or not marry at all if they don’t feel like it. Granted, finding a man at 45 might be more difficult than at 18, but nobody should feel forced to do anything against her will. Not everybody is ready to settle down at 20. Having kids and family before you’re ready is not the best thing.

    Like


  6. Abagond, I’m curious. Do you fully agree with the writer, or did you post it for discussion’s sake?

    This post makes me want to throw up; the title alone was a red flag to me.

    I am not a black woman, and I don’t live in the US, but this post just seems so unrealistic and unkind! I just find it hard to believe that black women in colleges are turning up their noses at decent suitors because they believe in the mantra of “I don’t need a man”. It sounds ridiculous. Frankly, it seems like the writer of this post has something against women, and black women in particular. Blame black women for being single, and blame their mothers for teaching them the wrong priorities.

    On a lesser note, I’m also annoyed at the assumption that everybody wants to get married, and everybody is interested in the opposite sex. (But I know you’re Catholic, so I can see why you would not be opposed to that).

    Like


  7. There are a dozen other ways this guest post was just utterly sexist, but I’m too tired to go into all of that.

    Like


  8. This article may be on to something in the sense that many black women are encouraged to be independent and not need a man. But getting a good education/good career doesn’t mean there isn’t room for love along the way. One flaw of this article is that more asian and white people attend college than black people, but despite this fact white and asian women are more likely to get married than black women

    Also Maybe modern mothers are different but grandmothers are often keen to get their children and grandchildren married and settling down young.

    Like


  9. jen,

    “There are a dozen other ways this guest post was just utterly sexist, but I’m too tired to go into all of that.”

    Yes… I decided not to comment on the blatant sexism in this post, since it follows from the topic and I was expecting it.

    Like


  10. LOL!

    Abagond, my dear, I think this post takes the cake in your misogynist sweepstakes!

    Black mothers raise their daughters to go to college to get an education – “so you won’t need a man”. Huge mistake. In that statement alone, mothers downplay the importance of men in our society. They are instilling the value of independence.

    Well, heaven forfend that women be independent. Unless, of course, you are advocating that men likewise not be independent.

    Abagond, seriously, sometimes I wonder about you. I mean you’re a guy who by and large is uncompromising in your view of racial relations. Quick to see any injustice or imbalance, however slight, and quick to suggest solutions. And yet when it comes to gender, you seem absolutely unable to apply the same sort of analysis.

    Let me clue you into something which is quite obvious to women but which has apparently passed unnoticed by you, lo these 40 some years: women don’t need to be taught by momma that it’s a bad thing to be dependent on a man because simply living their lives will show them that.

    Being dependent on a man means a woman’s straight and certain plunge into poverty if – for whatever reason – he can’t or won’t financially support her.

    Being a housewife and mother means working FOR FREE, Abagond, with absolutely no retirement guarantees, no paid holidays and no paycheck. In other contexts, such conditions are understood to be slavery. In the context of love and marriage, however, they are understood to be “the natural order of things” an’ ain’t all so sweet?

    Because of this bulls***, women took off like a hot rocket, professionally speaking, AS SOON AS THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO SO. They didn’t need momma’s encouragement for that, presuming that they had at least half of a functioning brain.

    A man pleading that women should go back to dependency on husbands because there is happiness in servitude is about as nauseous a spectacle as a white guy making a heartfelt pitch that blacks should shuffle on back to the cotton fields because dey wuz so much simpler an’ happier back in dem ol’ days.

    Your belief that women should be dependent on men and greatful for all the “good things” that men provide for them reminds me of this right here:

    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/uncle-jack-the-good-darky/

    But how happy do you think she will be when she is 45 with two or three degrees and no husband, no children, and no prospects for either?

    Based on the MANY women I know in that position, MUCH happier than she’d be at 45 tied to a stove with three kids hanging off her tits and little to no chance of self-improvement because she never got beyond her GED.

    Marriage does not create happiness all by its lonesome, Abagond, but one thing is for damned certain: your education will NEVER leave you in the lurch. One can’t say the same thing for men.

    Your whole argument is based on a false dichotomy, by the way: either one is a happy housewife or an alienated and depressed single professional. No mention of the 50% divorce rate in your society and what happens to a single mom in socio-economic terms when Daddy splits. And the two happiest people I know right now are both black female PhDs in their forties, with great careers, childless and married.

    Happiness and success can still be found within the walls of marriage and family.

    Your personal experience with life shows you that, does it?

    I see exactly ONE possible way for a marriage to succeed these days: both partners are independent and self-realized individuals who feel secure about their future. That ain’t likely to happen if one of the partners is dependent on the other for their financial well-being.

    Dude, you have some SERIOUS sexist issues to attend to.

    (And by the way, Harris is right about everything but the marriage part. Women SHOULD f*** around as much as they like while young, just like guys. Youth is definitely the time to get one’s jollies on.)

    Like


  11. I understand what she’s saying and I agree to a point. Women should definitely marry and have children as soon as possible, preferably before the age of 35 when fertility begins to drop. The absolute latest time would be 40. Most women can still conceive with their own eggs up until the mid to late 40s.
    However, a lack of willing men is an issue. Most men are not in a hurry to marry they don’t have the biological pressure nor is there much societal pressure for them to do so and cohabitation and sex before marriage is now the norm. The societal pressure to be a man, take care of a woman and family, simply is not there anymore. This is just a fact. So what is a young woman to do? I spent five years with a man stringing me along making me think he would marry me when I was in my 20s. Thank God I had a college degree and my own money so I could get away from that jag off.
    As far as the mothers raising girls to be independent – let’s face it, this is not the fifties. When men can discard you at their whim, you had best be able to take care of yourself and your children if you have them. My own mother told me that you can’t rely on a man. When my father divorced her when I was five, we spiraled into poverty. So what did my mom do? She went to school so she could earn a living.
    I think the problem is women’s role has changed so much and men’s haven’t changed as much. Men to redefine their roles within the family and expand beyond being the bread winner. Its clear women need to be independent financially but that shouldn’t be taken as we don’t need the emotional fulfillment of a relationship and a family.

    Like


  12. This post makes no sense to me at all.

    Like


  13. I thought this was satire at first.

    Like


  14. LoL @ Ank!

    What? You mean you can’t get your head around the fact that Abagond is a traditional Catholic boy who wants to see women “safely” coocooned within the traditional nuclear family?

    What’s so hard about making sense of that? The man has posted on this topic many times already.

    You can’t figure it out because in your book, people are either all good or all bad and “good” and “bad” are judged by their hewing to your dogmas. So if Abagond agrees with you about race, then he MUST agree with you about gender.

    Thus your cognitive dissonance.

    I guess race really ISN’T the only thing we need to take into consideration, huh, Ank? 😀

    Like


  15. I disagree heartily with this article! The average advice I got on marriage and relationships from female relatives, was this:

    Granny(keep in mind the generational differences);
    “Keep your draws up and your legs crossed.” Me: “Is that before or after marriage?’ I was given a slap for being ‘smart mouthed’.

    Granny on sex in general:

    “Keep your legs crossed”.

    On dating;

    Granny: ” A woman can run faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down”.

    In my youthful ignorance, I asked why this didn’t work for her as she had eleven kids. I got a smack for my troubles.

    The aunts(older ones):

    “Make sure you get a ring on your finger before you put out” Most men want just one thing”! To which I replied; ” What ‘thing’ are you talking about? I was greeted with another slap and “you know what I am talking about don’t play simple with me!”. I became mentally deficient as a result of this constant rough treatment.

    Mother: Make sure you use birth control. I will take you to the clinic should you have a need for birth control pills. Or, “have you done it yet?” Me, thinking to myself; Eww, even if I did, I wouldn’t tell you, who talks to their mother about that?!” Another generational response I think. As for marriage, the best advice I got on that was from a wise old woman: Two paychecks are better than one. That old wise woman? Me. Although not too old in body, I am in spirit. The moral of this dribble? MAKE SURE THE MAN IS WEARING A SAFE WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE TO DO!

    Like


  16. Im with Ankhesen, WTF. This is so odd.

    Personally I find it annoying and insulting that people feel women have to chose one or the other. Personally, I want to go to medical school and my mother AND father support me in that 200%. They dont believe that I have to forsake a husband and family to become an MD. I may come off as haughty but it tend to be people how arent exposed to many professionals such as attorneys, MDs, ect that talk this nonsense. My dad is a PhD and all of his colleges/friends have daughters that they actively encourage to get a good education, whether it be an MD, PhD, MBA whatever. These men(and their wives) are not afraid of their girls going to school because they wont have time to “find a good man”.

    I dont mean to be snooty but I know of too many female MDs/PhDs that are married with children to buy into this foolish hysteria.

    Like


  17. Mothers are also the reason why so many Men won’t “Man Up”. Momma Boys!

    Like


  18. I don’t know what the hell this post is talking about. Google Translate couldn’t even help me with this post.

    Like


  19. Marriage does not create happiness all by its lonesome, Abagond, but one thing is for damned certain: your education will NEVER leave you in the lurch. One can’t say the same thing for men.

    This is so true. I’m in my 20’s and I always knew that once you get your education, it’s yours and no one can take it from you. Men come and go.

    I’m so thankful for this wisdom of my mother who always told me as a teen, “Let your books be your boyfriend.” It sounds cheesy, but it was effective. LOL If I have girls of my own, I will teach them the same.

    Like


  20. A lot of Black women are single because of their moms. This is true. Bitter man-hating women were raised by bitter man-hating moms.

    A lot of these women are raised to look at men as ticking time-bombs. It’s not if he is going to cheat but when. It is not if he is going to steal from you but when. When you have this Jaded-view before even meeting said suitor. How exactly do you expect any relationship to work?

    Now. I know that the patent answer from a lot of Black Feminist is to run down all of the failures of black men. As if Black men are the only men in America. As if Black women are honestly beating men of other races off with a stick. Men are Men. Period. If you treat men a certain way. You get a certain response. Period.

    Like


  21. @Thaddues

    “Your personal experience with life shows you that, does it?

    I see exactly ONE possible way for a marriage to succeed these days: both partners are independent and self-realized individuals who feel secure about their future. That ain’t likely to happen if one of the partners is dependent on the other for their financial well-being.

    Dude, you have some SERIOUS sexist issues to attend to.

    (And by the way, Harris is right about everything but the marriage part. Women SHOULD f*** around as much as they like while young, just like guys. Youth is definitely the time to get one’s jollies on.)”

    – I honestly believe you live in a fairy-tale world.

    Like


  22. Yea, I’m lost. So you should get an education, but your primary goal should be to find a man? I currently attend a university where seeking the MRS degree never goes out of style (70% of couples at my school get married), but it doesn’t seem to be working–and most of the women who are interested in this are White (many of them were raised with stay-at-home moms and want to stay at home themselves).

    I do think someone who’s set on getting married should surround herself with marriageable men sooner rather than later, as the odds are in her favor with youth, but as for root problems? You’d probably need to wait 15 years to get a good picture of women in my age group, but common trends among women I know that are dissatisfied with their relationship prospects (which != single women) is that they are fishing in the kiddie pool instead of the Pacific Ocean. Going to a university that is less than 2% Black determined to only date Black people is kind of silly. Plus, they tend to idealize thugs and athletes (or any man who’s seen as “popular”) and have a lot of “hateration” for other Black women.

    I feel like this article wanted to go down the road of “All Black women are missing a father at home, that’s why they (and their mothers) hate Black men.”

    Like


  23. Oh look, Joe Clyde beat me to it. 🙄

    Sorry, sir, the logic does not compute. Single-moms are more likely to be low income; low-income students are less likely to go to college; women seeking advanced degrees are even less likely to come from low-income backgrounds. But I tend not to go there, because you can’t talk about one without talking about the other [insert “trifling Black men” diatribe here]. Jaded? Pot, meet kettle.

    Like


  24. I think that this way of thinking is very outdated. It’s wonderful that women pursue their educations and careers because men are not guarnteed to stick around. Like Llama stated, men come and go, but you will always have your education and career to substain you.

    Also, I don’t believe that women depricate with time but rather get better. Running out and getting a man and married to someone that may not necessarily be right while you’re young doesn’t always work. Everyone is so individual and no one can dictate your timeline.

    Llama, your Mother is wise.

    Like


  25. Do some men ever think that if they have someone who is educated, they have a better chance of her sticking around if he gets incapacitated? She would have the ability to pay someone to wipe his ass, while she keeps food on the table and a roof over his head.

    Like


  26. on Tue Sep 21st 2010 at 18:05:10 Scipio Africanus

    There’s more single black men than ther are single black women.

    Like


  27. I was taught to go to college to get an education so I don’t need a man. BTW I grew up in a 2 parent household with both parents happily married. My mother AND father taught me that and still emphasize that til this day. It is better than hooking up with someone at 19 or 20 and having to depend on a man, becoming a mother and housewife and basically becoming financially dependent on someone else. Whoever has money and education has power. If you take that marry young without an education trap, how will you be able to easily leave if your man starts messing up (cheating, abuse, etc.)?

    There is nothing wrong with being taught not to rely on anyone else and be independent. What is up with some men who act like women shouldn’t be able to be independent, and it’s like some affront to them that a woman actually has the means to support herself? I have an older aunt who has been married for 35+ years to an abusive man. Guess what- she married young, put education and stuff on hold so she could be wife and look where she’s at? How can she leave when he controls most of the finances? Her education and work history is no match for his because she was a housewife for so long, so could she really make it on her own? Nope, I saw that and I always wanted better for myself. If my man starts being disrespectful and acting stupid, I can pack my ish and be fine on my own without having to depend on anyone. A man can change up on you or leave you at any moment. And if he does that – then whatchugonedo? Education is the great equalizer.

    I noticed a lot of men seem to have a problem with women not needing them. I understand it’s in the male nature to want to be the protector and provider, but you should want a woman who loves you enough to LET you do that, not a woman who has no choice but to submit because she has no other resources. It seems many men (black men included) resent that women really don’t have to take whatever is handed to us anymore.

    I am 21 years old, I want to date, have my fun, create memories and all that before I get married. I cannot imagine myself being married now, or even in the next 5 years. Also, how many men out here in their 20s are trying to get married? Most of them are out having their fun just like I want to have mine. This isn’t the 1960s anymore, I live in the Bible Belt and even I see couples getting married young is the exception rather than the rule.

    Like


  28. WTF @ This whole post.

    I won’t say anything. It’s already been said eloquently by others. For thousands of years women have been completely dependent on men. It didn’t work. Stonings were enacted. Clitori were cut off. 8 year old girls married off. Fistulas. Financial disaster once your husband died and you had no sons. Beatings that were legal. Burnings for being knowledgeable about herbs and healings.. Ect ad infinitum.

    My father met my mother in college. They married when they were 23 and had me at 25. He pestered her into getting pregnant then left when I was 2. My mother was wise to get an education or she would have been forced to be one of “those black mothers” people like to talk so much shit on.

    Booooo on this post. Fail. Straight up. I’m over it and out.

    P.S.
    Still love ya Abagond, but you missed the mark completely with this one.

    Like


  29. There is also another issue.

    Men seem to have a larger dating pool of possible suitors because of what men look for in a partner.(Generally. I’m sure Thaddeus looks for whatever women agree with) Men desire looks. Women desire support(money) again this is generally speaking.

    A man has no issue supporting a woman. This is not seen as a negative for a woman to be dependent on a man. He could marry down, up or stay on the same level. As long as she meets his general basic levels of attractiveness. He would consider her.

    Women are taught to seek out a provider. Someone that can support her or her possible kids. So she is basically told to get someone on her level or above.

    Now here lies the issue. As women fought for equal rights, and equal pay in the workforce. Which I believe they deserve 100%. They still seem to hold onto these old world values. They still want a man who could support them. So as you climb the economic and collegiate ladder. The men that these women would consider “suitable” providers decreases. So the woman is left with a couple of choices. Stay the course and seek out a “good” suitor. Or she could choose a lesser mate, and possibly support him. Majority of women will stay the course. This is another reason why I believe “successful” women of all races are having difficulty finding a suitable mate.

    Like


  30. BlackButterfly,

    “I don’t know what the hell this post is talking about. Google Translate couldn’t even help me with this post.”

    ROTFLMAO.

    Best comment yet.

    Scipio Africanus,

    “There’s more single black men than there are single black women.”

    Finally someone pointed out what was dying to be said.

    Now we can all discuss this in context.

    Like


  31. ^To clarify, the percentage is larger, but the raw numbers are smaller (because there are less black men than black women, in total).

    Like


  32. @Joe
    A lot of Black women are single because of their moms. This is true. Bitter man-hating women were raised by bitter man-hating moms.

    Gee, Joe, ya think some women might have cause to be bitter?

    This whole post shows how bad people are at actually applying logic.

    People have no difficulty believing that past injustices might cause some black people to be bitter towards and hate white people. Whether or not they think that’s good, people have no trouble understanding that fact.

    But move the discussion over to women and suddenly “Goddamn, but those moms are brainwashing their daughters and us poor men can’t get an even break!”

    This is why I distrust so many posters here when they make claims that they’d like to see a better world. Too many folks see only the oppression that affects them and want to simply handwave everything else.

    It’s particularly noxious, however, when this sort of thing comes out the mouth of someone who constantly and rightly chastizes white people for ignoraing anti-black racism.

    I honestly believe you live in a fairy-tale world.

    Really, now Joe? Because when I look around, it seems to me that the vast majority of you guys who rant about the “evil feminists” ain’t getting any unless you pay for it. 😀

    Hathor sez:
    Do some men ever think that if they have someone who is educated, they have a better chance of her sticking around if he gets incapacitated?

    I have always thought about that and it is one of the reasons why I am very happy to have married someone who makes at least what I make.

    And as long as we’re talking about what your grandma said, my gran said “If you marry for money, you’ll end up working for every penny of it”. Likewise, “If you marry someone who expects you to pay their way in life, you’re just renting a whore on a long-term basis”. Openly declared whores are a hell of a lot more honest than “girls who just want to stay at home” and expect a man to provide for them in my book.

    There’s more single black men than ther are single black women.

    Gee, and why is that, given prevailing black attitudes towards masculinity, where even a smart, educated, middle-class and supposedly progressive guy like Abagond routinely advocates positions on gender and sex that sound like they come straight from 1880?

    As Jewel Woods point out, black men don’t have too many alternative male role models. This generation of black men is the first that’s having to come up with them.

    One thing that always amazes me: isn’t it interesting how the folks who pine the most for “traditional family values” are almost always male and divorcees?

    What’s up with that, do you think?

    Ladies…?

    Like


  33. “As long as she meets his general basic levels of attractiveness. He would consider her.”

    This is it exactly…

    I don’t know if the original post was satire or not. I don’t think mothers are to blame for what their daughters do as adults. But all else equal it would appear that on average men like younger women more than they like older ones. This shouldn’t be news to anyone. And there are tradeoffs with life/career/marriage/kids that women must make just as men do. If they’re happy with those tradeoffs, more power to them. If they’re not then they should reconsider.

    Like


  34. Actually, Joe’s recent comment on the differences between what men and women typically look for isn’t so far off.

    Yes, as women climb the success ladder, to the degree that they cling to old sexist prejudices, they will find themselves with an ever-decreasing pool of potential mates. This does not happen to men.

    But what DOES happen to men who buy into traditional prejudices is this: more often than not they get taken to the cleaners.

    You marry a woman who is far below you in economic terms and you will indeed have to make a big pay off come divorce day. This is especially true if children are involved.

    I see this all the time in Rio. We get so many gringo men who come here after divorces and who whine about how “women have ripped them off”. Well, who do they look for when they look for a new mate? Some girl who’s way below them on the economic and social scale. Someone who can only gain if/when it comes to a divorce.

    I joke with Ana that these guys are essentially saying: “Damn, but it hurts when I stick my d*** into a meatgrinder. Maybe if buy another brand of meatgrinder it won’t hurst so much…”

    Like


  35. Y’know, the more I see abagond make posts like these, the more I wonder about his infatuation with Brazil, which seems to have occurred right about the time he was going through his divorce.

    Check out this book here, folks:
    http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Blame-Rio-Behind-Brazil/dp/0446178063

    I mean, not that I castigize guys who do this. I CERTAINLY don’t think that they are victimizing women. But like Jewel, I have met so many American men, black and white, who come here complaining about women “back home”, only to fall for PRECISELY the type of woman that any right-thinking carioca would view with extreme alarm.

    Like


  36. I’m sure Thaddeus looks for whatever women agree with…

    Damned tootin’! I have absolutely zero illusions about my ability to make women go back in time 50 years, even if that was what I wanted.

    Like


  37. Abagond –

    You know, I’ve always had a lot of respect for this blog. I also have to admit that some of your posts made me proud as you seem to show an appreciation for woman of color, not just black women, and women of different sizes, but this post really makes me question your integrity and good sense. I will just try to believe that you are playing “devil’s advocate” and displaying this post to promote a healthy dialogue between men and women.

    I am older now, but I married very young, had children young and if I had the chance to do it over again, I would rather have a career because I believe some people just are not very good at marriage. Also, being a mom has been a financial hell, even while I was married! My ex-husband never was much of a provider so thank God I had skills and pursued an education or we would be homeless and/or starving for the majority of the marriage. Not to mention that he has NEVER paid a dime in child support. But I’ll leave that alone for right now. I love my chldren dearly, but this is not the life I would have chosen for them or myself. Even as an educated woman, it is difficult to say the least. I have two daughters in their 20s and I hope neither one gets married now until they are at least 35. While I would love to be a grandmother, if they both decided to not have children, it would not bother me at all!

    I get hit on a LOT by married men and think it is disgusting. They usually have the same frame of mind that this author has which is very sexist and with a sense of entitlement because he is a male.

    Abagond, I hope you take the high road with future posts because this is really a good blog otherwise. I don’t always comment, but I look forward to reading everyday.

    Like


  38. Uh oh. Well, I’m 38 now, unmarried, no children. I’ve only got two more years until the big 4-0 so I’d better get busy trying to find a man. 😦

    Like


  39. We’ll all just hope that abagond merely posted this for discussion’s sake, and doesn’t actually agree with the author in any meaningful way.

    …But something tells me that’s not the case.

    Like


  40. Blackwomen are different from every other race of woman on the planet, in that, they refuse to be controlled by blackmen and every other man on the planet. Being educated and self-sufficient enables sistas to live life on their terms, and not those of some random man who may or may not give a damn’ about her anyway. Blackwomen can’t take chances with their hearts, because so many blackmen on this planet are still “F&&ked Up.” I don’t see a lot of Nat Turner, Marcus Garvey, and Malcolm X kind of brothas right now, and it’s tragic to me in every sense of the word. I see a lot of cats who would rather be locked up in a cage with another man, versus, being in bed with a beautiful sista. Men have to be righteous for their own sanity and well-being, which is something that women will never understand about us. Blackness is a blessing, Blackwomen are a blessing, but every blackman on this planet has to find a quiet place and think,think,think,think,think, and think some more!!!

    Like


  41. This post quotes a female author.

    Like


  42. …Unsurprisingly.

    Like


  43. Viva female self-sufficiency! A long and hallowed tradition…

    http://bigthink.com/rachelmaines

    Like


  44. I guest-posted this for the sake of discussion. I have already expressed my own opinion on the matter elsewhere:

    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/why-so-few-black-men-marry-black-women/

    Like


  45. ^That tells us why you think there aren’t more black women marrying black men. It doesn’t tell us why you think there aren’t more black women getting married, to anyone.

    Like


  46. It also doesn’t tell us why you think there are more single women, of all ethnicities, than in the past.

    Like


  47. Can we preume we’ll have some Stormfront crossposts in the future, abagond? I mean just for discussion’s sake…

    Like


  48. Thad:

    I have crossposted Guy White. He is not Stormfront but close enough:

    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/would-blacks-survive-in-finland/

    Like


  49. True, true… My bad.

    Like


  50. I still think this post is rotten.

    Like


  51. Natasha W:

    That post does touch on those issues.

    Like


  52. Having read the original, it seems to me that Teowanda feels that men are basically women’s security blanket.

    Like


  53. Joe Clyde,

    “A lot of Black women are single because of their moms. This is true. Bitter man-hating women were raised by bitter man-hating moms.”

    And bitter, misogynistic men were raised by bitter, misogynistic fathers?

    Oh, the irony.

    “A lot of these women are raised to look at men as ticking time-bombs. It’s not if he is going to cheat but when. It is not if he is going to steal from you but when. When you have this Jaded-view before even meeting said suitor. How exactly do you expect any relationship to work?”

    And men, like you, presume that women are thinking this way.

    “Now. I know that the patent answer from a lot of Black Feminist is to run down all of the failures of black men. As if Black men are the only men in America. As if Black women are honestly beating men of other races off with a stick. Men are Men. Period. If you treat men a certain way. You get a certain response. Period.”

    Right, play the “no one wants black women” bit. Please. As if black men are beating off other ethnicities of women and not scraping from the bottom of the barrel?… We can all dole out ignorant stereotypes.

    “Men are men”… meaning?

    Yes, black men aren’t the only men in America but I recall it was you who bemoaned the fact that more black women are realizing this. Make no mistake about it: men like you would be in a very bad position if that really becomes a trend. Because we all know the stats on education and career amongst blacks. Let’s just be blunt about that.

    I’ll bet my bottom dollar that the same men anti-feminist men claim are “p*ssy-whipped” are the men that are happier and are getting treated better by their partners.

    Like


  54. abagond: I believe there was a sentence or two in that post, but it wasn’t really fleshed out.

    Can you expound on those issues?

    Like


  55. Interesting post. Am from a family of three girls, two boys; both of my sisters married relatively young, no college and almost no high school. I have three degrees (bamaphd), but no mrs. My mom did preach education, so as to take care of yourself, but only I bought into it. I think women should do what makes them happy, but keep in mind that there is a biological time clock to consider.
    I am a college prof, and notice that all of these 18-25 year old white, Asian and hispanic young women/students who are married, some with children; and with the black women, 50% single moms or divorced and 50% single. There is more going on than black moms telling their young black American daughters not to marry.

    Like


  56. i disagree with this post. since when women, mainly black women, have to rush to get married while we’re young? why should she throw away her career for a man? trust me, i would love to get married and have kids but i want to finish my education so if that means i may put myself at risk of not getting married so soon then so be it. shouldn’t black women have a choice what we want to do without getting judged or ridiculed for it? when women say they want to be independent and not depend on a man she means she can do it on her own and don’t depend on someone when she feels she can do it herself but i think that bothers a lot of men because women of today are independent. plus what if the marriage doesn’t work out and the woman hasn’t nothing to fall back on? we all need something to fall back on because in life you never know what could happen. and if people want to blame mothers for their daughters being single then fathers should be blamed for sons not being there for their own kids.

    Like


  57. @ Thad

    I meant I didn’t see the point of cross-posting this.

    Quite frankly, I don’t see what the big “mystery” is. Most heterosexual, marriage-seeking black women want to marry black men. Most heterosexual, marriage-seeking black men want to marry white women, or Asian women, or Latinas.

    *blink* So what’s the “mystery”?

    And why are black women automatically to blame? We’ve been “faithful”, we’ve represented our group well in academics and employment, we’ve taken care of our families…in short, we’ve done our people proud.

    This is about sexism and misogyny in black communities, both here and in the Motherland. I think black men – as group – have taken advantage of our unearned devotion, patience, and understanding. I grew up in a family which practiced polygamy, and I spent my whole childhood wondering, “Um…why?” I remember reading postcolonial writers – a poet from Malawi in particular – who felt black male liberation from colonialism was more important than black female liberation and overall gender equality in Africa.

    After the fall of colonialism, how many black leaders ran right out and got them a white wife? How many of them dared to practice polygamy then?

    Now…black men can fume all they want at this, but it’s the truth. I know some black men will get mad at being held accountable for – and benefiting from – what other black men do/have done (sound familar?), but you have to practice what you preach. Every black man who insists white folks need to “correct their own” needs to turn around and correct his own in terms of how black men have treated black women.

    And I don’t mean just writing pretty blog posts or filming impassioned video clips for YouTube, but actively meeting with and discussing this problem with other black men.

    Until they do – you know…when hell freezes over and Satan goes ice-skating – I think black women need to stop waiting for black men, stop enabling by giving them unearned devotion, and stop being so damn racist in the dating arena. Yes, even with white guys. If you find him attractive, and he’s willing to treat you like a lady and isn’t pulling the shit Nita Hanson’s hubby is, then by all means…go for it.

    I’m sick of hearing from my perfectly beautiful, professional, well-educated black coworkers that they don’t have options outside of black men.

    Fashion Tip from Moi: The”waiting” and the “first choice shit” needs to stop. We’re not black men’s first choice and they’re not waiting for us. While we are being blamed for this, it’s not our fault our men are generally autophobic and ungrateful. That’s their problem. It becomes our problem when we let their problem f**k up our lives.

    So…next….

    Like


  58. on Tue Sep 21st 2010 at 23:07:09 Menelik Charles

    lil’vina said:

    since when women, mainly black women, have to rush to get married while we’re young? why should she throw away her career for a man?

    Menelik replied:

    since when, mainly Black women, have to rush to get babies while their young? Not many Black women do that now, do they? I mean, why should they throw away their possibility for a career for pregnancies by multiple fathers? That’s just not something Black women do in the main, is it?

    Jesus!

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  59. on Tue Sep 21st 2010 at 23:24:01 Menelik Charles

    Y said:

    I dont mean to be snooty but I know of too many female MDs/PhDs that are married with children to buy into this foolish hysteria.

    Menelik says:

    baby sister, you couldn’t by snooty if you tried; you’re just too damned sweet!

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    PS oh, and, er, don’t thank sweet heart: thank your parents!

    Like


  60. @Ankhesen Mié
    @on Tue 21 Sep 2010 at 22:56:36

    Strong, good post. I beg to differ at the ‘our men’ line, they are in fact, not ‘ours’. When bw understand this, real change might take place.

    Like


  61. Joe Clyde–
    A man has no issue supporting a woman. This is not seen as a negative for a woman to be dependent on a man. He could marry down, up or stay on the same level. As long as she meets his general basic levels of attractiveness. He would consider her.

    RDKirk–
    The thing is, a man has no biological purpose to stay in the home after the woman gets pregnant except as provider and protector. Unless we provide and protect, we’re superfluous, a waste of household resources. I think it’s coded down deep in every normal male’s DNA that if he’s not protector and provider, we’re simply unnecessary.

    So males have engineered every human society to enforce or necessity in the household…by artificially shackling women with moral rules when technology otherwise would have allowed women to do without us.

    But I think through black history in the US–up until the late 60s–black males have at least been allowed to believe that we were necessary in the family. Maybe that has always been an illusion, but it was an illusion we were able to maintain.

    We’ve come to a point where both young black males and black women know black women have no need of men. This certainly has not been the fault of black women–it has nothing, really, to do with black women working or being educated. It has always been the case in the US that black women have been forced to provide as much material support to the family as we black men have been allowed to provide ourselves.

    Yet, we maintained the role of provider and protector even in a society that was hellbent on prohibiting us from doing it. We did what we could. I remember when my family drove from Oklahoma to Florida in the early 60s, it was my father who left us in the car at every stop to check whether we (as blacks) would be allowed to use a restroom or eat in a restaurant. If there was going to be any rejection or humiliation, he knew it was his male responsibility to shield us from it. My wife tells the same story about her father. Our fathers might not have been able to protect us from a mob of rioting whites, but harm to us would come only over their dead bodies–and our mothers knew that. That seemed to be sufficient.

    The total loss of that illusion I suspect what has happened to young black men following the Boomer Generation. It certainly started in the late 60s. Everyone by now should have heard of the 1969 Moynihan Report, in which Patrick Moynihan concluded that welfare programs that literally forced males out of black households were so detrimental that black families would be better off with the government’s earlier “benign neglect.”

    But those programs continued. There was even a 70s movie about that predicament (“Claudine” starring Diane Carroll and James Earl Jones). That hasn’t been the only thing–but it was huge.

    I have mentioned before my daughter’s observation that young and old males of other ethnic groups as well as older black males have a “gallantry reflex” that appears to be lacking in young black males. By “gallantry reflex” I’m talking about a positive reaction to a “damsel in distress.” We are at the point now where all a young black male brings to a relationship is a penis–they are dildoes in a woman’s nightstand…and it seems most of them realize it and have adapted to that status. What loyalty should a dildo have?

    I don’t know how to fix this. I have a feeling–maybe just a forlorn heterosexual hope–that if young men would step up to the plate, women will accept it. Men don’t need for their wives to be reduced to actual dependence–that’s never been the case in the American black experience anyway. But males need to take that role as their MORAL responsibility.

    When my son’s wife was pregnant with my first grandchild, I sat him down and told him this:

    Son, after your wife has the baby, at some point she’s going to have to decide when she’ll go back to work. She may be ambivalent about that–most likely, she won’t want to while the baby is young. Or maybe she will. She may go back and forth in her mind a thousand times about it. She may firmly decide that she wants to go back to work as soon as possible.

    But I guarantee you, at some point she’s going to float the question, “Honey, what if I just stay home with the baby?” Now pay attention to your old man. When she asks you that question, son–and she will–there is only one correct answer. You look her straight in her eyes and tell her, “Whatever you think you need to do, baby, I can handle it.”

    Like


  62. @Natasha
    I’ll bet my bottom dollar that the same men anti-feminist men claim are “p*ssy-whipped” are the men that are happier and are getting treated better by their partners.

    I can definitely testify to that. But hey, some men LIKE being 56 and bellying up to singles’ bar or brothel, so who am I to judge?

    Like


  63. Strong, good post. I beg to differ at the ‘our men’ line, they are in fact, not ‘ours.

    I meant “ours” in identity (i.e., skintone), not the possessive. I by no means seriously believe they “belong” to us.

    The day they also understand they can’t have us chilling on the back burner listening to their woes and helping them with their problems and not seeing anyone else will be the day real change will take place.

    Like


  64. Ankhesen Mié says,
    -And why are black women automatically to blame? We’ve been “faithful”, we’ve represented our group well in academics and employment, we’ve taken care of our families…in short, we’ve done our people proud.
    -This is about sexism and misogyny in black communities, both here and in the Motherland. I think black men – as group – have taken advantage of our unearned devotion, patience, and understanding
    -Now…black men can fume all they want at this, but it’s the truth. I know some black men will get mad at being held accountable for – and benefiting from – what other black men do/have done (sound familar?), but you have to practice what you preach. Every black man who insists white folks need to “correct their own” needs to turn around and correct his own in terms of how black men have treated black women.
    -And I don’t mean just writing pretty blog posts or filming impassioned video clips for YouTube, but actively meeting with and discussing this problem with other black men.
    -Until they do – you know…when hell freezes over and Satan goes ice-skating – I think black women need to stop waiting for black men, stop enabling by giving them unearned devotion, and stop being so damn racist in the dating arena. Yes, even with white guys. If you find him attractive, and he’s willing to treat you like a lady and isn’t pulling the shit Nita Hanson’s hubby is, then by all means…go for it.

    laromana says,
    Ankhesen Mié, thanks for your excellent post that spells out the facts regarding ANTI-BW sexism/misogyny from MOST BM towards BW.
    BW have to reject ANTI-BW BM and ONLY pursue relationships with quality men of ANY RACE who will treat them with love and respect.

    Like


  65. RDKirk:
    So males have engineered every human society to enforce or necessity in the household…by artificially shackling women with moral rules when technology otherwise would have allowed women to do without us.

    Not true. This seems to be mostly a post-agricultural phenomenon.

    Everyone by now should have heard of the 1969 Moynihan Report, in which Patrick Moynihan concluded that welfare programs that literally forced males out of black households were so detrimental that black families would be better off with the government’s earlier “benign neglect.”

    Sorry, RD, but that report has been debunked by reams of sociological and anthropological study since then. It’s now considered to be a pretty misogynist piece of work, actually.

    Like


  66. @Ank Me
    Quite frankly, I don’t see what the big “mystery” is. Most heterosexual, marriage-seeking black women want to marry black men. Most heterosexual, marriage-seeking black men want to marry white women, or Asian women, or Latinas.

    Source, please. That sounds like an Oprah insti-stat to me.

    I grew up in a family which practiced polygamy, and I spent my whole childhood wondering, “Um…why?”

    Well, someone needs to point out that it’s traditional in many, many African cultures. 😀

    The day they also understand they can’t have us chilling on the back burner listening to their woes and helping them with their problems and not seeing anyone else will be the day real change will take place.

    That’ll be the Dia de São Nunca, as we say here in Brazil.

    No women, anywhere in the world, think that “their” men are up to snuff.

    Like


  67. “Quality men”. I just love that concept. As if men came with a little USDA tag on their ears.

    What was that old saw about pornography being objectification again…? 😀

    Like


  68. RDKirk:
    So males have engineered every human society to enforce or necessity in the household…by artificially shackling women with moral rules when technology otherwise would have allowed women to do without us.

    Thaddeus–
    Not true. This seems to be mostly a post-agricultural phenomenon.

    RDKirk–
    Yes. That would be “when technology otherwise would have allowed women to do without us.” What makes you think the invention of agriculture was not an application of early technology?

    Have you ever noticed that nearly every example of traditional female costume around the world prevents women from running fast?

    RDKirk–
    Everyone by now should have heard of the 1969 Moynihan Report, in which Patrick Moynihan concluded that welfare programs that literally forced males out of black households were so detrimental that black families would be better off with the government’s earlier “benign neglect.”

    Thaddeus–
    Sorry, RD, but that report has been debunked by reams of sociological and anthropological study since then. It’s now considered to be a pretty misogynist piece of work, actually.

    RDKirk–
    First, that “reams” is untrue. But then, follow the money. It’s been “debunked” by people with a stake in maintaining the status quo, not by people with a goal to solve the problem.

    The facts of the program are facts: Women got no money if there was evidence of a man in the household. Until the introduction of those programs, there were, at least, men in black households.

    The only way to validly “debunk” the reason is to find another. What is the other reason?

    Like


  69. Well, someone needs to point out that it’s traditional in many, many African cultures.

    So…in other words, you have no clue why.

    Source, please. That sounds like an Oprah insti-stat to me.

    Here’s your source: life.

    Mind you, it doesn’t bug me. What bugs me is black men copping a ‘tude whenever they see me with a non-black man…while their white girlfriends are ordering drinks at the bar or in the bathroom. I’m well aware it’s not a “jealousy” thing; it’s a control thing.

    Like


  70. Thaddeus,
    Name me any state in the US that give ADC if their is a man supporting the woman. I don’t think any state gives welfare to families, white or black. There was a time, 60 years ago. My step mother was a social worker in the 50’s and the welfare system work with families even if the marriage was considered common law. Seven years ago Pennsylvania abolished common law marriage.

    Like


  71. @RDKirk
    First, that “reams” is untrue. But then, follow the money. It’s been “debunked” by people with a stake in maintaining the status quo, not by people with a goal to solve the problem.

    Actually, I’m thinking about a series of studies undertaken by mostly black, mostly female urban anthropologists who showed that men were fundamental to many urban poor black households that were receiving welfare. I don’t think these women had much of a stake in maintaining the status quo.

    The facts that these women turned up indicated that it was relatively easy to maintain family ties in spite of these rules, that the welfare laws had relatively little impact on the structure of households, many of which were decentralized and extended long before welfare existed. they conclude that Moynihan greatly exagerated the idea of a black female “matriarchy” in poor black households and lay this exageration square at the doorstep of racist stereotypes.

    Like


  72. @Ank Me
    Here’s your source: life.

    Ah. In other words, your own personal prejudices.

    Why am I not surprised?

    I very much doubt that most black men are looking for white or asian wives, Ank, however it might feel to you.

    Like


  73. Ankhesen,

    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/mothers-are-the-reason-there-are-so-many-single-women/#comment-65177

    I co-sign this post, except I’m not sure about the “most” part or rough numbers of who is looking to marry who… If the men are looking to marry, which is whole other subject.

    I’m still waiting for black women to wise up and realize where their best interests lie, but I’m getting old and grey.

    Like


  74. Thaddeus–
    Actually, I’m thinking about a series of studies undertaken by mostly black, mostly female urban anthropologists who showed that men were fundamental to many urban poor black households that were receiving welfare. I don’t think these women had much of a stake in maintaining the status quo.

    RDKirk–
    Actually, they certainly did. You don’t seem to understand how things work over here.

    Thaddeus–
    The facts that these women turned up indicated that it was relatively easy to maintain family ties in spite of these rules, that the welfare laws had relatively little impact on the structure of households, many of which were decentralized and extended long before welfare existed. they conclude that Moynihan greatly exagerated the idea of a black female “matriarchy” in poor black households and lay this exageration square at the doorstep of racist stereotypes.

    RDKirk–
    Historically, “long before welfare exist,” yes. After ADC, no. That was the point. We KNOW that black households changed from the majority having father figure in the household to lacking them. ADC is the only suspect.

    If you know of another, trot it out here. Otherwise, you’re blowing smoke.

    Like


  75. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 03:06:49 Menelik Charles

    RDKirk,

    hold ya ground!

    Like


  76. @RDkirk
    Actually, they certainly did. You don’t seem to understand how things work over here.

    So you think radical black activist anthropologists have something to gain by debunking Moynihan and thus, in your words, “supporting the status quo”?

    Explain that one to me because I do not get it. What are they gaining?

    We KNOW that black households changed from the majority having father figure in the household to lacking them.

    Hmmm. How do we know this, precisely? I’m presuming the census? Given that the Moynihan report was published in the 1960s, at the tail end of one of the largest black migratory moves in history, don’t you think that other factors might come into play, such as a shift from rural to urban populations?

    Like


  77. I mean, “family disintegration” or restructuring has been the bugaboo of all rural-to-urban movements ever since Thomas and Zanwieki took a look at the Polish Peasant in Chicago.

    Like


  78. I also find it interesting – and suspect – how the only people who buy Moynihan’s theory today are certain black men and far right white conservatives.

    I mean, go figure.

    Like


  79. Furthermore, what percentage of black families got ADC, Kirk? Any idea?

    Like


  80. Wow. This is sad and somewhat hurtful. I initially thought abagond posted this point of view as an example of someone else’s stupidity but I later found out it was him.
    This is not to insult abagond either, but that is how I reacted to the post.

    I think the fact that people love to get into discussions about how black women are unmarriageable and undesirable speaks volumes about how they actually view black women. Some of us get married, some of us don’t. Some of us have happy marriages, some don’t, and some (including myself) aren’t even thinking about marriage or concerned about being left in the cold after age 40. Black women are individuals with unique desires and lifestyles.

    Newsflash: Marriage isn’t a pot of gold! It’s not the key to life. It’s just another institution that people primarily use to make babies.

    Furthermore, I find this post extremely sexist. Women are supposed to give up their career goals to become marriageable because when we’re old we’ll be used up and no one will want us? This doesn’t even take the fact that young women are still discovering themselves in their college years and may not know what they want until they’re older-it solely focuses on the value of the woman’s youthful BODY to men and how men can use it for a finite period of time before it’s old and rusty.

    In all reality I do interpret this post as an indirect attack on black women and I’m very disappointed.

    Like


  81. @Charles, *roll eyes* what I was saying that black women shouldn’t have to stop her career to get married and then regret her choices. And I definitely agree with y. Tell them the truth.

    Like


  82. Gata,

    I agree with everything in your post. People always assume that women want to get married and if they are not, something must be wrong. As it seems that marriage was the only way for women in the past, it now is just one of many options for women. It may be a second or third choice behind education and careers.

    It also places too much value on women’s youthful bodies. She should get her mate before it’s too late. This is one of the reasons why many women stay in abusive relationships for years and decades. They fear that no one else will want them.

    Like


  83. Whoever woman wrote this post is on some Stockholm Syndrome type mess. So a woman’s primary goal is finding a man before she is older (read worthless)? We are not vastly varied individuals with hopes and dreams, no we’re here to enhance men’s lives?

    Seriously, then we might as well be seen and not heard, speak when spoken to, walk around with parasols so we don’t get “dark” and turn off our tough, hardworking bread winning protectors. Instead of telling women to get back in check and suppress their interests and personalities to fit some archaic standard of femininity (as if there really is such a thing), tell men to ditch the gender narcissism and evolve already.

    Like


  84. i agree gata. whoever made this post, not abagond, but originally did this is sexist and stupid. no way am i throwing away my career for some man that i may not stay with for the rest of my life. i think some men need to stop expecting black women to be like every other women of different races because guess what? we’re not them and never will be them so stop trying to compare us because it’s old and tiring. we can’t get a break in life because of how we are, act, dress, talk, who we date, etc. ugh i’m done. if women of any race want to marry and have kids then there’s nothing wrong with it but she shouldn’t have to give up everything she worked hard for just to get married. and if some men don’t like it oh well. it’s 2010 not 1940s or 50s. women should be allowed to do what she wants without being dependent on a man. black women have always had the back for black men for years and what do we get after that? i say think about that.

    Like


  85. Thad:

    1. This is a guest post. I do not always agree with what guest posters say. Sometimes I completely disagree.

    2. I am separated, not divorced.

    3. Teowonna is not against women getting an education. I thought she was very clear about that.

    Like


  86. Natasha W said:

    “abagond: I believe there was a sentence or two in that post, but it wasn’t really fleshed out.

    Can you expound on those issues?”

    I will do a post on it shortly.

    Like


  87. Thanks Abagond, for clarifying this post doesn’t reflect your views.

    I too agree with Gata’s assessment of it: “it solely focuses on the value of the woman’s youthful BODY to men and how men can use it for a finite period of time before it’s old and rusty.” Pinpointed my main disagreement with the post.

    LOL@”Whoever woman wrote this post is on some Stockholm Syndrome type mess.”

    Like


  88. For those who believe I am against women and education,I wonder what post were you reading? Clearly not mine. If you go back and actually READ what I wrote (and take that vile independent streak that’s been instilled in you out), you just may agree with me. ‘Thank you’ to the few that actually get it.

    Like


  89. Abagond,

    It is nice to let people express their views in guest posts, even if you dislike their opinion. But since you’re the blog owner, people would like to hear your opinion, and you weren’t quite clear when it comes to this one.

    Furthermore, I don’t see this post as similar in any way to your “why so few black men marry black women” post. This one didn’t seem to be about black women in particular, even though the author focused on black women.

    Also, I had no idea you’re separated (not that it’s any of my business) so it’s a bit unfair for Thad to keep brining that into conversation.

    But when it comes to #3: “Teowonna is not against women getting an education. I thought she was very clear about that.”

    All I can say is: no, she wasn’t clear about that. Not at all. (And yes, it’s just my opinion, but it was definitely confusing for me to read… And judging by some comments here, I am not the only one).

    Like


  90. ThatTeowonna!,

    You don’t seem to be against women getting an education. But you didn’t clearly state it’s a good thing, and the main reason you blamed mothers (as far as I can tell) is that they focus way too much on their daughters’ education for sake of education and the ability to be independent. It doesn’t seem to be a positive thing in your book.

    Like


  91. Mira:
    Perhaps you should read the full post. If you are a regular Abagonder, then you know he limits posts to 500 words. In fact, I encourage all readers to go that.

    Like


  92. Thaddeus,

    People in the Black community could see how welfare was destroying the family. What you forget that many Black people were poorer than the average white person, even the Black middle class was poorer than many white people who had blue collar jobs. Black people didn’t live in your world. Many families may needed help or subsidized housing or food assistance, but what happened during the sixties, many states decided that only mothers with children would be covered, and it was never enough money or assistance to help a person not become dependent on welfare, its modern design perpetuated the dependence. The rules set up purposely discouraged the active role of a man. Yes many social workers overlooked if there was a man in the house, especially when the system was segregated. As time went on the system became more punitive, both with the client and social workers. Then you had the media and politician, focusing on the lack of men in the Black family, when it wasn’t the case and in a way it became a self fulfilling prophesy of the nation.

    While the dependence was growing with these women, because of our nations backward attitude about sex, there was no effort to encourage these women to control their reproduction. You know because the poor always have to be more moral than the rest of us. Then the welfare culture became such that it produce children who would grow up not seeing any responsibility.

    My dad not a social science academic, basically said that welfare was destroying Black families, long before the Moynihan report. I know this isn’t proof to you, but most concerned Black folks could care what you think.

    Like


  93. ThatTeowonna,

    I did read the original post. You never said you’re against education; but it still seems like you see independence as a bad thing.

    Now, you are right about the fact that female biological clock is different than the male one. Women need to at least start thinking about kids and planning in the early 30s. Men don’t need to do that. Education can’t change the fact a woman can’t wait till 50s to have children. I agree with that.

    But I believe you wasn’t clear about the whole thing- at least to me, your post is full of confusing messages. It does seem you blame mothers for encouraging heir daughters to get an education, to be independent and to be able to survive on their own.

    You also seem to imply that it’s impossible to have both education and family, which is untrue. You can get a high education till your mid to late 20s. You are still young enough to have kids. In fact, I believe people are not quite mature to get married at the age of 18.

    By the way, I had no idea white mothers send their daughters to college to get married. That’s disgusting.

    Like


  94. @Abagond
    I am sorry Abagond, but I disagree with you on that one. White women and Asian women go to college to get their degrees also and it is not stopping them from getting married. And to have a family, with a husband and kids, but having a lower income, which often comes from a lack of education, is not a good idea. Financial problems only add more stress to a marriage not less, especially if you can’t pay your bills ( there is nothing romantic about sitting in dark because your lights went out). I hope you are not one of those many black men who are intimidated by an educated black women. And I agree with Mira. About time a woman get her Master’s degree ( if she goes straight through school, not taking a break) she is still young and attractive to get a man and have children. Many women finish their education by the time they are 25 or 26 years old. So no, I don’t agree with this advice. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. “Ain’t nothing going on but the rent” as one beautiful woman once said. You can’t eat off of love. Being practical is not anti-love but supports love, especially in a marriage.

    Like


  95. Jeri,

    Abagond didn’t write any of these things; this is a guest post by ThatTeowonna.

    I am 29 and I’m finishing my Master’s degree (well, it’s not called that, but it’s equivalent to Masters in the US). However, I started late. (When I was 24). I also got married before it. My husband is a student. You can imagine our financial situation.

    But it’s certainly not impossible to get a high education and get married.

    Like


  96. @Abagond

    Oh, now I see that it wasn’t your opinon but someone else’s. Oooh, you scared me for a minute. Please, don’t do that to me again!

    Like


  97. @Mira

    Yeah, now I realize that it wasn’t his opinion. I am relieved. Well, a woman can get her education and have a family too. Many woman do it all the time. And like I said, white and Asian women go to college also and they get married more often than black woman. Education has nothing to do with it. Well, actually that may not be true. I think more black men should finish college. Black women are more likely to get a college education and that might cause problems between black men and woman. Some black men are intimidated by educated black women and many black women want someone who is equal or more equal to themselves when it comes to a college education. So the answer is not promoting LESS education but more education in the black community.

    Like


  98. Globally speaking, I would turn this one upside down – (old school) mothers and grandmothers and reactionary, insecure men are the reason there are so many uneducated women in this world.

    Like


  99. The title itself is full of hot air. So if you’re not married, you’re single and lost? Really? I guess you don’t know any married miserable people or any happy single ones or any educated people in long term relationships for that matter. I’m a weirdo, I do not see marriage as necessary and I can’t cater to that “woman’s work” bs. Maybe it’s easy for me to feel this way because I have no religion and I sure as hell don’t care for stereotypical gender roles and I know that plays a part in decisions like these

    Being well rounded, social and bonding with other human beings is a good thing but telling women it should be their priority to snag a man just doesn’t compute. Getting an education is “alright” according to the author but apparently getting a man is a must. Women should go after what they want out of life, if that happens to be finding a man pronto then that is her business but its not right to penalize people for not wanting traditional lifestyles.. Now this topic is dead in the water for me. Later.

    Like


  100. Jeri said:

    Some black men are intimidated by educated black women and many black women want someone who is equal or more equal to themselves when it comes to a college education. So the answer is not promoting LESS education but more education in the black community.

    Menelik asks:

    sista, would you say the African-American family was patriarchal or matriarchal?

    Just asking.

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  101. @Menelik
    It depends. If the majority of African American families are run by women, I would have to say those families are matriarchal. But not necessarily families that are run by couples. Alot of times, those families are patriarchal. The main thing that makes African American families matriarchal is the lack of men participating in them!

    Like


  102. Menelik,

    There is no such thing as matriarchal society or family. Anywhere, anytime in the world. It simply does not exist.

    Like


  103. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 13:37:20 Menelik Charles

    @Mira,

    if you don’t mind I’d like to have a potential discussion with Jeri: she knows what I’m talking about. There’s this phrase which says: “it’s a Black thing, you wouldn’t understand”. Jeri understands.

    No offence meant!

    Like


  104. Menelik,

    And no offence, but you used the word “matriarchal”, which is a specific term.

    So if you want to discuss whether black families are run by men or women, you can do that and of course I won’t offer my opinion. But you can’t use the word “matriarchal”, because matriarchy doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.

    Like


  105. @Menelike Charles

    Can I ask you something! I am not getting smart with you or anything, but you did say you live in the United Kingdom. How do you know about the African American family, when you live overseas?

    Like


  106. @Menilike Charles
    Look. I am a married woman, plus I know many married couples who are African American. Trust me. It is not mostly the woman running the show. That has been my experience. And that involves alot of couples in my own family. So I don’t know where you are coming from. I will say it again. Matriachy in the black community comes from a lack of marriage, not overly dominate females!

    Like


  107. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 14:15:12 Menelik Charles

    Mira,

    I heard exactly what you said, and I have responded to it. My underlying point is that I’ve been on here long enough to know that if two people disagree on something, and it cannot be debated, then it’s best to keep stum as my Jewish neighbour would say.

    Failing that you should consider what you say here…

    Mira said:

    language shapes our view of the world..so… it’s bad to USE certain words. However, I don’t think REFERRING to a word is the same thing as USING it. And yes, it seems to be a cultural thing. There two (referring to and using) seem to be the same in America. So I don’t think these two sentences are the same:

    1) “Kids who wear glasses are sometimes considered to be ugly by their peers.”

    2)“He’s ugly because he wears glasses!”

    Menelik says:

    now consider what you say here…

    Mira said:

    there is no such thing as matriarchal society or family. Anywhere, anytime in the world. It simply does not exist.

    Menelik says:

    and there’s no such thing as mother-dominated families or female-dominated communities in the US! Abolish the term matriarchy for it offends thee!

    Mira, please, my credentials on this matter are, doubtless, wholly irrelevant to you; as is mine and Jeri’s intuitive understanding of the term matriarchy as it relates to African-American matters.

    So while I appreciate this is a public blog, I would not personally invite a stranger to discuss matters of family and community when, seriously, they have no understanding of our people’s sensitivities. So Mira, if sista Jeri and I should choose to debate the matter at hand, please allow us to do so without correction from you. Will you do that?

    Thanks ever such a lot.

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    PS all things considered, I’m sure you’ll have the multi-coloured cavalry storming around the corner any second soon. If so, I’m outa here! It’s no loss to me.

    Like


  108. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 14:22:54 Menelik Charles

    @ Jeri,

    I share a heritage with African-Americans; I worked in an Afrocentric book store selling mostly African-American books for most of my working life; I’ve met most, if not any, Afrocentric scholar you care to name; I have family in New York and a son in Los Angeles. Added to which, I’ve visited the US more times than I can recall.

    I consider African-Americans my kith ‘n’ kin.

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    PS most African-American families are not two-parent. know where I’m coming from now?

    Like


  109. Menelik,

    You’re missing the point. It has nothing to do with referring and using the words in context of being offended. The word “matriarchy” is not offensive (maybe it is to you?) It’s just incorrect, because it assumes it’s the same thing as patriarchy, only with women in charge.

    Furthermore, I could play Thad and ask why you think you and Jeri have an intuitive understanding of the word that I (a person who grew up in a family without a male member, and with mother who grew up in a family without a male member) can’t possibly get.

    Like


  110. Menelik Charles,
    You assume to much. You didn’t identify yourself before asking the question or make plain your preference for a private conversation on a public forum.

    Like


  111. @Menelike Charles

    Yeah, but that is not the sole fault of African American women. It takes two to tangle and two to disagree. I am not saying it is NEVER the fault of African American women. There are many reasons why there are large numbers of female headed households. It is rather complex.

    Like


  112. @Hathor
    Exactly. Mira has just as much right to discuss her feelings considering that this is a public forum.

    Like


  113. Jeri,

    Thank you. Please understand I didn’t want to get into this discussion or tell Menelik and you what to do or think about black American families. I don’t know much about black community in America, and I am the last person here who’d tell you what to do or who’d lecture you on your culture.

    I just said matriarchy is not the right word to use; it assumes there is a system that’s the same like patriarchy, only with women in charge. And that is not real.

    Like


  114. @Menelike Charles
    Can I ask you a question? What exactly does this have to do with mothers influencing their daughters to have an education? Do you think matriachy in the black community has something to do with this? Do you agree that black women should not educate themselves to get a spouse? What is your point?

    Like


  115. “she’s got her own thing….that’s why I love her….mrs. independent…come and spend a little time.”

    -Ne-Yo

    Isn’t there a certain number of men who might be attracted to independent women? It doesn’t put me off.

    Not needing a man for financial support is different from not getting married. My wife has a job. Ever heard of daycare?

    Like


  116. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 14:57:26 Menelik Charles

    Jeri said:

    yeah, but that is not the sole fault of African American women.

    Menelik says:

    I don’t recall apportioning blame to any party! Do you?

    Like


  117. @Menelike Charles

    Not really. I think that both black men and women have some blame.

    Like


  118. @Menelike Charles
    What does matriarchy have to do with this subject?

    Like


  119. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 15:02:04 Menelik Charles

    @Jeri,

    point is I wasn’t apportioning blame so why so defensive? I don’t get it.

    Like


  120. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 15:03:33 Menelik Charles

    @Jeri

    define matriarchy, please.

    thanks

    Like


  121. @Menelike Charles

    Matriachy is when a woman is a ruler of a family or tribe. I think that is what that means.It could also mean when a female-dominated family is the predominate family in a particular community. But I think you are assuming alot. First of all, all mothers who encourage their daughters to be educated are not the dominate ones in the family. Sometimes, it is the opposite. If a man is the dominate one and the wife resents it, she might encourage her daughter all the more so to get an education. She doesn’t want her daughter to go through what she went through! Once again, could you please make your point, instead of asking me a bunch of questions. I know it is a “black thing”, but I still need to understand where you are coming from?

    Like


  122. I don’t see how any of this discussion is a “black thing”. You’re not immediately in the know on everything about people with dark skin and kinky hair because you happen to share those attributes. That’s a cop-out for people who want to run a conversation and not have anyone question them.

    Like


  123. @Mira
    By the way Mira, I hope you don’t think I am mad at you, or anything. I was just expressing my opinion. No one really got me angry except one person, when she decided to really get smart. I was just saying that people should be careful how they express things because people might not understand where you are coming from. I understand that you didn’t mean that fat people are ugly but that people CONSIDER fat people ugly. I know what you mean. But the way you said it may make some people think that you are calling them something derogatory. When I make comments on this website, I seldom get angry or have a strong emotion one way or the other. It mostly comes from the head, not the heart. You understand.

    Like


  124. @Natasha
    So true. Everybody black doesn’t have the same experiences! That is a bad assumption.

    Like


  125. Jeri,

    It’s ok. I didn’t mean you were mad at me (and I certainly hope you don’t think I’m mad at you). 🙂

    Like


  126. Teowanna,

    “For those who believe I am against women and education,I wonder what post were you reading? Clearly not mine. If you go back and actually READ what I wrote (and take that vile independent streak that’s been instilled in you out), you just may agree with me. ‘Thank you’ to the few that actually get it.”

    “Vile independent streak”? Well, I guess you’ve made it clear how you feel about “independent” women, as you define them. It’s ashame you’ve now put commenters on the defense and shut down any meaningful conversation by being snarky.

    You’re getting offended instead of explaining your position. Obviously, people are not going to agree with everything you write, and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, I think your position in this post (including the longer version on your blog) is quite clear and thus re-reading it over and over will not help. There is a fundamental difference between the way you view this topic and the way many others here do, and that’s the problem, not the commenters’ reading comprehension.

    Like


  127. Jeri@
    “Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. “Ain’t nothing going on but the rent” as one beautiful woman once said. You can’t eat off of love. Being practical is not anti-love but supports love, especially in a marriage.”

    I agree with you 100%…right now in the US with the economy the way it is, many of the wives are now holding it down financially for the family.

    I found the article to be slightly unrealistic…most mothers want their daughters to be married and have good marriages with a man who makes them happy.

    Marriage itself is a tough job, you have to be willing to compromise on so many things…so it’s so important to come into any relationship with a strong love for yourself and not look to the other person to validate who you are…

    Education helps people to grow and it is a confidence booster…women need all the confidence we can get because we carry alot of responsibility when it comes to raising a family.

    The “I don’t need a man” mantra came about from young ladies getting burned one time too many by men…

    I think too many women give away too much of themselves (mentally, emotionally, and physically) to men without getting back any real comittments…financial or emotional.

    “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free”…

    this is what I tell my single, well-educated girlfriends who get upset when once again, they were let down by their ex-boyfriend…if you give him 100% and you allow him to give you 25%, then why complain…there is nothing pressing him to put a ring on your finger if he got everything up front…there is no mystery left..

    My belief is that most men want to be men…they enjoy the chase and they appreciate the woman more when he has to work for his prize…especially if the woman is confident and seems unattainable…

    Like


  128. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 15:41:31 Menelik Charles

    jeri said:

    1) matriarchy is when a woman is a ruler of a family or tribe. I think that is what that means.

    2) it could also mean when a female-dominated family is the predominate family in a particular community.

    Menelik replies:

    so that’s your definition of matriarchy, correct? Remember, I never defined the term or made any comment regarding the African-American family beyond asking YOU whether or not you thought it was matriarchal or patriarchal. Please scroll up for confirmation of this.

    Thanks

    Jeri said:

    I think you are assuming alot. First of all, all mothers who encourage their daughters to be educated are not the dominate ones in the family.

    Menelik says:

    remember, Jeri, I have assumed nothing whatsoever. Please scroll up for confirmation.

    Thanks.

    Jeri said:

    Once again, could you please make your point, instead of asking me a bunch of questions.

    Menelik replies:

    finally you got it: I asked you QUESTIONS! I made not one single assumption, or criticism of Black females. Please scroll up for confirmation.

    Thanks.

    Jeri said:

    I know it is a “black thing”, but I still need to understand where you are coming from?

    Menelik replies:

    with respect, sista Jeri, it no longer matters where I’m coming from: it’s where this discussion is likely to end up that worries me. So with that: I’m out!

    Thank you for your time.

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  129. My belief is that most men want to be men…they enjoy the chase and they appreciate the woman more when he has to work for his prize…especially if the woman is confident and seems unattainable…

    This seems to be the truth, unfortunately.

    Now, I am not sure if anybody should want to be with such a person.

    Like


  130. @Menelike Charles

    And non-black people have just as much right to express their opinion on this website as anyone else!

    Like


  131. @Menelike Charles

    Okay, whatever. You see this discussion is going to turn into what? What is your point!! You are asking the questions but refuse to answer any. This is kind of a waste of my time!

    Like


  132. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 16:00:47 africanblackmilitant

    ——————————-
    Originally Posted By Mira

    Thank you. Please understand I didn’t want to get into this discussion or tell Menelik and you what to do or think about black American families. I don’t know much about black community in America, and I am the last person here who’d tell you what to do or who’d lecture you on your culture.

    I just said matriarchy is not the right word to use; it assumes there is a system that’s the same like patriarchy, only with women in charge. And that is not real
    ——————————–

    Why are you here ?

    I’m sick and tired of your S**T

    Tim Wise ? Your there.
    White Inventor Argument ? You there.
    Why White Men Don’t Marry Black Women ? You there
    How To Argue Like A Racist ? Your there
    Driving While Black ? Your There
    Mothers R the reason there are so many single women ? Your There

    Every single topic on this blog your on. I assume that your white.

    There are too many white people on this blog and the black people that are on here are usually them ULTRA proper talking and writing black people, the ones who pride themselves on being grammatically perfect and who are usually in a SERIOUS relationship with a white person themslves.

    How can we be in a war, complain about getting hurt in the war, yet sleep with the very people we are in a war against ?

    STOP SLEEPING WITH WHITE PEOPLE.

    Trust me – If we refused to have sex with white people they would declare full scale war against us.

    You know anytime a white person (like you) is interested in race relations, they always end up having a black man or woman as a sexual partner.

    Is that what you want ? Is that what your about ?

    I say to all black men or women in a sexual relationship with a white partner say this :

    “What do white people talk about when black people aren’t around ?”

    And watch there face

    Like


  133. Mira@
    “Now, I am not sure if anybody should want to be with such a person.”

    But of course, people appreciate what they have more when they have to work hard for it…

    Relationships need that kind of respect…

    Like


  134. @Mira

    Please don’t pay that last comment(from African black militant) any mind. I appreciate your comments very much!!

    Like


  135. @Abagond
    1. This is a guest post. I do not always agree with what guest posters say. Sometimes I completely disagree.

    2. I am separated, not divorced.

    3. Teowonna is not against women getting an education. I thought she was very clear about that.

    1) Alright, my bad. But given what you’ve said before on gender and marriage issues, this post does not seem to be far off from your PoV.

    2) From my cultural perspective, that’s really a same diff. All my adult life, I’ve lived where “living together” = “married” and “not living together” = “divorced”, no matter what the Church and State may say, and that system makes perfect logical sense to me. Much more than the Anglo-Saxon fetishization of marriage as some significant ritual.

    3) She is clear, but she also thinks women should divide their attention between getting their BA/BS and their MRS. A series of very well demonstrated facts indicates that that sort of split focus, when taken in aggregate, results in glass ceilings and lower wages for women. You should be in school to get an education, PERIOD. If you manage to have a decent social and sexual life outside of that, that’s entirely beside the point. She’s either being extremely naive here or doesn’t really care that much if women continue to be the “second sex”. Let’s put it in perspective: what if you were told, as a black man, that you needed to mitigate your college career with working 20 hours a week for your family, because family’s the most important thing in the world? What do you think would happen, in aggregate, to black men if they took that to heart while white college students didn’t and simply concentrated on their careers and studies?

    Like


  136. African Black Militant STILL isn’t getting any, by the looks of it. 😀

    Like


  137. Regarding Teowanda’s point that she pro-education, i beg to differ.

    Basically, she’s claiming that an MRS is as important to a woman as a real degree and she thinks young college-bound women should actively work towards both.

    It’s a pretty well-established fact in feminist theory that this sort of “dual female career path” is a trap in socio-economic terms. It splits women’s efforts between a track which will gain them power and money and a track which, almost by definition, takes them right out of the running for power and money.

    Now, Teowanda will probably say “What about happiness?” and sure, there is that. That’s why most people I know, men and women, try to have some sort of social life in school.

    But what it eventually comes down to is this: do you go to the frat mixer on Saturday or do you stay up late in the library, preparing for your final? A person who is not entirely focused on their education is going to choose the first option far more than the second. A woman with Teo’s PoV can even justify it to herself as a “smart career move… getting the drop on the biological clock” and all that.

    But what it boils down to, in aggregate, is that these types of people will be less competitve than others. Multiply that by millions and you begin to see why so many women – even college educated women – end up very poor.

    So no, I really don’t think Teo is pro-education. Her viewpoint seems to be better described as “don’t let your education get in the way of the really important things in life, like gettting married”.

    My mom made that mistake back in 1965 and it cost her plenty. If she hadn’t thought she needed a man to complete her life, she would have probably gone on to get her masters and doctorate. Instead, she had a kid, got divorced, and spent the next twenty years bringing that kid up.

    Because child raising is considered to be a private and not a public matter and because men are still not stigmatized for walking away from kids, while women CERTAINLY are, a woman who enters into adulthood with this sort of Cinderella view of love and marriage is really playing with fire.

    Like


  138. africanblackmilitant

    You know anytime a white person (like you) is interested in race relations, they always end up having a black man or woman as a sexual partner.

    Is that what you want ? Is that what your about ?

    And I was able to fool everybody here for almost a year!

    Because Abagond’s blog is an obvious place for a white person to seek for a black sexual partner! Posts like “How To Argue Like A Racist” are particularly good for it.

    How can we be in a war, complain about getting hurt in the war, yet sleep with the very people we are in a war against ?

    I don’t know. Maybe we’re not in a war after all. I am certainly not in a war with you, and my people were never in a war with Africans (quite the contrary, in fact). So you’ll have to seek elsewhere for a mortal enemy who secretly lusts for you.

    Jeri,

    Please don’t pay that last comment(from African black militant) any mind. I appreciate your comments very much!!

    I usually don’t, but he addressed me, so it’s polite to answer. But to be honest, I don’t really care if he wants me here or not.

    Like


  139. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 16:36:40 Menelik Charles

    Thaddeus said:

    African Black Militant STILL isn’t getting any, by the looks of it lol

    Menelik asks:

    why? because he says stuff that people on her don’t like? There are some relevant questions he asked, and some reasonably points made as well.

    Seriously, what is the point of being in a relationship with another race, and then complaining about the race with whom one eats ‘n’ sleeps? Honestly, it just seems way past perverse to me!

    Imagine: Jewish women complaining about German anti-Semitism while in intimate relationships with German men? “Why don’t German men fancy us?” Why don’t they want to screw us?” Why don’t they find us attractive next to Aryan women?” “Why don’t you put us on the cover of German magazines?” or “why do German men see us as masculine?”

    And all this self-loathing nonsense while taking pot shots at Jewish men? Daddy issues or what? It’s pathetic! The bed is made, lady: lie in it. You’ll have no opposition from me, my erstwhile Jewish Princess!

    Do you see where I’m going with this?

    Good!

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  140. Regarding matriarchies, there’s a basic misunderstanding of the term being expressed here.

    In anthropology and sociology, a “matriarchy” is a society which traces blood descent through women, not men. In many instances, poor black and white families in the U.S. can indeed be considered matriarchies in this sense.

    What they are NOT is “matriarchies” in the popular dictionary sense: i.e. societies where women rule.

    The Moynihan Report is a sociological piece, not a pop piece, yet it seems to confuse these two meanings of matriarchy. Many of the right wing whites and black men who use it to castigate black women DEFINITELY misread it by claiming that it only means “matriarchy” in the “women rule” sense.

    At most, the Report situates the poor black urban family as one that’s structured around women: it does not give good evidence that women rule. And while ADC may indeed have resulted in some family break-up, anthropological work in the ghetto indicates that this is not as bad as many people would claim.

    Basically, there’s an unstated, very white, very anglo-saxon, very christian prejudice at the bottom of this debate: it is that a “proper” family means a nuclear family with everyone living under the same roof. Prejudice – and this is clearly an ethnically based prejudice, in that it stipulates anglo-saxon christian middle class models as the only correct models – leads people to believe that there IS NO family if it doesn’t hew to this nuclear, under one roof model.

    That is not the case, however.

    Black anthropologists in the ghetto charted out a whole series of very vibrant and viable families in which this sort of arrangement wasn’t the rule.

    So while ADC may have impacted on poor family structures in the U.S., there’s no reason at all to believe that it “destroyed the family”, unless we make a presumption beforehand that “family” needs must mean “nuclear family under one roof”.

    As someone who has a very tight, extended family which is not nuclear nor under one roof, which would be considered “destroyed” by this bigoted view of family relations, let me state that my family is much more functional and loving than many – perhaps most – traditional nuclear families that I have met.

    Black feminist anthros are thus right, in my book, when they claim that there are a boatload of ethnocentric and patriarchical assumptions contained in the Moynihan Report, which are only foregrounded and emphasized by those who, 45 years later, attempt to use this report as a key to “what’s gone wrong in the black family”.

    Like


  141. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 16:47:48 Menelik Charles

    Thaddeus said:

    regarding matriarchies, there’s a basic misunderstanding of the term being expressed here.

    1) in anthropology and sociology, a “matriarchy” is a society which traces blood descent through women, not men. In many instances, poor Black and white families in the U.S. can indeed be considered matriarchies in this sense.

    2) what they are NOT is “matriarchies” in the popular dictionary sense: i.e. societies where women rule.

    The Moynihan Report is a sociological piece, yet it seems to confuse these two meanings of matriarchy. Many of the right wing whites and black men who use it to castigate black women DEFINITELY misread it by claiming that it only means “matriarchy” in the “women rule” sense.

    Menelik says:

    can I ask you what the definition of Black (American) feminism is?

    Thanks.

    Like


  142. @Menelike Charles
    What is going on, Menelike? All the black women on this website aren’t ‘self-loathing” black women who love to take pot shots at black men. I personally respect and care about many black men and my desire is to see the black family become whole again. We can’t survive without the family. And yes, I mean the nuclear family. It is all about respect and it seems that we as a people have stopped respecting one another.

    Like


  143. @MC
    why? because he says stuff that people on her don’t like?

    No, because he is obsessed with what black women are doing with their genital organs. Now, call it prejudice on my part if you must, but in my experience, men who are overly obsessed with how women are sleeping with the “wrong” men generally ain’t gettin’ an. 😀

    Seriously, what is the point of being in a relationship with another race, and then complaining about the race with whom one eats ‘n’ sleeps?

    Hon, let me clue you in on a very simple fact which you should know by now, but apparently don’t: you don’t eat and sleep with a “race”, you eat and sleep with INDIVIDUALS.

    If you’re the kind of man who can’t treat a woman like an individual, but sees her as sort of a generic instance of a race, then it becomes clear – at least to my sadly prejudiced mind – why you probably aren’t gettin’ any.

    Even on its own terms, though, your question is kinda dumb. I mean I presume you eat and sleep with women, yes MC? And yet here you are on this blog, complaining about women. what’s up with that? 😀

    Jewish women complaining about German anti-Semitism while in intimate relationships with German men?

    The fact that this is unimaginable to you gives me serious cause to wonder about the depth of your life experience, MC. One lives with an individual. That does not mean that one suddenly loses one’s critique of the group to which said individual belongs. There were PLENTY of Jewish-German unions in WWII, by the way. I just went to a conference where I heard a paper on this topic.

    Do you see where I’m going with this?

    Yeah. You seem to have a real problem in distinguishing individuals from groups. Though I usually eschew Ank Me style barroom psychoanalysis, I feel fair to point out that this is a warning sign of sociopathy. In your case, I doub’t you’re a sociopath. I’m not so sure about American Black Militant, however, though my money is still on him being a white guy with a black militant sock puppet.

    Like


  144. @MC
    can I ask you what the definition of Black (American) feminism is?

    It’s more of an amorphous movement than a set position, but a basic definition would be that Black American feminists are people who try to see race and gender in an intersectional blrnd, with an emphasis on foregrounding black and female experiences and on working towards diminuishing perceived gender and race inequalities.

    (Any black feminists out there can correct me here if they think I’m not doing them justice).

    Like


  145. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 16:56:38 Menelik Charles

    Jeri,

    I have NOT stopped respecting you!

    Like


  146. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 16:58:08 Menelik Charles

    @ Thaddeus,

    feminism was born in opposition to patriarchy, correct? And all over the world, it rose up in OPPOSITION to patriarchy, correct?

    Like


  147. @Menelike Charles
    And to be honest with you, it bothers me WAY MORE when I can’t have a caring and loving relationship with black men, because those are the men I spend most of my time with. I am not going to lie. If white men insult me, I am not super happy about it. But I have always felt a more natural attraction for black men. Maybe it is because I trust them more. And trust is important to me.

    Like


  148. Menelik Charles said:
    “Seriously, what is the point of being in a relationship with another race, and then complaining about the race with whom one eats ‘n’ sleeps? Honestly, it just seems way past perverse to me!

    Imagine: Jewish women complaining about German anti-Semitism while in intimate relationships with German men? “Why don’t German men fancy us?” Why don’t they want to screw us?” Why don’t they find us attractive next to Aryan women?” “Why don’t you put us on the cover of German magazines?” or “why do German men see us as masculine?”

    And all this self-loathing nonsense while taking pot shots at Jewish men? Daddy issues or what? It’s pathetic! The bed is made, lady: lie in it. You’ll have no opposition from me, my erstwhile Jewish Princess!

    Do you see where I’m going with this?

    Good!”

    Too funny and kinda true!

    Like


  149. I would almost agree with Menelik except for the fact that:

    Men are men..period.

    They all want the same things from women–no matter what colour.

    Generally speaking, I don’t see black men being anymore more respectful of black women–regardless of country–than any other group of men.

    Does it feel any better to a black woman when a black man is whooping her a_s (Chris Brown / Rihanna) instead of a white man?

    Like


  150. @Menelike Charles
    But I have one more thing to say and then I am done. My life just doesn’t revolve around this website! Look, it is weird to question who black women sleep with, when there are so many black men in interracial relationships. Black men are twice as likely to be with non-black women. As you already know, I am not against black women being with black men, in terms of marriage. But I don’t think it is fair on black men’s part to expect black women to be totally loyal to black men. I don’t think they should ignore black men all together, but complete devotion! I think you are asking too much. Who are black women supposed to marry if huge numbers of black men marry non-black women? Start dating each other!!! And I know most of them don’t want to join a convent! So lets be fair here!

    Like


  151. @Menelike Charles
    It seems that men are the same. Back in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century (and up until the mid-20th century), white men refused to allow white women to have relationships with non-white men. But it was okay for them to sleep with ANY woman they wanted, including alot of black and native american women. Now that black men have more freedom to date who they want to, many sleep with whoever, regardless of race, but have a problem with black women doing the same. I don’t think that black women should start hating or disrespecting black men. And I don’t think they should assume that all black men want non-black women. They should give some brothers a chance. But don’t expect every black women to sleep with or marry a black man! The fact that 22% of black men married non-black women in 2008 is slightly upseting to me because that is a large number of men! Once again, what are black women to do?

    Like


  152. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 17:29:41 africanblackmilitant

    Thaddeus

    I’m not sure if your white or black but if your black then you MUST still think that there are SOME GOOD WHITE PEOPLE out there. I don’t. You talk about individuals and groups. Listen – You have snakes that are deadly poisonous and can kill you within 5 minutes, you have others that aren’t poisonous but just because a snake isn’t poisonous, that doesn’t mean you have changed its NATURE

    IT ‘S STILL A SNAKE.

    It just doesn’t have the deadly fangs and the deadly venom inside those fangs but if the snake did.

    Do you think a grass snake or any other non poisonous snake would think twice about killing you ?

    White racism is an organisation and this organisation is run by beasts…..BEASTS in human form, yeah, yeah belittle what I say, give yourself an ego-massage, but what I say is the truth. Even a white person who you think is good, it’s usually only on their terms, try talking about race and watch how they will pull rank and remember what organisation they work for.

    Like


  153. @Menelike Charles
    And it is not like the way it was with white men in the early years! White men would have a white wife, and a non-white women as a concubine. So at least, many white women had a husband, although a CHEATING husband is not that much better than not having one at all. But at least, white women were financially being taken care of by their white husbands. And considering that white women didn’t have equal access to education and property, having a well off husband is better than none at all. So, who is supposed to take care of all these single black women? Now women might be offended by this statement and say they can take care of themselves, but 2 incomes is better than one (especially in this economy). But is not just about money. It is comforting to know that you have someone by your side. So black men are not just sleeping with white women but marrying them, providing them with financial and emotional support. Once again, what are black women to do? Just accept the single life?

    Like


  154. @Menelike Charles
    Okay, now I am done(LOL).

    Like


  155. Mira,

    “[To Teowonna]… It does seem you blame mothers for encouraging heir daughters to get an education, to be independent and to be able to survive on their own.”

    Well, the title of the original post is “Still Single? Blame Your Mama!” So, yes, indeed. I’m just trying to figure out, with all the possible reasons why women would be single, mothers are blamed. A commenter on the original post said she did a disservice by oversimplifying the issue. I agree with that.

    Reading Teowonna’s full post, her comments on the post, and other similar posts by her, it seems to me that she is a pretty staunch anti-feminist woman. She seems at the very least annoyed, if not livid, at women not being concerned with what she views as “female roles.” Of course she completely ignores the way all women, including her, have benefited from the work of these “independent women”.

    She can clarify if that’s not the case.

    “You can get a high education till your mid to late 20s. You are still young enough to have kids. In fact, I believe people are not quite mature to get married at the age of 18.”

    …Exactly. College is only four years. It goes by very quickly. When you graduate, you’re only 22-23, if you went to college directly from high school. That is more than young enough to get married and have children. Even if you get an advanced degree, another four years is only mid-late 20s. That’s hardly old.

    Furthermore, why hasn’t anyone addressed the fact that most men are not looking to wife any woman in college? Far from it: they view it as their chance to have “fun”. So there’s a basic conflict of interest here. Most guys in college will run in the other direction if you so much as hint at marriage.

    “By the way, I had no idea white mothers send their daughters to college to get married. That’s disgusting.”

    I don’t think they send them only or primarily to find a guy, but there’s that little “Study hard and focus! …And it wouldn’t hurt if you found a nice man.”

    Like


  156. Menelik,

    because he says stuff that people on her don’t like? There are some relevant questions he asked, and some reasonably points made as well.

    To be honest, I think Thad’s comment about ABM’s sexual life was low, but the problem I have with his posts is not that he writes what I dislike (many people do, which is fine). The problem is, he doesn’t ask questions and he

    I mean, the guy practically said I am posting here because I want to have sex with a black man. I could report this to Abagond as ad hominem.

    If he (or you, or anybody else) doesn’t see any other reason for a white person posting here, then I don’t know what to say about him.

    Seriously, what is the point of being in a relationship with another race, and then complaining about the race with whom one eats ‘n’ sleeps? Honestly, it just seems way past perverse to me!

    Because (like I always say) there is a huge difference between individual and collective level that many people don’t get. You are an INDIVIDUAL with an individual life. You are in a relationship with an INDIVIDUAL. You don’t have sex with a race, you have sex with an individual.

    So no matter what’s your group and what’s your partner’s group, you two can be together AND still have an opinion about each other’s groups.

    So you can be in a relationship with a member of another group, and still be skeptical about that group.

    Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

    Like


  157. Eh. I didn’t finish the sentence.

    Here’s the whole thing (about ABM):

    The problem is, he doesn’t ask questions and he comes here to preach, not to discuss.

    Like


  158. Jeri, you’re still focused on men. I’ve no idea why you think discussing this topic, begging, and pleading, showing how much you “care”, will change anything. It will not. The sooner you realize this, the better. This post is not about men: you need to focus on women and their decisions regarding relationships, without directly involving men. Black women in particular sure have a lot to talk about on this topic alone.

    Like


  159. Thaddeus,

    When I speak of disintegration of the Black family I am not speaking in terms of the nuclear 1950’s model. I am speaking about where children are raised with no boundaries or I should say not raised at all. This is when there are no values passed down. I am speaking that when these children grow up welfare or an illegal hustle is an expected way to survive, where they have no view of the world outside of their narrow confines.

    I also do not mean that every Black family has suffered this malady, but way too many have, especially those who were the extremely poor. The welfare system is not the only cause, but a highly causal factor. Urban renewal separated the positive influences that a middle and working class effects a neighborhood.

    You don’t have to have sophisticated studies such as the Moynihan one, just put rats in a confined space with limited food and watch what happens.

    Like


  160. Jeri,

    So at least, many white women had a husband, although a CHEATING husband is not that much better than not having one at all. But at least, white women were financially being taken care of by their white husbands. And considering that white women didn’t have equal access to education and property, having a well off husband is better than none at all.

    On a slightly unrelated note, THAT is one of the main reasons why female education is not just a good thing and a human right: it is a necessity. So nobody should have to live with an abusing man if she doesn’t want to!

    Natasha,

    Reading Teowonna’s full post, her comments on the post, and other similar posts by her, it seems to me that she is a pretty staunch anti-feminist woman. She seems at the very least annoyed, if not livid, at women not being concerned with what she views as “female roles.” Of course she completely ignores the way all women, including her, have benefited from the work of these “independent women”.

    I did read a few of the other posts, but I didn’t read most of them so I can’t tell anything about her general views on these matters.

    I do believe women (and men for that matter) should be free to make their own choices. So I don’t think women who choose traditional female roles are stupid or any less free to make their own choices than those who don’t want to play the traditional female role.

    But the way post was worded was confusing and I couldn’t really understand where’s the problem. If it was a “family vs career” article, then it would be easier to discuss. But “marriage vs education” just doesn’t seem like an issue to me, since it’s perfectly manageable to have both (I’m not saying having family and career is impossible, but there are at least issues of how to organize things. With “marriage vs education” I don’t see any problems, because at 23 you can have an education and you’re still young to get married (way too young if you ask me… I married when I was 24 and I think I was very young when I got married).

    Like


  161. @Natasha
    Well, I disagree with you. I involve men in this post because they are a very important part of my life in general. And still a very important part of black women’s lives, whether they are our son’s, brothers, uncles, fathers etc. And I believe in keep the respect when it comes to discussing a subject. I feel if you respect others, they MIGHT respect you, although that is not always the case. Some black men don’t like, want or respect black women. There is nothing you can do about that. But all men are not the same. And that is the point I keep raising over and over and over again. I also type with the perspective that other people are reading my comments. I don’t want to be responsible for creating more problems in the black community than we already have. Some people might think I take myself too seriously. But I think that when you make comments on websites like this, you are acting as a leader of such. I have no desire to lead anyone in the wrong direction.

    Like


  162. Yes. I think independence, especially the way it is bring instilled today, is doing us (as women) much more harm than good.

    Natasha, I have no problem explaining my position. I thought I explained it quite well in my blog, actually. But please forgive me for being snarky. I was completely out of place. Especially since everyone was so polite to me.

    Like


  163. @Mira
    That is right. A man can put you through hell if you are overly dependent on him!

    Like


  164. @ThatTeowana
    I agree with you and disagree with you. I think that some black women are overly independent! For instance, there are some women who think it is okay to raise a child on their own, without a father. And I totally disagree with that. It is one thing when you HAVE TO raise a child alone, but to purposely do it is wrong in my opinion. A child needs a mother and a father. But to tell a women not to get an education just doesn’t make any sense to me. Living without an education can be horrible. You can’t find decent jobs, you can’t pay your bills, you can’t take care of your family like you want to. EVERYBODY SUFFERS. And also, Mira made a good point earlier. If you are too dependent on a man, he may feel he can do WHATEVER he wants to. He may feel he can cheat, abuse you, control you etc. There are valid reasons why women fought for an education!

    Like


  165. Teowonna, thanks for clarifying.

    Jeri,

    “I involve men in this post because they are a very important part of my life in general. And still a very important part of black women’s lives, whether they are our son’s, brothers, uncles, fathers etc. And I believe in keep the respect when it comes to discussing a subject.”

    Of course men, people in general, are a part of a woman’s life. But what I’m saying is discussing the dating patterns of men is missing the point on topics like this. Men will date whomever they wish, and there’s not much you or I can do about that. The only thing we can control is our own actions. This discussing of men’s issues has been going on for years, in fact, a couple of weeks ago I was reading a piece on it from the early ’80s. Nary a thing has changed since then, in fact, it’s continued along the same path and gotten worse.

    “I feel if you respect others, they MIGHT respect you, although that is not always the case.”

    It’s quite often not the case.

    “Some people might think I take myself too seriously. But I think that when you make comments on websites like this, you are acting as a leader of such. I have no desire to lead anyone in the wrong direction.”

    Well, honestly, by focusing the issue on men directly, I believe you’re leading women in the wrong direction. That only keeps women focused on men’s issues when they should be focusing on themselves.

    Like


  166. Jeri, that’s not to say I disagree with most of what you said or don’t consider you a valuable commenter.

    Like


  167. @MC
    feminism was born in opposition to patriarchy, correct? And all over the world, it rose up in OPPOSITION to patriarchy, correct?

    Not exactly, though there are many feminists who would probably believe that. Feminism grew out of the increasing “undomestication” of women, it grew in a dialectic with the inclusion of women as citizens and subjects within the capitalist nationalist system.

    Like


  168. @NatashaW

    How am I saying that men’s actions are extremely important when it comes to women? I am by far not the only woman that has brought up the actions of men on this website. Black women have mentioned on this website over, and over, and over again about how black men are turning their backs on black women, in favor of non-black women. I was just explaining that it is hypocritical to tell women to do one thing, while expecting men to do another. Men think it is okay to be with who they want to, while expecting women to be locked up in the house, without a life. I am saying women should have choices like anyone else. Plus it is the LOGICAL thing to do when so many men are in interracial relationships. Natasha, you know that the subject of black men and what they do has been discussed by black women on this website as well as in other ways. It is not going to stop just because of me!

    Like


  169. @Hathor
    Welfare is not the problem:sexist presumptions WITHIN the welfare process may have been a problem for traditional nuclear families.

    Funny how welfare always gets a bad rap among Americans. You guys have seriously internalized a lot of Republican nonsense.

    Like


  170. @African Black Militant

    Friend, you don’t fool me. I think you’re a white suburban kid who has far too much time on his hand and is simply trolling this site for reaction.

    Have fun!

    Like


  171. Surely, this is sarcasm?

    Like


  172. MC, please answer me this: YOU sleep with women and yet complain about women, correct?

    So why is it hard for you to understand that some black women are sleeping with white men and still complain about them?

    You’ve completely lost me there.

    Like


  173. @NatashaW
    I mean I said I think commenting on this website makes you a leader of sorts but come on! Black women talk about black men and what they do alot. Should it be about men? Maybe so maybe not. I think ultimately, it should be about our right to be with whoever we choose. But alot of black women have stated that considering interracial relationships is one of the best solutions to not finding a black man. Maybe they shouldn’t focus on the men. I have to think about that.

    Like


  174. Jeri,

    “How am I saying that men’s actions are extremely important when it comes to women?”

    Well, your last several posts, actually most of your comments here, have been about men. Black men, in particular. And this topic is about women, so yes, it seems you think their actions are very important.

    “I was just explaining that it is hypocritical to tell women to do one thing, while expecting men to do another…I am saying women should have choices like anyone else.”

    Which I wholeheartedly agree with it, in case I didn’t make that clear. I just don’t listen to men regarding who I can and can not date, because I know it’s a bunch of hypocritical bull.

    “…the subject of black men and what they do has been discussed by black women on this website as well as in other ways. It is not going to stop just because of me!”

    It probably won’t, but the less on this topic, the better. It never solves anything, if you haven’t noticed. And only creates more animosity and angst amongst black men who become paranoid about people “bashing” black men. In an essence, it furthers the problem it is seeking to resolve.

    I remember bringing up that topic a couple of times and completely regretting it. Few here are going to listen or agree with you when discuss black men, unless it’s in a positive fashion. Not even neutral, just positive. See my post on the “mass incarceration of black men” if you think I’m exaggerating about that. It’s a big mistake to even bring up the topic unless you want to be in a 100+ comment back-and-forth. And unless you want to completely derail a post and make it all about that one issue, which it inevitably will be.

    ….

    *Hopes no one else responds to that last paragraph…*

    Like


  175. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 19:19:53 Menelik Charles

    Jeri said:P

    @Menelike Charles…

    look, it is weird to question who black women sleep with, when there are so many black men in interracial relationships.

    Menelik replies:

    I did no such thing! I said: what is the point of being in a relationship with another race, and then complaining about the race with whom one eats ‘n’ sleeps? Honestly, it just seems way past perverse to me!

    Jeri said:

    Black men are twice as likely to be with non-black women. As you already know, I am not against black women being with black men, in terms of marriage. But I don’t think it is fair on black men’s part to expect black women to be totally loyal to black men.

    Menelik replies:

    I would most certainly NOT advocate that Black women hostile to the very words “Black men” should be loyal to Black men. Why should I? I want them to date, marry, and mate outside of the race!

    Like I said earlier: imagine Jewish women complaining about German anti-Semitism while in intimate relationships with German men? “Why don’t German men fancy us?” Why don’t they want to screw us?” Why don’t they find us attractive next to Aryan women?” “Why don’t you put us on the cover of German magazines?” or “why do German men see us as masculine?”

    And all this self-loathing nonsense while taking pot shots at Jewish men? Daddy issues or what? It’s pathetic! The bed is made, lady: lie in it. You’ll have no opposition from me, my erstwhile Jewish Princess!

    I trust those concerned understood the analogy above since ordinarily they fail to realise the ironic and perverse nature of their own personal circumstances! Seriously, to fashion an identity out incessant complaints is just crazy making!

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  176. @NatashaW
    The only reason why I brought black men up alot is because I don’t see them ALL as a lost cause. I was just trying to encourage black women to see men as individuals, whether black, white, Asian etc. I didn’t just mention black men in particular. And the many comments I discussed was also about statistics, particularly concerning black men. I just wanted to point out to black women that not all black men want or marry non-black women, and that their marriage rates reflect that. We can get into a conversation about if marriage rates reflect on how men REALLY feel, but to me, that just isn’t a conversation I wish to get into. I agree with Y. If they wanted a non-black woman they would marry one. What is stopping them! And the only reason why I mentioned statistics is because other women had already discussed it earlier. I didn’t bring the conversation up! I just agreed with Y for the most part, and backed it up with statistics.

    Like


  177. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 19:29:21 Menelik Charles

    Thaddeus asked:

    MC, please answer me this: YOU sleep with women and yet complain about women, correct?

    So why is it hard for you to understand that some black women are sleeping with white men and still complain about them?

    Menelik asks:

    given that I am aware of the exact meaning of the term complaint, I would ask kindly that you give me one example in which I’ve complained about…

    a) the actions, attitude, and/or preferences of white women and…

    b) complained about the comments of any individual hostile to my comments on this blog.

    I’ll wait!

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  178. @Menelike Charles
    I kind of agree with Thaddeus on that one. People often sleep with people they complain about. Whats new!

    Like


  179. Okay, Jeri — I understand. I don’t want to derail the topic further, so I’ll not comment on your second to last response.

    Like


  180. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 19:32:37 Menelik Charles

    Thaddeus said:

    MC, please answer me this: YOU sleep with women and yet complain about women, correct?

    Menelik answers:

    I sleep with ONE woman, thank you!

    Like


  181. @Natasha
    Look, I just think it would be best for black women to consider quality choices of ANY race. That is all. I didn’t want black women to be so mistrustful of all black men, when there are some good ones out there. There are still black women who desire black men but they think all black men don’t desire them! I was just saying that men should be seen as individuals. I fully support that a woman should marry whoever she wants. I just think it should be done with wisdom. You can’t assume things about all white men; that they will treat you better, respect you more, etc. I think there are potentially great husband and fathers among white men, but I don’t think black women should assume that white men are way more appreciative than black men. But then again, I could be wrong. Look women should do what they want to do. Bottom line. And I agree with you on that one. Look, I am tired. I will talk to you later.

    Like


  182. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 19:45:58 Menelik Charles

    Jeri said:

    @ Natasha,

    I think there are potentially great husband and fathers among white men, but I don’t think black women should assume that white men are way more appreciative than black men.

    Menelik says:

    historically and to this very day, white men have a very odd way of expressing this “appreciation for Black women”! They pick them last to date, marry and mate with; they view them as common whores (they are not alone!) with multiple baby daddies, and finally, they suspect that Black women are more masculine that what they are!

    “Appreciation”?

    Yeah, right!

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  183. @ Menelik

    I always enjoy reading your comments. Great analogy by the way.

    Like


  184. Jeri, I got it. Truly, I do. I don’t agree with it, but I understand.

    Like


  185. Thaddeus,

    I did say the “design” of the welfare system.

    Like


  186. To say that some women are too independent is like saying a women is a little bit pregnant.

    A woman’s intimate relationship may not be the same as others would see her. Being a supervisor of male employees would be different from the what one would have with a lover. Although there is a tendency for people to extend familial relationships in the work place or other social situations. What I am saying is, that only ones partner can decides whats attractive to them. Another woman can not point to another woman and say a man will not want you, it is awfully presumptuous.

    Like


  187. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 20:10:19 Menelik Charles

    @ Color O’ Luv,

    it must must the Irish rebel in ya!

    Like


  188. Menelik asks:

    given that I am aware of the exact meaning of the term complaint, I would ask kindly that you give me one example in which I’ve complained about…

    a) the actions, attitude, and/or preferences of white women and…

    b) complained about the comments of any individual hostile to my comments on this blog.

    Did I say “white women”, MC?

    No.

    I said WOMEN. In general.

    But if you want to specify “black women”, go right ahead.

    You have been complaining for months now about women’s attitudes. In fact, you do it right above.

    And yet you still sleep with WOMEN, right?

    So why is it so hard for you to grasp the idea that people sleep with individuals and complain about collectivites?

    Of course, I’m making an assumption here that you are het. If not, I’m sorry.

    Like


  189. @MC
    I sleep with ONE woman, thank you!

    Your welcome.

    And the black women here are sleeping with ONE white guy, not the entire race.

    So again, how is it that you can sleep with an individual while critiquing the collectivity, yet can’t understand black women who do the same?

    And are you REALLY so naive as to not know that there were indeed many German/Jew marriages in WWII? C’mon, MC! This is not news, so why is it apparently news to you?

    Like


  190. Also, I had no idea you’re separated (not that it’s any of my business) so it’s a bit unfair for Thad to keep brining that into conversation. ~ Mira

    Co-sign.

    Like


  191. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 22:21:23 Menelik Charles

    Menelik asked:

    given that I am aware of the exact meaning of the term complaint, I would ask kindly that you give me one example in which I’ve complained about…

    a) complained the actions, attitude, and/or preferences of white women and…

    b) complained about the comments of any individual hostile to my comments on this blog.

    Thaddeus said:

    Did I say “white women”, MC?

    No.

    I said WOMEN. In general.

    But if you want to specify “black women”, go right ahead.

    Menelik replied:

    yeah, Black women! Black men crop up in convos’ all the time on this blog in one form or another…and Black women are bitching, besmirching and belittling them all the time! So, yeah Black women, Mr!

    Thaddeus said:

    You have been complaining for months now about women’s attitudes. In fact, you do it right above.

    Menelik replies:

    that is an outright lie! Asking for you to provide an example of an alleged complaint by me is Not a complaint: it is a request!!!!!

    Thaddeus said:

    And yet you still sleep with WOMEN, right? So why is it so hard for you to grasp the idea that people sleep with individuals and complain about collectivities?

    Menelik replies:

    I have no idea what you’re talking about!

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  192. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 22:25:53 Menelik Charles

    Thaddeus said:

    And are you REALLY so naive as to not know that there were indeed many German/Jew marriages in WWII? C’mon, MC! This is not news, so why is it apparently news to you?

    Menelik said:

    not that naive. It was a present tense analogy not an historical one! It makes perfect sense in the present! Can’t you see that?

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  193. Menelik,

    You do complain about women. Often. Maybe you are not aware of it, but you do.

    And yet you still sleep with WOMEN, right? So why is it so hard for you to grasp the idea that people sleep with individuals and complain about collectivities?

    Menelik replies:

    I have no idea what you’re talking about!

    I believe he’s asking you how come you say you are sleeping with ONE woman, but black women who are in a relationship with a white guy are not sleeping with ONE man, but with entire race?

    Like


  194. I find it curious that many people use the terms “sleeping with a white man” or “in a sexual relationship with a white man” when referring to black women and white men in relationships. As if the most important and only thing a black woman and a white guy do in a relationship is have sex. It shows what people are really focused on and what they are really uncomfortable with.

    Like


  195. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 22:59:30 Menelik Charles

    Mira said:

    You do complain about women. Often. Maybe you are not aware of it, but you do.

    Menelik says:

    no I do not! NEVER! I challenge the lies and distortion made about Black men by women on some sort of revenge mission!

    Thaddeus said:

    And yet you still sleep with WOMEN, right? So why is it so hard for you to grasp the idea that people sleep with individuals and complain about collectivities?

    Menelik replied:

    I have no idea what you’re talking about!

    Mira said:

    I believe he’s asking you how come you say you are sleeping with ONE woman, but black women who are in a relationship with a white guy are not sleeping with ONE man, but with entire race?

    Menelik replies!

    why do you do this, woman????? I have never taken issue with a single individual involved in a mixed relationship in my entire life!!!!!! NO ONE ON EARTH CAN PROVE OTHERWISE!!!!!!

    Jesus, you guys are desperate!

    Like


  196. MC sez:
    that is an outright lie! Asking for you to provide an example of an alleged complaint by me is Not a complaint: it is a request!!!!!

    Well, these look like complaints to me…

    “Black women are bitching, besmirching and belittling [black men] all the time!”

    Furthermore, you’ve indicated that you consider many black women – especially those who date people you don’t like – to be “self-loathing” and have “daddy issues”. You’ve hammered on these points several times. You’ve also repreatedly complained that you think black women are too critical of black men.

    So, yeah: complaints.

    And yet you sleep with a black woman.

    How is that?

    Now, regarding jews and germans…

    It was a present tense analogy not an historical one! It makes perfect sense in the present! Can’t you see that?

    Again, you’re REALLY that detached from reality that you think there are’nt jews who marry germans TODAY? C’mon, MC. I know several couples like this myself. It’s a stupid analogy that you’re making: there were jewish/german couples back in the day and there are now.

    What it boils down to is this: MOST people – including yourself – apparently sleep with individuals, not entire nationalities or races, or genders or what have you. They thus feel justified in critiquing the collectivity (the race, nationality, whatever) and see no necessary connection to the person they sleep with, whom they see as an exception.

    This is truly that hard for you to understand? C’mon! Man up and admit that you know damned well what I’m talking about and, in fact, practice it in your life.

    Like


  197. @Natasha

    I find it curious that many people use the terms “sleeping with a white man” or “in a sexual relationship with a white man” when referring to black women and white men in relationships. As if the most important and only thing a black woman and a white guy do in a relationship is have sex. It shows what people are really focused on and what they are really uncomfortable with.

    Right on!

    Makes me wonder how many of these people have serious sexual issues in real life.

    Like


  198. Natasha,

    I am sorry for mentioning that; it’s really not on my mind. But Menelik focused on that so I guess the answer had to be along those lines, because obviously it’s what bothers people like him. Sorry for mentioning that.

    Menelik,

    why do you do this, woman????? I have never taken issue with a single individual involved in a mixed relationship in my entire life!!!!!! NO ONE ON EARTH CAN PROVE OTHERWISE!!!!!!

    Are you for real, man?!? Here’s what you wrote only a few hours ago:

    “Seriously, what is the point of being in a relationship with another race, and then complaining about the race with whom one eats ‘n’ sleeps?”

    Jesus, you guys are desperate!

    I am a girl 🙂 😉

    Like


  199. Mira, I wasn’t talking about you, but the other “interesting” characters that have commented thus far. The internet sure brings out the quacks.

    If a person doesn’t see how criticizing white racism as a social issue has nothing to do with how a person feels about an individual white person, then there’s really nothing to tell them. People like this are deliberately misunderstanding, 99 percent of the time.

    Notice how the above person is avoiding answering direct questions and claiming not to know “what you’re talking about” because the person has realized he has talked himself into a corner. Very typical. Very.

    Like


  200. Menelik says,
    yeah, Black women! Black men crop up in convos’ all the time on this blog in one form or another…and Black women are bitching, besmirching and belittling them all the time! So, yeah Black women, Mr!

    laromana says,
    MC, BW have EVERY RIGHT to state the FACTS about the ANTI-BW RACISM/SEXISM/MISOGYNY that MOST BM perpetrate against them (SOLELY because they’re BW).

    It’s not BW’s fault that we’re the ONLY WOMEN on the PLANET who are CONSTANTLY having our HUMANITY, DIGNITY, and FEMININITY being PUBLICLY ATTACKED by MOST of the men of our RACE.
    This is a MAJOR reason why BW are so DEMEANED, DEGRADED, and DISRESPECTED by men of ALL RACES.

    Why don’t you address the DISGUSTING/DESPICABLE/DISRESPECTFUL behavior of MOST BM, instead of criticizing BW?

    The fact remains that BM exist ONLY because BW continue to CHOOSE to BIRTH them.
    For that reason, BM, more than NON-BM, OWE BW MORE RESPECT.

    Like


  201. @NatashaW

    Yeah the only reason why I brought up “sleeping with white men” is because Menelike brought it up first. I certainly don’t have any issues with what white men and black women do with each other. But I agree with Mira. I didn’t mean to offend you or other people in any way.

    Like


  202. @Menelike Charles

    I just wanted to make one point. Many black men have been in relationships with white women, but it doesn’t stop them from complaining about racism. Being involved in an interracial relationship doesn’t mean you won’t continue to experience racism. You should know that!

    Like


  203. on Wed Sep 22nd 2010 at 23:54:35 Menelik Charles

    Mira said:

    Menelik, you wrote…

    why do you do this, woman????? I have never taken issue with a single individual involved in a mixed relationship in my entire life!!!!!! NO ONE ON EARTH CAN PROVE OTHERWISE!!!!!!

    Mira said:

    Are you for real, man?!? Here’s what you wrote only a few hours ago:

    “Seriously, what is the point of being in a relationship with another race, and then complaining about the race with whom one eats ‘n’ sleeps?”

    Menelik replied:

    yeah, I’m for real! Like a question is for real too! At no point have I taken issue with a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL as regards their mixed relationship: fact!

    This is a perfectly question nuanced insofar as one can be mistaken for thinking out aloud! Maybe you missed that!

    Like


  204. Jeri, I wasn’t directing that towards you, either. And I’m not offended, just think it’s interesting. I find it intriguing the reactions of people to relationships between black women and white men. For me, it always gives a clear picture of how a person really feels about this whole “race” thing.

    Like


  205. on Thu Sep 23rd 2010 at 00:00:53 Menelik Charles

    Jeri

    @Menelike Charles

    I just wanted to make one point. Many black men have been in relationships with white women, but it doesn’t stop them from complaining about racism. Being involved in an interracial relationship doesn’t mean you won’t continue to experience racism. You should know that!

    Menelik replies:

    no Black man to my knowledge complains about white women rejecting them; picking them last; seeing them as muggers and rapists; as less attractive than other races of men etc etc and all while being in an intimate relationship with a white woman.

    Show me a blog that proves me wrong!

    I’ll wait.

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  206. on Thu Sep 23rd 2010 at 00:06:03 Menelik Charles

    Jeri said:

    Natasha,

    yeah the only reason why I brought up “sleeping with white men” is because Menelike brought it up first.

    Menelik asks:

    really? When and where have I used this phrase or made direct reference to Black women and white men? I think you’ll find the exact phrase was used by Thaddeus!

    Scroll up ‘n’ see!

    Like


  207. @Menelike Charles

    Okay, I don’t know about the rest, but black men do complain about white women seeing them as criminals. You have heard of the white woman clinging to her purse as a black man walks by right?

    Like


  208. on Thu Sep 23rd 2010 at 00:14:38 Menelik Charles

    Natasha said:

    Jeri,

    I wasn’t directing that towards you, either… I find it intriguing the reactions of people to relationships between black women and white men. For me, it always gives a clear picture of how a person really feels about this whole “race” thing.

    Menelik replies:

    wow! I bet you’re psychology major with a masters related to forensic psychology, right?

    I am.

    I guess also that your partner is a qualified teacher, and a practising psychotherapist, right?

    Mine is.

    I find it intriguing that you find something intriguing about a phrase that someone you suspect used but in fact did not use at all!

    What’s that about?

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  209. on Thu Sep 23rd 2010 at 00:16:52 Menelik Charles

    Jeri

    @Menelik Charles

    Okay, I don’t know about the rest, but black men do complain about white women seeing them as criminals. You have heard of the white woman clinging to her purse as a black man walks by right?

    Menelik says:

    now that’s really moving the goal posts lol

    Like


  210. Thaddeus–
    The Moynihan Report is a sociological piece, not a pop piece, yet it seems to confuse these two meanings of matriarchy. Many of the right wing whites and black men who use it to castigate black women DEFINITELY misread it by claiming that it only means “matriarchy” in the “women rule” sense.

    RDKirk–
    Have you yourself actually read the report? Do you even know anything about Patrick Moynihan? Did you follow his career over your lifetime? Moynihan was probably the deepest thinking in the US Congress in the entire 20t century, and was most certainly a liberal Democrat. You can find the report online: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

    But here is an excerpt:

    “That the Negro American has survived at all is extraordinary — a lesser people might simply have died out, as indeed others have. That the Negro community has not only survived, but in this political generation has entered national affairs as a moderate, humane, and constructive national force is the highest testament to the healing powers of the democratic ideal and the creative vitality of the Negro people.

    “But it may not be supposed that the Negro American community has not paid a fearful price for the incredible mistreatment to which it has been subjected over the past three centuries.

    “In essence, the Negro community has been forced into a matriarchal structure which, because it is to out of line with the rest of the American society, seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole, and imposes a crushing burden on the Negro male and, in consequence, on a great many Negro women as well.

    “There is, presumably, no special reason why a society in which males are dominant in family relationships is to be preferred to a matriarchal arrangement. However, it is clearly a disadvantage for a minority group to be operating on one principle, while the great majority of the population, and the one with the most advantages to begin with, is operating on another. This is the present situation of the Negro. Ours is a society which presumes male leadership in private and public affairs. The arrangements of society facilitate such leadership and reward it. A subculture, such as that of the Negro American, in which this is not the pattern, is placed at a distinct disadvantage.

    “Here an earlier word of caution should be repeated. These is much evidence that a considerable number of Negro families have managed to break out of the tangle of pathology and to establish themselves as stable, effective units, living according to patterns of American society in general. E. Franklin Frazier has suggested that the middle-class Negro American family is, if anything, more patriarchal and protective of its children than the general run of such families. Given equal opportunities, the children of these families will perform as well or better than their white peers. They need no help from anyone, and ask none.”

    Thaddeus–
    Welfare is not the problem:sexist presumptions WITHIN the welfare process may have been a problem for traditional nuclear families. Funny how welfare always gets a bad rap among Americans. You guys have seriously internalized a lot of Republican nonsense.

    RDKirk–
    The male as the protector and provider is not by any means an “American” or even “Republican” concept. The question is what happens in any human society when even the illusion of that role is stripped away. American society has for three centuries made a concerted effort to strip the role of “protector and provider” from black men. Up until the 60s, it was blatantly implemented. It’s less blatant now, but it’s still there.

    Now, if your argument is with the basic concept of the male as protector and provider, that argument is not with Moynihan or with Americans or with the Republican party. Take that up with God or Darwin.

    Like


  211. @Menelike Charles

    I think you said eat n sleep with. But I think AfricanMilitant mentioned it first. Then you said it then I said it myself a couple of times. Whatever. People should just be careful I suppose when it comes to these kinds of discussion. I will be careful next time. I certainly don’t want to offend anybody.

    Like


  212. Menelik–
    Imagine: Jewish women complaining about German anti-Semitism while in intimate relationships with German men? “Why don’t German men fancy us?” Why don’t they want to screw us?” Why don’t they find us attractive next to Aryan women?” “Why don’t you put us on the cover of German magazines?” or “why do German men see us as masculine?”

    RDKirk–
    I don’t think I’ve ever heard a black woman complain about not being appreciated by white men. They may complain about not being appreciated by black men, and thus wind up complaining about not being appreciated by men in general…but I have never heard a black woman complain about not being appreciated by white men.

    Like


  213. Linda–
    My belief is that most men want to be men…they enjoy the chase and they appreciate the woman more when he has to work for his prize…especially if the woman is confident and seems unattainable.

    Mira–
    This seems to be the truth, unfortunately. Now, I am not sure if anybody should want to be with such a person.

    RDKirk-
    Why is it unfortunate? And why are the most confident women equal partners in perpetuating it? It seems that confident women show a sign of availability to the males they choose and allow the male to make the approach.

    Like


  214. Menelik–
    sista, would you say the African-American family was patriarchal or matriarchal?

    Jeri–
    Matriarchy in the black community comes from a lack of marriage, not overly dominate females!

    RDKirk–
    Jeri is correct. The current condition of black families (I hesitate somewhat to say “black community,” because there are some issues there) is similar to the condition of white families of the American South after the Civil war and German and Russian families after WWII: Events originating outside the family structure removed a large percentage of men from the social environment. It’s still a patriarchal society, but with a dearth of patriarchs.

    However, in certain areas–specifically urban areas–black families are developing a few external appearances of matriarchy. It could happen within that micro-society within the next couple of generations. However, if we look at urban black families as if they were communities, we see characteristics of extinction developing just as fast–the urban “black community” (as it were) is likely to become extinct before it can become a true matriarchy. It might be that a micro-societal matriarchy is simply not tenable within a patriarchal macro-society.

    Like


  215. @RDKirK
    Are you saying that the African American community is essentially matriarchal? And has been for a long time?

    Like


  216. @RdKirk
    Okay, I just read your last comment. Never mind. I really don’t really care to discuss it too much anyway.

    Like


  217. on Thu Sep 23rd 2010 at 00:52:47 Menelik Charles

    Thaddeus said:

    Menelik…

    Well, these look like complaints to me…

    “Black women are bitching, besmirching and belittling [black men] all the time!”

    Menelik replies:

    they sure sound like facts to me!!!! There’s no one on here to whom I wish to complain about anything!!! What kind of madness would that be? I state facts, and challenge lies and distortions! I belong to no pity party unlike some people on this blog.

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  218. @ Natasha W–
    “Well, honestly, by focusing the issue on men directly, I believe you’re leading women in the wrong direction. That only keeps women focused on men’s issues when they should be focusing on themselves.”

    Absolutely agree. The focus of all societies is & has always been on accommodating males. And women have done their part by nurturing males, nurturing the dreams & aspirations of males, & protecting males & their interests/egos. The precedent is established enough that women can now–w/o diminishing the status of males–focus on themselves, their dreams & aspirations & the welfare of their mothers, daughters, sisters & aunts.

    Like


  219. @Temple
    You know what, I agree. It is time for black women to focus on themselves. The subject of black women and what is best for them has been on my mind alot lately. I realize the best way to respect my sisters is to let them make their own choices. I was just trying to be helpful. I hope I didn’t give black women the impression that they should be overly accomodating to men. No, that is not how I think. I think I just dissagreed with some of the women on how black women should look at things, but I have NEVER SAID that black women shouldn’t love themselves and respect and nurtue their own dreams and aspirations. If we don’t look out for ourselves, then who will?

    Like


  220. @RDKirk
    Have you yourself actually read the report?

    Yep. Right in front of me, now, to tell the truth. I have acopy filed under “M” in the cabinets behind me. And yes indeed, I have followed Pat’s career.

    Your point is…? Or do you think that liberal democrats can’t be ethnocentric?

    Your quotes, btw, are excellent in that the point out that, deep thinker or not, Danny was having some trouble distinguishing between matriarchy as a kinship principal (family organization) and matriarchy as a political principal (female dominance).

    Also note how he PRESUMES that this will cause trouble for blacks because it’s supposedly “out of step” with the rest of America.

    Well, first of all, ethnic studies from the 1970s on have shown that different forms of social organization can live quite well together in a pluralist society. There is no reason why all families need to be organized the same way and there is no proof that such a homogenous organization benefits anyone.

    Secondly, plenty of other groups in American culture also have matriarchical kin structures – starting with a lot of poor white groups, just ferinstance.

    So in those quotes, Danny’s making a hell of a lot of presumptions that aren’t empirically gounded. That’s not social science, Kirk, that’s what we social scientists call “asshole sociology”, as in “pull a theory out of your asshole and pretend it’s all true”.

    And check this doozy out:

    Here an earlier word of caution should be repeated. These is much evidence that a considerable number of Negro families have managed to break out of the tangle of pathology and to establish themselves as stable, effective units, living according to patterns of American society in general.

    So non-patriarchical families are declared by Danny to be “pathological” – which is a social concept that was thoroughly discredited by Emilé Durkheim back in 1896! This isn’t science, Kirk: this is prejudice and politics gussied up to LOOK like science. There is no scientific reason whatsoever that Danny is authorized to claim that matriarchical families are “pathological” and patriarchical families are”an improvement”.

    And, btw, there is no solid evidence whatsoever that children from “patriarchical” families “perform better” than children from non-patriarchical families.

    This study is so much BS, Kirk.

    Now, if your argument is with the basic concept of the male as protector and provider, that argument is not with Moynihan or with Americans or with the Republican party. Take that up with God or Darwin.

    I hate to break it to you, Kirk, but for most of human history, females have provided far more for families than men. And as for “protector”, look at any study you care to: the most likely aggressor of woman or children is a husband or father, not some unknown guy. That, too, has been a constant. So in spite of you appeals to a higher power, the facts simply don’t back up your allegations that men are universal protectors and providers.

    It just ain’t true, Kirk.,

    Like


  221. @MC
    Thaddeus said:

    Menelik…

    Well, these look like complaints to me…

    “Black women are bitching, besmirching and belittling [black men] all the time!”

    Menelik replies:

    they sure sound like facts to me!!!!

    [Very gently]

    MC, whether they are facts or not have nothing to do with the FACT that they are complaints. It may indeed be raining, but if I go “DAMN! It’s raining!” I’m still complaining.

    So back to square one:

    You complain about black women all the time and yet you still sleep with a black woman. How is that any different from someone complaining about white men and sleeping with a white man?

    Maybe you can quick bobbing and weaving and just answer the question this time, hey?

    Like


  222. Thaddeus,
    Well, first of all, ethnic studies from the 1970s on have shown that different forms of social organization can live quite well together in a pluralist society. There is no reason why all families need to be organized the same way and there is no proof that such a homogenous organization benefits anyone.

    RDKirk–
    There is a reason when the dominant society is taking very special care to pressure those different forms out of existence. Do some of your reading on polygamy in the US–it’s hard to “live quite well” when the dominant society is shooting at you. THAT was Moynihan’s point.

    You seemed to have missed this paragraph:

    ““There is, presumably, no special reason why a society in which males are dominant in family relationships is to be preferred to a matriarchal arrangement. However, it is clearly a disadvantage for a minority group to be operating on one principle, while the great majority of the population, and the one with the most advantages to begin with, is operating on another. This is the present situation of the Negro. Ours is a society which presumes male leadership in private and public affairs. The arrangements of society facilitate such leadership and reward it. A subculture, such as that of the Negro American, in which this is not the pattern, is placed at a distinct disadvantage.”

    Moynihan is NOT saying that a female-headed family is, per se, pathological. He is saying that it’s at a disadvantage within a larger society that provides all social advantages to a male-headed family.

    Thaddeus–
    I hate to break it to you, Kirk, but for most of human history, females have provided far more for families than men. And as for “protector”, look at any study you care to: the most likely aggressor of woman or children is a husband or father, not some unknown guy. That, too, has been a constant. So in spite of you appeals to a higher power, the facts simply don’t back up your allegations that men are universal protectors and providers.

    RDKirk–
    Are you seriously arguing that males in societies around the world have not presumed that role? Pay attention, this time, to what is actually written.

    Like


  223. on Thu Sep 23rd 2010 at 01:59:53 Menelik Charles

    Like


  224. @MC
    There is a reason when the dominant society is taking very special care to pressure those different forms out of existence. Do some of your reading on polygamy in the US–it’s hard to “live quite well” when the dominant society is shooting at you. THAT was Moynihan’s point.

    In a scientific report, that needs to be SHOWN, not presumed. Moynihan provides exactly ZERO evidence that matriarchical families are “getting shot at”.

    And, even if that were the case, in a pluralist democracy, the PROPER response to such a situation would be to STOP THE SHOOTING, not declare the victim “pathological” and say that they must be molded into an arbitrary social norm.

    So even if Moynihan’s presumption IS correct, his diagnosis of the situation amounts to blame the victim.

    It’s amazing that two guys who are usually quick to point out racism in America can’t see this simple point. Moynohan is essentially saying that black family structures are PATHOLOGICAL.

    You did read that part, right?

    And yes, Moynihan does indeed say that female headed families are pathological. Read the following paragraph where “families break out of pathology” in order to become “patriarchical”.

    The message is quite, quite clear.

    Are you seriously arguing that males in societies around the world have not presumed that role? Pay attention, this time, to what is actually written.

    Take heed of your own advice, MC. RD said nothing about “presumption”: he said I should take it up with God or Darwin if I had a beef with man’s role as provider and protector. In other words, he feels that this role is NATURAL and not defined by society.

    What men presume is one thing. In reality, they have NOT been natural “protectors and providers” anymore than women – and in many cases, they’ve played that role much less.

    Like


  225. Want to answer my question now, MC?

    How can you complain about black women and yet still sleep with one?

    I mean, given that you find it so illogical that a black woman could sleep with a white man and still complain about white MEN.

    Like


  226. on Thu Sep 23rd 2010 at 02:13:19 Menelik Charles

    @Thaddeus

    you can call it what the hell you want! I call it facts! What the hell is a man doing taking his complaints to his opponents? Are you crazy? Millions of my people complain about what they call racism every day: not me. I confront it; oppose it; abhor it. Nothing in my character is geared towards complaining, my man!

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  227. on Thu Sep 23rd 2010 at 02:15:21 Menelik Charles

    I have no desire to answer your question. What would be the point?

    Like


  228. Jeri–

    thanks & yes, after centuries+ of women doing their socially mandated duty, i’m sure men will lose nary an inch by women doing what serves the best interests of girls & women. it’s time.

    Like


  229. @MC
    you can call it what the hell you want! I call it facts!

    Hey, you can say whatever you want about the world man. Call the earth flat, for all I care.

    The problem is simply this, MC: Moynihan is making unwarranted presumptions about what are and what are not positive family structures, based on an equivocal understanding of the concept of “matriarchy” and based on some very obsolete 19th century and thoroughly critiqued notions of “social pathology”.

    I’m not the only person who’s made this point. In the 40 years since its publication, the Moynihan Report has been raked through the coals for its unwarranted presumptions. It’s now an interesting historicalm document, not cutting-edge research into black family life.

    The only people you hear citing it as gospel these days are white Republican racists (who clearly get the message that the black family is pathological) and angry black sexist men like yourself (who think the report shows that all would be right in the black family if women would just shut up and get back in the kitchen).

    I don’t know any SERIOUS progressive student of the black family who thinks it’s a good report – not without some VERY serious reservations, at least.

    But hey, given the ammount of complaining you do about black women and their supposedly unwarranted crusade against black men, why am I not surprised that you, like Moynihan, think patriarchical familes are just great? 😀

    Like


  230. I have no desire to answer your question. What would be the point?

    I would think that the point would be for you to realize that you do PRECISELY what you accuse these women of doing, which you claim you do not understand: you make a distinction between individuals and collectivities. the black woman you sleep with isn’t ALL black women.

    Simple as that.

    Of course, I can see why you wouldn’t want to admit looking like a hypocrite, but hey, we all make mistakes.

    Like


  231. “The fact remains that BM exist ONLY because BW continue to CHOOSE to BIRTH them.”

    Who chooses to procreate with BW?

    Like


  232. This article can’t be real life…I refuse to believe it.

    Like


  233. Thaddeus said:
    “I hate to break it to you, Kirk, but for most of human history, females have provided far more for families than men. And as for “protector”, look at any study you care to: the most likely aggressor of woman or children is a husband or father, not some unknown guy. That, too, has been a constant. So in spite of you appeals to a higher power, the facts simply don’t back up your allegations that men are universal protectors and providers.”

    Now that is the biggest piece of feminist bulls*** I’ve heard in my life!

    Like


  234. Commenter African Black Militant is banned for threatening physical violence both against me and another commenter.

    Like


  235. RDKirk,

    Mira–
    This seems to be the truth, unfortunately. Now, I am not sure if anybody should want to be with such a person.

    RDKirk-
    Why is it unfortunate? And why are the most confident women equal partners in perpetuating it? It seems that confident women show a sign of availability to the males they choose and allow the male to make the approach.

    It (men enjoining the chase and appreciating woman more when they have to work for the prize) is sad because, in my book, it means you are not allowed to be honest in order for a man to be interested in you. You must always be alarmed, and with all the usual red flags, also keep in mind not to reveal anything, not to show you’re too much interested, not to show he can “have” you, etc, etc.

    And yes, I think it’s unfortunate anybody has to play this game in order to keep another human being interested.

    (I don’t think it applies to men only, btw. I think women enjoy the chase as much as men).

    Like


  236. Now that is the biggest piece of feminist bulls*** I’ve heard in my life!

    Sorry, Vindicator: it’s a fact.

    The man in the house is much more likely to harm the women and children in the house than any outside man.

    This has turned up again and again in rape, domestic violence and child abuse studies.

    Now, some feminists exagerate these numbers to the point of unbelievability, true, and I just posted about this on my blog:

    http://omangueblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/bullshit-patrol-one-in-four-college.html

    But the exagerations of radicals does not change the simple fact that men are dangerous for women and children to be around and that men they KNOW (and even may love) are statistically much more likely to harm them than men they don’t know.

    So the main man women need to be “protected” from is the guy sharing a bed with her.

    I know that this is a hard thing for many men to accept, but it is very well proven and well proven by studies that hardly have a feminist bent to them.

    The idea of “Man the protector” is just not scientifically supported by the facts.

    Like


  237. Alot of people cling to romantic notions of marriage. I personally tend to view marriage as an institution. And like all institutions, it privileges one group over others–in this case, hetersexual men over women and the queer community most specifically.

    I’m not anti-marriage, but I do believe that some people believe that women only exist to be looked at, dated, married, copulated with, and to bear children. And, needless to say, I have a problem with that. Can’t change what people believe single-handedly but you can present a different perspective.

    Like


  238. Thaddeus said:
    “The man in the house is much more likely to harm the women and children in the house than any outside man.

    This has turned up again and again in rape, domestic violence and child abuse studies.”

    While that is true, those events occur very rarely!

    Thaddeus said:
    “Now, some feminists exagerate these numbers to the point of unbelievability, true, and I just posted about this on my blog:

    http://omangueblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/bullshit-patrol-one-in-four-college.html

    But the exagerations of radicals does not change the simple fact that men are dangerous for women and children to be around and that men they KNOW (and even may love) are statistically much more likely to harm them than men they don’t know.”

    Feminists are more than just “radicals”! Like any other Enlightenment and Post Enlightenment socio-poliltical and economic theories:
    Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Republicanism, Fascism, Fundyism (secular and religious), Liberalism, Conservativism, Libertarianism etc. These are “cancers” to society and must be cut out.

    Thaddeus said:
    “So the main man women need to be “protected” from is the guy sharing a bed with her.”

    So when are you going to “kill” your wife? 😉

    Thaddeus said:
    “I know that this is a hard thing for many men to accept, but it is very well proven and well proven by studies that hardly have a feminist bent to them.

    The idea of “Man the protector” is just not scientifically supported by the facts.”

    Yet men having to do all the “warrior” stuff like hunting, commanding armies, ruling states, doing the “grunt” work throughout human civilisation totally shoots a hole in that “scientific fact” now doesn’t it.

    Like


  239. on Thu Sep 23rd 2010 at 19:24:49 Menelik Charles

    Wow!

    Do divorce laws “privilege” men? And who gets to control access to the kids on separation: “privileged” men? Oh, and what about domestic violence laws, do they “privilege” men over women? Come to think of it, when man meets women and woman decides to date man, who gets to foot the bill (generally), who approaches who first (generally) whose consent is more highly valued etc etc?

    What is the point of the Men’s Rights Movement? And are its adherents a bunch of beta male losers (many of whom can’t get pussy) or do they actually have a case worth considering?

    Just asking.

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  240. I do not agree with this post. For the simple reason that times have changed. A 20 year old today is not as mature as a 20 year old decades ago. Yes back in the stone age when, parents married their children off while they were 16 and 17, it usually worked out but the life spans were also shorter. Today, a 20 year old getting married is likely to be divorced years later down the road because of the maturity factor, and people are expected to live longer.

    I have witnessed women who have gotten married in their 30s who have no regrets simply because they did what they wanted to do in their 20s and accomplished their goals and are already matured and have come into their own. I have also heard of women who have married in their early 20s who, even though they love their husbands, feel like they missed out on many things that they could have done but was limited by marriage. So there are pros and cons on both sides.

    No mothers are not the reason why there are so many single women. What about fathers? Don’t little girls need their fathers to demonstrate in the household what a man is and what his responsibilities are? So that when she becomes of age, she’ll know?

    This is why this society is so messed up. Women are blamed for what men are responsible for doing.

    Like


  241. @Vindicator
    While that is true, those events occur very rarely!

    Depends what you mean by “rarely”. What’s rare to you may not be rare to me. Let’s put it this way: those events happen often enough and – more to the point, in the context of this argument – they happen MORE OFTEN than rapes, beatings and abuse dealt out to women and children by strangers.

    So sure, they may be rare. A stranger raping/beating your wife or kid is even rarer. Remember that the original point here is that men are needed by women and kids as proectors. I reiterate: no they are not. It is the husband or father who is much more likely to be threat to a woman or child than a stranger.

    Feminists are more than just “radicals”! Like any other Enlightenment and Post Enlightenment socio-poliltical and economic theories:
    Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Republicanism, Fascism, Fundyism (secular and religious), Liberalism, Conservativism, Libertarianism etc. These are “cancers” to society and must be cut out.

    Oh, I thought I was dealing with a rational person – y’know, someone who thought it was a reasonably good thing that we no longer live in the middle ages. I see that I was wrong.

    So I take it that you think things like individual freedom and equality are passé, huh Vindicator? What do you suggest we replace them with then?

    So when are you going to “kill” your wife?

    So you think that the fact that husbands are more of a threat to wives than strange men inevitably means that ALL husbands must kill their wives, do you?

    Hope you’re not married.

    Yet men having to do all the “warrior” stuff like hunting, commanding armies, ruling states, doing the “grunt” work throughout human civilisation totally shoots a hole in that “scientific fact” now doesn’t it.

    First of all, states and armies are a very recent phenomenon in human existence. For the vast majority of humanitys existence – say 99% of it – we did without them.

    Secondly, “grunt work” you say? Vindicator, sorry to shoot a hole in your theory, but have you ever heard the phrase “a woman’s work is never done”? There’s a reason Engels called the woman “the slave to the slave”. It would be hard to find more oppressive “grunt work” than the stuff most societies define as “women’s work”.

    Finally, as for hunting, anthropology’s cleared that one up. Most calories in hunter/gather societies come from the gatherers. Men bring in meat, a prestige food, yes, but humans can live without meat. Humans generally CAN’T live without the food women bring in.

    So no, man is not some all-dominant, driving force in human evolution. Get over it.

    Like


  242. What is the point of the Men’s Rights Movement?

    Good question: what IS the point?

    By the way, MC, we know the answer to your divorce question. From the 1960s on up to the ’80s, getting men to pay child support was very, very difficult. So difficult, in fact, that States all over the world have found that they have to compell it at gunpoint.

    So as a gender, we have very little to whine about when it comes to draconian divorce laws: our fathers pissed all over their feet on that one.

    Like


  243. WOW!!! This is EXACTLY how my mother raised me.

    GET MARRIED AFTER YOU GET ALL OF YOUR EDUCATION! She wanted me to be a doctor. So…I’d get married by the time I’m 35!?!?

    I’m 23…my friends are dating and getting married now! (They’re in school too.) You want to know what she says? Don’t look at them, they’re white!

    What’s with this? Any time I mention marriage my mother (now widowed still looking) gets angry!????

    Like


  244. Has it occurred to you that it may be the voice of experience talking when your mother gets angry?

    Like


  245. Boo-boo (excellent name, lol):

    I think 23 is too young to be getting married, in our time. Most people are not very mature at that age, and it’s scary to think that people that just finished drinking their life away at college, or may not even be finished, will be obligated to another person or, worse, a child.

    Also, the average age for a woman to get married in many countries is now around 26, so it’s quite normal to not be married right now. Age at first marriage and rate of divorce have an inverse relationship Just because your friends are married at the moment, doesn’t mean they’ll be married a few years from now.

    Like


  246. my mom harasses me constantly about getting a man, actually though its men who dont like to marry these days especially bm, some just take too damn long to settle down. I want to be married/kids by time im 25.im young and fertile and i cant wait until im 36 to settle down when men are finally ready

    Like


  247. back in the day men married in their late teens and early twenties so they could have sex that much sooner, these days when people are living together/having kids w/out eevr getting the ring, men don’t see a need to get married early. so they run around and sow their oats as long as they can and then when they’re 38 or so they settle down finally. I find this to be teh common attitude among men my age, which is why i prefer older men.

    Like


  248. may i ask how old was abagond when he married? early-mid twenties??

    Like


  249. Natasha,

    I agree! If I were going to marry my boyfriend at 23, I’d have to start planning now, and I haven’t even made it out of college yet! Getting married right after senior year is especially popular at my university, and I also think it’s especially likely to fail because campus is it’s own “bubble”. We have a bunch of antiquated rules about interactions between the sexes (men and women who aren’t married can’t even live together *off-campus*), so I don’t think most couples are prepared to deal with the temptations of the real world. I think it depends on your environment, I know some great couples who got married young, but it seemed like their path was a lot different than the girls I know from school who seem to see their fiances as cute accessories.

    Like


  250. It’s interesting to me that so many conversations about women and marriage completely skip over dating. Peanut mentioned men settling down in their late 30s to marry, but what about people who are in serious relationships? Is there as much pressure to “not end up alone” if you are dating a guy but not married to him? When does “serious relationship” status cease to be good enough?

    Like


  251. “I am not a black woman, and I don’t live in the US, but this post just seems so unrealistic and unkind! I just find it hard to believe that black women in colleges are turning up their noses at decent suitors because they believe in the mantra of “I don’t need a man”. It sounds ridiculous. Frankly, it seems like the writer of this post has something against women, and black women in particular. Blame black women for being single, and blame their mothers for teaching them the wrong priorities.”

    yep…

    Like


  252. What I can’t figure out is the fetishization of marriage.

    What makes marriage so special? Why do Americans think that living together and raising a family without the state and the churches’ blessing is so damned problematic?

    Like


  253. Thaddeus–
    What I can’t figure out is the fetishization of marriage.

    What makes marriage so special? Why do Americans think that living together and raising a family without the state and the churches’ blessing is so damned problematic?

    RDKirk–
    I guess I haven’t been paying close attention. Have all other nations ceased having marriages?

    Like


  254. Thad said:
    “Depends what you mean by “rarely”. What’s rare to you may not be rare to me. Let’s put it this way: those events happen often enough and – more to the point, in the context of this argument – they happen MORE OFTEN than rapes, beatings and abuse dealt out to women and children by strangers.

    So sure, they may be rare. A stranger raping/beating your wife or kid is even rarer. Remember that the original point here is that men are needed by women and kids as proectors. I reiterate: no they are not. It is the husband or father who is much more likely to be threat to a woman or child than a stranger.”

    A long winded speech of you almost agreeing me!

    Thad said:
    “Oh, I thought I was dealing with a rational person – y’know, someone who thought it was a reasonably good thing that we no longer live in the middle ages. I see that I was wrong.”

    More human atrocities were comitted during the “Enlightenment” and post “Enlightenment” ages than the middle ages! Nice try though!

    Thad said:
    “So I take it that you think things like individual freedom and equality are passé, huh Vindicator? What do you suggest we replace them with then?”

    I’m not against individual freedom, equality and human rights. However, those things have always been at the whim of any government through the ages. As I said before “More human atrocities were comitted during the “Enlightenment” and post “Enlightenment” ages than the middle ages!”
    Again nice try!
    As for the other question, No socio-political or economic theory is perfect but that doesn’t we should keep the ones that I mentioned.
    Oh the question, sorry. My Answers:
    Socio-political – Monarchism (Mainly Constitutional)
    Socio-economic – Distributism or some mixed economy that has some parts capitalism, distributism, socialism and feudalism

    If you want to check out what distributism, here’s a link:
    http://distributistreview.com/mag/

    Thad said:
    “So you think that the fact that husbands are more of a threat to wives than strange men inevitably means that ALL husbands must kill their wives, do you?

    Hope you’re not married.”

    What I said was kinda below the belt! I apologise. I don’t think my point came across. If men (that the women know) are so dangerous to women and children, why do women get married or stay around them in the first place?
    Wouldn’t it be better or safer for women to establish their own societies!?

    Thad said:
    “First of all, states and armies are a very recent phenomenon in human existence. For the vast majority of humanitys existence – say 99% of it – we did without them.”

    So what. As I said men still did all the “warrior” stuff pre civilised or other!

    Thad said:
    “Secondly, “grunt work” you say? Vindicator, sorry to shoot a hole in your theory, but have you ever heard the phrase “a woman’s work is never done”? There’s a reason Engels called the woman “the slave to the slave”. It would be hard to find more oppressive “grunt work” than the stuff most societies define as “women’s work”.”

    The fact that you are using Engels in your argument only makes your positon weaker. However I will challenge your argument.
    Men throughout history have always done the dank and dingy jobs, simple. Even to this day with the liberation of women (yet do feminists ever say what they are liberated from……… No) you still get most of the dangerous, dingy and dank jobs still being performed by men.
    What I meant by “grunt work” was in terms of the military, a non officer or an infantrymen. Before you say that is not “oppressive”, You should know that throughout our civilised history most armies had conscription. Infact, conscription was widely used during the “modern” age (16th century +)

    Thad said:
    “Finally, as for hunting, anthropology’s cleared that one up. Most calories in hunter/gather societies come from the gatherers. Men bring in meat, a prestige food, yes, but humans can live without meat. Humans generally CAN’T live without the food women bring in.”

    I wouldn’t say so just yet:
    http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/00509.htm

    Thad said:
    “So no, man is not some all-dominant, driving force in human evolution. Get over it.”

    Nobody said they were but when it comes to civilisation, us men dominate in almost every time. Get over that!

    Like


  255. Mira says@
    It (men enjoining the chase and appreciating woman more when they have to work for the prize) is sad because, in my book, it means you are not allowed to be honest in order for a man to be interested in you. You must always be alarmed, and with all the usual red flags, also keep in mind not to reveal anything, not to show you’re too much interested, not to show he can “have” you, etc, etc.

    And yes, I think it’s unfortunate anybody has to play this game in order to keep another human being interested.”

    Linda said @
    “My belief is that most men want to be men…they enjoy the chase and they appreciate the woman more when he has to work for his prize…especially if the woman is confident and seems unattainable”

    My above statement was not meant to diminish male/female interaction into a cat and mouse game…

    It’s not about the woman being dishonest or not being themselves…it’s about not being seen as an object and making sure that the man values and respects you.

    When a man is initially attracted to a woman, he is attracted by how she looks, and he wants to follow up that attraction by having a physical relationship with her…once that happens, the dynamics of the man-woman relationship changes.

    I think it’s important for a woman to make sure that man sees her as a person and not just a body…and that means, making him wait before having sex, and to see how much he is willing to do to make the woman happy and bring a smile to her face…that is not playing a game…that’s called showing interest and for the woman, it’s also a little romantic…

    that is what I mean about letting him chase you…the more time and energy he puts into getting to know the woman, caring about her as a person (and not an object), and showing that he wants to be with her, allows him to form an emotional attachment and possibly means that he will value the woman and the relationship…

    and definitely, a woman should be herself and be honest, because it says to the man “what you see is what you get–can you handle it” but letting him get to know you should be done over time….not all at once…

    Time allows the woman to evaluate if this man is the right person for her before she gives him a piece of herself physically and emotionally…

    time also allows true personalities to be seen and for secrets to come to light…

    When you first meet someone, you don’t know who they really are or where they are coming from as far as life experience.

    Like


  256. @RDKirk–
    I guess I haven’t been paying close attention. Have all other nations ceased having marriages?

    In western Europe, it’s pretty much considered to be optional and has been for some time. For centuries in Brazil, the rule has been “juntando com fé, casado é” (“If they’re faithful together, they’re married”). Recently our laws have been changed to reflect that: now a “marriage” is considered to be living together as sexual partners for any length of time. You share a residence with someone and you’re sleeping with them, it’s a marriage for all intents and purposes.

    So yeah, RD, the trend in much of the developed and developing world is AWAY from formal marriage and towards concentration on the responsabilities of child raising and household maintenance, whether or not one’s been through a formal ritual.

    That’s the way it should be, IMHO. You have a kid, whether or not you’re married should make no difference to the State when it comes time for child support and the like.

    Like


  257. @Vindy
    A long winded speech of you almost agreeing me!

    Reading comprehension isn’t one of your stellar skills, I take it, Vindy?

    You believe men protect women from harm. You agree, however, that no matter how rare it may or may not be, the most LIKELY man to harm a woman is the one she shares her bed with.

    So no, men do NOT protect women from harm. One is much more likely to be beaten, raped or battered if one is female and has a male mate than is one is single.

    Sure, this is RELATIVELY (if not absoultely) rare, but the argument isn’t about how rare it is, remember?

    The argument is about whether or not women are protected by men.

    No they aren’t.

    More human atrocities were comitted during the “Enlightenment” and post “Enlightenment” ages than the middle ages! Nice try though!

    Yeah, because the human popultaion grew by about a hundredfold.

    In terms of human possibilities or the AVERAGE amount of attrocities an individual encounters in his or her life, we are so far ahead of the middle ages that only a raving lunatic would hold them up as being better.

    YOU might think it an idylic life to live as a peasant, grubbing mud for your feudal overlord until you die, worn out, at the ripe old age of 45. Today, that sort of life description applies to only about 1/6th of the planet – 1/3rd if you’re pessimistic. In 1100 AD, it applied to about 99% of the planet’s human population.

    Lord of the Rings was a FANTASY novel, Vindy. 😀

    If men (that the women know) are so dangerous to women and children, why do women get married or stay around them in the first place?
    Wouldn’t it be better or safer for women to establish their own societies!?

    Take a look at divorce stats, Vindy: slowly but surely, they are. If men don’t clean up our act, we’re going to become redundant.

    As Susan Faludi puts it, right now masculinity is wholey decorative in the U.S. and most other advanced economies. There’s basically only one thing a man can do for a heterosexual woman that she can’t do for herself and, given what I see on women’s chat shows and in their magazines, as a group we’re not doing such a spectacular job of THAT.

    Perhaps men are nice to have a round and look at. Decorative. But they are not truly necessary.

    I think guys like you and Kirk really understand this at the bottom of your souls and that’s why so much hot air is getting expelled about “feminists” and what not these days.

    So what. As I said men still did all the “warrior” stuff pre civilised or other!

    What you said is that that “warrior stuff” has absolutely to human survival. For most of humanity’s history, it has been no more necessary – and often less necessary – than woman’s work. And since the industrial revolution has kicked in, it has become increasingly LESS necessary.

    The fact that you are using Engels in your argument only makes your positon weaker.

    Why? Because you think that there are authors that are simply “off the books” because they are evil? Do you even know what Engels said on this point, or are you just assuming that it’s all BS because you naively associate him with the state socialism of the Soviet Union and China?

    If you’ve got a substantial critique of Engel’s point, bring it on. If you’re only critique is “Ewwwww, he’s a commonist!!!”, then not only are you ignorant of history, you’re a fool in the strictest sense of the word: one who literally judges books by their covers.

    I mean, I dislike Adolf Hitler, but I have actually read Mein Kampf cover to cover, several times, and I can give you a long and drawn out dritique of each of the arguments he makes in that book and why they are wrong.

    THAT is how you deal with bad ideas, Vindy, not simply declaring their authors to be taboo.

    I’ve never seen a decent critique of Engels’ views on the family from anything but a leftist feminist persepctive, so if you’ve got one, I’d be happy to hear it.

    Otherwise I think we can assume that you simply don’t know what the f** you’re talking about when you claim that using Engels makes one’s argument weaker.

    Men throughout history have always done the dank and dingy jobs, simple.

    Here speaks a man who as obviously never done housework, never changed a diaper, never watched a childbirth, or ever done daycare.

    While men’s jobs have been crap for the most part, there is no logical or reasonable way to claim that woman’s work has been any better or any less “dark and dingy”.

    The fact of the matter is that this work isn’t even on your radar screen AS work, Vindy, because all your life you’ve probably ignored the women who’ve been doing it around you.

    No wonder you think it’s “easy”.

    I wonder what your grandmother would have to say about that?

    Even to this day with the liberation of women (yet do feminists ever say what they are liberated from……… No)

    Oh, feminists go into quite some detail on that point, Vindy. Just because you’ve never bothered to listen to them doesn’t mean that they don’t talk about it. I can give you a LAUNDRY LIST of things feminists say they’ve been liberated from.

    Are you willing to read it, however? Because if you ahven’t heard it by now, odds are you aren’t really listening.

    What I meant by “grunt work” was in terms of the military, a non officer or an infantrymen. Before you say that is not “oppressive”, You should know that throughout our civilised history most armies had conscription. Infact, conscription was widely used during the “modern” age (16th century +)

    Yes, I’m aware of what “grunt” means, Vindy. You should know that conscription started with the French Revolution in the 1790s. Civilization began around 3000 BC. I know of know civilization prior to Republican France that had conscription, although a couple made military service a necessary condition for citizenship.

    Futhermore, since when is military service “work” in the sense of producing something useful?

    At best and at most, an army protects you from the other guy’s army, so this is a bit like saying a mafia hitman “works” because he prevents other mafia hitmen from getting into the neighborhood.

    For most of human history, however, WAR itself was a far worse scourge than being ruled by this lord or that lord. Both lords collect taxes and treat peasants like dung – no differenc there. War, however, burns a peasant’s home and fields and kills his family.

    So no, for the vast majority of human history, military service has not been “work” in the same sense that being a hired thug for a criminal king pin has not been “work”: it produced nothing useful, it just determined who got the “right” to steal from the producers.

    I hardly think humanity needs to bow down to men for their shameful role in participating in this sort of overblown “protection” scheme.

    I think you’re right, however: men DO protect women, in the same sense that the Mafia “protects” local store owners.

    If that’s the sense you’re using “protection” in – as in “protection racket” – I fully agree: men ahve historically “protected” women.

    Nobody said they were but when it comes to civilisation, us men dominate in almost every time. Get over that!

    Given that civilization has been based on naked physical force for most of its history – and given that men have been physically stronger than women – it’s no wonder that civilization has used men as its enforcers.

    You think this is something to be proud of?

    Like


  258. I think it’s important for a woman to make sure that man sees her as a person and not just a body…and that means, making him wait before having sex, and to see how much he is willing to do to make the woman happy and bring a smile to her face…that is not playing a game…that’s called showing interest and for the woman, it’s also a little romantic…

    ROFL!

    First off all, only a woman – and a very deluded one – could have written this.

    Since when does “making a man wait” make him respect you more? You seriously think that given the sky-high divorce and domestic violence stats that men respect the women they’ve married?

    Speaking as a man, I have BLOWN OFF more women than I can count who play that little game. I don’t exepct sex on the first – or even the second or third date – but I don’t need to be paying someone for them to be my friend. That’s not romantic at all. In have plenty of friends, both male and female, whom I can hang out with and share my life with and I don’t have to pay for the pleasure of their company.

    So why should I have to pay for the pleasure of yours?

    That’s not called “romanticism”, Linda: it’s called prostitutuion.

    Oh, but it wasn’t material things you were talking about, you say?

    OK, fair go. But if we’re hanging out, it’s because we do bring smiles to each other’s faces correct? So if both of us like each other and we’re both horny, WHY SHOULDN’T we have sex – unless you happen to think that sex with a woman has some sort of “exchange” value which goes beyond what we feel for each other?

    Finally, I think you’ve got it ass backwards: all the “sluts” I know are married and most of them happily married. Why? Because men tend to think about love AFTER they’ve had sex with a woman, not before. For men, sexual relationships become loving relationships – not all sexual relationships, granted, but I’d hazard that most men will tell you interest came first, then sex, then love.

    The kind of woman who takes the advice of Cosmopolitan magazine and “how to catch a man” books when it comes to her personal relationships is, more often than niot, unhappy sexually and emotionally. And why is that? Because that “women’s advice” industry makes money off of precisely that state of affairs!

    It’s no wonder then, that a million little scam artists are desperately trying to teach women that romance is the way to go when it comes to love. Yes, it is, if you want to be unhappy, single and unfulfilled.

    Love is made by sharing a life with someone. That includes sex. If you thick you’re going to get love and eternal devotion BEFORE sex, you’ve been watching too many Disney films. That very, very, very rarely happens.

    So go iout there and sleep around! I GUARANTEE you that you have a much better chance of finding the “love of your life” that way than you do trying to apply arcane formulas and wrrying about when you “should” have sex.

    Sure, you’ll have a lot of partners who won’t want anything more to do with you. So what? That’s why God or mother nature made sex fun! As long as you sleep with guys you like and who are attractive to YOU, who CARES if they stay with you long term? That’s a bonus if it happens and you find that you are compatible: it should not be the original condition of the sex.

    You don’t lose nothing having sex, dear, as long as you are responsible when you do it. As we say in Brazil, “Lavou, ‘ta nova!” (“Clean it off and it’s like new!”)

    Like


  259. Thad said:
    You believe men protect women from harm. You agree, however, that no matter how rare it may or may not be, the most LIKELY man to harm a woman is the one she shares her bed with.

    So no, men do NOT protect women from harm. One is much more likely to be beaten, raped or battered if one is female and has a male mate than is one is single. .

    RDKirk responds:
    That’s kind of like saying that 25% of all women in college will be raped during their college careers. Would you accept that statistic at face value?

    If all husbands are 100% effective at protecting their wives, then (men admittedly not being saints) of COURSE any remaining abuse any wife suffers MUST be at the hands of her husband. But that says nothing about the actual percentage of husbands who do beat their wives nor does it say what percentage of wives would be abused by strangers if husbands never protected them. That says nothing about whether wives are still better off with husbands than without them.

    Thad said:
    “Finally, as for hunting, anthropology’s cleared that one up. Most calories in hunter/gather societies come from the gatherers. Men bring in meat, a prestige food, yes, but humans can live without meat. Humans generally CAN’T live without the food women bring in.”

    RDKirk responds:
    Ancient Eskimos during the winter.

    Thad said:
    So yeah, RD, the trend in much of the developed and developing world is AWAY from formal marriage and towards concentration on the responsabilities of child raising and household maintenance, whether or not one’s been through a formal ritual.

    RDKirk responds:
    Ah, so you’re not talking about “marriage,” you’re concentrating on “formal ritual.” “Formal ritual” has never been required in the US. However, a legal agreement is required, as well as state certification that both parties are legally free to marry.

    How do Brasilian laws handle a dissolution of “living together as sexual partners for any length of time” when there is acculated property and children involved?

    Thad said:
    That’s the way it should be, IMHO. You have a kid, whether or not you’re married should make no difference to the State when it comes time for child support and the like.

    Does this permit polygamy, then? A man could be “living together as sexual partners for any length of time” with several different women. Is there a specific period of time required? Can the man leave one day short of that and not have any responsibilities?

    Thad said:
    Perhaps men are nice to have a round and look at. Decorative. But they are not truly necessary.

    I think guys like you and Kirk really understand this at the bottom of your souls and that’s why so much hot air is getting expelled about “feminists” and what not these days

    RDKirk responds:
    Actually, I’ve already said that EXPLICITLY, and I stated why I believe it’s a problem for men, especially young black men in urban areas of the US. Because of technology and government, men may appear to be unnecessary at the personal level, but the fact is: Men are still here.

    BTW, which gender makes up the bulk of the Brasilian armed forces, police forces, firefighting services, at such?

    Thad says:
    I think you’re right, however: men DO protect women, in the same sense that the Mafia “protects” local store owners.

    If that’s the sense you’re using “protection” in – as in “protection racket” – I fully agree: men ahve historically “protected” women.

    RDKirk responds:
    Well, you’ve determined that males not only are totally useless but are actually dangerous. Where is your moral fortitude? Why haven’t you taken your cyanide pill? I may be deluded, but you appear to be hypocritical.

    Thad said:
    Here speaks a man who as obviously never done housework, never changed a diaper, never watched a childbirth, or ever done daycare.

    While men’s jobs have been crap for the most part, there is no logical or reasonable way to claim that woman’s work has been any better or any less “dark and dingy”.

    The fact of the matter is that this work isn’t even on your radar screen AS work, Vindy, because all your life you’ve probably ignored the women who’ve been doing it around you.

    No wonder you think it’s “easy”.

    I wonder what your grandmother would have to say about that?

    RDKirk responds:
    When my son was 9 months old, my first wife decided she wanted to be single again, packed her clothes, and left me with the baby. I was a single parent for four years after that before meeting my current wife.

    So THIS particular man knows some things about doing housework, changing diapers…and for that matter, I was the very first person to lay eyes upon both of my children, seeing their heads “crown” at the vaginas of my wives before we went into delivery. Have YOU ever had to suck the snot out of your sick baby’s nose with your own lips?

    Being a mother is not unrewarding.

    Like


  260. Thaddeus says@
    “First off all, only a woman – and a very deluded one – could have written this.

    Since when does “making a man wait” make him respect you more? You seriously think that given the sky-high divorce and domestic violence stats that men respect the women they’ve married?

    Speaking as a man, I have BLOWN OFF more women than I can count who play that little game. I don’t exepct sex on the first – or even the second or third date – but I don’t need to be paying someone for them to be my friend. That’s not romantic at all. In have plenty of friends, both male and female, whom I can hang out with and share my life with and I don’t have to pay for the pleasure of their company.”

    Linda says@

    My delusion had worked quite well for me when I was younger in my 20’s and dating… I am now older and happily married going on 15 years…

    I never said a man has to love you before you have sex…I said he needs to respect you and place a value on who you are as a person before the woman becomes physically and emotionally attached…

    and the reality is that women do tie their emotions to sex, while men don’t, men can sleep with a variety of women and have no deep emotional attachment to any of them.

    Lust is what happens in the beginning, Love evolves….
    A committed relationship / marriage requires compromise and respect for each other….

    lack of respect is what leads to domestic violence and no willingness to change and compromise leads to divorce…

    Thaddeus says@
    “Finally, I think you’ve got it ass backwards: all the “sluts” I know are married and most of them happily married.”

    Linda says@
    All the sluts I know are still single with children…so we obviously live in 2 different worlds…

    but yes, my single girlfriends can have and sleep with any guy they set their interest on…the only thing is so far, none of those men has asked them to marry them because the sex was just sooo good.

    No matter what you say…the reality is men do not respect whores….and I did’t need a fufu magazine to tell me that.

    Like


  261. That’s kind of like saying that 25% of all women in college will be raped during their college careers. Would you accept that statistic at face value?

    In fact, I just wrote about that on my blog, rejecting that stat.

    The most likely stat there is 6-8% – but you’ll notice that is still INCREDIBLY HIGH, Kirk.

    The stat I’m repeating regarding women being victimized by their partners is quite well founded. I think you are confusing what I’m saying with something else. I think you believe I am saying “Most women are beaten or whatever by their male partners.”

    I am not saying that.

    I AM saying that women are more likely to be beaten or raped by their male friends and partners than they are by complete strangers.

    Is that clear now?

    So no, women are not being “protected” by their male freinds and partners. Their male friends and partners are the most likely population aggressors will be drawn from.

    There have been many, many studies that show this, Kirk, but I’m open to studies which show differently.

    Do you have access to any?

    I thought not.

    This is a fact that is quite independent of feminist exagerations of male violence, RD. No one that I know of out there seriously disputes it.

    If all husbands are 100% effective at protecting their wives, then (men admittedly not being saints) of COURSE any remaining abuse any wife suffers MUST be at the hands of her husband.

    A nice and logical assumption, except it misses one key fact: most ATTEMPTED rapes and beatings also occur at the hands of men the woman knows.

    So unless you’re postulating that these evil, battering strangers never show their faces because they are too intimidated by lovers and boyfriends (which would be a stupid assumption, because men do not hang around their female loved ones 24/7), your presumption makes no sense at all, RD.

    Nice try, though. 😀

    That says nothing about whether wives are still better off with husbands than without them.

    Actually, it does. The number one risk factor for being a female victim of sexual violence is sharing a dwelling with a man. Single women who do not date men are actually at LESS risk for violence than non-single women or women who date men.

    Sad fact, but true.

    So again, nice try but no cee-gar, RD. To the degree that women sexually/romantically involve themselves with men, statistically speaking, their chances of being a victim of violence go up.

    Ah, so you’re not talking about “marriage,” you’re concentrating on “formal ritual.” “Formal ritual” has never been required in the US. However, a legal agreement is required, as well as state certification that both parties are legally free to marry

    Note that I say State or Church as invoking that ritual, RD. Your certificatation process is indeed a state ritual.

    Ancient Eskimos during the winter.

    RD, Eskimos engaged in communal hunting, more often than not. Their equipment and gear was made and maintained in a communal effort that very much included women’s work. Without womens work, Nanook wouldn’t have the gear to go whale or seal hunting.

    I know men like to think of primitive man as a solitary, self-sufficient, mighty hunter, but it just ain’t true. 😀

    How do Brasilian laws handle a dissolution of “living together as sexual partners for any length of time” when there is acculated property and children involved?

    On a case by case basis, as does U.S. law. The guiding principal is that all property and children acquired AFTER the household has been established is split 50/50. It’s fairly easy to figure out when a household is established WITHOUT having the State or Church certify it in a ritual, too.

    This is why you should NEVER buy property in Brazil if you believe, as Americans do, that you’re “just living with someone”. Our law says you’re married if your partner can prove that you’re living together as spouses and maintaining a household. And that is very easy to do.

    Does this permit polygamy, then? A man could be “living together as sexual partners for any length of time” with several different women. Is there a specific period of time required? Can the man leave one day short of that and not have any responsibilities?

    No specific ammount of time is required for a household to be established, just proof of it being so and proof of living together as spouses. It would be very hard, in our society, for someone to establish TWO households. It has been known to occur though (just as it does in the U.S., in spite of your rituals and laws). Again, these rare cases are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The guiding principal seems to be “provide for all children first”.

    An example would be my sister-in-law. She is living maritally to a guy she’s been with for ten years. He has an on-paper marriage to another woman which he has never bothered to dissolve. He has three kids with that woman and is raising my sister-in-law’s kid by a prior husband.

    If he dies, priority of property goes to his children-by-body. I’m sure his paper wife could then argue for consideration. My sister-in-law, however, would be able to show that he has been maintaining a household with her for over a decade and raising her kid. She would probably thus be second in line for property considerations.

    We had an odd experience several years ago when my ex-wife had a kid by another guy in Wisconsin. Seeing as how we’d never formally divorced, the State of Wisconsin put my name on his birth certificate. That was a shock to all concerned. We couldn’t believe that American family law was that hide-bound and primitive. In Brazil, the guy who signs the certificate is the father. If he refuses, the woman can get a DNA test. Laws are pretty draconian here for people who abandon children: it’s a bailless crime to not pay child support.

    which gender makes up the bulk of the Brasilian armed forces, police forces, firefighting services, at such?

    Thank God we have that Army! I go to bed every night in fear that Paraguay is going to invade us again, so all hail our macho protectors!

    But to seriously answer your question, an increasingly diminiushing number of men. Modern weaponry and equipment, you’ll have noticed, does not generally require large ammounts of upper body strength to operate. If we were TRULY concerned about biology and its effect on combat capabilities, by the way, practically every fighter pilot in the world would be female: generally smaller bodies, better resistance to g-forces and better reflexes.

    So please spare me the “men are naturally designed to be fighters and protectors” bit, Kirk. You’ll notice that we haven’t been fighting wars with broadswords for more than half a millenia now.

    …but the fact is: Men are still here.

    That they are. And you know what? Hanging on to out-of-date gender privileges and complaining that masculinity’s been trivialized isn’t going to help them much. Time to invent new notions of masculinity, folks.

    Well, you’ve determined that males not only are totally useless but are actually dangerous. Where is your moral fortitude? Why haven’t you taken your cyanide pill? I may be deluded, but you appear to be hypocritical.

    It would be hypocritical if I believed that ALL men are naturally and inevitably dangerous. Thankfully, most aren’t.

    Take rape, for example. It’s only about 4-6% of men who are sexually aggressive to the point of committing rape. I’m one of the 94% that aren’t.

    But that doesn’t mean I buy into the crapola that men preach about their naturally warlike and protective natures. THAT particular boatload of crap ends up enabling the 6% who are assholes.

    In the same way that I think whiteness needs to be done away with, I think masculinity, as it now stands, should be eliminated. That’s a wholely different prospect from saying MEN should be eliminated.

    Again, it’s amusing to me that you can “get” this logic when it’s applied to racism, but seem to have an incredibly hard time grasping it when it’s applied to gender.

    When my son was 9 months old, my first wife decided she wanted to be single again, packed her clothes, and left me with the baby. I was a single parent for four years after that before meeting my current wife.

    Yes, but unless you’re posting here under another handle as “Vindicator”, those comments weren’t directed at you. And I SERIOUSLY doubt you’d describe the scutwork involved in maintaining a household as glorious and fulfilling labor. Or as “easy”. Vindy seems to think it’s no big deal a’tall.

    Have YOU ever had to suck the snot out of your sick baby’s nose with your own lips?

    Being a mother is not unrewarding.

    King, did you even read those two sentences back-to-back? You look as if you find snot-sucking to be rewarding. 😀

    But whether or not it’s “rewarding” is neither here nor there. In the first place, nothing is rewarding when one is FORCED to do it because that’s one’s “natural” place. I’m sure many slave mammies were quite concerned with the lives of the white children under their care, but I doubt they found the job rewarding.

    Secondly, whether being a parent is or isn’t rewarding is hardly an issue here. Vindy’s argument is that poor lil’ ol’ men got stuck with the hard jobs in life while women got easy street.

    THAT’S the issue being discussed here, nor whether hard jobs can be rewarding.

    Like


  262. @Linda
    My delusion had worked quite well for me when I was younger in my 20′s and dating… I am now older and happily married going on 15 years…

    And have you asked your husband if a serious part of his decision in marrying you was you “making him wait”? Frankly, Linda, I bet you made him wait a lot less than you remember now. And I very much doubt he tells his male friends you “made him wait”. At least when you’re not around. 😀

    I never said a man has to love you before you have sex…I said he needs to respect you and place a value on who you are as a person before the woman becomes physically and emotionally attached…

    Fine. How does “making him wait” prove any of this?

    The typical male response to being “made to wait” is the little black book. A few generations ago, it was the brothel. It’s not like he has to restrain himself while you make him wait, so I’m unsure as tomwhy you think this “waiting” proves any thing other than the fact that he considers you an eventual prospect for sex.

    and the reality is that women do tie their emotions to sex, while men don’t, men can sleep with a variety of women and have no deep emotional attachment to any of them.

    I think you need to speak for yourself there. Plenty of women have sex without becoming emotionally tied to their partner. And recent research indicates that men are typically much more emotionally broken up by a relationship break than women are. Apparently, then, men are not as cold and calculating as the “Men are from Mars” crowd would have you believe.

    lack of respect is what leads to domestic violence and no willingness to change and compromise leads to divorce…

    So you SERIOUSLY think that “making a man wait” leads to less domestic violence?

    Linda, domestic violence and divorces usually have some very real, very proximate causes which are much more concrete than “lack of respect”.

    but yes, my single girlfriends can have and sleep with any guy they set their interest on…the only thing is so far, none of those men has asked them to marry them because the sex was just sooo good.

    It seems to me that that’s the voice of Oprah talking there.

    First of all, you seem to be saying that good sex is actually an impediment to marriage – which makes me shudder to thijnk what you consider a good marriage to be.

    Secondly, why SHOULD people be marrying if they don’t want to? You seem to be saying that restricting sex to marriage is going to force men into marriage. But will it make them HAPPIER?

    You seem to have a very old school notion that men must essentially be “tricked” into marriage, with sex as bait. That’s pretty repugnant, Linda, especially coming from someone who’s all about men respecting women as individuals and not objectifying them as some sort of generic class.

    No matter what you say…the reality is men do not respect whores….and I did’t need a fufu magazine to tell me that.

    Quite.

    And yet you seem to mistake women who are free with their sexuality with whores.

    Last I looked, a whore is a woman who has money with a man for some sort of material gain. A woman who believes that sex should be bartered for marriage is a hell of a lot closer to a whore in most men’s book than a woman who has sex with guys simply for the fun of it.

    And don’t fool yourself that I don’t know what I’m talking about here: I interview sexual tourists and prostitutes’ clients for a living, Linda. Most of my male informants are VERY clear about the fact that they consider the kind of “make them wait for it so you can marry them” line you’re spouting to be “bulls*** tricks and games” on a level with – if not precisely equal to – prostitution.

    Ask any man: does he prefer a woman who is honest about her sexuality or does he prefer a woman who thinks her vagina is some sort of tool to manipulate men?

    You’ll find the term “whore” is much more often used to describe the second sort of woman.

    And you’re right: men don’t like that sort of woman at all. But because they are rather easy to manipulate, men often find themselves married to that sort of woman.

    There’s a big part of your “disrespect” and doemstic violence right there, Linda.

    Like


  263. Linda,

    When a man is initially attracted to a woman, he is attracted by how she looks, and he wants to follow up that attraction by having a physical relationship with her…once that happens, the dynamics of the man-woman relationship changes.

    I think it’s important for a woman to make sure that man sees her as a person and not just a body…and that means, making him wait before having sex, and to see how much he is willing to do to make the woman happy and bring a smile to her face…that is not playing a game…that’s called showing interest and for the woman, it’s also a little romantic…

    I see where you’re coming from, but please note these things are not universal.

    Without going too much into detail, I didn’t wait too much with my husband to “follow the attraction” so to speak, and it didn’t change anything… In fact, it made our relationships better. I didn’t want to wait because I was (and still am) attracted to him and I wanted to express my attraction and feelings that began to develop physically.

    It made us connect even more and it sure didn’t make him think I was not worthy of his affection, respect and love.

    To be honest, waiting for too long can ruin a relationship dynamics, imo. But that’s just my opinion (for my case). Everyone’s different. (And maybe that’s just my white privilege talking… Because my group was not labeled oversexed and slutty by default).

    Like


  264. Thad,

    Because men tend to think about love AFTER they’ve had sex with a woman, not before.

    Shhh… It can be like this for women, too. (well, after having sex with a man).

    Like


  265. You are very facety and I am not interested in nor do I appreciate the twisting and dissecting you do with my sentences to fit them into neat boxes for you to pontify on…this is not a class…

    I don’t appreciate your efforts at trying to tie together what I am saying into your other threads and discussions that you have been ranting about…

    My original discussion never mentioned love, divorce, or domestic violence or any of the other rubbish that you introduced…

    this particular article is about college educated black American women putting off marriage and toting the mantra of “I don’t need a man”…

    I could care less what you do for a living Thad, the reality is you are not an expert on women…

    nor have you been on the receiving end of a man trying to get between your legs…so you don’t have any personal experience as to how women FEEL in good or bad relationships.

    you seem to believe because you have a plethora of knowledge from your travels, studies, or career that you are an expert or advocate for everything under the sun.

    I don’t analyze, statisticize, or research my life…I live it and share MY thoughts…I come to this site to read about other peoples thoughts, not get lectured about the rightness or wrongness of my beliefs.

    The women here that read my thread will understand what I’m saying and they will either disagree or agree because most women more of less have to travel the same road when it comes to dating and having committed relationships….

    It’s to the women here where my thoughts will either have some meaning or not…but thank you for your eloquent responses to my threads.

    Like


  266. My last post was for Thaddeus

    Like


  267. Mira says@
    “To be honest, waiting for too long can ruin a relationship dynamics, imo. But that’s just my opinion (for my case). Everyone’s different. (And maybe that’s just my white privilege talking… Because my group was not labeled oversexed and slutty by default).”

    Linda says,
    Mira: You really hit on something with your last sentence…I think all women are objectified when it comes to sex…but black women seem to get the bad end of the stick (at least in US)

    I am not saying that women should purposely make a man wait for sex as a strategy–I am saying–don’t expect a man to care about you just because he is sleeping with you….find out if this man is worth investing your time in before you (woman) become emotionally attached.

    I have a girlfriend who is dating a man that is also sleeping with 2 other women…my friend accepts the situation because he tells her she is the one he loves but he is not ready to settle down right now…she even contemplated getting pregnant as a way to force him to dump the other woman….I said to her “if he is not willing to commit to you now, why would he because you have a baby”…

    that is what I mean about women giving away their self-respect and their value in order to keep a man.

    Like


  268. @Linda
    You are very facety…

    ?

    That’s a new one for me, Linda. “Facety”…?

    My original discussion never mentioned love, divorce, or domestic violence or any of the other rubbish that you introduced…

    With all due respect, Linda, you said…

    lack of respect is what leads to domestic violence and no willingness to change and compromise leads to divorce…

    You brought those topics up, not me.

    I could care less what you do for a living Thad, the reality is you are not an expert on women…

    Did I ever claim to be? I AM something of an expert of what MEN consider to be “whorish” behavior, however, given that I talk to so many prostitutes’ clients in the course of my work.

    And seriously, Linda, men are much more likely to qualify as a “whore” a woman who thinks she’ll use sex – or lack of it – to “rope in” a husband than a woman who simply sleeps around without charging.

    I’m sorry if that bit of reality hit close to home, but there it is. You women oft-times mistake promiscuity for whorishness. Men rarely do.

    nor have you been on the receiving end of a man trying to get between your legs…so you don’t have any personal experience as to how women FEEL in good or bad relationships.

    Ya think? Now why would you presume something like that, Linda?

    Btw, gay guys don’t seem to worry much about how long they wait until they have sex. In fact, the gay community is NOTORIOUS for its promiscuity. And you don’t hear gay guys saying “Oh, yeah, I respect him because he made me wait for sex”. In fact, you don’t hear straight guys saying this either. So something tells me this isn’t a “male” problem, Linda. Looks like a female thing to me.

    you seem to believe because you have a plethora of knowledge from your travels, studies, or career that you are an expert or advocate for everything under the sun.

    Friend, your problem isn’t that I have an opinion. you were quite happy to give us YOUR opinion and claim it to be truth. your problem is that my opinion is different than yours. You wouldn’t be whining about my arrogance in the slightest if what I said backed up your views instead of went against them.

    So please Linda, bull me no s*** about opinions and how they are arrogant.

    I don’t analyze, statisticize, or research my life…I live it and share MY thoughts…

    And these two things are different how, exactly? You gave us your opinion, I’m giving mine. Apparently, the sin here isn’t having an opinion, but in having an opinion that doesn’t meet Linda’s approval. 😀

    The women here that read my thread will understand what I’m saying and they will either disagree or agree because most women more of less have to travel the same road when it comes to dating and having committed relationships….

    I think you need to get out more, Linda, if you truly think most women in the world agree with you.

    I am not saying that women should purposely make a man wait for sex as a strategy–I am saying–don’t expect a man to care about you just because he is sleeping with you….

    Agreed.

    …find out if this man is worth investing your time in before you (woman) become emotionally attached.

    Isn’t that objectifying the man? I mean, for a woman who seems to think that women are so emotional and warm and what not and men so cold and calculating, you sure do have some real specific ideas on male worth.

    I have a girlfriend who is dating a man that is also sleeping with 2 other women…my friend accepts the situation because he tells her she is the one he loves but he is not ready to settle down right now…she even contemplated getting pregnant as a way to force him to dump the other woman….I said to her “if he is not willing to commit to you now, why would he because you have a baby”…

    that is what I mean about women giving away their self-respect and their value in order to keep a man.

    Er, sorry. She gives up not self respect and value by sleeping with him – unless, again, you think a woman’s vagina has some sort of value attached to it (and if that’s so, why are you worried about people thinking you’re a whore?)

    What that is is a woman who has been so brainwashed by “sex must equal love” propaganda, that she can’t think rationally anymore. She was seriously thinking of attempting to COERCE this guy into a relationship.

    Like


  269. By the way, your friend there isn’t going to be classified as a “whore” by most men just for sleeping with that guy. But she WOULD be classified as such if she did what she contemplated doing.

    So much for what men consider to be whorish behavior, neh? 😀

    Like


  270. Thad@
    “with all due respect, Linda, you said…

    lack of respect is what leads to domestic violence and no willingness to change and compromise leads to divorce…

    You brought those topics up, not me.”

    Linda says@

    No, Thad, I did not, I responded to your statements…like I said, I did bring up any of that rubbish in my original postings…you brought i up in your posting to me and I responded…

    This is once again you twisting and dissecting to suit your rant…

    Thad , you are not giving your opinion nor trying to have a discussion with me, you are ranting…not interested in your rants nor am I enjoying this interaction with you…it seems childish and churlish…

    From this point onwards, I will now ignore you.

    Like


  271. Linda, my original response to you contained nary a single word about domestic violence or rape. Anyone who wishes can scroll up and confirm that fact.

    I WAS talking about those problems with DRKirk and Vindicator, but you were not mentioned in any of that.

    So no, I did not bring them up in our discussion: you did. You thus have no call to complain at me about those topics showing up in our discussion.

    And if your nose is now bent out of shape because of that fact, I don’t really know that there’s anything I can do about it.

    Like


  272. From this point onwards, I will now ignore you.

    Oh, dear me. How will I ever deal with the bitter feeling of rejection? 😀

    Like


  273. Thaddeus,

    For your review, below is my original posting and your very illuminating response to my posting…

    It’s not about getting “bent out of shape” its about keeping it in perspective…and when I let you know that I object to your ranting, you try to minimize me by saying that I don’t like it because I did not get your (Thad) approval of my statements…

    I don’t need or want your approval…you don’t know me and I don’t know you, so I don’t care if you disagree or agree with me…

    I come to this site to read other peoples thoughts, and I don’t appreciate when someone I don’t even know, tries to tell me about myself and distorts my words and paints a brand new picture using partial sentences from my postings…and that is what you did…

    Linda’s original posting that Thaddeus responded to:
    on Fri 24 Sep 2010 at 16:44:03

    Mira says@
    It (men enjoining the chase and appreciating woman more when they have to work for the prize) is sad because, in my book, it means you are not allowed to be honest in order for a man to be interested in you. You must always be alarmed, and with all the usual red flags, also keep in mind not to reveal anything, not to show you’re too much interested, not to show he can “have” you, etc, etc.

    And yes, I think it’s unfortunate anybody has to play this game in order to keep another human being interested.”

    Linda said @
    “My belief is that most men want to be men…they enjoy the chase and they appreciate the woman more when he has to work for his prize…especially if the woman is confident and seems unattainable”

    My above statement was not meant to diminish male/female interaction into a cat and mouse game…

    It’s not about the woman being dishonest or not being themselves…it’s about not being seen as an object and making sure that the man values and respects you.

    When a man is initially attracted to a woman, he is attracted by how she looks, and he wants to follow up that attraction by having a physical relationship with her…once that happens, the dynamics of the man-woman relationship changes.

    I think it’s important for a woman to make sure that man sees her as a person and not just a body…and that means, making him wait before having sex, and to see how much he is willing to do to make the woman happy and bring a smile to her face…that is not playing a game…that’s called showing interest and for the woman, it’s also a little romantic…

    that is what I mean about letting him chase you…the more time and energy he puts into getting to know the woman, caring about her as a person (and not an object), and showing that he wants to be with her, allows him to form an emotional attachment and possibly means that he will value the woman and the relationship…

    and definitely, a woman should be herself and be honest, because it says to the man “what you see is what you get–can you handle it” but letting him get to know you should be done over time….not all at once…

    Time allows the woman to evaluate if this man is the right person for her before she gives him a piece of herself physically and emotionally…

    time also allows true personalities to be seen and for secrets to come to light…

    When you first meet someone, you don’t know who they really are or where they are coming from as far as life experience.

    Thads response:
    on Fri 24 Sep 2010 at 18:07:19 Thaddeus

    ROFL!

    First off all, only a woman – and a very deluded one – could have written this.

    Since when does “making a man wait” make him respect you more? You seriously think that given the sky-high divorce and domestic violence stats that men respect the women they’ve married?

    Speaking as a man, I have BLOWN OFF more women than I can count who play that little game. I don’t exepct sex on the first – or even the second or third date – but I don’t need to be paying someone for them to be my friend. That’s not romantic at all. In have plenty of friends, both male and female, whom I can hang out with and share my life with and I don’t have to pay for the pleasure of their company.

    So why should I have to pay for the pleasure of yours?

    That’s not called “romanticism”, Linda: it’s called prostitutuion.

    Oh, but it wasn’t material things you were talking about, you say?

    OK, fair go. But if we’re hanging out, it’s because we do bring smiles to each other’s faces correct? So if both of us like each other and we’re both horny, WHY SHOULDN’T we have sex – unless you happen to think that sex with a woman has some sort of “exchange” value which goes beyond what we feel for each other?

    Finally, I think you’ve got it ass backwards: all the “sluts” I know are married and most of them happily married. Why? Because men tend to think about love AFTER they’ve had sex with a woman, not before. For men, sexual relationships become loving relationships – not all sexual relationships, granted, but I’d hazard that most men will tell you interest came first, then sex, then love.

    The kind of woman who takes the advice of Cosmopolitan magazine and “how to catch a man” books when it comes to her personal relationships is, more often than niot, unhappy sexually and emotionally. And why is that? Because that “women’s advice” industry makes money off of precisely that state of affairs!

    It’s no wonder then, that a million little scam artists are desperately trying to teach women that romance is the way to go when it comes to love. Yes, it is, if you want to be unhappy, single and unfulfilled.

    Love is made by sharing a life with someone. That includes sex. If you thick you’re going to get love and eternal devotion BEFORE sex, you’ve been watching too many Disney films. That very, very, very rarely happens.

    So go iout there and sleep around! I GUARANTEE you that you have a much better chance of finding the “love of your life” that way than you do trying to apply arcane formulas and wrrying about when you “should” have sex.

    Sure, you’ll have a lot of partners who won’t want anything more to do with you. So what? That’s why God or mother nature made sex fun! As long as you sleep with guys you like and who are attractive to YOU, who CARES if they stay with you long term? That’s a bonus if it happens and you find that you are compatible: it should not be the original condition of the sex.

    You don’t lose nothing having sex, dear, as long as you are responsible when you do it. As we say in Brazil, “Lavou, ‘ta nova!” (“Clean it off and it’s like new!”)

    Like


  274. Thank you for reposting all of that, Linda, as I’m sure other commentators just love having to scroll over my posts TWICE.

    Don’t spam the board, please. Thanks.

    Like


  275. and yes Thad, I am sure you will survive my rejection and not lose a wink of sleep

    Ciao

    Like


  276. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 01:08:39 politicallyincorrect

    what kind of reasoning is that
    1- most women and most people in general NEVER go to college

    2- most people graduate at 22-23 so I hardly call that old

    Like


  277. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 01:09:00 politicallyincorrect

    what kind of reasoning is that
    1- most women and most people in general NEVER go to college

    2- most people who do go graduate at 22-23 so I hardly call that old

    Like


  278. RDKirk said:
    That’s kind of like saying that 25% of all women in college will be raped during their college careers. Would you accept that statistic at face value?

    Thaddeus said:
    In fact, I just wrote about that on my blog, rejecting that stat.

    RDKirk responds:
    I know you did, which is why I referenced it. You are very quick and very good at attacking other people’s ideas, theories, or opinions, but you have fallen in love with your own theories and thus you see warts in everyone else’s theories but are blind to the warts in your own.

    Somewhere back there, you’ve got a feminist ideological ax that you’re grinding, but you never offer any constructive ideas or theories. A woman can come here and testify of her own experiences and observations, and you will tell her that she’s wrong. A man can testify of what he’s seen, and you’ll tell him that he’s veneal.

    But you offer NOTHING of actionable value. You never offer a useable analysis of anyone’s situation and you have no experiences of your own relevant to what’s being discussed. As I’ve said before, you have no GROUND TRUTH. You don’t actually know any more about how black Americans live than the average white man, and you certainly don’t know more about how black women live than the women speaking on this forum.

    But you’re sure quick to take them down a peg whenever they don’t pat you on the back for your long-distance theories.

    Like


  279. Thad said:
    I AM saying that women are more likely to be beaten or raped by their male friends and partners than they are by complete strangers.

    RDKirk responds:
    I understand you. You–in love with your own theory–fail to understand me. OF COURSE women are more likely to be abused by men they know…for the same reason a child is more likely to get into a fight with a sibling than with a stranger. Proximity and continuous contact increases the likelihood both because of more opportunities for social discord and gives more occasion for it.

    The only factor you know is the abuse statistics, but if you were not in love with your own theory, you would see that you don’t know enough.

    As an example, the US has lost far more pilots from routine flying accidents over the past 40 years than from combat with the enemy. By your logic, routine flying is more deadly than combat. But the fact is that an hour of routine flying is far less dangerous than an hour of combat–but pilots spend much, much more time doing routine flying.

    You do, however, make the point that if a pilot never flew at all there would be no flight deaths, and you’re right. So the existence of males is dangerous to females, but as I noted before, you–ostensibly a male–have failed to take your cyanide pill. How can you be absolutely certain that your testosterone won’t get the better of you in a weak moment? How can any woman who believes about men as you do be certain? If you don’t take your pill, that makes me delusional about my own worth, but leaves you a hypocrite.

    Thaddeus said:
    But that doesn’t mean I buy into the crapola that men preach about their naturally warlike and protective natures. THAT particular boatload of crap ends up enabling the 6% who are assholes.

    RDKirk responds:
    So basically you’re saying that you’re useless to women, you know it, and you’re and proud of it.

    Like


  280. Thad said:
    RD, Eskimos engaged in communal hunting, more often than not. Their equipment and gear was made and maintained in a communal effort that very much included women’s work. Without womens work, Nanook wouldn’t have the gear to go whale or seal hunting.

    I know men like to think of primitive man as a solitary, self-sufficient, mighty hunter, but it just ain’t true.

    RDKirk responds:
    No, that was not the point you had made. You were not talking about communual practices, you were talking about the necessity of gathering and the impossibility of any group living solely on hunting. You were simply wrong about that, and now you’re claiming a different point.

    Like


  281. Thaddeus said:
    But to seriously answer your question, an increasingly diminiushing number of men. Modern weaponry and equipment, you’ll have noticed, does not generally require large ammounts of upper body strength to operate. If we were TRULY concerned about biology and its effect on combat capabilities, by the way, practically every fighter pilot in the world would be female: generally smaller bodies, better resistance to g-forces and better reflexes.

    RDKirk responds:
    Thad, this is where your lack of “ground truth” dissolves into just plain ignorance.

    I’ve spent over a quarter of a century in the Air Force, I’ve got pilots in my family, and I KNOW how much time fighter pilots–both male and female–spend in gyms working to increase their upper body strength. When a fighter plane is pulling three gees, a person’s arm becomes three times heavier–which makes it much, much more difficult to maintain control of the aircraft. It’s not good enough merely to remain conscious…the pilot has to be able to move his or her arms deftly enough at three times their weight to maintain control AND win the fight against another pilot. At this point, upper body strength still counts. “Better resistance to g-forces” simply means the woman is still conscious as the plain spirals downward. She still has to hit the gym if she expect to win the fight.

    Do you know how the ground crew loads missiles onto the wing? They heft it onto their shoulders and lifts it manually. And they do it again, and again, and again, and again, all day as long as planes roll in to be reloaded. That takes upper body strenght.

    Did you know the average infantry troop is walking around in Iraq or Afghanistan carrying upwards of 90 poinds of gear? And when they’re fighting, they’re running and leaping with that 90-pound load. More upper body strength.

    Did you know that even a “desk job” such as mine required us to manually pull trailer vans into position for our work areas? More upper body strength.

    Have you ever tried to handle water hoses to put out fire in crowded ship passageways? That takes upper body strength. Have you even been aboard a combat vessel?

    The truth is that there is still a heck of a lot of “grunt work” involved in military work, and the more the closer one is to combat.

    Like


  282. Thaddeus said:
    Yes, but unless you’re posting here under another handle as “Vindicator”, those comments weren’t directed at you. And I SERIOUSLY doubt you’d describe the scutwork involved in maintaining a household as glorious and fulfilling labor. Or as “easy”. Vindy seems to think it’s no big deal a’tall.

    RDKirk responds:
    If Vindicator is upset because I responded to your post, I’m sure he’ll let me know. But if you don’t expect a response to whatever you post, you should send a private email to whoever wants one enough to give you his or her private email address.

    However, his point was not that women’s work was easy. His point was that men did work just as hard. Once again–as you frequently do–you change the argument to avoid being proven wrong.

    Like


  283. Thad said:
    “Reading comprehension isn’t one of your stellar skills, I take it, Vindy?

    You believe men protect women from harm. You agree, however, that no matter how rare it may or may not be, the most LIKELY man to harm a woman is the one she shares her bed with.

    So no, men do NOT protect women from harm. One is much more likely to be beaten, raped or battered if one is female and has a male mate than is one is single.

    Sure, this is RELATIVELY (if not absoultely) rare, but the argument isn’t about how rare it is, remember?

    The argument is about whether or not women are protected by men.

    No they aren’t.”

    Vin responds:
    I said it’s rare and you said it’s rare. You’re just being plain semantical!

    Thad said:
    “Yeah, because the human popultaion grew by about a hundredfold.

    In terms of human possibilities or the AVERAGE amount of attrocities an individual encounters in his or her life, we are so far ahead of the middle ages that only a raving lunatic would hold them up as being better.

    YOU might think it an idylic life to live as a peasant, grubbing mud for your feudal overlord until you die, worn out, at the ripe old age of 45. Today, that sort of life description applies to only about 1/6th of the planet – 1/3rd if you’re pessimistic. In 1100 AD, it applied to about 99% of the planet’s human population.

    Lord of the Rings was a FANTASY novel, Vindy.”

    Vin responds:
    Again my friend a simple case of so what? Nothing you actually said negated my argument. As for the “Average” thing, your moral senses are failing you. one life = one life regardless of the population or situation.
    Nice try putting words in to my mouth.
    And I like “Lord of the Rings”

    Thad said:
    Take a look at divorce stats, Vindy: slowly but surely, they are. If men don’t clean up our act, we’re going to become redundant.

    Vin responds:
    There are many reasons for divorce. Singling it down to “men being a danger to the women and children that they love” is pretty stupid!

    Thad said:
    “As Susan Faludi puts it, right now masculinity is wholey decorative in the U.S. and most other advanced economies. There’s basically only one thing a man can do for a heterosexual woman that she can’t do for herself and, given what I see on women’s chat shows and in their magazines, as a group we’re not doing such a spectacular job of THAT.

    Perhaps men are nice to have a round and look at. Decorative. But they are not truly necessary.”

    Vin responds:
    Yet which sex is doing the most dangerous jobs like being a fireman, policeman, lumberjacks etc?
    Yet which sex does the most dirtiest jobs like garbagemen, pest extinguishers, working in sewers etc?
    Which sex is the most likely to maintain the roads, vehicles, buildings etc?

    I think we know the answers to these questions!

    Thad said:
    What you said is that that “warrior stuff” has absolutely to human survival. For most of humanity’s history, it has been no more necessary – and often less necessary – than woman’s work. And since the industrial revolution has kicked in, it has become increasingly LESS necessary.

    Vin responds:
    Hunting and bushcraft (wilderness survival) have always been warrior skills!
    Meat and more importantly fish have always played a significant part in the human diet.
    As for the industrial revolution statement, the 20th century has been the most bloodiest, corrupt and tyrannical of human history! Look at the wars that happened during the 20th century. Yet you say that the “warrior stuff” became less necessary.
    What a joke!

    Thad said:
    “Why? Because you think that there are authors that are simply “off the books” because they are evil? Do you even know what Engels said on this point, or are you just assuming that it’s all BS because you naively associate him with the state socialism of the Soviet Union and China?

    If you’ve got a substantial critique of Engel’s point, bring it on. If you’re only critique is “Ewwwww, he’s a commonist!!!”, then not only are you ignorant of history, you’re a fool in the strictest sense of the word: one who literally judges books by their covers.

    I mean, I dislike Adolf Hitler, but I have actually read Mein Kampf cover to cover, several times, and I can give you a long and drawn out dritique of each of the arguments he makes in that book and why they are wrong.”

    THAT is how you deal with bad ideas, Vindy, not simply declaring their authors to be taboo.

    I’ve never seen a decent critique of Engels’ views on the family from anything but a leftist feminist persepctive, so if you’ve got one, I’d be happy to hear it.

    Otherwise I think we can assume that you simply don’t know what the f** you’re talking about when you claim that using Engels makes one’s argument weaker.”

    Vin responds:
    You assume that I’ve not read his book! Nice try but I’ve read his book and It’s rubbish and pretentious. Nuff said. I’m not going to discuss “Engles”
    I’ve got better things to do with my life!

    Thad said:
    Oh, feminists go into quite some detail on that point, Vindy. Just because you’ve never bothered to listen to them doesn’t mean that they don’t talk about it. I can give you a LAUNDRY LIST of things feminists say they’ve been liberated from.

    Are you willing to read it, however? Because if you ahven’t heard it by now, odds are you aren’t really listening.

    Vin responds:
    I’ve listened to feminists. I simply just disagree with them. Their knowledge of history and what really goes on in the world today is pretty poor!
    Not only that they’re hypocritical aswell!
    Feminists love to go on about the amount of women in good jobs and there’s not enough women in these job yet they don’t make a whimper about the amount of “garbagewomen”, “female pest exterminators”, “female sewage workers” and other grimy s***!

    Thad said:
    Yes, I’m aware of what “grunt” means, Vindy. You should know that conscription started with the French Revolution in the 1790s. Civilization began around 3000 BC. I know of know civilization prior to Republican France that had conscription, although a couple made military service a necessary condition for citizenship.

    Vin Responds:
    Wrong again!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription

    Thad said:
    Futhermore, since when is military service “work” in the sense of producing something useful?

    Vin Responds:
    It isn’t but again what’s your point?

    Thad said:
    At best and at most, an army protects you from the other guy’s army, so this is a bit like saying a mafia hitman “works” because he prevents other mafia hitmen from getting into the neighborhood.

    Vin Responds:
    I like the comparison but again do you have a point?

    Thad said:
    For most of human history, however, WAR itself was a far worse scourge than being ruled by this lord or that lord. Both lords collect taxes and treat peasants like dung – no differenc there. War, however, burns a peasant’s home and fields and kills his family.

    Vin Responds:
    Where there is civilisation there is war. No matter how advanced the civilisation. Nuff said!

    Thad said:
    So no, for the vast majority of human history, military service has not been “work” in the same sense that being a hired thug for a criminal king pin has not been “work”: it produced nothing useful, it just determined who got the “right” to steal from the producers.

    Vin Responds:
    Wow! If that’s the case you should paying your taxes then!

    Thad said:
    I hardly think humanity needs to bow down to men for their shameful role in participating in this sort of overblown “protection” scheme.

    Vin Responds:
    So we shouldn’t give our respects to the brave men who fought in WW2 or to the leaders like Churchill! After all it was only some overblown protection racket!
    How deluded!

    Thad said:
    I think you’re right, however: men DO protect women, in the same sense that the Mafia “protects” local store owners.

    If that’s the sense you’re using “protection” in – as in “protection racket” – I fully agree: men ahve historically “protected” women.

    Vin Responds:
    After all your semantical badly argued bulls*** you agree with me! You don’t know whether your coming or going.

    Thad said:
    Given that civilization has been based on naked physical force for most of its history – and given that men have been physically stronger than women – it’s no wonder that civilization has used men as its enforcers.

    You think this is something to be proud of?

    Vin Responds:
    Yet you seem to forget science, technology, art, architecture, mathematics. Have these things not help civilisation?
    Which sex has most advanced in them fields?

    I wonder how you’ll respond? Not that I really care.

    Like


  284. RDKirk responds:
    If Vindicator is upset because I responded to your post, I’m sure he’ll let me know. But if you don’t expect a response to whatever you post, you should send a private email to whoever wants one enough to give you his or her private email address.

    However, his point was not that women’s work was easy. His point was that men did work just as hard. Once again–as you frequently do–you change the argument to avoid being proven wrong.

    @RDKirk
    I’m not upset about your respond to me and Thad’s argument (If you can call Thad’s replies arguments)
    Besides you’re doing a far better job than me at destroying his “arguments”

    Like


  285. I missed a part out!

    Thad said:
    Here speaks a man who as obviously never done housework, never changed a diaper, never watched a childbirth, or ever done daycare.

    Vin responds:
    You know this how exactly!? FTR I’ve changed my cousin’s diapers on a number of occassions! I do housework (not very often but I can do it) and I used to babysit my little bro and sis.

    Thad said:
    While men’s jobs have been crap for the most part, there is no logical or reasonable way to claim that woman’s work has been any better or any less “dark and dingy”.

    Vin responds:
    I beg to differ again!
    Sewage work, Garbagemen, pest exterminators etc!

    Thad said:
    The fact of the matter is that this work isn’t even on your radar screen AS work, Vindy, because all your life you’ve probably ignored the women who’ve been doing it around you.

    No wonder you think it’s “easy”.

    Vin responds:
    Says you! I’ve never said that women don’t work hard. If anything it’s the feminists that don’t acknowledge the “womans” work.

    Thad said:
    I wonder what your grandmother would have to say about that?

    Vin responds:
    Which one? Both of them are still alive!

    Like


  286. Vin Responds:
    I like the comparison but again do you [Thad] have a point?

    RDKirk responds:
    His point was to change the focus of argument in order to avoid losing the argument of the first point.

    Like


  287. Be careful Vindicator and RDkirk, Thad’ll be accusing you two of being sock puppets next! (LMAO!). That’s what he does when he’s losing an argument. Btw, you guys have done a great job of debunking his arguments.

    Like


  288. RD sez:
    I know you did, which is why I referenced it. You are very quick and very good at attacking other people’s ideas, theories, or opinions, but you have fallen in love with your own theories and thus you see warts in everyone else’s theories but are blind to the warts in your own.

    I definitely would like to see proof of other peoples’ theories before I buy into them.

    You seem to be making a claim that the main victimizers of women are NOT men they know and NOT men they sleep with.

    Now, following your own axiom that one shouldn’t fall in love with one’s own theories, do you have any proof, whatsoever, to back this up?

    Because the proof on the other side of the equation is pretty damned convincing, RD. And this is not “my” theory, but the theory of pretty much everyone who has looked into violence against women.

    I would be perfectly happy to change my opinion, RD, but I’m not likely to do so if the only argument you can muster is “You’re wrong because I say you are, you arrogant cuss, so there!”

    I mean, given a choice between my arrogance, backed up by a boatload of studies and stats, and your arrogance, backed up by sweet f***-all and your swinging d***, Occam’s Razor says I should choose my arrogance.

    So do you have BETTER information than the stuff you criticize me as “being in love with”, RD? Or is this yet another case of “Thad is an arrogant asshole because he doesn’t buy my pet theory”?

    But you offer NOTHING of actionable value. You never offer a useable analysis of anyone’s situation and you have no experiences of your own relevant to what’s being discussed. As I’ve said before, you have no GROUND TRUTH. You don’t actually know any more about how black Americans live than the average white man, and you certainly don’t know more about how black women live than the women speaking on this forum.

    It seems to me that if I WERE to offer advice on anyone’s concrete situation, then you would indeed have cause to complain that I was butting my nose into something which I have no practical understanding of.

    Furthermore, nice strawman: I have never said I know more about any people’s “experiences”. I do know quite abit about the history and sociology of race in the America’s, however.

    You’d do well to follow your own advice and critique SPECIFIC ideas that I express which you find wrong, rather than toss about the “arrogant white man” ad hominem, Kirk.

    So far, your main point of buttsore seems to be the fact that I brought up black urban anthropologists’ critique of that old piece of reactionary and racist fluff, the Moynihan Report. Again, I’m just passing the information along to you, RD. If you don’t like it, I suggest you take the argument up with the BLACK and mostly FEMALE anthropologists who did the fieldwork that drove a stake right through the heart of Moynihan’s theories.

    As for offering up something of “actionable value” here it is, AGAIN:

    Time to put away the macho posturings and your belief that women – of any hue – need men as protectors, Kirk. They don’t. Time to rework masculinity, starting with tossing out all this old and provably wrong crap that men are the way they are because biology locks them into a straight jacket. Time to allow women to be EQUALS and not “sperate but equal”, as you apparently would have them.

    That message is quite clear and actionable. If you can’t hear it because you are ideologically opposed to it, that’s your look-out, not mine.

    OF COURSE women are more likely to be abused by men they know…for the same reason a child is more likely to get into a fight with a sibling than with a stranger. Proximity and continuous contact increases the likelihood both because of more opportunities for social discord and gives more occasion for it.

    Correct. But whatever the proximate causes may be, we still come back to that one point, don’t we? MEN AREN’T PROTECTING WOMEN.

    You do, however, make the point that if a pilot never flew at all there would be no flight deaths, and you’re right. So the existence of males is dangerous to females, but as I noted before, you–ostensibly a male–have failed to take your cyanide pill. How can you be absolutely certain that your testosterone won’t get the better of you in a weak moment? How can any woman who believes about men as you do be certain? If you don’t take your pill, that makes me delusional about my own worth, but leaves you a hypocrite.

    Because it’s not testosterone that makes men beat and rape women, Kirk, but social values. All men have testosterone, but only some 6% of men use their d*** as an excuse to force sex on women. If I were a biological determinist – as you apparently are – I would be saying that men “just can’t help what they do”, as you apparently are. You bring up testosterone as if it were an excuse to be an asshole. It is not.

    And, once again, your argument that men must be protecting women because the relative lack of attacks on women by strangers proves this is simply silly and illogical in the extreme.

    First of all, you’re saying that a lack of evidence proves something. It does not. Rational and logical argument is based on positive evidence, not lack of evidence.

    Secondly, women do not spend even the majority of their lives – let alone 24 hours a day – in the company of their “protectors”, as you would have it. If there were truly legions of strange men just waiting to prey on women, why don’t they do it? Women are alone often enough in their daily lives in modern society. And yet we rarely see this. It’s much more probable that women will be attacked by men they know and often care for, not strangers.

    Your piloting metaphor is literally for the birds, then, for women are flying alone most of the time and DO NOT suffer “accidents” at anything near the rate they do when flying with their so-called “protectors”.

    ….fighter pilots and upper body strength…

    Yes, but did I claim that NO upper body strength is needed? My claim is that it is not as important as other biologically-induced factors.

    And given that you claim to know so much more about air combat than me, RD, can you name one contemporary U.S. fighter jet that requires its pilot to move his or her arms more than, say, 10 centimeters in order to reach the basic controls one needs to operate in high G conditions? Hell, even 5 centimeters…?

    You know as well as I do that there is no such bird. Modern planes are DESIGNED with the kind of G-stresses we’re talking about in mind and this is why the crucial controls are either right in front of a pilot or at their fingertips.

    And no, this doesn’t mean one can fly a jet with no upper body strength at all. It DOES mean that the necessary strength is well within a woman’s capacity.

    So again, I reiterate, all things considered, a woman’s average biology is much more suited to aerial combat than a man’s.

    The Pentagon has even produced a study about this, ferchrissakes, back in the 1970s. Or are you going to tell me that the Pentagon, too, has a “feminist axe to grind”? 😀

    Do you know how the ground crew loads missiles onto the wing? They heft it onto their shoulders and lifts it manually. And they do it again, and again, and again, and again, all day as long as planes roll in to be reloaded. That takes upper body strenght.

    Yes it does, but I’m talking about pilots and not ground crew, RD. My point was very simple and I find it hard to believe that you misread it: if we went on average biology alone, women would make much better recruits for MODERN FIGHTER PILOTS than men.

    I’m sure that there will always be a place in the armed forces for men to do heavy lifting work. In the cockpit of an F-35 is not one of those places, RDKirk. But tell me if I’m wrong in this, oh great veteran: where are you more likely to see a female in today’s U.S. Airforce: in the cockpit of a combat-ready fighter, or in a ground crew doing PRECISELY the sort of “grunt work” that you claim should be men’s “biological specialty”?

    You know damned well that women make up a much bigger chunk of the ground crews and are, in fact, prohibitted from flying combat missions.

    So your arguments as to why men are “biologically necessary” in the armed forces are undermined by reality. In today’s armed forces, an increasing percentage of the “grunt work” is being done by women. Doesn’t seem to me like the Airforce and Navy are taking biology into consideration when they hand out these jobs. Sounds to me more like male privilege at work: guys get the glory, women get the grunt work, as has always been the case.

    There’s no biological necessity at all behind that equation, RD. Very much to the contrary, in fact. A “rational” Air Force and Navy would have a very much higher percentage of women flying combat missions and a lower percentage of women hulking bombs and damage control hoses about the place.

    …on Eskimoes…

    Note that this isn’t a discussion on themerits of hunting versus gathering, Kirk. The original point was that men’s hunting work was much more important to group survival than women’s gathering work. In the VERY FEW instances were human groups eat more hunted protein than gathered foods, you’ll still not find that women’s work is any less important than men’s. If you want to bring up marginal cases from anthropology to show that there are some groups out there that eat more meat than anything else, (and I’m not even sure the Eskimo fall into this category because they eat a LOT of gathered foods), that’s an entirely different argument and one that’s pretty much off topic.

    Bottom line: you’ll find no “primitive” human society where women’s work is less important for group survival than men’s work.

    If Vindicator is upset because I responded to your post, I’m sure he’ll let me know. But if you don’t expect a response to whatever you post, you should send a private email to whoever wants one enough to give you his or her private email address.

    I have no problem with you responding to said posts. I DO have a problem when you take a post that was specifically directed towards Vindicator and get your nose bent out of shape because you presume that it was directed towards you. When I said “There’s a man who’s never done housework”, that was directed at Vindy. For you to indignantly claim that you do housework in response, as id I were talking about you, is cheap rhetorical trick.

    However, his point was not that women’s work was easy. His point was that men did work just as hard. Once again–as you frequently do–you change the argument to avoid being proven wrong.

    Read his posts again: Vindy is quite clear about the fact that he considers men to be the driving force behind human civilization. He is also quite clear that he believes men do most of the “grunt work”.

    He is wrong in both cases and you are naive to claim that Vindy is simply saying men hold up half the sky (an argument I would agree with, by the way).

    So, summing up:

    1) No, men are not the “natural protectors of women”. Get over it.

    2) No, men do not do more “grunt work” than women. Go talk to your momma about this.

    3) There is no biologically-based reason why women cannot be a part of today’s combat forces. In fact, there are combat-oriented jobs that women are MORE qualified for than men, if biology were our only measure of such things. Furthemrore, a 25-year vet of the Airfoce should certainly know that women do many of the “grunt” jobs – arming planes, manning damage control stations, etc. etc – that you claim to be “men’s work”.

    4) And to take it back where all this began, no, matriarchy is NOT destroying the black family. The only study which ever claimed that – one from 45 years ago, no less – has been thoroughly debunked by black urban anthropologists who have as much “grounded experience” in the acfrican American community as anyone could care to have.

    5) Finally, get over it, RD: there is no great feminist conspiracy oppressing men and black men in particular. You were raised with a set of values and expectations that just don’t do men much good in the world today. C’est la vie. Time to change instead of bemoaning the loss of your privileges.

    Like


  289. @Blakgenius

    Thanks!

    Like


  290. By the way, for a guy who claims so much more experience with the Air Force than me, you certainly have some odd notions about how planes are armed, RD.

    The main missiles used by the modern Air force are Sparrows and Sidewinders. A Sparrow weigh 500+ pounds. A Sidewinder wieghs close to 200 lbs.

    Here is how groundcrews carry missiles, RD:

    Note the six men, none of whom are exactly Hulk Hogan.

    And here’s a crew attaching a Sparrow:

    http://www.life.com/image/51101065

    Note the six guys, PLUS a jack.

    Hmm. Not exactly the picture you were painting, of Master Sergeant “Tough” Mutherfokker tossing about missiles on his lonesome as if they were ninepins, huh?

    Oh, but Sidewinders are much lighter? Sure. 200 lbs is lighter that 500, no doubt. It’s STILL not something most men toss on their shoulders as if it were no big deal.

    Here, by the way, is how they mount sidewinders in today’s Navy:

    Looks like a job for three me… OMG, is that a WOMAN in the front of that picture…? 😀

    Well, that’s just those Navy sissys, right? In the airforce, mounting missiles is a jog for Men…

    …er, guess not. 😦

    I bring all this up to point out a simple truth: grunt work in today’s armed forces is NOT based on manly muscles anymore, RD.

    One would think that someone who claims expertise in this field would know that.

    Like


  291. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 18:19:03 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @RDKirk,

    When you think about it, Thaddy’s “arguments” about how men aren’t and never have been protectors and providers really makes sense when you consider his previously expressed views about men standing up for their women.

    Although he can be incredibly inconsistent and contradictory at times, at least on this matter, he is consistent.

    I guess “men,” who lack the wherewithal or gumption or inclination to be “protectors and providers” must resort to convoluted theories and other such so-called “reasoning” to explain or justify why they themselves aren’t.

    @Linda,

    It really says a lot about a man, doesn’t it, when he chooses men who frequent prostitutes as his authority on how men view women and their sexuality? It also says a lot about a man and his views of women when he can say, “Er, sorry. She gives up not self respect and value by sleeping with him – unless, again, you think a woman’s vagina has some sort of value attached to it.”

    I don’t know about other women, but I actually think my vagina DOES have some sort of value attached to it! I mean, dang, it is actually part of me as a person, and I DO VALUE MYSELF! And so does the man I love.

    @RDKirk,

    I really appreciate your posts and how you rip to shreds the rantings of small men who dismiss the experiences and realities of others and who must diminish the masculinity of all men in order to explain his lack thereof!

    P.s. There really are women out here who DO appreciate REAL MEN!

    Like


  292. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 18:39:46 Menelik Charles

    Thaddeus said:

    the man in the house is much more likely to harm the women and children in the house than any outside man.

    Menelik says:

    the woman in the house is much more likely to harm the children in the house than any outside woman.

    Thaddeus said:

    so the main man women need to be “protected” from is the guy sharing a bed with her.

    Menelik says:

    so the main woman children need to be “protected” from is the gal putting food on the table.

    Thaddeus said:

    I know that this is a hard thing for many men to accept, but…the idea of “Man the protector” is just not scientifically supported by the facts.

    Menelik asks:

    and what of the so-called mother instinct to protect her children from harm, sir? You spend all your time white knighting women, Thad, that many on here secretly hold you in contempt! You ever thought about that, my man?

    Better to stand up for one’s manhood, and self-respect, than to bow ‘n’ scrape to a bunch neurotic females with racial self-esteem issues.

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  293. Co-Sign all the comments against Thaddeus…I really cannot believe the garbage I’ve been reading from him on this thread.

    Like


  294. Vindy, Vindy, Vindy… sigh. what can one say?

    Well, this is all tl;dr already, so I’ll try to limit myself to commenst that weren’t covered in my post to RD, above.

    I said it’s rare and you said it’s rare. You’re just being plain semantical!

    Let’s break it down one more time, Vindy: your original point was that women needed men to protect them. My point is that women are more likely to be attacked by the men who are, in your views, their “protectors”. I never argued whether or not this was rare or common.

    So you’re making a classic strawman here. you are arguing about the relative rarity of attacks in general, and not who are the AUTHORS of these attacks, which is my point.

    So no, its not just semantics we’re talking about here.

    …frothings about why illuminism is evil…

    Let’s set this aside as definitely off-topic for now. However…

    And I like “Lord of the Rings”.

    No doubt. As you obviously missed my point, it’s where I believe you get your notions of what life in the Middle ages was like, Vindy. And it is a fantasy novel, not history. It is thus a bad guide for you to understand the world by.

    Got it this time? 😀

    S***, maybe I should have an audio option for the reading-impaired here. 😀

    There are many reasons for divorce. Singling it down to “men being a danger to the women and children that they love” is pretty stupid!

    Supidity, yes, which is probably why you understood my comment to mean that, Vin.

    What I am saying here is that more and more, women need men for one thing and one thing only – and that’s something that we’re apparently not doing very well, to judge by the complaints. The divorce rate is rising because women, as a group, are realizing this, not because men are a threat to them, as you stupidly imply.

    … which sex is mostly doing the dirty and dangerous jobs…?

    Men, in ever DECREASING numbers. Women are consistently taking those jobs too, Vindy, so they are not men’s specialty, as you seem inclined to believe.

    Oh, here’s a good one…

    You assume that I’ve not read his [F. Engel’s] book! Nice try but I’ve read his book and It’s rubbish and pretentious. Nuff said. I’m not going to discuss “Engles”
    I’ve got better things to do with my life!

    Seeing as how you claim to have “read Engel’s book”, Vindy, then may I ask WHICH book is it that we are talking about? Hint: it’s not a book in the first place.

    Show your stuff, Vindy! Critique his argument! Provided you even know the text I’m talking about, which is damned famous, btw… 😀 And that would be the first time I’ve ever heard Engels’ called “pretentious”, by the way. “Boring”, perhaps, but given the reams (and reams and reams) of data and logical arguments the guy uses, you could only call him “pretentious” if by “pretentious” you mean “anything that’s too complicated and boring for me to get my wee brain around”. 😀

    …regarding conscription…

    We’re talking about national armies here, Vindy. Service to the country. Not hereditary warrior castes or levies drawn in lieu of taxes. And here’s what your wiki of choice has to say about that:

    Modern conscription, the massed military enlistment of national citizens (today recognized in the USA as “the draft”), was devised during the French Revolution, to enable the Republic to defend itself from the attacks of European monarchies.

    It’s a sad thing to see a boy pwned by his own sources, Vindy. Next time, read all the way to the bottom, son. 😀

    …regarding war and men’s role in it and what’s the point of my comparison to the Mafia…

    Vindy, I realize that your attention spam is on a par with that of a ADD-afflicted squirrel, but YOU were the guy who’s been bringing up men’s service in the armed forces as some sort of great and maravelous thing which we should all be impressed with, a key point of human civilization.

    Now you’re telling me that you AGREE that the army produces nothing and is basically a giant protection racket.

    So you can’t see the point? You claiming that men are great civilizers because of their military service AND you believing said military service is basically a giant protection racket?

    Something wrong there, son. Think about it.

    And after all this, we arrive at the final point:

    Thad said:
    I think you’re right, however: men DO protect women, in the same sense that the Mafia “protects” local store owners.

    If that’s the sense you’re using “protection” in – as in “protection racket” – I fully agree: men ahve historically “protected” women.

    Vin Responds:
    After all your semantical badly argued bulls*** you agree with me! You don’t know whether your coming or going.

    Vinny, do you even know what a “protection racket” is?

    A protection racket is when a guy charges you money so that HE doesn’t beat you up.

    Now you’re saying that you agree that this is how men stand to women? That men “protect” women by basically threatening to beat them up unless they are paid off?

    And you think we are in agreeance on this point? 😀

    Well hell, kid, if you’re now saying that men “protect” women by forcing goods and services out of them “or else”, then we definitely do not have an argument.

    But that kind of undermines your entire original point that women somehow need men to “protect” them, doesn’t it? 😀

    You know this how exactly!? FTR I’ve changed my cousin’s diapers on a number of occassions! I do housework (not very often but I can do it) and I used to babysit my little bro and sis.

    And you believe that this is not dirty, difficult work if it had to be done day after day after day?

    Kid, I’m not talking ONE diaper change or keeping an eye on Junior while moms runs to the QuikStop: I’m talking about what RDKirk did: RAISING a kid, with you being the only person responsible for the labor involved in all of that.

    Such work may indeed have its own rewards, but if you don’t think it’s dirty and difficult, then you need to do some more of it besides your teenage babysitting duties.

    If anything it’s the feminists that don’t acknowledge the “womans” work.

    Time to put down the 40, Vindicator. Feminists have been the people who have made society LOOK at women’s work as if it were work. Feminists think that the people who do this work should be PAID for this work, and a damned good wage, too, with retirement and health care bennies, guaranteed. Do you believe that? If you do, you are ipso facto a “feminist”. If you don’t, then I think we can safely say that feminists value “women’s work” much more than you do.

    Like


  295. SWW sez:
    P.s. There really are women out here who DO appreciate REAL MEN!

    Yes, the ones who have their bills paid by men.

    In Brazil, we call them “prostitutes”.

    Your mileage obviously differs, Belle.

    Like


  296. Y,

    “Co-Sign all the comments against Thaddeus…I really cannot believe the garbage I’ve been reading from him on this thread.”

    There’s been crap on both sides.

    Thad’s arguments, on this post at least, were better defined and the least agenda-filled (notice that none of the men challenged his comments when he was arguing on the “male side” with Linda?), even if I don’t agree with all of it.

    Like


  297. MC sez:
    the woman in the house is much more likely to harm the children in the house than any outside woman.

    Oh, no doubt. but do you see me arguing that women are the “natural” protectors of their children?

    In human society, that’s generally not what happens, though it may have been more likely 100,000 years ago. Today, however, the female who abuses the kid is much more likely to be a female relative.

    so the main woman children need to be “protected” from is the gal putting food on the table.

    True, sad to say. Which is why people the world over are increasingly concerned with child abuse, MC. You think this is a bad or an irrelevant concern?

    …and what of the so-called mother instinct to protect her children from harm, sir?

    AFAICS, that so-called “instinct” is pretty easily over-ridden by other concerns.

    Better to stand up for one’s manhood, and self-respect, than to bow ‘n’ scrape to a bunch neurotic females with racial self-esteem issues.

    Ooh, such chest-thumping masculinity. It’d be a lot more impressive, MC, if you actually DID that, don’t you think? And yet the only way you’ll even bother to get involved in arguments like this is ANONYMOUSLY.

    Yeah, you da man, cuz. [roll eyes]

    But seriously, MC, you apparently mistake me for someone who thinks women are BETTER than men. You might want to take that one up with the radical feminist crowd, not me. 😀

    Your logic is kind of like that of Americans who ask me what my favorite pick for the Superbowl is. They think I must pick X or Y. If I’m not FOR X, I must be for Y, right?

    Actually, I think football is a stupid game and don’t watch it.

    Thus this whole debate between you and me. You think that because I don’t agree with your neurotic whining about women that I must agree with your opponents.

    In fact, I think that the sex/gender system is more f***ed than a German whore on coupon day and I think it’s time that we tossed it out the window entirely, much as I feel about race.

    Like


  298. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 19:06:07 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Linda, Natasha, Jasmine, Blakgenius,

    Ladies,

    Have any of you ever noticed just how much HOTTER the REAL MEN really are? Especially when compared to the whining, pontificating cads and wimps? 🙂

    Like


  299. Thanks Natasha.

    I don’t care if people agree with me (though I will argue with them).

    I DO think it’s arguing in incredibly bad faith to claim that I’m an arrogant opinionated cuss when the sum total of your argument is that I’m arrogant because I dare to disagree with your opinions and [gasp!] dare to call them out for the poorly-founded, prejudiced tripe they often are.

    Like


  300. [Passes SWW another package of double-cream Oreos and the latest Justin Beiber video].

    You go, girl!

    Like


  301. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 19:13:50 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Natasha,

    You said: (notice that none of the men challenged his comments when he was arguing on the “male side” with Linda?),

    You may not be aware, but some of the men posting on this thread HAVE challenged Thad’s sick, sexist arguments on other threads. (Like the “Dr. Laura” thread).

    I don’t think the absence of a comment from any of those men on this matter, especially given their comments on other threads, necessary means they are endorsing Thad’s comments or giving him a “male pass.”

    What DO you think about that crap Thad said to Linda? Especially that bizarre “vagina” comment?

    Like


  302. That’s me, alright: a sick sexist because I don’t believe that women are poor, wilting hothouse blossoms that need to hide behind men.

    Like


  303. [Two comments to RD, patiently awaiting moderation, btw.]

    Like


  304. Sexist?

    Let’s see.

    I claim that so-called “women’s work” is as if not more important than so-called men’s work, who points out that women are very often the victims of violence by men, who supports wage equality for women and who chastizes men for believing that their penises somehow give them a “natural” role in human society as women’s protectors…

    Yeah, those are really sexist, chauvinist pig positions there.

    And here’s that “bizarre vagina comment”, by the way:

    Ask any man: does he prefer a woman who is honest about her sexuality or does he prefer a woman who thinks her vagina is some sort of tool to manipulate men?

    What a completely eveil, off-color and sexist thing to say, don’t you think? 😀

    My personal take on you and Blakgenius (and I only say this because of the spew of nasty stuff you say and imply about me, above)?

    I think you’re a woman living on some man’s dime, SWW. I think you full well know that in such a situation, the best defence you have is sexist custom and ritual.

    Like


  305. SouthernWhiteWoman,

    “You may not be aware, but some of the men posting on this thread HAVE challenged Thad’s sick, sexist arguments on other threads. (Like the “Dr. Laura” thread).”

    Who? *scans post*… Oh, I wasn’t talking about him.

    “I don’t think the absence of a comment from any of those men on this matter, especially given their comments on other threads, necessary means they are endorsing Thad’s comments or giving him a “male pass.”

    I think, all things being equal, most of the men (on this blog) and some women who identify with males will co-sign any argument that endorses the male gender. And attempt to refute any argument that does the opposite, no matter if (or maybe especially if) they have to throw females under the bus to do it and no matter if the argument has veracity or not. Which is fine, but the palpable angst that emits from the screen whenever women do the same is just hypocritical.

    As far as the debate between Linda and Thad, I agree somewhat with both sides. I think, if you properly vet a guy, you don’t have to play the “waiting game”. If the guy is really interested and likes you, his respect for you won’t go down if you don’t wait to have sex with him. As far as whether a woman’s vag*na has value or not, well we can argue about that all day. Everyone has differing opinions on it.

    Like


  306. Southern White Woman said:
    “Ladies,

    “Have any of you ever noticed just how much HOTTER the REAL MEN really are? Especially when compared to the whining, pontificating cads and wimps? :-)”

    Yeah, SWW, I have one at home!:-)

    About the ‘vagina comment’. While I don’t think a woman’s value is just in that particular organ, it is an essential part of being female, so it does have value. It does; along with all other aspects of being female-both physical and mental. Thad’s comment is, in my opinion, just bizarre, as even his ‘authorities on women” are willing pay for its use (that’s a joke, ya’ll).

    As to the original post, the idea of blaming black mothers for the low marriage rates among AA women is just plain silly. Like several of the other ladies have posted, my mother did indeed encourage me to go to college, BUT she never said a word about finding or not finding a man there. She, herself, dropped out of high school at 17 to get married and worked a back-breaking factory job for 15 years before her death at age 46. So yes, she encouraged all her children to go to college. My mother did not tell her daughters ‘get an education so you won’t need a man’, she told us get an education so you don’t have to be dependent on a man. That’s not the same thing at all.

    Like


  307. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 20:07:58 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Blakgenius,

    Well, I am glad that at least one person understood WHICH “vagina” comment I was quoting here! I guess some people would call us provincial and naive to assume that a woman’s vagina somehow has some value. I thought most self-respecting women thought so.

    My mother told me something similar to what your mother told you about going to college. However, my mother actually did phrase it, “so you won’t need a man.” Really, I think the difference between saying “so you won’t need a man” only differs from, “so you won’t be dependent on a man” in the area of semantics and perhaps intent.

    My mother MEANT, “so you won’t be dependent on a man.” Her situation was similar to your mother’s, except she did finish high school. She wanted me to have options and opportunities in life and not feel like I had to stay with a man because I was financially dependent on him. I followed my mother’s advice, and I have NO regrets about my choice to get an education, and have the opportunities and options my mother didn’t have. Something else my mother meant by “so you don’t need a man,” was that with an education and being financially independent, I could then be able to be more “choosy” when picking a mate. I wouldn’t have to “settle” for less than what I really want and deserve.

    @ Natasha,

    When I asked you what you thought about the crap Thad said to Linda, perhaps I was not specific enough. I was not referring to the differences of opinion. The crap I was referring to was the WAY that Thad disagreed with Linda. He demeaned her, he insulted her, he called her a whore. What I want to know is WHAT do you think ABOUT THAT? Why didn’t you say something about that? If it was questionable for the men not to challenge it, why is it less questionable for women not too?

    Like


  308. SouthernWhiteWoman,

    “I was not referring to the differences of opinion. The crap I was referring to was the WAY that Thad disagreed with Linda. He demeaned her, he insulted her, he called her a whore. What I want to know is WHAT do you think ABOUT THAT?”

    I honestly didn’t see where he called her a wh*re. A lot of their comments were a bit long, so I only scanned them for the main argument and not specifics. Where did he say that? That’s completely uncalled for.

    Like


  309. Thad said:
    No doubt. As you obviously missed my point, it’s where I believe you get your notions of what life in the Middle ages was like, Vindy. And it is a fantasy novel, not history. It is thus a bad guide for you to understand the world by.

    Got it this time?

    S***, maybe I should have an audio option for the reading-impaired here.

    Vin responds:
    Is that the best you can do? Seriously, come back when your ready!

    Thad said:
    Supidity, yes, which is probably why you understood my comment to mean that, Vin.

    What I am saying here is that more and more, women need men for one thing and one thing only – and that’s something that we’re apparently not doing very well, to judge by the complaints. The divorce rate is rising because women, as a group, are realizing this, not because men are a threat to them, as you stupidly imply.

    Vin responds:

    Thad said:
    … which sex is mostly doing the dirty and dangerous jobs…?

    Men, in ever DECREASING numbers. Women are consistently taking those jobs too, Vindy, so they are not men’s specialty, as you seem inclined to believe.

    Vin responds:
    Nobody said anything about specialty! Yet again! Come back when your ready!

    Thad said:
    Vindy, I realize that your attention spam is on a par with that of a ADD-afflicted squirrel, but YOU were the guy who’s been bringing up men’s service in the armed forces as some sort of great and maravelous thing which we should all be impressed with, a key point of human civilization.

    Vin responds:
    How cute, you insulted me. Let’s go with this! I’ll explain it again. Where there is civilisation there is war. I’ve never said it was a marvelous thing. However it is a key point in civilisation.

    Thad said:
    Now you’re telling me that you AGREE that the army produces nothing and is basically a giant protection racket.

    So you can’t see the point? You claiming that men are great civilizers because of their military service AND you believing said military service is basically a giant protection racket?

    Something wrong there, son. Think about it.

    Vin responds:
    Tut Tut! You certainly didn’t read the bottom part of my argument! Science, Technology, Mathematics, Art, Architecture. Think about it!

    Thad said:
    Well hell, kid, if you’re now saying that men “protect” women by forcing goods and services out of them “or else”, then we definitely do not have an argument.

    But that kind of undermines your entire original point that women somehow need men to “protect” them, doesn’t it?

    Vin responds:
    WTF?

    Thad said:
    And you believe that this is not dirty, difficult work if it had to be done day after day after day?

    Kid, I’m not talking ONE diaper change or keeping an eye on Junior while moms runs to the QuikStop: I’m talking about what RDKirk did: RAISING a kid, with you being the only person responsible for the labor involved in all of that.

    Such work may indeed have its own rewards, but if you don’t think it’s dirty and difficult, then you need to do some more of it besides your teenage babysitting duties.

    Vin responds:
    How p*ss on this argument, hmmmm……………
    Oh right! You’ve just moved the goalposts. I have never said that easy raising a child or doing “womens” work is easy!
    Again, nice try!
    Oh finally. Don’t presuming to my age!

    Thad said:
    Time to put down the 40, Vindicator. Feminists have been the people who have made society LOOK at women’s work as if it were work. Feminists think that the people who do this work should be PAID for this work, and a damned good wage, too, with retirement and health care bennies, guaranteed. Do you believe that? If you do, you are ipso facto a “feminist”. If you don’t, then I think we can safely say that feminists value “women’s work” much more than you do.

    I also believe in a higher power, does that make me religious? Not likely!
    I also believe in limited government powers, does that make me a libertarian? Hell no.
    Do you see where this is going!?

    Thad said:
    We’re talking about national armies here, Vindy. Service to the country. Not hereditary warrior castes or levies drawn in lieu of taxes. And here’s what your wiki of choice has to say about that:

    Modern conscription, the massed military enlistment of national citizens (today recognized in the USA as “the draft”), was devised during the French Revolution, to enable the Republic to defend itself from the attacks of European monarchies.

    It’s a sad thing to see a boy pwned by his own sources, Vindy. Next time, read all the way to the bottom, son.

    Vin responds:
    Oh Boy, oh Boy! Nice try at moving the goal posts. I wasn’t just going on about modern conscription. I was talking about conscription in general.
    The wiki link clearly told you what conscription is and gave you examples of conscription before the French Revolution.
    Here’s more:
    The Roman republic and empire!
    The English civil war (especially Cromwell parliamentarians)

    The fact that your first part of your paragraph you delibrately don’t count the “hereditary warrior castes or levies drawn in lieu of taxes.” as part of a “national army” only goes to show that you seem to pick and choose your definitions!
    Intellectual dishonesty fitting of “no_slappz”

    Were done! I refuse to debate with intellectual dishonest people!

    Like


  310. @Natasha
    As far as the debate between Linda and Thad, I agree somewhat with both sides. I think, if you properly vet a guy, you don’t have to play the “waiting game”. If the guy is really interested and likes you, his respect for you won’t go down if you don’t wait to have sex with him.

    For the record, I don’t think anyone should sleep with anyone unless they feel like it and can do it responsably. If it takes you several dates to feel comfortable enough for that sort of intimacy, so mote it be.

    As I’ve said, however, I do think the “Make him wait and he’ll respect you more” argument is wishful thinking at best, flat out sexist double standard at worst. Ithink that if you’re ready to have sex but you’re not having it because you think that by doing so you’re going to manipulate the guy into something he’d not normally do, you’re either deluded or an intensely manipulative person, the kind many men would call “a whore”.

    And that term, by the way, is gender-neutral in this context. Gay men who use sex to manipulate other people are also often called “whores”.

    So where I disagree with Linda is this: she thinks men call promiscuous women “whores”. I think men call sexually manipulative women “whores”. So if you’re worried about being called a “whore” by men, the “make him wait and he’ll like you better” strategy is counterindicated.

    However, I think Linda is REALLY more worried about being called a “whore” by other women, and that’s where her theory might actually make some sense, as a play to her female freinds and acquaintences sensibilities: not to men’s.

    Like


  311. Blakgenius/SWW sez
    While I don’t think a woman’s value is just in that particular organ, it is an essential part of being female, so it does have value.

    We’re not talking metaphysical value here, but EXCHANGE value. If you put a price tag on your vagina, what does that make you again…?

    Well, I am glad that at least one person understood WHICH “vagina” comment I was quoting here!

    You’re right: precisely ONE person does.

    Like


  312. Thad said:
    …regarding conscription…

    We’re talking about national armies here, Vindy. Service to the country. Not hereditary warrior castes or levies drawn in lieu of taxes. And here’s what your wiki of choice has to say about that:

    Modern conscription, the massed military enlistment of national citizens (today recognized in the USA as “the draft”), was devised during the French Revolution, to enable the Republic to defend itself from the attacks of European monarchies.

    It’s a sad thing to see a boy pwned by his own sources, Vindy. Next time, read all the way to the bottom, son.

    Vin responds:
    Wow! Now that is just moving the goalposts. We were talking about conscription in general not just “modern conscription”
    The wiki link clearly defined what “Conscription” is and gave examples of it before the “French Revolution”.
    Here’s some others:
    The Roman Republic and Empire
    The Cromwellian Commonwealth

    The fact that you wrote in the first part of you paragraph “We’re talking about national armies here, Vindy. Service to the country. Not hereditary warrior castes or levies drawn in lieu of taxes.” Only shows that you how intellectually dishonest you are. You are choosing the definition that fits your own agenda!
    No_slappz eat your heart out!

    Like


  313. To be truthful, I did not call Linda a whore. I said that the kind of strategy she seemed to be indicating as a good idea – don’t go to bed with a man early on in a relationship because he’ll respect you more that way – is the kind of sexually manipulative thing that men typically describe as “whorish” behavior.

    Linda, as I said above, was claiming that men find promiscuity to be whorish. Based on a lot of frank discussions with men, including many prostitutes’ clients, that’s not true.

    Funny how the only argument based on expertise and experience that I’ve made here revolves around what MEN say and that I am, of course, a man.

    Like


  314. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 20:49:10 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Natasha,

    I would re-read all those posts again to locate that particular insult from Thad, but I really don’t want to waste my time reading that crap again. Besides, if you notice from Thad’s response that not only does he NOT deny calling Linda a whore, he just continues insulting her and twisting everything she said. I don’t know about you, but I think it is ridiculous for him to claim that his use of the word “whore” is “gender-neutral.” Sounds like a sexist creep to me.

    His approach to demeaning Linda, by claiming to know what she is thinking is another sexist trick.

    Like


  315. Thad,

    “Linda, as I said above, was claiming that men find promiscuity to be whorish. Based on a lot of frank discussions with men, including many prostitutes’ clients, that’s not true.”

    I don’t think that applies across the board.

    I’ve heard men I know call women wh*res or sl*ts for having sex with many men outside of a relationship (even though they might, or even have, also sleep with the women themselves). And I’ve heard it often enough that I don’t think they are the exception; actually my SO made an offhand comment about some woman being “sl*tty” because her count was heading into the triple digits, but he forthrightly admits he holds clear double standards when it comes to men and women and their sexual activity. Other men I know couldn’t care less about how many men a woman has slept with, and some think the more, the better because she will be better “experienced”. So it really depends on the guy.

    Like


  316. I said:
    “While I don’t think a woman’s value is just in that particular organ, it is an essential part of being female, so it does have value.”

    Thad said:
    “We’re not talking metaphysical value here, but EXCHANGE value. If you put a price tag on your vagina, what does that make you again…?”

    SWW and all the other ladies who have posted to this topic,

    Who said a woman’s vagina has mometary value? I certainly didn’t. All I said was that is had value. Thad’s American capitalist upbringing is showing, I think.

    Like


  317. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 21:01:58 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Natasha,

    You are right. I’ve lost count of the number of men I’ve heard refer to promiscuous women as “whores” or “sluts.” And men very close to me have admitted that they DO have more respect for women who weren’t “too easy.” One friend said of his wife,”I chose her not because of what
    she would do, but rather because of what she WOULDN’T do.” And that was from a man who DOESN’T frequent prostitutes and doesn’t hang out with men who do.

    Personally, I think there is something a little twisted about assuming that a prostitute’s clients are somehow authorities and represent the views of all men on the issue of women’s sexuality. Shouldn’t the views of decent, honorable men who don’t think of women and their genitals solely in monetary terms carry a bit more weight?

    If Thad can be an “authority” on the views of men, then why is Linda’s views as a woman dismissed, demeaned because they happen to not coincide with a particular man’s?

    Like


  318. Thad, stop misinterpreting my words

    I don’t need you as my spokesperson…everyone here can read and interpret for themselves what I wrote.

    SouthernWhiteWoman and the other women understand where I’m coming from, and every one of them has their own take on it.

    You’re responses had NOTHING to do with what I was writing about–I never mentioned manipulating men, strategies, promiscuity, or women being whores or sluts..you did..

    I never spoke about holding out sex in exchange for money or love….

    I was talking about women valueing themselves..

    if you don’t get it or agree with it, that’s your problem…

    stop twisting my sentences to accomodate your theories.

    Like


  319. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 21:07:28 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Blakgenius,

    You are forgetting that we are merely women. What the heck do we know about a woman’s sexuality and the value we place on ourselves?

    Girl, you are getting out of your place talking to that educated white man like that! Don’t you realize that your only value historically was/is MONETARY? Since black women (in the eyes of racist white men) have NO metaphysical value, what are you doing getting “uppity” here and daring to see yourself as a human being with value beyond money?

    Not only is someone’s AmericanCapitalist upbringing showing, his white sheet is showing too. This is one of those “grits” moments! 🙂

    Like


  320. Sorry I forget my place. I got too much education and started thinking too much of myself.

    Like


  321. SouthernWhiteWoman,

    Thank you for calling Thad out on his blatant bullsh_t!!

    I agree with you….I like my men to be men…I expect my husband to protect me and have my back…

    @Natasha said
    “You are right. I’ve lost count of the number of men I’ve heard refer to promiscuous women as “whores” or “sluts.”

    Isn’t that the truth…. I don’t know too many women who admit to their boyfriends and husbands how many men they slept with before him….

    that’s a conversation that doesn’t go very well

    Like


  322. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 21:27:48 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Linda,

    You are welcome! I think most of what he said to you and how he said it was sick, creepy, and disturbing. I know I have NEVER thought of myself or any part of my body as having a “monetary” or “exchange” value. I was raised to respect myself. I have the utmost contempt for men who try to cloak their sexist, misanthropic selves by pretending to respect women by spouting “feminist” theories and views, and then turning around and disrespecting a woman as Thad did you.

    Yes, I understood exactly what you were trying to say. I think most women do understand, even if they may not agree. I also think there are many men who probably agree as well.

    @Blackgenius,

    That’s right! That’s why the racist white man didn’t want black folks to get an education. How dare black folks (especially a black woman like yourself) dare to see yourself as an equal human being. Don’t you know you are supposed to be gaping with awe at the the brilliance and genius of that incredible, educated white male “god?” You rankle the “great dr. Thad, ” because not only do you dare to believe you have value beyond the almighty dollar, you are also so totally unimpressed by his superior white maleness….not to mention calling yourself “genius” an arguing with him. Didn’t your mama teach you not to argue with white men? Didn’t you get any “home-training?” 🙂

    Like


  323. @Natasha

    I don’t think that applies across the board.

    Like all generalizations, it’s not meant to. there are plenty of individual exceptions.

    Still, as a generalization, I think it’s quite valid. The men I listen to tend to portary the sort of Oprah Winfrey,Cosmo magazine-style “secrets to winning a man” sort of thing in VERY negative terms. They rarely describe a woman in negative terms for simply being promiscuous

    I’d say that there’s a difference between a “whore” and a “slut” in men’s speach, too, with slut not being nearly as negative as whore. Women seem to find the two terms interchangeable. The men I talk to don’t.

    “Whores” are understood to be women who’ll manipulate men for their own personal gain, especially if it is done with sex. Of couse, sex-for-cash is the classic whorish thing. But sex-for-gain of any sort is also considered to be whorish behavior.

    I could pull out a whole slew of quotes from my informants on this, but I wouldn’t want SWW/Blakgenius to freak out.

    But who better to define a whore than the men who pay for their services, don’t you reckon?

    Like


  324. @Blakgenius/SWW
    Who said a woman’s vagina has mometary value? I certainly didn’t. All I said was that is had value. Thad’s American capitalist upbringing is showing, I think.

    It seems to me that when a woman believes that witholding sex increases her value on the marital/relationship market, she is implying that her vagina has some sort of exchange value, that sex is in of itself a medium of exchange: less sex = more power. That’s what I’m hearing Linda say, though I’m quite sure she doesn’t see things in those terms.

    If Linda has another take on how that’s to be understood, I’m all ears.

    Like


  325. SWW,
    Naw, my mama skipped that whole ‘The Ethics Of Living Jim Crow’ thing. Nor did she teach me to worship at the altar of white maleness. My education has been sadly neglected, you see.

    Like


  326. And men very close to me have admitted that they DO have more respect for women who weren’t “too easy.” One friend said of his wife,”I chose her not because of what
    she would do, but rather because of what she WOULDN’T do.” And that was from a man who DOESN’T frequent prostitutes and doesn’t hang out with men who do.

    That you know of. 😀

    Like


  327. @SWW,
    He just can’t seem to hide that capitalist upbringing or that sheet either.

    Like


  328. Personally, I think there is something a little twisted about assuming that a prostitute’s clients are somehow authorities and represent the views of all men on the issue of women’s sexuality. Shouldn’t the views of decent, honorable men who don’t think of women and their genitals solely in monetary terms carry a bit more weight?

    Again, let’s talk about assumptions.

    I think it’s a pretty fair assumption to believe that men who go with prostitutes have a pretty good idea of what a prostitute is and is not.

    But how about the assumptions which Linda makes here?

    1) There are two types of men, prostitutes’ clients and men who aren’t.

    2) “Decent, honorable” men are never prostitutes clients and men who have been prostitutes’ clients are BAD men.

    3) The men she knows would tell her if they ever went to a prostitute (because Linda is obviously open-minded about these things).

    Who’s making the more outraegous presumptions here? 😀

    Like


  329. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 21:41:07 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Blakgenius,

    You atheist, you! So, your momma raised you to be a heathen and a heretic not worshipping at the alter of the great white male.

    Yeah, your education was sadly neglected. And there is poor Thaddy trying to correct that for you, and you don’t even appreciate it! How sad! And he’s not even getting paid to do it! You know there is such a shortage of white men willing expend their valuable time teaching black women about their true value. 🙂

    Like


  330. Linda sez:
    I never spoke about holding out sex in exchange for money or love….

    …but this is Linda’s original statement to that effect:

    I think it’s important for a woman to make sure that man sees her as a person and not just a body…and that means, making him wait before having sex, and to see how much he is willing to do to make the woman happy and bring a smile to her face…that is not playing a game…that’s called showing interest and for the woman, it’s also a little romantic…

    So women need to make men wait for sex or they will not want to have a serious relationship with her.

    Your words are quite clear, Linda. Yes, it is a strategy. Yes, this strategy’s goal is to get a man to commit himself to you.

    This is, quite simply, withholding sex for the promise of love.

    You’d be better off arguing that you are justified in doing that rather than claiming that you don’t mean what you quite clearly say.

    Now, my point on this is that this is the sort of manipulation that men typically find “whorish”. Maybe Linda’s husband is an exception. Maybe, however, that’s just what he says to her, being a wise man and knowing her feelings on the topic.

    In any case, if you go where men gather and listen to what they have to say – really listen – you’ll find that very, very few of them appreciate this sort of behavior or lable as anything other than “games playing bulls**”.

    Like


  331. Y’know, it’s funny, Blakgenius, but for a woman who claims to be so independent… I mean, who pays the bills in your household? You?

    What is it exactly that you work at over in Norway that allows you to raise your kids in a middle class lifestyle?

    And you Linda? Do you bring in as much cash as your husband?

    Because frankly, ladies, your overreaction sounds very much like the “outrage” of kept women who don’t want to look too closely at what their life would be like tomorrow if the guy paying most the bills were to dissappear…

    Like


  332. Thad,

    Like it or not, accept it as fair or not, we all know many men (and women for that matter) see promiscuous women as garbage. Label “slut” is not something a woman wants to have, in case she wants not only to find love, but also general respect in her society.

    And yes, that is unfair, but that’s how it is.

    Now, I do think men are dishonest here. I do think many of them DON’T instinctively disrespect a woman who sleeps with them on a first date. Society and cultural norms are the ones telling them there’s something wrong with these women. These are the same cultural norms that teach them (and women) that women don’t have much of a sexuality and that they don’t- or shouldn’t- enjoy sex outside loving relationship/marriage.

    Like


  333. Thad says@
    “It seems to me that when a woman believes that witholding sex increases her value on the marital/relationship market, she is implying that her vagina has some sort of exchange value, that sex is in of itself a medium of exchange: less sex = more power. That’s what I’m hearing Linda say, though I’m quite sure she doesn’t see things in those terms.”

    Thad, your above statement indicates to me that you don’t get what I am talking about…and what you are summarizing things that I did not say

    you keep trying to introduce this topic about vaginas having a monetary exchange value and now, you are introducing the topic of vaginas=power

    …the topics you wish to discuss has nothing to do with what my original postings were talking about…

    I am trying very hard not to dismiss you or demean you as you have done to me…but you make it very hard…

    as Blakgenius pointed out…your response is that of a typical white American…that’s why I don’t even want to debate with you because your reality is not mine….

    as I said, the women here understand what I am talking about….

    if you really want to learn about how black women value themselves, then sit back and read the comments from the women on this board…

    we are the ones that are leading an educated black womans life…

    Like


  334. Also, once again, it is quite interesting how SWW/BG only come on here in tandem, with the one parroting what the other says. Never a disagreement. Never a moment when one is on and the other isn’t. Never a discussion which one participates in and the other doesn’t.

    What you’re going to do when that proxie in Arkansas goes down is anyone’s guess, woman, but the fact that you take the time to build proxied sock puppets in order to support your opinions and the fact that you are dedicated to World of Warcraft indicates, to me at least, that your professional and money-making activities in this world can probably classified as somewhere between “nothing a’tall” and “sweet f**-all”.

    Like


  335. I think most mother’s want what is best for their daughters whatever they choose, even if they don’t like their choice in the end. They can try to influence them however they want. Woman as a whole are contending with society at large which can pale in comparison to anything a mother tries to influence them with.

    Like


  336. Like it or not, accept it as fair or not, we all know many men (and women for that matter) see promiscuous women as garbage.

    Agreed, Mira.

    Let me put it this way, then, because it seems that people think I’m arguing that ALL men think promiscuous women are just fine.

    While many and perhaps most men have a problem with promiscuous women, they have a much GREATER problem with women who use sex for their personal gain and to manipulate others.

    If you doubt me on this one, just ask the men around you.

    Like


  337. @Linda
    Thad, your above statement indicates to me that you don’t get what I am talking about…and what you are summarizing things that I did not say…

    Linda, let’s break this down a bit at a time. You quite clearly said that you need to withold sex for men to take you seriously.

    Correct, or no?

    Like


  338. Ok, here’s what I think. Men don’t like when women withhold sex and when they make them wait. It frustrates them a lot, and they (rightfully) see it as unfair. However, many still think women can withhold sex without problems because they don’t have much of a sex drive (yes, you read that right, some men do think this).

    So men definitely don’t like this behavior. And yet, many find that it’s the only appropriate way a woman should act, no matter how frustrating it is to her.

    And not to mention there are different groups of women (white and black, for example). Black women are often seen as oversexed no matter what they do and how they behave, while white women are seen as more “pure” (in lack of a better term) than they are. So if you’re labeled a slut from the start just because you’re black, of course you’d be double careful. Your white counterpart can do more “slutty” stuff and still be seen as worth or a man’s respect, but you can’t. (NONE of this means I agree that waiting for sex should make a man respect you- a man should respect you for who you are, and lack of sex means nothing when it comes to this).

    Like


  339. @Mira
    Ok, here’s what I think. Men don’t like when women withhold sex and when they make them wait. It frustrates them a lot, and they (rightfully) see it as unfair. However, many still think women can withhold sex without problems because they don’t have much of a sex drive (yes, you read that right, some men do think this).

    So men definitely don’t like this behavior. And yet, many find that it’s the only appropriate way a woman should act, no matter how frustrating it is to her.

    Now that I agree with. And this is why it’s funny that Linda and other women here think that men applauding them on this sort of thing is a mark of respect – instead of an iteration of dual morality.

    Like


  340. Linda, a sincere question: are you doing anything professional with your education?

    Like


  341. Thad,

    if you are really interest in MY thoughts, then you should be asking me “why I think women should withhold sex before a relationship begins?”

    …instead all along you have been telling me what I am thinking….

    as I said yesterday, if you intend to be insulting and misconstrue my words, I am not interested…as I said I am not looking for your approval or for you to agree with me…

    I like to discuss, not be involved in ranting sessions.

    Like


  342. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 22:11:50 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Linda,

    I don’t think he actually wants “to learn about how black women value themselves.” See, he thinks he knows more than you do about a black woman’s (or any woman’s) value. Or at least that’s what his nasty, demeaning comments suggest to me.

    He is NOT hearing what you are saying. He sees women and their vaginas in monetary terms, so naturally he assumes that you and every other woman on here does.

    Do you notice how he attributes comments I make to you or blakgenius as if we are simply interchangeable? Perhaps he has the view that all women are the same. Once he’s seen one, he’s seen (or slept with) them all. His interactions with women on this blog are nearly always disrespectful, nasty, demeaning, etc….at least when a woman disagrees with him.

    Notice how he repeatedly asks Blakgenius if her husband supports her or what she does for a living. He has done this on at least two other threads when she called him on his bullsh**. He has done the same thing to me, as well. This tactic, along with accusing me and blackgenius of being “sock-puppets” is another trick he pulls to attempt to discredit us. He doesn’t just seek to prove points or win arguments. He has to demean us, not just our arguments or views, but US, AS WOMEN.

    He does tend to demean anyone who disagrees with him, but I’ve noticed that he saves the ugliest (usually sexual) insults for women.

    Like


  343. Thad,

    While many and perhaps most men have a problem with promiscuous women, they have a much GREATER problem with women who use sex for their personal gain and to manipulate others.

    Oh, by all means, you’re right! Men hate manipulative women, especially those who have strategies.

    However, they are often completely unable to tell if a woman is doing that to them. Also, many take “I think we should wait” as a valid answer and respect it.

    Many seem to take this as a valid answer because they think women are generally shy about sex, but even if they know she is withdrawing to gain respect, they often don’t see it as the above mentioned strategy, but a valid answer (because they are taught never to respect a promiscuous woman; so if a woman says she wants to wait, she is presenting as respectable).

    So while men hate when a woman waits with sex to tease, or in order to make him crazily obsessed with her, they find it ok if a woman is doing that to avoid being seen as a slut or to get to know her better.

    Also, once again, it is quite interesting how SWW/BG only come on here in tandem, with the one parroting what the other says. Never a disagreement.

    … Because it’s completely impossible for two friends to agree in a chat to go and check Abagond’s site? Just saying…

    Just saying…

    Like


  344. So just to make sure that we’re on the same page here, Linda, you think that women withholding sex improves their chance of having a serious relationship, right?

    I mean, is it fair to say THAT?

    Or are you saying something else?

    Funny how you’re interested in ranting and raving right up to the moment you are asked simple and blunt questions. Then it all just becomes too much for you.

    So if I’m misconstruing your position here, Linda, by all means tell us what you really mean. Your comments make it very clear, to me at least, that you think sex has a barter value when it comes toestablishing relationships.

    If that’s not true, then feel free to elaborate.

    Like


  345. @ Linda,
    You said:
    “the topics you wish to discuss has nothing to do with what my original postings were talking about…’

    My response:
    This is what Thad does when anyone, and especially any woman, disagrees with him. He starts changing subject and/or insulting people. You’ve been a lot nicer to him than SWW and I have and he still can’t be civil to you.

    you also said:
    you keep trying to introduce this topic about vaginas having a monetary exchange value and now, you are introducing the topic of vaginas=power.

    my response:
    It is SERIOUSLY creepy how he keeps bringing this up.

    Thad is one of those white guys married to a black woman for YEARS, and he still hasn’t learned anything about black women in all that time. I could feel sorry for him if he wasn’t such a misogynist.

    Like


  346. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 22:18:38 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Linda,

    Like you, I like to discuss. That’s why I do not respond to Thad himself anymore, but rather address my comments to others, particularly those he is attacking with his demeaning, insulting comments.

    I decided after one experience with Thad that life was too short to waste my time and words on the likes of him. But I do enjoy calling bullsh** what it is , so I respond to others.

    Notice that by asking you what you are doing with your education is the same tactic I mentioned earlier….where he implies that you MUST be one of those “whores” he refers to earlier……..you “must” in the “Thaddy-lexicon” be one of “those women” who expect men to support her. Otherwise, why does he need to question us like that?

    Besides it is so dang arrogant for him to ask that and actually think that because HE demands it, that we MUST answer his question.

    Like


  347. Thad says@
    “So just to make sure that we’re on the same page here, Linda, you think that women withholding sex improves their chance of having a serious relationship, right?

    I mean, is it fair to say THAT?

    Or are you saying something else?”

    Thad,

    your above statement is the reason why I am reluctant to have a discussion with you….

    you start out by asking me a question…

    then you answering it for me…without getting any input from me….

    what do you need me for?….you can have a conversation between the both of us all by yourself…..

    when you’re ready to listen to what I have to say, let me know?

    Like


  348. Oh, by all means, you’re right! Men hate manipulative women, especially those who have strategies.

    Exactly. This is the point that I’ve been making over and over which the Southern Belle Brigade just can’t seem to come to grips with.

    However, they are often completely unable to tell if a woman is doing that to them.

    Which is why Linda’s r strategy can APPARENTLY work.

    Also, many take “I think we should wait” as a valid answer and respect it.

    Depends what you mean by “respect”. If you mean they say “OK, fine”, I agree. If you mean -as Linda apparently thinks – they say “Now THERE’S a strong, upstanding moral woman who’s worthy to be the mother of my children,” I disagree.

    Speaking as a man who studies male sexuality and masculinity, what MOST men seem to do is jot down said woman’s name and address in their little black book and move on to the next one. Sure, they may go back to trying to woo that woman, but meanwhile, they’ll play the field. And if they find someone else (and it’s likely they will) they’ll probably eventually stop calling. I mean, why invest time and attention in somebody who’s obviously not interested in sex if there are so many other people who are?

    So in my view, outside of a few charming 19th century venues like rural Arkansas, Linda’s strategy is a good way to get left behind in the modern mating game.

    … Because it’s completely impossible for two friends to agree in a chat to go and check Abagond’s site? Just saying…

    Let’s get serious, Mira: do you know anyone else in the world who coordinates with their pal on the other side of the earth to go onto a blog and comment at precisely the same time, every time?

    Occam’s Razor. Just saying…

    Like


  349. @Linda
    your above statement is the reason why I am reluctant to have a discussion with you….

    you start out by asking me a question…

    then you answering it for me…without getting any input from me….

    I’m trying to see if what you think you’re saying is what I’m hearing. Can’t do that unless I tell you what I’m hearing, can we?

    Seriously, Linda, you show not problems at all with ranting and raving and insulting. Now, when it comes time to cut bait or fish, you get all coy and flustered.

    So tell me, Linda, what ARE you saying then? How am I interpretting it incorrectly?

    Like


  350. I can’t believe I’m even gonna do this:

    So Thad, what do you suggest women do? Even YOU admit men think promiscuous women (and that is subject to a society’s double standard and each individual man’s preference) are scum and don’t respect them. You also said several times that men hate women who are “whores” that is, offer/withhold sex in exchange for ANYTHING (it doesn’t have to be material goods and services but simple respect) from men.

    So what’s a woman who does not wish to be treated like garbage via a sexual latrine or some gold-digging, fake, manipulative witch do?

    This is something that has ALWAYS confused me about heterosexual men. They claim to crave sex from women. They complain about women who won’t put out (“cockteases,” “frigid b**chs”). But then turn around and dog out the women who give them what they want without all that muss and fuss. And then they want to know why and get mad at women who make them wait for it. You’d think they’d treat the women that just give them what they want BETTER, but they do not. To me, this is irrational. And women SEE that they don’t.

    Because it’s as much about what women SEE men do than what we HEAR from men. Many women, like many grown folks, realize that people will SAY anything. Best to watch what people DO. Women see men treat women they deem “easy” or “sluts” BADLY.

    From my experiences with men, both dealiing with them directly and watching what they do to other women, are not as mature and as cosmopolitan and free-thinking as you want to believe, Thad. If that were the case, men would not dog out women who slept with them “too soon.” And yes, I’ve heard men say that a certain woman deserved the shyt treatment he was doling out to her for that crime. I always asked that if she was a slut, what did that make him? That somehow “proved” to him she was a lowdown slut that deserved his degradation.

    And he’s not nearly alone in that sentiment.

    Like


  351. SourthernWhiteWoman says@

    “Like you, I like to discuss. That’s why I do not respond to Thad himself anymore, but rather address my comments to others, particularly those he is attacking with his demeaning, insulting comments.”

    you are so right, I will take your advice because my original comment was for Mira anyway….and he is giving me a headache

    Like


  352. I can’t believe I’m even gonna do this:

    So Thad, what do you suggest women do? Even YOU admit men think promiscuous women (and that is subject to a society’s double standard and each individual man’s preference) are scum and don’t respect them. You also said several times that men hate women who are “wh**es” that is, offer/withhold sex in exchange for ANYTHING (it doesn’t have to be material goods and services but simple respect) from men.

    So what’s a woman who does not wish to be treated like garbage via a sexual latrine or some gold-digging, fake, manipulative witch do?

    This is something that has ALWAYS confused me about heterosexual men. They claim to crave sex from women. They complain about women who won’t put out (“c**kteases,” “frigid b**chs”). But then turn around and dog out the women who give them what they want without all that muss and fuss. And then they want to know why and get mad at women who make them wait for it. You’d think they’d treat the women that just give them what they want BETTER, but they do not. To me, this is irrational. And women SEE that they don’t.

    Because it’s as much about what women SEE men do than what we HEAR from men. Many women, like many grown folks, realize that people will SAY anything. Best to watch what people DO. Women see men treat women they deem “easy” or “sl*ts” BADLY.

    From my experiences with men, both dealiing with them directly and watching what they do to other women, are not as mature and as cosmopolitan and free-thinking as you want to believe, Thad. If that were the case, men would not dog out women who slept with them “too soon.” And yes, I’ve heard men say that a certain woman deserved the sh*t treatment he was doling out to her for that crime. I always asked that if she was a slut, what did that make him? That somehow “proved” to him she was a lowdown sl*t that deserved his degradation.

    And he’s not nearly alone in that sentiment.

    Like


  353. Oh and you gotta asterisk EVERY word that MAY be objectionable in order for your comment not to be put into moderation.

    Like


  354. Yeah, well I guess I’ll stand on my original understanding of Linda’s comments then. I think she knows damned well I’m not misinterpretting them: I think she just never looked at her strategy from that angle before.

    So when asked to explain what I’m missing when I say that she seems to be saying one should withhold sex for the promise of love, she really has nothing more to say because ultimately she knows that this is EXACTLY what she’s saying.

    She just never stopped to think what most men think about that strategy and it bothers her.

    Good. She should be bothered.

    As for the proxietwins, don’t you have a World of Warcraft tournament to go haunt? Or a sammitch to make?

    Like


  355. Thad,

    Depends what you mean by “respect”. If you mean they say “OK, fine”, I agree. If you mean -as Linda apparently thinks – they say “Now THERE’S a strong, upstanding moral woman who’s worthy to be the mother of my children,” I disagree.

    Actually, I think it’s something in between. Both men and women know social norms, and both agree that promiscuous women are garbage, so both know there are things a woman can’t do in order to be respectable.

    So “I think we should wait” argument can actually make him realize the woman in question is not just for fun only.

    HOWEVER his ideas of waiting and her are sometimes not the same. If she waits too long (too long for his standards) he’ll move on- NOT because he can’t without sex (in fact, many have sex with other women in this period of waiting), but because after a while woman’s withdrawal stops being seen as positive and genuine and starts appearing as a manipulation and strategy.

    (I am NOT saying this is fair and that this is how it should be).

    Let’s get serious, Mira: do you know anyone else in the world who coordinates with their pal on the other side of the earth to go onto a blog and comment at precisely the same time, every time?

    (blushes) Friend and I sometimes do that. We live in the same city, but sometimes we chat, and she sends me a link to a discussion, so we both start posting there if it’s interesting. It’s not in a form of “go there and say this, this, and this to defend me”, but in a form of, “check this out, it’s interesting”.

    Like


  356. Mira,

    I guess Thad’s never heard of skype over in Brazil or maybe he just doesn’t believe you use skype and be on the internet blog at the same time. Also have you ever noticed how he trots out the sock puppet arguement when he’s losing the arguement.

    Like


  357. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 22:34:11 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @ Linda,

    I hope you do not actually respond to Thad’s last jab there. You have been amazingly civil and polite to him despite how he has treated you. He’s just trying to bait you. Please don’t respond. He doesn’t want to “hear” you. He just want you to respond so he can twist your words to his liking.

    Also, it doesn’t appear to me that you “got left behind” in the “mating game.” You are married! I guess he just can’t “get” how a woman might choose to wait for the right man…and chooses not to sleep around for reasons other than manipulation. As for me, I don’t see it as a game or a competition. I am willing to wait for the right man, and I’d rather be alone than settle for less than what I want.

    I guess that’s insulting to Thad…..how dare we not want to join the multitudes of woman who make themselves available for him and his friends among the Rio “Johns.”

    Like


  358. I’m also wondering what parameters we’re all using in this “discussion.” How do we define “respect” especially in the sentence “women want the men they sleep with to respect them.” We need to know what that “respect” entails? Does it entail a promise of a stable, monogamous relationship if not of marriage? Does it mean “I don’t want you throwing my name around town like you got it at a swap meet and calling me out of it and treating me like ish for doing THE EXACT SAME THING you did?”

    Because so far, it sounds like Thad is saying that men want to be able to f**k women without having to take the actual women into much consideration outside of physical attractiveness and STI status. That men just wanna poke the hole when they want and leave when they want. That men just want to have sex completely on their terms and bunk what the women want or feel. If that’s the case then tough sh*t. Whenever you’re doing something that involves someone else, you’re gonna hafta take them into some consideration that is, unless you’re a sociopath.

    I think Thad is hearing from the many of the women here is “I’ll only sex men who’ll give me the relationship I want, i.e. guarantee me marriage.” What we’re saying is that it’s waaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than p*ssy for wedding ring. And that, many times, marriage doesn’t even enter into it. Many of us have sexxed men we didn’t marry and had no intention of marrying. But that doesn’t mean we may not have exercized some discretion over with whom and WHEN we’d have sex with them.

    Like


  359. Also, please note I don’t think- as Thad seems to believe- Linda and women who think similarly like her are not sincere and honest.

    Women know what making strategies mean, and it’s different than simply doing what you honestly feel like.

    If you simply don’t feel open and trusting enough to have sex before you spend some time with a man, and before said man showed he is able to spend some time with you, getting to know you, then it’s not a strategy per se, even if they both know they are doing that because of social norms and not because of lack of desire from her part.

    It’s not because women don’t enjoy sex, it’s because they know they won’t be respected if they go wit the urge (I’m not saying these are Linda’s thoughts, but many women agree on this).

    Also, I know Thad shared with us that he once dumped a woman who wanted to wait in order for him to take her seriously, so good for him (for sticking to what he says) but that doesn’t change anything.

    Like


  360. @Witchsitah, who asks a very good question:
    So Thad, what do you suggest women do?

    First of all, I think they should do EXACTLY what they feel like doing and stop listening to the billion-dollar “womanly advice” industry, which attempts to get them to believe that there’s some sort of “strategy” they can use to make men behave the way they want them to behave.

    Women should live for themselves, not for men. And they certainly shouldn’t be wasting their time in university searching for an MRS degree. If they find someone and things go in that direction of their own accord, great, but I wouldn’t spend time fretting over marriageability and education if I were a woman.

    Secondly, I think women should make an attempt to actually listen to what men really say and not what they THINK they are saying or should be saying. That is, presuming they want to have a male mate who isn’t a complete douchebag.

    Third, women should never, ever see marriage as an economic safety net. Marriages and families break up all the time and when they do, it’s generally women who get the worse of the deal. A woman should be prepared to raise kids on her own IF SHE HAS TO. Obviously, that’s not an ideal situation. But she should also be aware that in most western countries these days, she doesn’t need to share a roof with a guy to get some aid in raising the kids. If she’s got a decent career and a good lawyer, she doesn’t have to sacrifice herself on the altar of the family if things with her mate just aren’t working out.

    Most of this advice also applies to men, by the way, with the genders reveresed.

    So what’s a woman who does not wish to be treated like garbage via a sexual latrine or some gold-digging, fake, manipulative witch do?

    Be true to herself and what SHE wants and not worry about what men or her sorority sisters think about her sex life. If you’re in it for yourself, what the hell does it matter if you have a “reputation”? If you’re controlling your sexuality, why would you care? You should have exactly as much or as little sex as YOU want and what other people think about this should not enter into your decisions.

    For real.

    Take strength from the gay and lesbian experience: what do you think “most people” believe when they look at them? And does it stop them from having happy and fulfilling sexual and emotional lives?

    Not in the slightetest.

    So how about a little more intestinal fortitude when it comes to facing nasty words, hmm?

    Even YOU admit men think promiscuous women (and that is subject to a society’s double standard and each individual man’s preference) are scum and don’t respect them.

    SOME men, witchsistah. You’ll note that I say that I think most men are a lot less judgemental about “sluts” than most women are. “Whores” are another thing entirely.

    To me, this is irrational.

    Yes it is, which is why women should give up worrying about what men think regarding women’s sexual morals and simply look to please themselves, whatever their tastes may be.

    To begin with, they should forget all this “good girl/bad girl”, “good boy/ bad boy” crap that Linda finds so indispensable.

    Because it’s as much about what women SEE men do than what we HEAR from men.

    Sister, I can say with some degree of authority that if you TRULY knew what most men do, you’d lose your shit. Men are actually much worse, in some ways than most women seem to realize. And women don’t see even a fifth of what men do.

    This is why I find Linda’s faith in her male friends’ and relatives’ essential wholesomeness to be so charmingly naive. Of course none of her “good” men would EVER buy sex. Or work the downlow. Or look at kiddy porn… or any porn at all for that matter. She’s only got good Christian men surrounding her…. 😀

    Sure, I’m biased because every weekend, I get to talk to “good christian gentlemen” from North America who are down here stepping out on their wives and girlfriends back home, but I can definitely say that women can’t even imagine the truly odd stuff that most of the men in their lives do.

    Women see men treat women they deem “easy” or “sl*ts” BADLY.

    Yeah, and they treat manipulatative whores much, much worse.

    The problem, Witchie, is that many women like Linda think that they will be safe from this treatment if they just follow some little rules book. Here’s the big dirty secret: misogyny means that ANY WOMAN AT ALL can get called a slut or a whore and be badly treated and the number of sexual partners she’s had has very little to do with that.

    Here’s proof: what, exactly, is the number of sexual partners a woman must have before a man is “allowed” to call her a slut?

    You know as well as I do it’s ONE, presuming that one is someone he dislikes.

    So you might as well please yourself, given that I GUARANTEE you that there’s nothing you can do to please men, in general.

    If you’re lucky, you’ll find one guy – singular – that you CAN please and who pleases you. There are no rules for that, however. It’s a crap shoot. I just happen to think that women should feel free to get their own jollies while they’re rolling those dice. Linda seems to feel that putting the brakes on one’s own sexuality makes it more likely that one will find a “good man”.

    Bollocks, say I.

    From my experiences with men, both dealiing with them directly and watching what they do to other women, are not as mature and as cosmopolitan and free-thinking as you want to believe, Thad.

    You must be speaking to another Thad, because I certainly have never said – or even implied – that men were any of those things.

    Like


  361. If you simply don’t feel open and trusting enough to have sex before you spend some time with a man, and before said man showed he is able to spend some time with you, getting to know you, then it’s not a strategy per se, even if they both know they are doing that because of social norms and not because of lack of desire from her part.

    It’s not because women don’t enjoy sex, it’s because they know they won’t be respected if they go wit the urge (I’m not saying these are Linda’s thoughts, but many women agree on this).

    Once again, Mira breaks it down to the bone.

    I’ve known/know women who use that “since we’ve f*kked, we’re now together as a couple” stance. Ain’t worked yet from what I’ve seen. Same with women who screw men thinking that’ll somehow “bond” dude to ’em. I’ve known women who sexxed men very early on thinking this. The guys think of these women as pathetic sl*ts.

    But men act phony, contradictory and messed up too. Men lie to women to get sex. Or men lie to themselves. Men sleep with a woman and then, in the cold light of day, suddenly regret their decision and then treat the woman like c*ap. I’d think even a woman who just wanted to have fun and did the night before, wouldn’t appreciate that behavior.

    Like


  362. [Post to Witchsistah now in moderation. good question, btw Withcsistah.]

    Like


  363. Mira says@
    “Ok, here’s what I think. Men don’t like when women withhold sex and when they make them wait. It frustrates them a lot, and they (rightfully) see it as unfair. However, many still think women can withhold sex without problems because they don’t have much of a sex drive (yes, you read that right, some men do think this).

    So men definitely don’t like this behavior. And yet, many find that it’s the only appropriate way a woman should act, no matter how frustrating it is to her.”

    Mira,

    Just to clarify, where I live, there are more women than men…my single girlfriends have the attitude of “half of a man is better than none”….while the men act like they are in a buffett…

    I never enjoyed being one of many…if a man is sleeping with someone already, then he didn’t need to be sleeping with me….

    I didn’t sleep with my husband right away because he had a girlfriend already–but when I first met my husband, he did not tell me this–his roommate told me about it (the girlfriend)

    — so I told him we could be friends but forget about anything else until you lose the present girlfriend..

    I was very disappointed that he withheld that information from me because I really liked him alot and was very attracted to him….and he was attracted to me also, but he was not available…and I did not want to get emotionally involved with him….but obviously, it worked itself out and we’ve been together about 15 years.

    I’ve always followed my rule of waiting because, don’t know why, but the men I attracted were “players” (had more than 1 woman at a time)….I lived in Germany for awhile and had the same problem…

    I’ve been out on dates where the man’s beeper or cell phone is ringing and he ignores it…I would just tell them to answer it and tell her “you’ll call her later”…why pretend another woman is not on the other line…

    There is an exception to every rule but my belief is that women get emotionally attached once she starts sleeping with a man…

    I am not saying women shouldn’t have sex…just that women should be honest about what kind of relationship she is having with that particular man before she gets emotionally attached…

    If the man only calls you when he wants sex or he hangs out with his friends after work and gets to your house about midnight–then you are not a girlfriend, you are a hookup…

    I have girlfriends who think that this scenario is called a relationship….and I advocate waiting because these chicks have sex within 2 days to 2 weeks and don’t even know the man’s last name….

    Like


  364. SourthernWhiteWoman says,
    @ Linda,

    I hope you do not actually respond to Thad’s last jab there. You have been amazingly civil and polite to him despite how he has treated you. He’s just trying to bait you. Please don’t respond. He doesn’t want to “hear” you. He just want you to respond so he can twist your words to his liking.

    Don’t worry, I am taking your advice and ignoring him….I’ll let him debate himself…..he doesn’t need me.

    Like


  365. @Mira
    Actually, I think it’s something in between. Both men and women know social norms, and both agree that promiscuous women are garbage, so both know there are things a woman can’t do in order to be respectable.

    Well, first of all, I’m not so sure I agree with the dogma that men think promiscuous women are garbage. Some do certainly. Most? I dunno. I myself deeply appreciate promiscuous women and I know many men who do.

    Not that that doesn’t mean they won’t use the word “slut” as an insult if they enter into conflict with the promiscuouos woman, mind you. But that kind of insult is going to get thrown at women by men in MOST conflicts, independent of how many people the woman has slept with.

    The actual number of sexual partners has little to do with whether a man calls a woman a ‘slut” or not, Mira. One sexual partner is sufficient, presuming it’s not the guy doing the insulting. that’s how sexism and the double standard work.

    Friend and I sometimes do that. We live in the same city, but sometimes we chat, and she sends me a link to a discussion, so we both start posting there if it’s interesting. It’s not in a form of “go there and say this, this, and this to defend me”, but in a form of, “check this out, it’s interesting”.

    Sometimes, Mira. Not everytime, like clockwork, never one without the other.

    Again, Occam’s Razor applies here. Is it more logical to think that we have two twinned minds who only show up together because they organize their on-line presence that way?

    Or is it more likely that an on-line gamer – a breed that is well known for their use of proxies – is simply doing some sock-puppeting?

    Also, please note I don’t think- as Thad seems to believe- Linda and women who think similarly like her are not sincere and honest.

    People who believe in false moralities are very often honest and sincere, Mira. I think Linda honestly believes what she says: that doesn’t make it any less a load of southern-fried bull bollocks, however.

    Like


  366. Witchsistah @

    “What we’re saying is that it’s waaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than p*ssy for wedding ring. And that, many times, marriage doesn’t even enter into it. Many of us have sexxed men we didn’t marry and had no intention of marrying. But that doesn’t mean we may not have exercized some discretion over with whom and WHEN we’d have sex with them.”

    Linda says@

    Sing It, Sistah!!

    Like


  367. I am not saying women shouldn’t have sex…just that women should be honest about what kind of relationship she is having with that particular man before she gets emotionally attached…

    If the man only calls you when he wants sex or he hangs out with his friends after work and gets to your house about midnight–then you are not a girlfriend, you are a hookup…

    I have girlfriends who think that this scenario is called a relationship….and I advocate waiting because these chicks have sex within 2 days to 2 weeks and don’t even know the man’s last name….

    GUUUUURRRLLL, you do NOT know…Oh, goodness *having informal counseling flashbacks with jaggleheaded heffas I’ve known*!

    I stay tryna tell chicks that if you want a RELATIONSHIP, that ish takes time! You’re not going to know in a couple of months whether or not this is THE ONE. And the American divorce rate says you may not even be certain of that in 20 years! It’s all a crap shoot. You work with what you got and hope for the best. But still, don’t think that sex=committment or love to a guy! You had sex, but you STILL need to see if you even want to TALK to this mofo anymore!

    And if you’re the kind to catch feelings because you had sex, then it is best to wait to make sure what you’re seeing and experiencing are real. This is not about manipulating a guy into making promises he doesn’t want nor wish to keep. This is about “I know what I’m like so I want to make sure I’m not wasting my time, energy or emotions here. I don’t want to be feenin’ snd lovey on someone who could give a sh*t about me.”

    Like


  368. @SWW
    I guess that’s insulting to Thad…..how dare we not want to join the multitudes of woman who make themselves available for him and his friends among the Rio “Johns.”

    Let’s get something real straight here, my blushing southern belle: I work for the prostitutes’ union here in town and have never been a john. Not because I think it’s bad, but because I and many of my friends have done sex work in the past (though I personally haven’t turned tricks). I have never had the urge to pay for sex in the same way that magicians don’t generlaly go to magic shows: the illusion doesn’t work for me, because I’ve seen what goes on behind the curtain.

    Sorry to squelch your lurid fantasies regarding my sex life, but there it is.

    Now why don’t you go roll up a new Night Elf or something or perhaps go bobble for furni or whatever it is you internet gamers do in lieu of real sex.

    Like


  369. Where do you live, Linda?

    I know women in similar situations. At my brother’s alma mater, an HBCU, where black women outnumbered black men 3 to 1, black women were falling all over themselves to snag a guy. If they had a guy, they held on to him tight. Many were man-sharing. Heck, even after he graduated, black women were asking me “You have a brother? And he’s in med school? Hook me up!” They didn’t need to know anything about him: they just knew he was a black guy in school with a job and career opportunities, and he probably had all his teeth! These women were lining up.

    Which is another reason why I think this post is just downright wrong in so many ways. These are the “independent” educated women who think they are too good for a man… yeah, okay.

    Like


  370. Thad,

    If you go over your moderated comment and asterisk the words that might be objectionable (even if you don’t think they are like “wh*re” and “sl*t”) then it should appear fine. There’ll be a double post once the original comment comes out of moderation though.

    Like


  371. Abagond,
    Wiill you please tell Everyone that there have been several occasions when I was on here during the week and SWW wasn’t and that I have posted to topics she hasn’t. I don’t give a rat’s butt what Thad thinks, but I do not want other people believing him when he’s only trying to discredit us.

    Like


  372. on Sat Sep 25th 2010 at 23:32:19 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @Witchsistah & Mira,

    Amen sisters! Preach it!

    @Linda,

    I bet we can guess “how” he “appreciates promiscuous women,” can’t we? How about a man just appreciating women, regardless of their sexual habits? But then, I can’t understand how a man who puts no value beyond monetary value on a woman can appreciate ANY woman.

    Like


  373. @Witchsistah (Linda, please note: this is how you talk to someone you think is misunderstanding you):
    It sounds like Thad is saying that men want to be able to f**k women without having to take the actual women into much consideration outside of physical attractiveness and STI status.

    Witch, have I said word one about what I want men to be able to do or not? No, I haven’t. But I DO want both men and women to feel that they can have sex just for the hell of it if that’s what they want to do. I am foursquare against dual morality and sexual guilt. I DO NOT think you need to have some deep, meaningful understanding of a person prior to having sex with them. That isn’t a prerequisite in my book and I don’t think it should be for either men OR Women.

    That men just wanna poke the hole when they want and leave when they want.

    Interesting that we always seem to return to a sexual dcihotomy in this discussion. It seems that for many people here – yourself included – sex must either be relatinship oriented and a deep meeting of souls, or it must be the man (only) getting his jollies off, “using” the woman.

    Dual morality, Witchsistah, and a complete mirepresentation of reality. Most sexual realtionships I’ve had in my life have been NEITHER one thing nor the other. So the two poles of sex being represnted here as the only possible ones (commitment or abusive, male-oriented sex), are in fact the VAST MINORITY of sexual acts.

    So my question to you is this: why should we pretend that sex can only be one thing or the other when the vast majority of times it is neither?

    I think Thad is hearing from the many of the women here is “I’ll only sex men who’ll give me the relationship I want, i.e. guarantee me marriage.” What we’re saying is that it’s waaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than p*ssy for wedding ring.

    Who said it needs must mean wedding ring? I’m saying “withholding sex for the promise of love” is a bad way to go. How that became “p***y for wedding ring” is beyond me. I mean, unles sit was your intent to make a charicature.

    And that, many times, marriage doesn’t even enter into it. Many of us have sexxed men we didn’t marry and had no intention of marrying. But that doesn’t mean we may not have exercized some discretion over with whom and WHEN we’d have sex with them.

    No doubt. and where have I said – or even implied – that women shouldn’t use discretion?

    What I HAVE said is that making a man wait for sex doesn’t mean he “respects” you more.

    Like


  374. Linda,

    Thanks for clarifying.

    I didn’t sleep with my husband right away because he had a girlfriend already–but when I first met my husband, he did not tell me this–his roommate told me about it (the girlfriend)

    – so I told him we could be friends but forget about anything else until you lose the present girlfriend..

    Well, that sounds like a best thing to do. A man in a relationship is definitely not worth anybody’s time (unless all you want is a casual sex… but even then it’s questionable).

    but obviously, it worked itself out and we’ve been together about 15 years.

    It’s always nice to hear about people spending years and decades together. 🙂

    I’ve always followed my rule of waiting because, don’t know why, but the men I attracted were “players” (had more than 1 woman at a time)….I lived in Germany for awhile and had the same problem…

    You don’t have to explain or justify why you decided to wait. What you’re saying makes perfect sense, but seriously, you (or anybody else) should not feel like she’s “obligated” to explain stuff like this.

    BTW, you’re right… Players are dangerous. I tried to stay away from them, because I didn’t like the game.

    There is an exception to every rule but my belief is that women get emotionally attached once she starts sleeping with a man…

    I also believe this to be true. But I also believe you can’t truly love somebody you never slept with (I am aware this might be just my case).

    And you know what? I think the same rule applies to men. They too get attached after sleeping with a woman. But that’s where double standards appear: men are taught not to associate sex with emotional attachment, so they act on that.

    But in reality, it matters to them a lot more than they admit or society lets them admit. For example, there is a stereotype of a man losing his virginity in a wild one night stand. In reality, I know many young men who get strangely attached to the girl who was their first, even if they don’t continue the relationship. This is something that’s not often talked about. (As if that’s something embarrassing or wrong).

    I am not saying women shouldn’t have sex…just that women should be honest about what kind of relationship she is having with that particular man before she gets emotionally attached…

    Yes, this is sadly true. It’s not as much about a strategy as being honest about what kind of a relationship you can have with this man. There’s nothing wrong with casual sex in my book, but girl, don’t delude yourself- a hookup (how you call it) is not a girlfriend, and it’s often not respected. So if that’s ok with you, fine, but don’t kid yourself into thinking you are having a loving relationship.

    Like


  375. Witchsistah, the post is now out of moderation and can be read up at 23:04:t’s a pndered response to your question as to what I think women should DO.

    Like


  376. Witchsistah said@

    GUUUUURRRLLL, you do NOT know…Oh, goodness *having informal counseling flashbacks with jaggleheaded heffas I’ve known*!

    Natasha says@

    These are the “independent” educated women who think they are too good for a man… yeah, okay.

    Linda says@

    and the Deacon said “AMEN”…..

    Natasha, I live in Florida ..where I live there’s a large immigrant population, so it’s not even just between black men and black women….

    ..and you are so right, most of my single girlfriends are college educated women who pamper themselves well and have great careers…looking at them, you would never know just how much they allow themselves to be played…

    Like


  377. Interesting how women seem to think that they’ve been “played” if a sexual relationship doesn’t turn into emotional commitment of a sort.

    I mean, we’re always coming back to this point, aren’t we?

    Like


  378. SWW/Blagenius, I don’t know what would be more pathetic, actually: you running sock puppets or the two of you actually living as seperate beings and still feeling the need t mark a special time for you two to go on a blog together and tag-team insult anyoneyou disagree with.

    Things are obviously pretty damned slow in your life, either way, if this is the high point of your social existence.

    Like


  379. Another problem with men- a serious one if you ask me- is that many don’t care about woman’s sexual needs if they don’t care at least a bit about her as a person.

    And as we all know, a man who doesn’t care about woman’s sexual needs is a man we don’t want.

    Now, the thing is, for a man to care about your sexual needs, he needs to see you worth his involvement and energy (funny how a wish to present himself as a great lover is not enough). So in order to have good sex, a woman needs a man who cares about her as a person, not simply a man who is ready to have sex.

    Like


  380. Oh, look! Vindy showed back up again in the midst of all of this.

    Ladies, why don’t you talk to Vindy’s belief that men are the lords of civilization? I mean, if you really want a go at a sexist, Vindy’s your man. 😀

    Lessee, here… whining, whining, ad hominems. Further chest thumping about war being the root of civilization and men being the true and noble warriors… Off topic discussions….

    Not much to respond to, actually.

    Like


  381. Mira says,

    “And you know what? I think the same rule applies to men. They too get attached after sleeping with a woman. But that’s where double standards appear: men are taught not to associate sex with emotional attachment, so they act on that.”

    Linda says@

    This may be true…I’ve never thought about it…my brothers didn’t seem to have problems staying detached though….growing up, I watched my brothers and the way they treated their “girlfriends”…I vowed I would not let myself get treated that way….

    You are right, though, when men finally fall, they fall hard but I don’t think they attach meaning to the every encounter they have….they seem way more adept at just having a “hook-up” and moving on to the next one…

    Like


  382. Now, the thing is, for a man to care about your sexual needs, he needs to see you worth his involvement and energy (funny how a wish to present himself as a great lover is not enough). So in order to have good sex, a woman needs a man who cares about her as a person, not simply a man who is ready to have sex.

    Agreed. The problem comes when people like Linda presume that making the guy wait means that he’s going to see her as more of a person.

    Not as far as I can tell.

    Linda’s husband was apparently having sex with his girlfriend right up to the point where he decided that he’d rather be having sex with her. I highly doubt “waiting” made him see her as more human.

    Like


  383. I think that you are generalizing your feelings to all women, Linda. There are plenty of women who are just looking for a hook up, too.

    Like


  384. Ladies,

    Have we ‘tag-teamed’ anyone but poor pathetic, put-upon Thaddeus? Who, as ya’ll can see, STILL see can’t stand to be disagreed with. I don’t know which is more pathetic, actually: the way Thad whines when he can’t convince people he’s right or the way he attempts derail topics in which he’s losing the arguement.

    Like


  385. Mira says@

    “Now, the thing is, for a man to care about your sexual needs, he needs to see you worth his involvement and energy (funny how a wish to present himself as a great lover is not enough). So in order to have good sex, a woman needs a man who cares about her as a person, not simply a man who is ready to have sex.”

    Linda says@
    For sure, I agree….that’s what I meant about being seen as a person and not an object…in a “hook-up”, it’s all about him (exception to every rule)…he is not worried about what you want…whether it’s sex or anything else

    Like


  386. Well, SWW/BG I’m happy to give you some virtual sport up there in the land of the midnight sun. I mean I’m impressed that I irritate you so much that you just can’t shut up about me.

    You’ll notice that I don’t seek you out to hassle and harass, but I guess Warcraft gets old sometimes and everyone needs their hobby.

    Now, about that sammitch…

    Like


  387. For sure, I agree….that’s what I meant about being seen as a person and not an object…in a “hook-up”, it’s all about him (exception to every rule)…he is not worried about what you want…whether it’s sex or anything else

    I’m wondering how you would know, Linda? I mean, you yourself only engage in sex with people who are going to have a deep relationship with you, right?

    So what do you know about sex in other situations?

    Do you think it might just be possible that hook up sex could be exactly what BOTH parties were looking for, and that it could be a lot of fun for both concerned?

    Just because a guy doesn’t want to live with you and raise your kids DOESN’T necessary mean that he can’t see you as a human being or be attentive to your needs.

    If that were the case, housewives would NEVER have affairs, neh? 😀

    Like


  388. Thad,

    I must admit some of your tips do make sense, but I think you’re biased when it comes to number of men who appreciate or at least don’t mind promiscuous women. I could agree that they hate wh.res more than sl.ts (manipulative vs promiscuous), but we both agree that general “I think we should wait” is not seen as manipulative by many (most?) of the men.

    Be true to herself and what SHE wants and not worry about what men or her sorority sisters think about her sex life. If you’re in it for yourself, what the hell does it matter if you have a “reputation”?

    Because a bad reputation brings problems outside sex life, at least in my culture. If nothing else, you are at a risk of being a victim of sexual harassment.

    Here’s proof: what, exactly, is the number of sexual partners a woman must have before a man is “allowed” to call her a slut?

    You know as well as I do it’s ONE, presuming that one is someone he dislikes.

    Not true. I’ve been called a sl.t when I was a virgin simply for stating I think sex is natural and that women should have it wherever they want, even if it’s one night stand.

    I also got harassed after that, by bunch of teenage boys who took that as an invitation.

    Like


  389. Blakgenius,

    Yes, he (Thad) is way past annoying to me…he needs to go and play with the “sluts” he loves to talk about…

    Like


  390. I dont think anyone is saying “withhold sex and get a relationship” rather, holding off sex will let you see if the man is interested in something besides whats between your legs. Are there instances when people meet up and within a week they know they are emotionally connected and respect each other enough to have sex without compromising their emotional relationship? Yes, of course. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

    More likely than not a woman that sexes a man within a week will disregarded and called out of her name. Ive seen it happen one too many times.

    Like Witchsistah said, dont LISTEN to what people say, WATCH what they do. When we are talking hypothetically men will say they dont look down on “looser” women. However, if a man starts to date a woman and she puts out on the first night he will ask himself how many men has she done this with? Or he will tell his pals about the encounter and they will say “Cant turn a h*e into a housewife”. People will say anything but actions speak louder than words. I dont see men IRL talking of wifing-up porn stars, prostitutes and chicks with reputations because of their perceived “experience”. Generally speaking, these women are regarded as good for sex and short-term relations and are thrown to the wayside when things arent exciting anymore.

    Like


  391. First off Thaddeus, my screename is “WITCHSISTAH” not “Witchie.” You’re so on about folks addressing YOU respectfully while you diminish our names to little pet nicknames. Notice, I called you “Thad” for short, not “Thaddie” or “Tad” or “Taddie.” If you shortened my netnick to “Witch” or “WS” I wouldn’t find it insulting. I’m a grown woman. Not a child. Not YOUR child and not one of your students.

    As for the women Linda and Natasha know who are getting “played” if they’re looking for an emotional committment, think sexxing these guys is the route to it while constantly seeing it’s not working, then yeah, they’re getting played. If they’re not looking for an emotional committment then they’re doing their thing. That’s the difference.*

    A woman not looking for an emotional committment doesn’t care if dude is boning other folks. She, hopely, plays safe and sane with him when they do their thing. And she probably is sexxing other guys as well. So what does she care who else he’s with?

    Folks first off need to be honest with themselves about what it is they really want and how they really want it. Dudes are out there SAYING they want a “good woman” and either deal with the bad ones and want to generalize them to all women or treat the good ones like crap and sl*t around. Women claim to be a “playette” and then whine that dude won’t call her or won’t treat her like a girlfriend.

    Thad, I don’t believe in manipulating folks or trying to manipulate. Either people want to do stuff or they don’t. Either they’re gonna do it or they won’t. H*ll, I’m too lazy for that ish. The guy who wouldn’t marry Miss Right after five years after she made him wait five months for sex, cooked and cleaned for him, did his taxes, was a gymnast in the sack, had four degrees and a $150K job as a VP, marries a high-school drop out who works at a Hardees at the register and slobbed his knob in the parking lot after she gave him his order of curly fries within a month of “meeting” her. You could do everything “right” and by the book, whatever book that is. But humans have that free will thang that’ll put a wrench in your whole program.

    I’ve tried to advise women who ask me for it, if a guy doesn’t see you “that way” then don’t waste time trying to convince him. Move on to the next one. This is my response to chicks asking me “What can I do to get this guy to commit to me?” Nothing. Either he wants to or not, is going to or not.

    *Though one can argue that if said chicks knew/know dude ain’t interested in anything else but sex, the women aren’t getting played but are just being stupid.

    Like


  392. on Sun Sep 26th 2010 at 00:14:29 SourthernWhiteWoman

    Ladies,

    Have you noticed how “some” white males assume that the world revolves around them? I mean really, there’s absolutely no other reason in the world that my friend (Blakgenius) and I would read the Abagond blog, EXCEPT to torment poor Thaddy?

    Anything else would presuppose that we are two intelligent, educated women who are best friends living a continent apart and who just happen to like to use Abagond’s blog as a source of deep discussions between the two of us (which never make it on the blog). Oh no….we don’t schedule time to call each other on Skype and share about our lives, talk about the things women talk about with with other women… How shocking….that we also actually like to READ and DISCUSS and THINK about the serious issues that come up on this blog!

    Oh no, it can’t be two friends discussing and agreeing with each other on gender and racial issues who happen to team up when they encounter pretentious, elitist, ego-centric racists and sexists! As a woman I am going speak up when I see the sort of degrading remarks that a man like Thad makes to women. I am also going to speak up when there’s racial bullsh** going on.

    In Thad’s world, the ONLY explanation could possibly be that we are a bored housewife (how’s that for stereotypes and prejudicial thinking?) who lives for nothing but arguing with Thad.

    That would be funny if it wasn’t so pitiful. 🙂

    Like


  393. Right, Y. I don’t think many women here are trying to follow some “Git a Man” recipe like if you do x, y and z but not a, b, and c you’re GOING to get that rang like that is going to compell dude to propose. Yet again, that free will ish.

    All a woman can do is 1) figure out what she REALLY wants and 2) go from there.

    Like


  394. Linda said:
    “Blakgenius,

    Yes, he (Thad) is way past annoying to me…he needs to go and play with the “sluts” he loves to talk about…”

    Yeah, he does.

    Like


  395. Witchsistah, he is also being very insulting…you notice he likes to talk about my husband like he know him….I haven’t made any references about his wife…he keeps mentioning how he likes sluts…hmmm

    Like


  396. I’ve always thought that sex was the prerogative of both of the persons who are to be engaged in it. If either one of the persons is not ready then it should not occur.

    I don’t see this as “withholding” because I associate that word with holding back something that would naturally be given. Someone may withhold my paycheck, or a bonus that I have earned, or perhaps a “thank you” that I deserve. But sex is not something that I am owed. It’s not being “held back,” or restricted, because it’s no mine and it’s not owed to me.

    Like


  397. I don’t see this as “withholding” because I associate that word with holding back something that would naturally be given. Someone may withhold my paycheck, or a bonus that I have earned, or perhaps a “thank you” that I deserve. But sex is not something that I am owed. It’s not being “held back,” or restricted, because it’s no mine and it’s not owed to me.

    THANK YOU!

    Like


  398. king said:
    “I’ve always thought that sex was the prerogative of both of the persons who are to be engaged in it. If either one of the persons is not ready then it should not occur.

    I don’t see this as “withholding” because I associate that word with holding back something that would naturally be given. Someone may withhold my paycheck, or a bonus that I have earned, or perhaps a “thank you” that I deserve. But sex is not something that I am owed. It’s not being “held back,” or restricted, because it’s no mine and it’s not owed to me.”

    cosign!

    Like


  399. @Mira
    but we both agree that general “I think we should wait” is not seen as manipulative by many (most?) of the men.

    I think it’s by and large seen as bulls*** by most men, though it may be bulls*** that they’ll tolerate for awhr awhile, if they like the woman enough. And THIS is the real proof of the pudding: Linda seems to believe that making men wait makes them like women more. Actually, it makes most of them like the woman LESS.

    Because a bad reputation brings problems outside sex life, at least in my culture. If nothing else, you are at a risk of being a victim of sexual harassment.
    Your realize that a good sexual representation is heterosexual privilege, right?

    So by REJECTING that privilege, you’re putting yourself in the same sort of situation that gays and lesbians have to live with daily. This isn’t comfortable, I know, but the fact that a false sexual morality exists and punishes those who try to change it is not in and of itself a good argument for that morality’s existence. I know that YOU’RE not saying it is, just pointing out why someone wouldn’t like the lable “slut”. But Linda and SWW often seem to be saying that such a lable is part and parcel of a “proper” morality.
    To wit, look at Linda’s statement about “my sluts”, above. She obviously enjoys looking down at certain women because of their sexual behavior. Without the “slut”, she wouldn’t get to be a “good girl”, something she apparently sets great store by.

    Not true. I’ve been called a sl.t when I was a virgin simply for stating I think sex is natural and that women should have it wherever they want, even if it’s one night stand.

    As for it requiring ZERO mates for one to be called a slut, I stand corrected. You are right. And this just underlines my point: the number of men you sleep with has little bearing on whether or not you will be called a slut. No amount of “good rules keeping behavior” will help you out there.

    Like


  400. @Linda

    Yes, he (Thad) is way past annoying to me…he needs to go and play with the “sluts” he loves to talk about…

    Later on, I will be going down to Copa to distribute condoms and hear the day’s news.

    Right now, you and SWW/Blakgenius are fun enough to play with. 😀

    Like


  401. on Sun Sep 26th 2010 at 00:29:18 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @King,

    Amen again! THANK YOU! I could not say it better myself. Very well put. And if you are male, as I suspect, then your comment is even MORE appreciated.

    Like


  402. @King,

    Amen again! THANK YOU! I could not say it better myself. Very well put. And if you are male, as I suspect, then your comment is even MORE appreciated.

    Co-sign…it’s nice to hear from a male perspective that is adding something to the conversation…instead of just making noise…

    Like


  403. Ladies,
    When people are in the early dating stage, how does withholding sex even apply? As King said:
    “I don’t see this as “withholding” because I associate that word with holding back something that would naturally be given.” I can agree that withholding sex in a realationship is wrong, but how can it be if you choose to not have sex with someone you’re NOT in a relationship with? That implies that you owe the guy sex. So like many of you, I think waiting until you have established some rules is probably a good idea.

    Like


  404. First off Thaddeus, my screename is “WITCHSISTAH” not “Witchie.”

    Good thing I didn’t use “Witchiepoo” then, huh? 😀 It was just a contraction.

    You’re so on about folks addressing YOU respectfully while you diminish our names to little pet nicknames. Notice, I called you “Thad” for short, not “Thaddie” or “Tad” or “Taddie.”

    Er, correct me if I’m wrong, but have I ever complained about someone not using my proper handle? It really isn’t a thing that bugs me, so I doubt I’ve complained. I DO complain about cheap rhetorical tricks and ad hominems, yes, but I hardly classify “Thaddie” or what have you as that!

    As for the women Linda and Natasha know who are getting “played” if they’re looking for an emotional committment, think sexxing these guys is the route to it while constantly seeing it’s not working, then yeah, they’re getting played. If they’re not looking for an emotional committment then they’re doing their thing. That’s the difference.

    Another way of looking at is it that they are trying to play the men and not succeeding. My question is why is it that the man are the victimizing manipulators here when the women also apparently have quite na agenda themselves?

    Thad, I don’t believe in manipulating folks or trying to manipulate. Either people want to do stuff or they don’t. Either they’re gonna do it or they won’t.

    So how does this fit into the idea that women are being “played”, exactly? Again, I don’t think anyone is the poor lil’ innocent out there. I think women, in general, are working with na agenda as much as men. And, frankly, I don’t see them getting “played” any more often than men do.

    The guy who wouldn’t marry Miss Right after five years after she made him wait five months for sex, cooked and cleaned for him, did his taxes, was a gymnast in the sack, had four degrees and a $150K job as a VP, marries a high-school drop out who works at a Hardees at the register and slobbed his knob in the parking lot after she gave him his order of curly fries within a month of “meeting” her. You could do everything “right” and by the book, whatever book that is. But humans have that free will thang that’ll put a wrench in your whole program.

    Precisely. The ways of the human heart are very hard to discern and thus to claim that “waiting” is going to make him “respect you more” is so much wishful thinking.

    Like


  405. @King
    I don’t see this as “withholding” because I associate that word with holding back something that would naturally be given.

    Well, that’s the premise I’m opperating under, King: that one would NORMALLY have sex with this person but one doesn’t because one feels that by not doing so, one gains emotional commitment.

    Like


  406. on Sun Sep 26th 2010 at 00:43:58 SourthernWhiteWoman

    @King,

    You said: But sex is not something that I am owed. It’s not being “held back,” or restricted, because it’s no mine and it’s not owed to me.”

    Unfortunately, many men DO think it is something they are “owed.” Thus, the angry diatribe from some males who resent the idea of a woman choosing not to have sex, or waiting until she decides she wants to have sex. I have heard the “false morality” crap from men before in response to my unwillingness to “put out” when they thought I should, or even voicing my views on the issue. I’ve also encountered men who I had just met who thought I MUST just give them my phone number when they asked. My refusal to comply (both to the phone number and sex demands) has been met with angry “get off your high horse,” or “Who do you think you are?” or very sarcastically, “You think you’re too good for me?” Or “you think awfully highly of yourself, don’t you?”

    My chastisement on this blog by just such a man is just more of the same.

    Like


  407. Witchsistah,

    “As for the women Linda and Natasha know who are getting “played” if they’re looking for an emotional committment, think sexxing these guys is the route to it while constantly seeing it’s not working, then yeah, they’re getting played.”

    For the record, I didn’t mean that these women are getting played (although I do know women who get played). I was more emphasizing the fact that college-educated women, especially college-educated black women, are looking for men. Sometimes desperately so. And the black women are only looking for black men, which is why they are in this plight in the first place. CNN got something right. And all of this is in stark contrast to the author’s idea of “strong, independent” women who shun men.

    Like


  408. Y sez:
    I dont think anyone is saying “withhold sex and get a relationship” rather, holding off sex will let you see if the man is interested in something besides whats between your legs.

    How so, given the existence of the little black book? We have a phrase in Portuguese: “Jogar verde para colher maduro” -“Throw out green seed to collect mature fruit”.

    A true “playa” (from what they tell me) isn ALWAYS operating, being charming, collecting numbers, working his date book. you may not be interested today, but someone will be and he can always come back to you later.

    So making him wait proves exactly zip regarding a man’s true interests.

    I’m surprised that this has to be pointed out. It certainly isn’t news among most playas (or men who think they are playas).

    Or he will tell his pals about the encounter and they will say “Cant turn a h*e into a housewife”.

    Yes, they will definitely say that. In my experience, balck americans say that much more than white americans, by the way.

    I dont see men IRL talking of wifing-up porn stars, prostitutes and chicks with reputations because of their perceived “experience”. Generally speaking, these women are regarded as good for sex and short-term relations and are thrown to the wayside when things arent exciting anymore.

    Well, that’s where your prejudices run you wrong, Y. Believe me, the first thing that shocked us when we started investigating the Copa prostitution scene was how many men DID INDEED end up in stable relationships with prostitutes. It seems to run counter to widely held dogmas about sex and gender, but like you say, actions speak louder than words.

    I don’t know a single prostitute over the age of thirty, come to think of it, who has NEVER been married or in a solid, steady relationship.

    Apparently, then, men do marrry prostitutes in spite of the complaints that “you can’t turn a h.o into a housewife”.

    Some men do not want housewives, in any case.

    Like


  409. Natasha,

    Don’t worry, you were not misunderstood…the women here got your meaning quite clearly..

    Like


  410. Linda sez:
    Witchsistah, he is also being very insulting…you notice he likes to talk about my husband like he know him….

    Don’t be too sure, Linda. I meet a lot of gringo men on Copa who are down here on the QT. 😀

    Like


  411. Agian, as for “withholding”, my point has been quite clear from the beginning: I’m not saying that men are owed sex, for heaven’s sake!

    What part of “one should only have sex if and when one wants” do people not get?

    I am talking about a very specific situation: a person (and it doesn’t have to be a woman, necessarily) WANTS to have sex with someone. They are into the idea. Then they say “Hold it. I’m not going to because if I do they’ll think I’m too easy and that means they won’t want to have a relationship with me. If I DON’T have sex with them now, then I’ll be sure of having their respect”.

    That is indeed “withholding” by King’s definition and it is the person withholding from THEMSELVES, not from their prospective partner.

    Like


  412. Thad, do you even LIKE women? I’m not asking about your sexual orientation. Plenty of men are straight and hate women. Seems like you know a lot of them.

    What you see as “manipulation” is a lot of women trying to keep ourselves SAFE, and yes, emotionally safe as well as physically. Yes, following “The Rules” offers no guarantee of either, just like avoiding going out alone at night doesn’t protect a woman from being raped. It’s up to each woman to set her own level and methods of discretion.

    Nothing will guarantee a committment from anyone. You could be the best wife on planet Earth and have a man who still seeks strange. You could be the sh**tiest one and have a man who’ll drink your dirty bathwater through a bendy straw.

    You’re painting a sorry picture of men. If men are as bad as you say, there’s really no point for women to be involved with them except for reproduction and the occasional sexy timez but only for sexy timez. Bump that committment ish. And we don’t need to have sex with men for reproduction nowadays either. I mean, it seems like most men don’t seem to have many emotions outside of hungry, horny, angry and sleepy or some derivation of the four. Do men even HAVE emotional lives or is it all involved in the pursuit of p*ssy?

    Like


  413. Thad, do you even LIKE women? I’m not asking about your sexual orientation. Plenty of men are straight and hate women. Seems like you know a lot of them.

    Witchsistah, for the past 6 years, I’ve been observing prostitutes’ clients in Copacabana as part of my job as an urban anthropologist. And I hang out on a lot of male-oriented websites also as part of that job.

    So is it any wonder that I hear an awful lot of playas and would be playas talking s***?

    As for liking women, most of my good friends are women, by a ration of about 3 to 1. I like women MUCH MORE than I like men. that does not, however, blind me to the crap that both genders try to routinely pull. In fact, it probably puts me in closer touch with it.

    Right now, in fact, I have a large number of 30-something PhD-holding female friends who are single and I’m usually the only guy in the room when they start talking about their men problems.

    So believe me: I’ve heard an awful lot of pop theories by women about men and their “inability to commit”.

    What you see as “manipulation” is a lot of women trying to keep ourselves SAFE, and yes, emotionally safe as well as physically.

    First of all, whatever the ultimate goal may be, it still remains manipulation.

    Secondly, it DOESN’T keep you safe, as far as I can see. In fact, a lot of these strategies end up feeding right into the gender-sex system that puts women in a bind in the first place. This is why people like Lina and SWW/Blackgenius feel that, as good upstanding women, they have the right to condemn other women as slu.ts. They complain about MEN doing this, but they apparently wholeheartedly believe that there are good girls and bad girls and bad girls get what they deserve.

    If they didn’t believe this on some basic level, they wouldn’t be trying to shame me by implying that my wife is a slut or implying that I have prostitute friends

    (It’s true, by the way. I do have many prostitute friends, one of whom is running for Brazilian Federal Deputy at this very moment. I am very, very proud to be her friend. And my wife Ana, by the way, quite happily agrees that she was very promiscuous all through her adult life and doesn’t see that as a reason for shame. But I digress…)

    It’s up to each woman to set her own level and methods of discretion.

    Agreed. But Linda doesn’t seem to be talking about “discretion” to me: Linda seems to be talking about how to best get a guy emotionally involved in a relationship. As for that being “safe”… Well, hell, I certainly don’t have to point out the domestic violence stats to you, do I? Being in a stable, committed relationship doesn’t make a woman any safer when it comes to male violence. Statistically speaking, the opposite is true.

    So I really don’t think that Linda’s strategy is a safety measure.

    You’re painting a sorry picture of men. If men are as bad as you say, there’s really no point for women to be involved with them except for reproduction and the occasional sexy timez but only for sexy timez.

    Well, there’s two things there. First of all, a lot of things that many (if not most) men do that WOULD freak women out if they knew really shouldn’t be an issue. They fall into the category of maintaining the “good boy” stereotype. One ferinstance: there’s nothing I’ve seen or heard that indicates that BUYING sex makes a man more of a misogynist or more of a danger to women. Men talk am lot of shit, but are actually mostly harmless.

    Secondly, given what’s on the horizon, men are going to have to change and I think ARE changing.

    But you’re right about one thing: if men DO NOT change, if they stay tied to their old notion of biologically based privilege, as Vindicator and RDKing seem to argue in places above, then yes indeed, I would say that there really WOULD be no need for women to be involved with them, except for the occasional bumping of ugliez.

    Luckily, men are changing.

    Do men even HAVE emotional lives or is it all involved in the pursuit of p*ssy?

    I’d say that a lot of men do a very good job at convincing themselves that they have no emotional lives and that chasing p***y is the be-all and end-all of their existence, unfortunately.

    Things don’t usually end up well for those guys. There’s a reason we’re close to a decade behind you women in terms of life-expectancy.

    Have you ever paused to ponder that?

    Like


  414. [comment to da Witchster in moderation]

    And that’s a wrap for me tonight, folks. I am now down to Copacabana to listen to wh.ores talk about the day’s events and see if I can’t scare up a few more interviews.

    Blakgenius/SWW and Linda, if you want to put in a CV, just let me know, ‘kay?

    Tip of the hat to all you ladies of the evening.

    Like


  415. [Link to Gabriela’s campaign for federal deputy. With “whor.ish” pals like this, who needs Norwegian housewives?]

    http://gabrielaleite.ning.com/

    Like


  416. Comment by Ana, by the way….

    “That’s right, I am a slut and at least I had all the fun I wanted before I got married, so I have absolutely no regrets about being monogamous now.

    I wonder if all those ‘happily married’ women you’re chatting with can say the same thing.”

    If you’re going to try to insult Ana Paula, Linda and SWW: do it directly to her and pick a term that actually has some teeth to it. “Slut” is a joke.

    Like


  417. Look ladies, here’s what you do. Go on vacation to one of those places abounding with beach bums, hustlers and men in general. Pump em until your eyes pop or out until you start seeing double. Do this for the week or so you are there. When you get home and the husband/boyfriend, friends in general, ask you what you did, you tell them; “ohh I just relaxed, got laid on the, I mean I laid on the beach and caught up on my reading, a totally relaxing experience!” “I needed it, can’t wait to get back!” This effects two things; 1)You would have had a jolly time with no strings attached and; 2) You can maintain your air of respectability amongst friends, family, and peers. You see ladies, you can play the s**t whilst protecting your reputations!

    Like


  418. …and you say that as if it doesn’t happen, Herneith. 😀

    Only difference with the male variety is that women go for quality over quantity, almost every time.

    For our Norwegian pal, who probably needs a break from the rigors of the tundra, let me suggest a Praia da Pipa in Natal, with flights leaving direct from Oslo on a weekly basis.

    I’m pretty sure that with the appropriately-sized “donation”, she would be able to scare up a “capoeira instructor” for a little rest and relaxation.

    [Currently thinking about one woman’s adventures in sexual tourism with “How Stella Got her Groove back”…]

    And now I’m really off… At least for a few hours.

    Like


  419. Natasha,

    There was an article in some magazine (probably Essence a few years back) about the gender imbalance at HBCUs, and the authors interviewed some women who said that the skewed ratio made guys more likely to collect “harems”, because they could. If you aren’t interested in “being tied down”, and plenty of women are willing to share you, I guess there’s no reason you shouldn’t. (My sister attends an HBCU now and it doesn’t sound like things have changed, though fear of the “down low” is gaining traction. :-P)

    I agree that “independent/don’t need a man” is the last description I would apply to college-educated Black women, though I find a good number of college women of all races to be a bit too “thirsty” for my liking. It seems like the “marriage crisis” has been affecting all races of women, but especially Black and White ones (probably because those are the two groups I’m around the most).

    Like


  420. Basically, what I’ve gotten from this convo and from real life that men are just as confused, mixed-up and manipulative as women are in the dating/mating/sexxing arena. Time to stop this “men are simple, logical creatures and women are emotional and utterly unintelligent and irrational (unless they go along with whatever men do and then they’re wise sages and sl*ts). Men pull just as much bullsh*t as women to get what they want, and it’s not because women somehow have forced their hands.

    Yet another reason you could not PAY me (pun intended Taddie) to be back into the dating scene ever again. I dealt with that mess once before. Never again.

    Like


  421. Thad,

    I don’t like double standards any more than you do, but I don’t get why you fail to understand (or pretend) why women discuss men who don’t want to commit. It doesn’t mean ALL women want from a man is a commitment, and it doesn’t mean women who do do that because they want to manipulate.

    Not all women in all periods of their lives seek a man who is going to commit to them. There are women who are able to enjoy sex outside monogamous relationship. But news flash, Thad: it’s not a problem for women- we can get that whenever we want. There’s no need for us to “whine” about men not wanting to give us casual sex, because- unlike them- we can have it with no problem. So of course the only thing we want to discuss is the thing we have a problem with: why do men don’t want to commit to us?

    Similarly, men generally have less of a problem finding a woman who is ready to commit to them. So they whine less about it (not because they are not interested in long term relationships, but because it’s less of a problem for them to get it). On the other hand, a bigger problem for them is to get casual sex, so that’s what they whine about all the time.

    Also, this creates a false image for everybody: men think all women want is a long-term commitment, while women think all men want is casual sex.

    *Now, I know this is simplified view. Double standards DO make a big impact and effect both men and women. So yes, they do make women seek at least basic level of commitment more than casual sex, and men seek casual sex more than commitment.

    But it doesn’t mean women dislike sex or that men don’t need emotional attachment. However, double standards make them both repress their wishes and needs. I’ve seen many women who can’t cope with abstinence. I’ve seen many men who more or less ruin their lives by pretending they like their womanizer lifestyle. But that’s society’s fault. The moment women start getting high five for having casual sex, and men praised for wanting emotional attachment, things would be much different (and more balanced, IMO). Until then, it is how it is.

    Like


  422. @Witchsistah
    Basically, what I’ve gotten from this convo and from real life that men are just as confused, mixed-up and manipulative as women are in the dating/mating/sexxing arena.

    Oh, no doubt. But it surprises me that this is apparently news to you.

    What I see a lot in my work is the “all women are whores” syndrome. And this is from guys who would probably be classified as “nice guys” and “honorable, worthwhile men” by people like Linda and SWW.

    What happens is that these “good boys” buy into the gender role society has laid out for them. They believe that it’s their job in life, as men, to make a lot of money to raise a family on. They’re taught by Mom, Dad and the media that women react positively to cash and class status and they are right: plenty of women, perhaps the majority, do. they are not spending their college days looking for a wife, but on building their career.

    So they spend their twenties and thirties concentrating on their career and using cash, cars and whatnot as chick bait. And they do indeed get female attention… but what kind of woman is attracted to cash, cars and career? Precisely the kind of woman who sees a relationship with such a man as, uhm, a good career move, shall we say.

    So by the time they hit their late thirties, these guys have typically been in a series of bad relationships and maybe even a few marriages where they got financially taken to the cleaners. They have been surrounded by women who see them as success symbols and unemployment insurance and they are thus very, very, very jaded about the whole deal.

    At this point, many of these guys start convincing themselves that the problem is with AMERICAN women and they should be looking overseas for a wife who they think will be “less grasping and materialistic” (because women here in the so-called third world are supposedly so much more natural and uncomplicated, as well as being uncontaminated by the dilemas of post-feminist capitalism). So we end up seeing them here Rio, generally down on Copacabana in the arms of prostitutes and that class of female who we label “gringo chasers”. Where most of them get taken to the cleaners, yet again.

    Jewel Wood’s “Don’t Blame it on Rio” shows this dynamic as it applies to specifically black and middle class American men.

    Think about it: that “harem” situation at the HBCUs wouldn’t develop unless you had thousands of young women who feel that a relationship with a certain kind of guy – a middleclass guy with a college education and a promising career – was an de riguer part of the female experience, a necessary “possession” which one acquires on one’s rise to adulthood along with one’s degree.

    Nothing’s preventing those women from dating outside the HBCU scene and if they wind up as just one more number in a classmate’s black book, it’s at least partially due to the fact that they are obsessed with landing what Jewel calls a “mantel man”: the kind of upstanding, financially successful, handsome young brother that they can stick on a fireplace mantel and show off to their friends and family as a “really good catch”.

    This is at least how Jewel’s informants – most of them middle class black American men and many of them graduates from HBCUs – describe the situation.

    So what do we have here?

    A woman plays games to manipulate men because she sees men as success objects. Her desire to land “a keeper” thus puts her in the position where she can be played by men who look at women as sex objects.

    This is why these dating “rules” and gender “laws” that “everyone knows are true” and which you claim women need to employ in order to keep themselves “emotionally safe” actually end up screwing women over, more often than not.

    If women were just worried about getting a career in college and looked at dating/sex as men do, as something to enjoy on its own merits and not as a step to a perfect, Cinderella-style middle-class American dream existence, that “harem” situation would never develop.

    It ends up being a bad situation for men, too, because these guys end up in their late thirties thoroughly convinced that all women are wh.ores and out for only one thing: to leach off of them.

    And why shouldn’t they feel that way? It has been their life experience with women, after all. It just makes for some spectacularly unhappy males when they go on into their 40s.

    And this is what is ironic and sad: instead of being the “who.remongering sleazebags” that people like Linda and SWW often imagine them to be, these guys are more often than not yesterday’s “good boys” who have played the dating game exactly by the rules, as they were taught (often by their mothers, no less), and have found out that under those rules, they are simply a fashion accessory to many, many women. They thus end up saying “Hell, men always have to pay for sex anyhow, so if I’m going to do it I might as well pay for a woman who’s at least honest about why she’s with me”.

    I have heard this time and again coming out of the mouths of men who Linda would probably consider to be “really good, honorable and worthwhile guys”.

    Time to stop this “men are simple, logical creatures and women are emotional and utterly unintelligent and irrational (unless they go along with whatever men do and then they’re wise sages and sl*ts). Men pull just as much bullsh*t as women to get what they want, and it’s not because women somehow have forced their hands.

    Quite.

    It’s a gender SYSTEM and both sides are maintaining it. And, as far as I can see, it’s making both sides spectacularly unhappy.

    This is why I am dismissive of the idea that adult sexuality somehow involves nice little rules and guidelines designed to get you what you want. All this talk about “honor”, “respect”, “sluts” and whatnot boils down to a very toxic belief in the idea that humanity can be divided into good boys/girls and bad boys/girls based on how people conduct their sexual lives.

    Yet another reason you could not PAY me (pun intended Taddie) to be back into the dating scene ever again. I dealt with that mess once before. Never again.

    Yep.

    Like


  423. @Mira
    I don’t like double standards any more than you do, but I don’t get why you fail to understand (or pretend) why women discuss men who don’t want to commit.

    Where did I say In didn’t understand why women do this, Mira? I understand full well why they do this, given the rules of the gender system so many of them are committed to.

    My point isn’t that this is a mystery: my point is that it’s rather like standing in the rain and complaining that one is wet.

    These women, in many cases, are making spectacularly bad decisions on who they should date because they see men as success objects: as an acessory that needs must complement their life. Women who are fed on a cultural diet of princess stories end up believing that they needs must marry a prince. Then, when every woman out there is going after the very small pool of men who appear to be princes, they wonder why these guys “never commit”. Well why should they, if half the women in the world are throwing themselves at them?

    The secret isn’t to look for a prince: it is to look for a cute and presentable frog. Or, alternatively, to just live your life the way these guys do and stop seeing relationships as analogous to a life-changing career decision.

    Women should probably see men MORE as sex objects and less as success objects and lifestyle enhancing accessories. It would probably make more women happier to do this.

    I mean, everyone of my 30+ PhD-qualified friends is surrounded by single guys, but every one of them sthinks that they are solitary woman in a sea of married men. There’s only one possible explanation for this: they aren’t looking at the single men who really DO exist because they are seeking an ideal that doesn’t, or is at least very rare.

    Like


  424. Thad said@
    This is why people like Lina and SWW/Blackgenius feel that, as good upstanding women, they have the right to condemn other women as slu.ts. They complain about MEN doing this, but they apparently wholeheartedly believe that there are good girls and bad girls and bad girls get what they deserve.

    Agreed. But Linda doesn’t seem to be talking about “discretion” to me: Linda seems to be talking about how to best get a guy emotionally involved in a relationship.

    Linda is saying AGAIN: Thaddeus

    My words are clear and everyone else but you has understood what I was talking about…The topic I was discussing was about:

    “How WOMEN need to be honest with themselves about the type of “relationship” they are having with a man before they become physically and emotionally attached…..

    Why is it so hard for you to get that….

    You are the person that began the disrespect with your insults and when I asked you stop, you continued….

    stop trying to rationalize and link me to topics I DID NOT SPEAK ABOUT …. YOU are the one who (for whatever reason) introduced the word “slut” when you answered my original post–and now you’re trying to introduce the concept of “good / bad” girl….leave my name out of this…

    You and I never had a discussion on my THOUGHTs on “what made a woman into a slut” or “strategies of how to catch a man”….you continuously project your thoughts onto me…..STOP linking my name to topics I did not discuss with you….you and I WERE NEVER discussing the same things…

    Abagond,
    what are your rules on someone continuously twisting and misrepresenting another persons post?

    Like


  425. And this is why I don’t buy the “it’s society’s fault and there’s nothing I can do to break out of it” argument, Mira…

    I have many gay and lesbian friends. Every one of these was forced at one point in their lives to look at what made them happy and realize that they were going to get condemned for that by the vast majority of folks around them.

    And knowing that, knowing full well that they were going to be subjected to pressures, threats and dangers that make heterosexual women’s fears of being called a “slut” pale by comparison… Knowing that perhaps even their families would reject them, these people went out and began the sort of sexual lives that MAKE THEM HAPPY.

    All in spite of what “society’s rules” have to say about it.

    Given their stories and the high price than many of them have paid for that happiness, I have very little patience with, say, women who feel threatened by being called a “slut” or men who feel threatened by having their manliness called into question.

    I think we should see these gay and lesbian women as trailblazers who are charting a better sexual and relationship future FOR US ALL and I think we should follow their lead. If they can do what they are doing, heterosexuals have no cause to complain about “society” and how it constrains us.

    Like


  426. ^…gay and lesbian men and women…

    Like


  427. @Linda
    “How WOMEN need to be honest with themselves about the type of “relationship” they are having with a man before they become physically and emotionally attached…..

    Yes, that is indeed ONE of the things you are saying and I fully understand that.

    It’s the stated and unstated presumptions of your position which bother me, Linda. The idea that an “attached relationship” is the “natural” goal a woman should strive for… That a woman who is having a relationship with a guy who isn’t monogamous is somehow being “played” or taken advantage of… That there are good girls/boys and bad girls/boys and we can judge these kinds of people based on their sexual arrangements… That “respecting” a woman means committing to her in a monogamous relationship and that to not do this is to somehow “not see the woman as a true person but as a sexual pbject who only exists for men’s pleasure”.

    You have some extremely conservative ideas about love and sex that I disagree with Linda, not because I’m a radical or what have you but because these ideas generally don’t work: if followed, they generally don’t make happier couples and happier women.

    I believe that women should take a cue from men in their dating, especially during their college years, and date/have sex as and because it pleases them. Period. I don’t think the whole worrying about relationship things helps women at all. And, given this, I don’t agree with your original statement that not having sex early in a relationship is somehow a good way to judge whether or not a man really “respects” you.

    I fully understand what you are saying, Linda: I just don’t agree with much of it. Most emphatically I don’t.

    Like


  428. Thaddeus says@

    “It’s the stated and unstated presumptions of your position which bother me, Linda.”

    “You have some extremely conservative ideas about love and sex that I disagree with Linda”…

    Linda says@

    You hit the nail on the head, Thad, it’s the fact that you are making Assumptions about “unstated presumptions” that I NEVER voiced…so, How do you know what my ideas are about love or sex? you have no idea if I am conservative or not, you and I never discussed those issue….

    Through out your previous posts, you continuously project your own answers onto unstated concepts I never discussed with you….

    Thaddeus says@
    “The idea that an “attached relationship” is the “natural” goal a woman should strive for… That a woman who is having a relationship with a guy who isn’t monogamous is somehow being “played” or taken advantage of…”

    Linda says@
    No, you really don’t understand me or what I am saying, Thad… your above statement is a classic example of how you have been projecting your rationalizations onto me…about issues that I’ve never discussed…

    Like I said to you in a previous post, if you would like to have a discussion with me on the issues that I stated, then please stick to my topic and stop veering off onto other pathways

    If you would like to discuss a brand new topic, such as the issues you keep attaching my name to, then… ASK me what I think, stop telling me what you think I think…

    Like


  429. And let’s be clear where I’m getting these ideas about your position from, Linda: your own words.

    You have made it quite clear, above, that you think a “hook up” is somehow “the woman getting played”. I mean look at this:

    If the man only calls you when he wants sex or he hangs out with his friends after work and gets to your house about midnight–then you are not a girlfriend, you are a hookup…

    I have girlfriends who think that this scenario is called a relationship….

    ..and you are so right, most of my single girlfriends are college educated women who pamper themselves well and have great careers…looking at them, you would never know just how much they allow themselves to be played…

    For sure, I agree….that’s what I meant about being seen as a person and not an object…in a “hook-up”, it’s all about him (exception to every rule)…he is not worried about what you want…whether it’s sex or anything else.

    There’s exactly zero give in those positions, Linda. As far as I can see, you think that a man’s either in a committed relationship or that he’s “not worried about what you want” and “not seeing you as a person”.

    I do not think that it’s an exageration, at all, to say that you think casual sex somehow benefits men and leads to women being “played”. The idea that a man can be concerned, attentive and caring about a person, have sex with them and yet STILL not want a committed relationship with them, seems to you to be an option that just doesn’t exist.

    As for “good/bad girls and boys”, this is to me implicit in this whole idea that men are either cads who are completely out for their own pleasure or “romantics” who “respect” women by getting involved in monogamous relationships with them. So far, these are the only two kinds of guys that you have talked about and it’s you who set them off against one another in your posts, not me.

    Now, I’ve said several times above that this is what I’m getting out of your posts. You’ve complained that this is not so, that this is not what you’re saying. So I’ve asked you a couple of times, then, to clarify what it is that you feel I’m not getting. I even suggested we go one bit at a time to see where we’re miscommunicating.

    When I did THAT, however, you launched into a big diatribe about how you weren’t going to speak to or about me and then joined the proxie sisters in a game of virtual “whack-a-mole” at my expense.

    If you want to DISCUSS things, cool. I freely admit that maybe I’m not getting your point and would happily hear you explain it. So far, however, everytime I say this, you’ve simply flown off the handle and claim that you refuse to discuss things, only to come back later and complain some more about how I’m supposedly not understanding your position.

    Linda, if you’re going to post, people are going to take you at your word. When you continuously make claims to the effect that women who are having casual sex with men are being used and played by men who don’t respect them, but that if women wait to have sex they’ll see if men really respect them or not… Yes, you are indeed making some very conservative and in my opinion incorrect claims about human sexuality.

    Your point seems to be that I must AGREE with your claims or that I have no right at all to discuss them.

    As I have said several times before, if you think I’m not correctly describing your position, then please tell me where I’m getting it wrong.

    Like


  430. How do you know what my ideas are about love or sex?

    Because you post about them, above. You’ve several times set committed, monogamous relationships off against “hook ups” where women are supposedly “played”. You believe that less sex early on apparently leads to more commitment later on. You think that men who are interested in casual sex needs must be treating their sexual partners as feelingless objects.

    These are pretty conservative positions, Linda, and you’ve expressed them above.

    Furthermore, there’s an implicit understanding in your posts that a dual morality is involved sex for men and women, with men “playing” women who apparently are innocently taken in by these shenanigans.

    Like


  431. Thad,

    As you well know men (in this whole post, I’m talking about heterosexual men) treat women as sex objects. And that goes way beyond whom they choose to stick their dyck into for 3minutes to a whole night. Men treat women they don’t want to fukk as invisible, as non-people, as socially dead. Ask any woman in America who is deemed unattractive for whatever reason. H*ll, many BW bloggers have talked about this at length. We’ve talked about it here regarding Black women’s beauty. If a man doesn’t think a woman is attractive, she effectively doesn’t exist to him. That manifests itself in a sea of jacked-up behaviors towards women.

    Like your men, by the time women are in their 30s-40s, we’re jaded too. If we’re the women men do find attractive, we’ve had to deal with damn near every kind of Tom, Dick and Harry trying to get in our pants (usually from a very young age too). If we’re the kind men don’t, we’ve had to deal with men’s utter callousness towards us. And for the former, it seems that everything dealing with women involves sex for men. EVERYTHING, and that men are narcissistic as hell. You hear many older women talking about how dealing with men is like dealing with children. There’s a reason for that.

    Many women I know get into relationships with others (men or women) for some sort of emotional sharing/bonding. Many women I know get involved with men not for their wallets but to share their hearts. Do you know how effin’ HARD that is to get from men? It’s like pulling wisdom teeth with a pair of stripped plyers. Women want to have a rich emotional life in their relationships, not just have someone there to pay bills and sex them on the regular like so many men WANT to think. But mostly, what we get is some variation of hungry, horny, angry or sleepy. And it seems that the only way men know how to express any affection is via sex. I dated some men I knew I couldn’t even TOUCH affectionately unless I wanted to have sex with them right then. That’s how they interpreted any affection I showed them.

    Then there is men’s behavior in these relationships which you’ve discussed at length here. Women can’t even take a committment for granted with men. We’ve always got to be on the lookout for signs of men cheating on us. No way we can just TRUST our partners. And the thing is, women are taught that if men cheat, it’s always somehow our fault. Bunk that. People cheat because they want to. If you’re not happy with your relationship, you should 1) tell your partner to give them a chance to help you remedy the situation and/or 2) leave said relationship. If your study subjects feel that cr*ppy about their relationships they should leave them. And forget about “she’ll clean me out if I do.” Let THEM show some of that “intestinal fortitude” you want women to show.

    In my early 30s, when I was deciding whether or not I should even be bothered with men and sex ever again (and I was seriously considering that), I realized why women became golddiggers and used men for money. Men don’t even notice you as a human being unless they want to fukk you. Even then, you can’t build an emotional relationship with a man because they’re either emotionally stunted or bottled up and won’t be vulnerable. And you can’t count on them even to be faithful (and don’t dare to get old or lose your figure even if it’s due to birthing, suckling and nurturing HIS kids. You’ll find out you’re utterly replaceable). So outside of bearing children and some easy sex, what reason IS there for a straight woman even to be bothered with men?

    Men can’t expect for women to treat them as total human beings while they continue to treat women as interchangeable p*ssy dispensers.

    I’m saying all of this, not because you don’t know but just to say that women have our legitimate and valid complaints about men as well even though they’re treated as insignificant whining by many men.

    Like


  432. Thad@
    “Your point seems to be that I must AGREE with your claims or that I have no right at all to discuss them.”

    Linda says:

    No, Thad, I don’t care if you agree or disagree, I don’t need your approval…what I would like is for you to stop projecting your rationals on issues / things I didn’t say…

    Lets start with this sentence you highlighted:

    Thaddeus wrote:
    “You have made it quite clear, above, that you think a “hook up” is somehow “the woman getting played”. I mean look at this:

    If the man only calls you when he wants sex or he hangs out with his friends after work and gets to your house about midnight–then you are not a girlfriend, you are a hookup…

    I have girlfriends who think that this scenario is called a relationship….”

    Linda@

    Please clarify for me, Thad, where I indicated that a woman is being played by a man if she is considered “hook-up”…

    Like


  433. Oh, and Thad,

    I had pretty much figured out that men were just as fukked up as women when it came to dating/mating despite their protests to the contrary. It was one of the main reasons I was considering just chucking the whole men and sex business when I was in my early 30s.

    Your posts just reconfirmed what I had always figured (and why I stay saying that I am currently fukking the last man I’m ever gonna in this life no matter HOW this marriage turns out).

    Like


  434. Thad@
    “Furthermore, there’s an implicit understanding in your posts that a dual morality is involved sex for men and women, with men “playing” women who apparently are innocently taken in by these shenanigans.”

    Linda says:
    Once again, Thad, implicit is the word that stands out for me–another unstated presumption / assumption on your part.

    please clarify when you and I discussed the issue of dual morality?…I don’t remember discussing my personal thoughts on morality between men and woman, much less women being played because of morality.

    Like


  435. Thaddeus says:

    “How do you know what my ideas are about love or sex?

    Because you post about them, above. You’ve several times set committed, monogamous relationships off against “hook ups” where women are supposedly “played”.

    Linda says,

    No,Thad, I didn’t give you any indications on my thoughts about those issues…you have been discussing it with other posters, but not with me….this would be a new topic for me to discuss…

    so Like I said, you would need to ask me what I think about monogamous relationships versus “hook-ups”

    Like


  436. Thad says:
    “When you continuously make claims to the effect that women who are having casual sex with men are being used and played by men who don’t respect them, but that if women wait to have sex they’ll see if men really respect them or not…”

    NO Thad, never made that claim either….

    You say that you are willing to listen…if that’s true, then I will make the effort to discuss my thoughts with you, but I ask that you stop projecting rationales on “unspoken” statements…..I am not being secretive with my words…I am saying what I mean in plain English….

    Like


  437. Your posts just reconfirmed what I had always figured (and why I stay saying that I am currently fukking the last man I’m ever gonna in this life no matter HOW this marriage turns out).

    Well, when I look at mys students I see some reason for cautious hope.

    Most men in my generation here in Brazil, for example, lost their virginity to a maid or a prostitute. Back when I was 16 year, the dual moral standard regarding sex was very, very strong.

    Today, when I talk to my students about what life was like just 25 years ago, they can’t believe it. Prostitution just isn’t part of their lives, for the most part. The boys and girls are having sex and are mostly doing so responsibly. As the girls get more sexual autonomy, the dual standard weakens and things get better.

    But with regards to my life, if I were to lose Ana, I seriously don’t think I’d have the emotional wherewithall to go look for someone else.

    Like


  438. Once again, Thad, implicit is the word that stands out for me–another unstated presumption / assumption on your part.

    Linda, if someone says “I’m a devout Baptist and go to church every Sunday”, it’s a reasonable presumption to think they believe in God, whether or not they specifically state that. It may be an incorrect presumption, but it’s a reasonable one.

    In the same way, it’s quite reasonable to presume that a woman believes in a dual sexual morality if she repeatedly describes men as if they were in some sort of antagonistic relationship to women (“playing” them and “out for themselves” and “not respecting women” when they’re interested in sex) and continuously describes women as sexually and emotionally victimized by men.

    Our discussion here is sort of like you claiming to be a devout Baptist and me saying “Well, Linda believes in God”. Then you say “I never said I believe in God! Quit putting words in my mouth!” To which I respond with “Okay…. But doesn’t being a devout Baptists imply belief in God?” And then you finish up with “I refuse to discuss my beliefs with you because you’re putting words in my mouth!!!” 😀

    Regarding “hook ups”, I quoted your words on this matter above. You were quite clear on the idea that these somehow supposedly involve men seeing women as objects and not people. Here’s ther exact quote again:

    For sure, I agree….that’s what I meant about being seen as a person and not an object…in a “hook-up”, it’s all about him (exception to every rule)…he is not worried about what you want…whether it’s sex or anything else.

    So yes indeed, I do have reason to believe what I’ve said about your views on this: you’ve quite clearly expressed them.

    NO Thad, never made that claim either….

    Sorry, yes you have. The direct quotes are above. Now, if you don’t believe that, then tell me what you think. Don’t complain that I’m taking unnatural liberties with your views because I’m going on what you have SAID. If you think that those words of yours don’t adequately express what you mean, exand on them, by all means.

    For someone who complains that she should be asked about her opinion, you are curiously unwilling to give it. I’m thus going on what you have said so far. That’s not “unwarranted presumption”, Linda: that’s taking you at your word.

    Like


  439. Interesting map on Laura Augustin’s blog, by the way: the Land of Human Sexuality.

    http://networkedblogs.com/8l80W

    Like


  440. Thad, you’ve done it again, how did you form the “unwarranted presumption” that I believe women involved in “hook-ups” are being “played”….

    Once again, Thad, below is my previous quote (unbotched by you)

    Linda said@
    I am not saying women shouldn’t have sex…just that women should be honest about what kind of relationship she is having with that particular man before she gets emotionally attached…

    If the man only calls you when he wants sex or he hangs out with his friends after work and gets to your house about midnight–then you are not a girlfriend, you are a hookup…

    I have girlfriends who think that this scenario is called a relationship…”

    and because my girlfriends place expectations on these hookups–they get hurt when their expectations are not realized….

    Linda says,

    I am discussing how Women place expectations on relationships without knowing if the man feels the same way,…and how they become hurt because they built pies in sky

    I am advocating that women should not place expectations on a relationship in the beginning, go with the flow and make sure the relationship is right for you before the woman gets emotionally involved

    If the woman is in it just for the sex, that’s cool, she knows the type of relationship she is in

    If the woman wishes to have a committed relationship…make sure the man does too…

    I am advocating for women to be honest with themselves…

    Like


  441. I am discussing how Women place expectations on relationships without knowing if the man feels the same way,…and how they become hurt because they built pies in sky.

    Understood.

    I am advocating that women should not place expectations on a relationship in the beginning, go with the flow and make sure the relationship is right for you before the woman gets emotionally involved.

    Understood. Where we disagree is your belief that waiting before engaging in sex somehow allows one to judge whether or not a man respects you.

    If the woman is in it just for the sex, that’s cool, she knows the type of relationship she is in…

    Right. So if this is the case, why the constant claims that women are getting played if they’re involved in a non-monogamous relationship?

    Like


  442. Thad says@
    “Right. So if this is the case, why the constant claims that women are getting played if they’re involved in a non-monogamous relationship?”

    Linda says@

    The only quote I made referring to women being played was this one to Natasha:

    “..and you are so right, most of my single girlfriends are college educated women who pamper themselves well and have great careers…looking at them, you would never know just how much they allow themselves to be played…”

    so, Thad, please clarify where in my posts I discussed “women are getting played if they’re involved in a non-monogamous relationship”

    Like


  443. Thad@
    “Understood. Where we disagree is your belief that waiting before engaging in sex somehow allows one to judge whether or not a man respects you.”

    Linda response:
    That’s cool…we can respectfully agree to “Disagree”…

    Like


  444. Thad,

    If you want to be completely honest with yourself, you must admit you sometimes (to say the least) interpret other people’s words in ways that suit a point you’re trying to make.

    I don’t know what Linda’s opinions are on good girls/bad girls et cetera, but a good deal of what you’re claiming to be her opinions are your interpretations, interpretations that you often make without much of a proof in people’s actual words. You do that to prove a point or discuss something you’re interested in, but that doesn’t mean you are allowed to assume things about people.

    I get it: you want to discuss women who, due to double sexual standards, think promiscuous women are garbage. I get it. But the fact somebody (be it Linda or another person) said women should wait with sex IF they want men to respect them is not enough for the full interpretation you made. You ASSUMED that all women who say something like this are the type of women who believe double sexual standards, so you took the liberty of educating Linda and the rest of us of why it’s wrong.

    Similarly, you once started preaching (no pun intended) about Christians rejecting theory of evolution after I declared myself an Orthodox Christian. As if you assumed the fact I’m a believer automatically means I don’t think theory of evolution is true.

    And these are just two examples. I get that you want to prove your points and make people re-examine cultural norms and dogmas, but really, you don’t have to play dr Gregory House in the process. You don’t have to insult people, assume things about their opinions and twist their words in order to prove your points.

    (Sorry if this was completely ad-hominem).

    Like


  445. (I had to back to older posts I missed)

    Thad,

    I’m not so sure I agree with the dogma that men think promiscuous women are garbage. Some do certainly. Most? I dunno.

    My life experience, that of my friends, numerous anecdotal evidence says MOST men think promiscuous women are garbage. But I admit, it’s just anecdotal evidence. Plus, it applies only to younger men of my culture, so maybe it’s not representative. But what numerous women from other cultures claim, their experience tend to be similar.

    The problem comes when people like Linda presume that making the guy wait means that he’s going to see her as more of a person.

    Like it or not, Thad, it’s often the case. Because waiting to have sex is a cultural code for being respectable. Now, whether I think that a quality and a decent man is the one who thinks like this it’s another matter (I’ll get back to this later)

    Your realize that a good sexual representation is heterosexual privilege, right?
    So by REJECTING that privilege, you’re putting yourself in the same sort of situation that gays and lesbians have to live with daily.

    I understand that is heterosexual privilege, but I disagree that’s the same situation as with gays and lesbians: what they have to live with daily is much WORSE (at least in my culture).
    @King
    I don’t see this as “withholding” because I associate that word with holding back something that would naturally be given.
    Well, that’s the premise I’m opperating under, King: that one would NORMALLY have sex with this person but one doesn’t because one feels that by not doing so, one gains emotional commitment.

    This is something I agree with. Maybe it’s just me, but I do think sex is something that’s “naturally” happening between people. If you don’t have any wish to ever, ever, ever have sex with somebody you don’t date them (at least that’s how I think). I understand not everybody thinks like this so sorry for assuming it.
    Where did I say In didn’t understand why women do this, Mira? I understand full well why they do this, given the rules of the gender system so many of them are committed to.

    I was talking about you not understanding/pretending to not understand that women don’t “whine” about men who don’t want to commit because that’s the only thing women care about, or that it’s the only thing a woman can be interested in. We don’t whine about the lack of casual sex because we can easily get that if we want. MEN are those who whine about it and not about women who want to commit. That doesn’t mean men don’t want to commit.
    PS- Explain, please: what does “John” mean? And “turning tricks”? As in “I and many of my friends have done sex work in the past (though I personally haven’t turned tricks). “

    Like


  446. Ok, now that we (more or less) agreed that many (most?) men don’t respect promiscuous women, I have to ask an important thing: do women need such men?

    What I’m saying is, does any girl need a guy who’d only respect women if she withholds sex? Does any girl or a woman need a guy who doesn’t respect a woman for who she is, but because she isn’t promiscuous? Does any woman need a man who’d think she’s a slut if she has sex with him earlier than social norms allow?

    I say the answer is, actually, pretty obvious: no.

    Character and fairness are more important than success and money. A quality guy is not the one with the most money or diplomas (though diplomas are good), but the one who is able to fully respect women as human beings and don’t buy into social norms. In this case, a guy who is able to respect you as a person even if you don’t follow any “rules” (for example, having sex on a first date if you both feel like it). This is a guy who doesn’t care what others people think and a guy who doesn’t let society, media or his friends to think for him.

    Honestly, I never wanted to be with a man who doesn’t respect me as a person if I don’t “withhold” sex.

    But these men are not easy to be found because they are rare. Luckily, many are single and willing: they often appear honestly clueless about social life, and they don’t know how to present themselves as “quality” males. This is a good sign, because what many women see as a quality man is often just a presentation (it doesn’t mean a man who appears to be quality isn’t- but I do think that being a quality guy and appearing as such don’t always go together).

    Like


  447. @Mira
    If you want to be completely honest with yourself, you must admit you sometimes (to say the least) interpret other people’s words in ways that suit a point you’re trying to make.

    As does everyone here. As do you. The difference between us is that I’m just blunt about it.

    Similarly, you once started preaching (no pun intended) about Christians rejecting theory of evolution after I declared myself an Orthodox Christian.

    ?

    I seriously think you’re mistaking me for someone else there, Mira, or are misremembering the context of the discussion, because I generally do not assume Xtians are pro-creationism and I CERTAINLY don’t assume that about European Christians (Creationism is very much an American evangelical deal). And, frankly, the fact that you’re orthdox Christian is news to me.

    I get that you want to prove your points and make people re-examine cultural norms and dogmas, but really, you don’t have to play dr Gregory House in the process.

    People get insulted if you disagree with them, especially if you say that you consider an idea that they believe in to be silly or stupid. And I haven’t the slightest idea who Dr Gregory House is.

    Ana and I were talking about this last night on Copa and we think that you’re mistaking and accusation for a classificatory category.

    Men will use “slut” as an ad hominem insult against women they dislike, especially if their dislike has something to do with sex. The number of men a woman has slept with really has no bearing on the use of the term: what they guy who is using it is expressing is his contempt for your sexual choices, whatever that may be.

    It’s a bit like the term “f.ag” applied to men. The use of the term has no necessary connection to the sexuality of person being accused: it’s simply an insult and a marker of rejection.

    Most men I’ve talked to do not judge the women they are dating based on how many sexual partners they have had. I think that there are some men out there who are uncomfortable with women who’ve had many partners, but I am not convinced that this is a generic thing based simply on the man’s use of the term ‘slut” as an insult.

    Like it or not, Thad, it’s often the case. Because waiting to have sex is a cultural code for being respectable.

    We’ve gone over this ground before: a guy who believes that DOES NOT respect you or your freedom as an individual, so why would you want to play into his false morality in order to impress him in any case? I mean, if he TRULY thinks women are disposable sluts if they sleep with him right away, WHY would you want to impress such a man with your “respectability” in the first place?

    It’s like a black person saying, “Well, if I don’t act what this white person considers to be ghetto, maybe they’ll appeciate me better as a person.”

    The guy’s a racist, so why would you want him to appreciate you in the first place?

    It makes no logical sense at all, Mira.

    I understand that is heterosexual privilege, but I disagree that’s the same situation as with gays and lesbians: what they have to live with daily is much WORSE (at least in my culture).

    Same SORT of situation, Mira. Same class of problem: lack of sexual respectability. NOT the same exact problem. And yes, it is worse, which kind of puts these worries about heterosexual respectability into perspective, doesn’t it?

    I was talking about you not understanding/pretending to not understand that women don’t “whine” about men who don’t want to commit because that’s the only thing women care about, or that it’s the only thing a woman can be interested in.

    If I thought it was the only thing women can be interested in, Mira, I wouldn’t be so dismissive about it. It’s the fact that it’s an optional behavior which does women no good at all that I find to be silly.

    Explain, please: what does “John” mean? And “turning tricks”? As in “I and many of my friends have done sex work in the past (though I personally haven’t turned tricks).

    “To turn a trick” is to sell a sexual service. A “john” is a prostitute’s client (though I suppose a female client could be called a “jill” or a jane”).

    What I’m saying is, does any girl need a guy who’d only respect women if she withholds sex? Does any girl or a woman need a guy who doesn’t respect a woman for who she is, but because she isn’t promiscuous? Does any woman need a man who’d think she’s a slut if she has sex with him earlier than social norms allow?

    EXACTLY!

    Like


  448. Thad,

    As does everyone here. As do you. The difference between us is that I’m just blunt about it.

    True, everybody does that to an extend, but judging by people’s reactions and angry responses, many disagree with your interpretation of their words (and say you are putting words in their mouth).

    I guess you could say people dislike to hear the truth about their beliefs presented in less beautiful form, but if people constantly say they didn’t mean what you imply… why not believe them? Maybe they really didn’t mean what you’re trying to imply. We can discuss women who think promiscuous girls are garbage without any of the commenters here being that woman.

    I seriously think you’re mistaking me for someone else there, Mira, or are misremembering the context of the discussion, because I generally do not assume Xtians are pro-creationism and I CERTAINLY don’t assume that about European Christians

    It was a while ago, around the time I started posting. To be honest, I don’t think you knew I was European back then (everybody’s American on Internet, remember? 😉 ). Now that you mentioned it, maybe it wasn’t about creationism but about similar thing that in no way applied to me. I’ll try to find it.

    People get insulted if you disagree with them, especially if you say that you consider an idea that they believe in to be silly or stupid. And I haven’t the slightest idea who Dr Gregory House is.

    http://house.wikia.com/wiki/Gregory_House

    Yes, people hate when you disagree with them, and yes, there are people who deliberately misinterpret people’s posts to get offended or to insult. I get that. But I think any disagreement can be done in civilized, respectful manner.

    Men will use “slut” as an ad hominem insult against women they dislike, especially if their dislike has something to do with sex. The number of men a woman has slept with really has no bearing on the use of the term

    I agree that number of partners is usually not important, but overall behavior, dressing style, etc. are (at least in my culture).

    Same SORT of situation, Mira. Same class of problem: lack of sexual respectability. NOT the same exact problem. And yes, it is worse, which kind of puts these worries about heterosexual respectability into perspective, doesn’t it?

    Indeed, it does. I wonder if rejecting heterosexual respectability could be one of the steps a person can make in order to fight homophobia and to reject heterosexual privilege. But I am not sure if it could work or if that’s something non-heterosexuals would like heterosexual allies to do.

    If I thought it was the only thing women can be interested in, Mira, I wouldn’t be so dismissive about it.

    No, I thought YOU thought it was the only thing women here are interested in.

    Like


  449. Witchsistah said:

    Men can’t expect for women to treat them as total human beings while they continue to treat women as interchangeable p*ssy dispensers.

    Wow, that statement is so on point it! I have never understood why I am expected to give a damn and be forthcoming and submissive (both emotionally and physically) to a man that obviously sees me not as a human being but as nothing more than his disposable toy.

    Like


  450. True, everybody does that to an extend, but judging by people’s reactions and angry responses, many disagree with your interpretation of their words (and say you are putting words in their mouth).

    Mira, SWW/Blakgenius takes every possible opportunity to trash on me and it’s NOT because of my opinions: it is because she just needs someone to yell at. And she’s an excellent example of what you’re talking about, given the crap she claims I’ve said which I’ve most manifestly NOT said.

    She came on here yesterday and just started tossing gasoline on a fire and Linda went along with it. Note how quickly things got resolved today without SWW/Blakgenius making jerk-off remarks every five seconds and generally trying to whoop up a virtual lynch mob.

    So no, I’m not particularly impressed with “people’s reactions” when said reactions are being manipulated and potentialized by a troll.

    It was a while ago, around the time I started posting. To be honest, I don’t think you knew I was European back then (everybody’s American on Internet, remember? ).

    Mira, I don’t presume orthodox christians are American and, in any case, I’ve never heard that Orthodox xtians are particularly into creationism. Like Catholics, they don’t have a beef with science. I really think you’re mistaking me for someone else or are forgetting key contextual info there. And this is yet another example of why I don’t take folks’ commentaries on the internet seriously.

    I wonder if rejecting heterosexual respectability could be one of the steps a person can make in order to fight homophobia and to reject heterosexual privilege.

    Yes, it is.

    But I am not sure if it could work or if that’s something non-heterosexuals would like heterosexual allies to do.

    Look into “queer theory”.

    No, I thought YOU thought it was the only thing women here are interested in.

    Assumptions being bad, apparently, only when it’s me making them, huh? 😀

    Like


  451. Men can’t expect for women to treat them as total human beings while they continue to treat women as interchangeable p*ssy dispensers.

    I’m not convinced that men do this any more (or less) than women treat men as success objects or fashion accessories. I do not buy the theory that one of the genders is sorely victimized while the other is made up of evil victimizers when it comes to sexual/affective relations.

    I have never understood why I am expected to give a damn and be forthcoming and submissive (both emotionally and physically) to a man that obviously sees me not as a human being but as nothing more than his disposable toy.

    Who expects you to be such a thing, exactly?

    Like


  452. Assumptions being bad, apparently, only when it’s me making them, huh?

    Got me on this one 😀

    But in my defense, you never said it wasn’t what you meant to say.

    Also, you didn’t know I was Orthodox Christian until about an hour ago. I’ll try to find that post.

    Back on topic, I do think women have a full right to say* “yes” as much as they have a right to say “no”. But this isn’t emphasized enough.

    *or to initiate “yes” 😉

    Like


  453. BlackButterfly,

    If I had a dollar for all the times I’ve had to listen to a man whine about how he couldn’t get a dimepiece when his azz was either old as dirt, overweight, broke and had questionable hygiene, I’d be typing this from my villa on my own private island. Men demand women look attractive by whatever their society’s unattainable standards, look youthful, be intelligent (with degrees to prove it) and make a ton of dough. Meanwhile, they expect said women to love them for their short, old, balding, pudgy, smelly, broke selves.

    You can’t exploit and not expect to get exploited back in some way. As long as men judge women primarily and mostly on how we look (that is how well we titilate their libidos) and treat women accordingly with all the fukkery that emcompasses, men cannot b*tch about women being “golddigging wh*res” or “out for their wallets” or “kockteasing b*tches.”

    Like


  454. Thad,

    “Think about it: that “harem” situation at the HBCUs wouldn’t develop unless you had thousands of young women who feel that a relationship with a certain kind of guy – a middleclass guy with a college education and a promising career – was an de riguer part of the female experience, a necessary “possession” which one acquires on one’s rise to adulthood along with one’s degree.”

    Uhhh…no. Way to be completely off base. The old “she’s a golddigger” argument; whodathunkit?

    They are seeking guys at their college because, well, that’s where they are. People tend to look for dates and relationships in their locale. If they were somewhere else, they’d still be looking for guys, like I pointed out. The situation results because of the skewed gender ratio.

    “This is at least how Jewel’s informants – most of them middle class black American men and many of them graduates from HBCUs – describe the situation.”

    I hope that’s just “Jewel’s” (whoever that is) interpretation and not yours.

    “So what do we have here?”

    Bullsh.t. What else?

    Like


  455. You can’t exploit and not expect to get exploited back in some way. As long as men judge women primarily and mostly on how we look (that is how well we titilate their libidos) and treat women accordingly with all the fukkery that emcompasses, men cannot b*tch about women being “golddigging wh*res” or “out for their wallets” or “kockteasing b*tches.”

    This is true. But I still believe it’s best to stay away from that kind of men. I don’t want to be an exploiter but I demand a man (or people I associate with) to be the same.

    Since I am not a type of a woman who cares about how she looks, avoiding this type of men was relatively easy.

    Like


  456. My previous comment was unclear. I don’t agree that exploitation should be practiced, but demanding reciprocity (in devotion, feelings and support) is a must.

    Like


  457. Thad,

    You came at us with the men’s side. We’re just telling you the women’s side. For all those gringo johns you’ve interviewed with their tales of relationship/sexual woe about all those evil, shallow, golddigging American women, I bet they’ve all snubbed a woman who WOULD have appreciated them because she 1) wasn’t thin enough, 2) didn’t’ have big enough boobs, 3) was too old, 4) was the wrong color (basically didn’t come up to his snuff lookswise), 5) wouldn’t have impressed his friends and family sufficiently. There were women they’ve dogged out as “sluts” for not sleeping with them or for sleeping with them.

    They got with chicks who they thought their particular society would approve of. Those chicks played the game, a game that those dudes wholly participated in due to THEIR Madonna/whore issues (and men have some DEEPLY ENTRENCHED ONES). So why complain now as though they, the men, are the poor, put-upon victims here?

    Just like you are poo-pooing the whole idea of women being “played” as victims, I’m poo-pooing the notion of those poor, unfortunate men being victimized by rapacious, golddigging American women.

    I used to be the chick who listened to those guys whine about all the women who did them wrong, dogged them out, spent all their money, accepted their gifts, cheated on them, left them for other dudes. I saw the chicks they continued to gravitate towards. I also saw the women who were really into them and really good people and would have made really great girlfriends. But when I dared to propose any of those chicks (at times, including myself) you should have seen the looks of shock and horror. There’s no WAY they could go out with HER. They couldn’t be seen out with a FATTY! Their friends/family would never accept them dating a Buh-LACK girl! B-B-But she’s not HAWT!!!!eleventy111

    I told them that they deserved the treatment they were getting since they want to chase the same six b*tches everyone else was and ignore other women because they don’t fit some bs beauty standard (and it was always about what the women looked like) that the guys themselves didn’t fit. I told them never to come to me with their dating woes again and to consider our “platonic friendship” at an end.

    And yes, I give women who are chasing the same six mofos that all the other women are scrambling after the same talk.

    Like


  458. Witchsistah said:

    As long as men judge women primarily and mostly on how we look (that is how well we titilate their libidos) and treat women accordingly with all the fukkery that emcompasses, men cannot b*tch about women being “golddigging wh*res” or “out for their wallets” or “kockteasing b*tches.”

    **Thunderous applause**

    The complete ridiculousness that is that type of male’s brain.

    **BlackButterfly leaves the room laughing hysterically**

    Like


  459. Mira,

    I don’t believe in exploitation in a romantic relationship either. I couldn’t imagine being in a marriage like those seen on the Real Housewives series (especially Orange County). Those are nothing more than business arrangements. Dudes marry those women for their looks (and let them know they’d better maintain them if they don’t want to be replaced, even if that means unnecessary, non-medical surgery) and then provide a lavish lifestyle for their pet women in return. It’s basically a formalized sugar daddy/kept woman relationship. And it seems like it’s more a job than a relationship. I couldn’t stand to be in something like that, knowing that dude is always on the lookout for my replacement so I’d better keep up to snuff. And even THAT may not prevent it, so I better have some kids by him so I can at least get child support out of him WHEN he dumps me for that 110 lbs, 22 year old with the perky, natural Ds.

    Like


  460. But when I dared to propose any of those chicks (at times, including myself) you should have seen the looks of shock and horror.

    Oh, yes! THE look of shock&horror! I know that one. But there’s always a bit of other things… They’re offended, don’t you think? Offended that somebody thought HE (or anybody else for that matter) would go out with her.

    Like


  461. Witchsistah,

    I don’t believe in exploitation in a romantic relationship either.

    I didn’t mean you do. Sorry for not making that clear.

    And while I don’t know anything about Real Housewives series, I recognize the type you’re talking about. I don’t get why some people agree to be in that kind of arrangements…. I mean, relationships.

    Like


  462. Check it out: if men made the cooking shows men wanted to see. “The F%$&able Chefs Network”.

    http://comedy.com/2010/07/02/the-fable-chefs-network/

    “Now that’s what I call a corn-hole!” 😀

    Like


  463. It’s ok… But I liked ninja cat better. 😀

    Like


  464. Men demand women look attractive by whatever their society’s unattainable standards, look youthful, be intelligent (with degrees to prove it) and make a ton of dough. Meanwhile, they expect said women to love them for their short, old, balding, pudgy, smelly, broke selves.

    One of the things that has always amazed me is how “college girls” titilates men but “university educated women” is considered a major c***-block.

    You can’t exploit and not expect to get exploited back in some way. As long as men judge women primarily and mostly on how we look (that is how well we titilate their libidos) and treat women accordingly with all the fukkery that emcompasses, men cannot b*tch about women being “golddigging wh*res” or “out for their wallets” or “kockteasing b*tches.”

    The problem is that the sex/gender system is different from racism: it’s not been started by men. Unless the whole thing goes at once, it will continue reproducing itself. Both genders can excuse their crappy behavior by pointing at the other gender’s crappy behavior.

    The only solution is to just stop playing the game.

    Uhhh…no. Way to be completely off base. The old “she’s a golddigger” argument; whodathunkit?

    C’mon, Natasha. While the “gold-digger” argument may indeed be off base, many, many women do indeed judge men by their perceived economic success or potential. This has been shown six ways from Sunday by many studies. It’s not like this isn’t known.

    So a reasonably presentable young man is getting his MBA or medical degree at a HBCU. How many women do you suppose will be after that brother as opposed to how many will be after some guy getting an English degree… let alone some brother WITHOUT a degree, no matter how nice and presentable and responsible he may be?

    They are seeking guys at their college because, well, that’s where they are. People tend to look for dates and relationships in their locale. If they were somewhere else, they’d still be looking for guys, like I pointed out. The situation results because of the skewed gender ratio.

    Most HBCUs are inserted in larger communities. You can’t tell me that those guys are their only options.

    I hope that’s just “Jewel’s” (whoever that is) interpretation and not yours.

    That’s nobody’s interpretation: that’s how the men Jewel interviewed describe their situation. Now, you could claim that they are two bit lying devils, but why should we necessarily believe women when they talk about the dating scene and not men?

    Frankly, I think both genders buy into a very socially-constructed view of gender that tends to push people into acting in a certain way and which confirms stereotyped perceptions of the other gender. I think those guys are just as right – or not – when they claim that they feel women look at them as cash machines as women are right – or not – when they claim they feel men look at them as sex toys.

    You came at us with the men’s side. We’re just telling you the women’s side.

    No doubt. I think both sides are very convenient to their respective myth-makers, however, and I serious doubts about both.

    They got with chicks who they thought their particular society would approve of. Those chicks played the game, a game that those dudes wholly participated in due to THEIR Madonna/whore issues (and men have some DEEPLY ENTRENCHED ONES). So why complain now as though they, the men, are the poor, put-upon victims here?

    Whose complaining? I’m reporting.

    And with regards to madonna/whore issues, those are deeply engrained in general in society. They certainly aren’t a male specialty.

    Just like you are poo-pooing the whole idea of women being “played” as victims, I’m poo-pooing the notion of those poor, unfortunate men being victimized by rapacious, golddigging American women.

    As well you should. There’s myth-making going on on both sides. The TRAGEDY of it is that these attitudes are brought about via the NORMAL operation of sexual mores and expectations, as I described above.

    Soo yeah, both women who are terrified that they “won’t catch a man” unless she follows some rulebook and men who think “all women are essentially wh.ores” are ultimately playing themselves.

    Now here’s what I find odd, Witch. You say…
    There’s no WAY they could go out with HER. They couldn’t be seen out with a FATTY!

    So it’s a horrible thing to you that men judge women by their appearances. And yet above, you say…

    If I had a dollar for all the times I’ve had to listen to a man whine about how he couldn’t get a dimepiece when his azz was either old as dirt, overweight, broke and had questionable hygiene, I’d be typing this from my villa on my own private island.

    You, apparently, wouldn’t date a fatty, but you claim that men who won’t are losing out?

    I told them that they deserved the treatment they were getting since they want to chase the same six b*tches everyone else was and ignore other women because they don’t fit some bs beauty standard (and it was always about what the women looked like) that the guys themselves didn’t fit.

    Well, if men are all chasing the same six women, how does this “harem” situation come about then?

    Seems to me, actually, that men are way less selective, on average, about whom they have sex with than women and this is something that causes a lot of conflicts.

    I look at the gay scene here in Rio, for example. For all the fetishization that gay men do of the Body Beautiful, my chubby and out-of-shape gay friends don’t seem to have much trouble getting sex.

    Like


  465. @Mira

    What I thought funny is their acknowledgement that both gay and straight guys have the same basic sexual inclinations.

    “Gunther’s Meat Locker”, indeed!

    Like


  466. Thad,

    “…So a reasonably presentable young man is getting his MBA or medical degree at a HBCU. How many women do you suppose will be after that brother as opposed to how many will be after some guy getting an English degree… let alone some brother WITHOUT a degree, no matter how nice and presentable and responsible he may be?”

    No one was checking what a guy was majoring in (anyway, people changed majors like they changed underwear, so that wouldn’t be helpful). All they knew was that he was a black guy in college (are you going to say they are “golddiggers” for wanting a guy in college, like they are?). And he was available. Maybe you missed the 3 to 1 ratio part; women could not afford to be very picky if they wanted to date. End of.

    “Most HBCUs are inserted in larger communities. You can’t tell me that those guys are their only options.”

    They weren’t there only options, but they wanted a black guy (Ask me why… that’s a long story). And there are only so many black guys to go around; definitely not many in the area, which was majority white.

    Like


  467. So basically…this is all about privilege. [Some] Men want a society completely tailored to the needs of their egos, and are “shocked” and frustrated when women do not co-sign.

    Like


  468. You, apparently, wouldn’t date a fatty, but you claim that men who won’t are losing out?

    Didn’t say shyt about who I would and would not date. I wouldn’t date anyone now because I’m married and I’ve had it with dating period. That’s your twisting people’s words and projecting again.

    My point was that the men in question were looking for perfection when they were far from perfect themselves. Ol’ girl had better be perfect while all they felt they needed to do was show up with a dyck that needed servicing.

    Like


  469. So basically…this is all about privilege. [Some] Men want a society completely tailored to the needs of their egos, and are “shocked” and frustrated when women do not co-sign.

    Pretty much. And don’t forget appalled by the injustice of it all.

    Like


  470. And Thad,

    I wasn’t discussing the “harem phenomena” at HBCUs. I was discussing what was told to me by men I knew, mostly at a very pre-dom White university.

    Like


  471. Oh, and Thad,

    You also decided to omit the part where I presented myself as a possible alternative to them “Chasing Amy” and the reaction I got.

    Try reading what folks actually WRITE instead of twisting it to your own agenda.

    Like


  472. Natasha,

    No one was checking what a guy was majoring in (anyway, people changed majors like they changed underwear, so that wouldn’t be helpful). All they knew was that he was a black guy in college (are you going to say they are “golddiggers” for wanting a guy in college, like they are?).

    “Golddiggers” is your term, not mine. But yeah, I think we’ve been over this a couple of times already: women are socialized to look for guys who are their status or higher. Guys are socialized to not care. So that means if you are a pretty high-status woman and you limit yourself to people who are only your status or higher, then yes, you’re going to find a bottleneck.

    As for “no one checking what a guy was majoring in”, that may be the case, but I seriously do not believe that these women’s class/status radar wasn’t fully turned on and working.

    As for HBCUs, you’re seriously telling me that places like Spellman and Howard don’t have a larger black community around them? If it’s a problem at HBCUs in general, that is, and not just in some specific ones.

    Like


  473. @Witch

    Didn’t say shyt about who I would and would not date. I wouldn’t date anyone now because I’m married and I’ve had it with dating period. That’s your twisting people’s words and projecting again.

    I’m using “you” in the generic sense, Witch, not as in referring to you specifically. But let me rephrase that then:

    You think it’s acceptable for women to reject a guy as a potential partner because he’s too fat but when men do this they are being unreasonable?

    My point was that the men in question were looking for perfection when they were far from perfect themselves.

    OK. And yet if women are deciding in HBCUs that they’ll only date college men, isn’t that also an indication that they’ve got an agenda?

    I wasn’t discussing the “harem phenomena” at HBCUs. I was discussing what was told to me by men I knew, mostly at a very pre-dom White university.

    Yeah, and you think those white co-eds were dating guys who weren’t in college? While they may have had a larger selection than women at HBCU’s, the same overall dynamic prevails: “I will only date men of my class or higher”. That’s pretty common behavior for women in general.

    You also decided to omit the part where I presented myself as a possible alternative to them “Chasing Amy” and the reaction I got.

    No, I got that.

    But men snub women for not fitting some porn-star model and women snub men for not being as successful as they are. Both genders are doing snubbing here. I really don’t see EITHER as being the great victimizers.

    Like


  474. Thad, cool, whatever. I know the situation, you don’t. Agree to disagree.

    Like


  475. @ Natasha W

    Exactly. Its easier for me to date my classmates, than it is for me to go out in the town and look for someone. Yes, college education is important to some women but lets not forget the proximity is the biggest indicator of whether or not people will get together.

    What I find interesting about this “Jewel” and the black men she interviewed is this; If these men are annoyed that HBCU black women are trying to get at then because they are some type of “trophy” what sense does it make to go to Rio(or other “3rd-world” locales) to look for women that will elevate them to GOD status because they are Americans? The attention they get from BW in America will be matched if not exceeded when they travel to places like Rio.

    Am I right or wrong here?

    Like


  476. Guys are socialized to not care.

    Guys are socialized to judge women based on how we look. Are you advising men to stop doing that as well as stop treating women like p*ssy dispensers? Or is all the advise just for us womenfolk?

    Like


  477. Or is all the advice just for us womenfolk?

    Like


  478. Its easier for me to date my classmates, than it is for me to go out in the town and look for someone.

    Funny how it doesn’t seem to be much of a difficulty for men, though.

    Jewel, by the way, is a guy. A PhD candidate in social work who’s specific research focus is gender relations among African Americans.

    If these men are annoyed that HBCU black women are trying to get at then because they are some type of “trophy” what sense does it make to go to Rio(or other “3rd-world” locales) to look for women that will elevate them to GOD status because they are Americans?

    Well, that’s precisely what Jewel was trying to discover: why do they do this?

    One thing which is a myth, however: no one treats these guys like gods because they are Americans. The “natives” are not that impressed with the color of your passport. Some women WILL, however, play on the American belief that folks in the third world should be falling all over themselves in the face of superior Americaness. Fools who tend to believe that tend to get played by the women they see as so “unspoiled and innocent”.

    This sort of thing isn’t a male specialty, however: I suggest you take a look at what happened to the author of “How Stella Got Her Groove Back”. Americans of both sexes tend to exoticize the foreign Other when it comes to sex.

    My problem with this ideology, by the way is precisely this: both American men and women somehow seem to think that post-modern, post-feminist gender issues somehow stop at the country’s border. It’s a foolish belief, to be sure, but a very, very common one.

    Like


  479. @Witch
    Guys are socialized to judge women based on how we look. Are you advising men to stop doing that as well as stop treating women like p*ssy dispensers? Or is all the advise just for us womenfolk?

    What part of “both sexes need to stop playing this game” did you not understand, Witch?

    Like


  480. The part where you keep waving away women’s complaints and focusing on the poor, put-upon men.

    I’ve said all I’m going to say on this subject. Yet again, you think you’re the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong unless they agree with you.

    I’m simply saying, you can’t be an exploiter and not expected to get exploited yourself. We all want the universe to cater to our individual needs. We all want humanity to go along with us. It ain’t never gonna happen for either sex or for any individual. You don’t have much sympathy for women, and I don’t have much sympathy for the men who basically hate women for trying to adapt to a patriarchal system.

    Like


  481. @Thaddeus

    Right, I should have clarified. A lot of these “innocent” women and “worshipers” arent that at all. They are just women that know how to play the game. The arent dumb and they know the MO of these naive Americans that believe a blue passport will give them access to these “innocent”, “exotic”, “family orientated”, [insert fetishized notion of foreign women] women they seek..

    Like


  482. @Witchsistah

    Exactly, I dont get this idea that women are suppose to be extraordinary in looks, demeanor ect but if the same woman wants to “cash” in on her “existentialism” she is a gold digger.

    I personally wouldnt engage in gold digging but doesnt it stand to reason that a woman who KNOWS she possess everything men want and has been pedestaled by said men will “cash in”. Im not saying its right or wrong but why wouldnt a woman that has been told she is the ish because she is young, beautiful, (possible) blonde turn around and look to date average Joe’s? Not going to happen.

    ___

    Also, I have always said people have the right to chase whatever they want. By all means. My issue comes in when these men(and women) chase the societal ideal to the exclusion of more average people only to be upset that they cant find a long-term mate! These pope scoff at the idea of getting with someone that will love, respect, and appreciate them because they are the wrong race, too short or too thick(or thin). Its especially annoying when people acknowledge this behavior. They will say “Yeah Zaire is cute and we have fun together but she’s a size 8/10, which I dont mind all that much. But what would people think of me seriously dating a girl that isnt slim?”
    This person can reject Zaire because she is thick but they better not say ish about not being about to find a cute girl that is fun to be around.

    Like I said, its fine to reject people on WHATEVER criteria you want but dont complain abut having a hard time finding love. Your arent looking for love, you are looking for a specific image.

    Like


  483. The part where you keep waving away women’s complaints and focusing on the poor, put-upon men.

    Witch, I don’t think EITHER gender has a superior position here. I think both genders are following socially conditioned roles and, to a great degree, end up causing their own grief.

    I’ve made this VERY clear, several times. If you want to snipe at someone who defends “poor put upon men”, go talk to RDKirk.

    What I DON’T buy is that women are any more or less victims than men are – or victimizers for that matter.

    I really don’t think I can make it any clearer than that.

    Like


  484. @Y
    Right, I should have clarified. A lot of these “innocent” women and “worshipers” arent that at all. They are just women that know how to play the game. The arent dumb and they know the MO of these naive Americans that believe a blue passport will give them access to these “innocent”, “exotic”, “family orientated”, [insert fetishized notion of foreign women] women they seek..

    And boy, do they know!

    These guys usually end up with their nuts in the wringer.

    It’s one of the main questions that I have for them: “OK, let’s take you at your word and presume that most American women are heartless, materialist b****es. Fair go. What I don’t understand is why you think Copacabana prostitutes and gringo-chasers aren’t.”

    Usually, the guys who’ve been around the block a few times will then shrug their shoulders and say that ALL women are heartless, materialist jerks but that Brazilian women are at least “hotter”. To which I’ll respond, “But don’t you think that if you were to offer a couple of hundred dollars a pop for sex in the States you’d find hot women too?”

    And their final response will then be that hot Brazilian women are cheaper. Which is not necessarily the case, given the ammount of money these guys spend.

    I personally wouldnt engage in gold digging but doesnt it stand to reason that a woman who KNOWS she possess everything men want and has been pedestaled by said men will “cash in”. Im not saying its right or wrong but why wouldnt a woman that has been told she is the ish because she is young, beautiful, (possible) blonde turn around and look to date average Joe’s? Not going to happen.

    Correct. And by the same token, a guy who has everything women want, who has been told that he’s desireable because he has a degree, cash and a good career… Well, he isn’t likely going to be dating average janes, either.

    What I’m saying is that this logic works on both sides of the gender divide.

    My issue comes in when these men(and women) chase the societal ideal to the exclusion of more average people only to be upset that they cant find a long-term mate!

    Precisely.

    It’s not that men and women do this, but that men and women are damned picky and then can’t understand why they are alone.

    Like


  485. Linda said:

    “Abagond,
    what are your rules on someone continuously twisting and misrepresenting another persons post?”

    No rules about that. Some commenters will do that when:

    1. They do not want to admit you are right.

    2. When they have stereotyped your point of view.

    When Thad first came here he kept telling me I was an essentialist. It was hard to pound into his head that there are some things that it is way easier for blacks to know than whites because they experience racism first-hand over and over again.

    Like


  486. Blakgenius said:

    “Abagond,
    Wiill you please tell Everyone that there have been several occasions when I was on here during the week and SWW wasn’t and that I have posted to topics she hasn’t. I don’t give a rat’s butt what Thad thinks, but I do not want other people believing him when he’s only trying to discredit us.”

    That does not help your case. In fact, it strengthens Thad’s case:

    Of the past 40 comments each of you have made, 100% of Southern White Woman’s and 95% of yours took place between 17:00 and 04:00 GMT.

    For Arkansas (GMT-5) that is between 12 noon and 11:00 pm.

    For Norway (GMT+2) that is between 7:00 pm and 6:00 am.

    Since September 10th you two have commented on (b = blakgenius, s = southern white woman):

    Sep 10 b john mcwhorter and the n-word
    Sep 11 s john mcwhorter and the n-word
    Sep 12
    Sep 13 b marriage vs sex
    Sep 14
    Sep 15 b tim wise
    Sep 16 b tim wise
    Sep 17
    Sep 18 s tim wise
    Sep 19 b+s tim wise
    Sep 20
    Sep 21
    Sep 22
    Sep 23
    Sep 24
    Sep 25 b+s mothers are…
    Sep 26 b+s mothers are…
    Sep 27

    Like


  487. Interesting…

    Now ladies, in whole honesty, you must admit Thad never implied men were victims. In fact, I could bet that he would defend woman’s POV in an argument with men who claim women to be manipulative wh.res and golddiggers (just an assumption, but am I right, Thad?)

    I think many of us are guilty of ASSUMING he’s defending men because he’s male. But to be honest, he never tried to let men of the hook, and he always emphasized men were a-holes too.

    What I DO find bad about his interpretation of double standards is that he finds men and women equally guilty. That is correct, in a way: men and women ARE equally bad when it comes to playing the game and buying into double standards.

    What he fails to acknowledge, however, is that double sexual standards are part of male privilege- men set the rules and both genders are following it. Double standards suited men, not women, for hundreds of years.

    It’s like saying both whites and blacks can be racist against each other. Sure. But who started the whole race thing?

    Like


  488. When Thad first came here he kept telling me I was an essentialist.

    I still think you’re an essentialist on this point, Abagond. I don’t buy the “experience gives [x] group of people a common base from which to critique reality”. Culture doesn’t work that way.

    😀

    Like


  489. Just saw this, so…

    @Mira
    Also, I know Thad shared with us that he once dumped a woman who wanted to wait in order for him to take her seriously, so good for him (for sticking to what he says) but that doesn’t change anything.

    Yeah, that case is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

    I was dating a friend from school and we were both attracted to each other and had known each other for about a year. One night we go out and we start making out. The woman knows me pretty damned well by this time and I know her. She’s already been married once and is, in fact, a mother. We’re both on holiday. Does she want to go off someplace? No? Fine, no probs. I didn’t think much about it then, other than feeling slightly irritated because it seemed to me that her “no” was more pro forma than anything else. But I’m dating some three other women at the time so it’s no big deal. Maybe we’ll go out again in the future. who knows?

    The woman then ends up sending me tons of photos and invitations and what-not, but it turns out that, as it was the end of the semester and I was off doing fieldwork, we don’t see each other for some four months. I responded very neutrally to all her overtures. During that same period, my relationship with Ana Paula became very serious PRECISELY BECAUSE we were having sex and spending a lot of time together, getting to know each other even better.

    So when Carnaval rolls around, Ana and I run into this woman on a date and she immediately gets pissed off, as if I had been playing her or as if I was somehow her property. Hell, we’d kissed and she turned down an offer for more. This is supposed to give her some sort of claim on my soul? She almost slapped Ana in the face, in fact.

    Apparently, she thought she had engaged in some sort of game-winning strategy by putting off sexual intimacy. In fact, she’d just opened the doors to a rival who didn’t have the patience for games and was just being herself: Ana and I started sleeping together simply because the both of us wanted to and we were FRIENDS. Nothing more needed nor implied. Love and commitment grew from that, as it should in my opinion. The woman I supposedly “dumped” apparently wanted or needed commitment beforehand and felt she needed to manipulate me into giving it to her. And she saw me as some sort of property.

    I am VERY lucky she didn’t take me up on that offer of sex because, like a lot of men, I tend to fall for people I’m being intimate with.

    Like


  490. In fact, I could bet that he would defend woman’s POV in an argument with men who claim women to be manipulative wh.res and golddiggers (just an assumption, but am I right, Thad?)

    In fact, I’ve done it above with two guys who complain that matriarchies are destroying black masculinity. BS.

    What he fails to acknowledge, however, is that double sexual standards are part of male privilege- men set the rules and both genders are following it. Double standards suited men, not women, for hundreds of years.

    I increasingly have my doubts about this, Mira, for some very solid anthropological reasons.

    I’m not claiming male privilege doesn’t exist, mind you, but I don’t think it’s as operative in SEXUAL relations as some feminists would claim. Furthermore, my work with wh.ores has convinced me that at least HALF the populatuion which maintains the double standard is made up of women themselves. This is because, absent legal rights, the field of CUSTOM became the one area where women could defend themselves (George Simmel has a long discussion on custom as a weapon of the weak). By maintaining a clear-cut division between “good girls” and “bad girls”, women involved in the sexual-property relationship known as marriage visciously and successfully defended their privileges.

    In other words, if women themselves weren’t holders of rights, married women at least CUSTOMARILY had some privileges, as long as they managed to cut themselves off, clearly and decisively, from wh.ores.

    Furthermore, it’s tricky to use race as a metaphor to understand this dynamic, because sexual relations were much more intimately dialectic than racial relations. Both the dogmatic views of gender and race which are frequently expressed on this board have their intellectual roots in Marxism and the view that humanity is divided, dialectically, into oppressor and oppressive classes.

    The problem is that privilege axises are not all interchanegeable. In spite of what Marcuse and Angela Davis imply, class is not race is not sex.

    With class relations, the dialectic view works fairly well (but still has major problems, especially in post-modern capitalism). With race, it’s still oerative, but then again, race relations WERE class relations at their roots. In spite of the ranting of certain pan-Africanists, Europeans used African slaves primarily in order to extract SURPLUS, not because they had some primordial hatred of the black man or whatever.

    But the class dialectic breaks down when we get to gender – or better yet, gets much more tighter and intimate. The bourgeoisie, for example, doesn’t learn how to be borgeoisie from the working class. And while whites condition blackness, white people as a rule don’t raise black children.

    Like it or not, however, men learn an awful lot of what they know regarding “good” and “bad” girls from their mothers, sisters, grandmas and aunts.

    So, summing up, the actual dynamics of the sex-gender system have a hell of a lot more female agency in them than many feminists would care to admit, even though feminists are correct in pointing out that in economic and politicalm terms, women are still getting the sh***y end of the stick.

    I approach this whole thing more from a queer theory perspective than from a feminist perspective, by the way.

    Like


  491. I’m going to let everyone think whatever they want about the sockpuppet thing. I can’t SWW aren’t (I had hope maybe Abagond could, but apparently he can’t either). Likewise, Thad can’t prove we are, and he will trot that out everytime he pissed that we disagree with him, so I’ll just keep posting unless or until I’m banned.

    Mira said:
    “Now ladies, in whole honesty, you must admit Thad never implied men were victims. In fact, I could bet that he would defend woman’s POV in an argument with men who claim women to be manipulative wh.res and golddiggers (just an assumption, but am I right, Thad?)”

    Me: This is true. He never claimed men were victims. What distturbs me about Thad’s thinking is that it looks like he doesn’t believe in male privilege at all. I’m disturbed by that for the same reason I’m disturbed by all the white people who claim white privilege doesn’t exit. I simply do not understand how it is possible for him to see white privilege and not see male privilege.

    Mira also said;
    “What I DO find bad about his interpretation of double standards is that he finds men and women equally guilty. That is correct, in a way: men and women ARE equally bad when it comes to playing the game and buying into double standards.

    What he fails to acknowledge, however, is that double sexual standards are part of male privilege- men set the rules and both genders are following it. Double standards suited men, not women, for hundreds of years.

    It’s like saying both whites and blacks can be racist against each other. Sure. But who started the whole race thing?”

    Me:
    Yes, exactly.

    Like


  492. So, if a woman doesn’t f*ck you, for WHATEVER REASON, when you want her to, she’s automatically a kokkteasing b*tch or trying to manipulate you?

    Maybe she didn’t want a p*nis (I don’t know what this blog’s program thinks are “no-no” words so I’m using my own judgement with theh asterisking) in her at that time. Maybe she was fine with making out and just didn’t want to go any further. Some women do that and it has nothing to do with “I’mma MAKE him love/commit to me with the power of p*ssy withdrawal!”

    I’m pretty sure, most Western women know that men can get sex anywhere. I’m sure each woman is not fooling herself that she’s the only one possessing a vag on the planet. Most of us know we do not hold the monopoly on tw*t. Hell, women get that warning all the time, “If you won’t f*ck him, be sure that someone else WILL!” And as Thad has pointed out over and over here, sexxing a man damn sure don’t keep him faithful.

    I don’t know how that whole exchange went because I wasn’t there and didn’t send or receive those emails so I don’t know how ol’ girl comported herself or what she said (though I think she should have taken the hint from the neutral tone and just moved on to the next one). But I’d hate to think that if a woman dares set her own sexual boundaries, she’s gonna deal with azzholes who then want to label her a no-good, manipulative wh*re. That if at that moment, for whatever reason, she just wants to fool around and not be penetrated she’s a b*tch. What if she’s going through some stuff at that time and isn’t in the mood for that? Does she have to divulge all of that to make it okay she’s not on her back in 3 seconds flat? And if she’s gone through that stuff and gotten over it and wants to reconnect in future, then tough t*tty, b*tch.

    Yeah, ish happens. Folks miss the train. Peeps move onto the next one (and a lot of crazy relationship ish would NOT happen if folks did just that). Dude, you wanted to f*ck. She wouldn’t put out. So you said “cool” and moved onto the next one. Fine. But your characterizing her as one of those b8tches for not entertaining your dyck that night gives pause.

    So when do women get to control our own sexuality? Or does “control our sexuality” or “being ourselves” simply mean sexxing men on demand? When do women get to say “no” and NOT be seen as manipulating sl*ts?

    Some people (and that’s BOTH men and women) don’t want to be out there fukking random mofos. Some prefer sex within a committed relationship (and no, that doesn’t necessarily mean marriage). Refusing sex otherwise may not even be a manipulative technique but simply saying, “these are my standards” like saying they won’t date a Republican/Democrat or someone who isn’t Christian or someone who is religious. The other person does have the right to walk the hell away if they don’t want to deal with that.

    Well, she dodged a bullet too. She dodged a guy who demanded she put out before she would have a snowball’s chance at his heart (I don’t know if she knew that was a requirement or not). She just didn’t know that at the time.

    And many guys do NOT fall for women they sex simply because they’re f*cking hence all the slut-shaming. Sex/Love is all a huge crapshoot. There is no way to be certain about anything you except whether you actually want to do it or not.

    I’m just sick of this idea that “if she won’t f*ck you when you want she’s just tryna manipulate you” as if that’s the only way to interpret that. Hell, I’ve been interested in men that I didn’t want to jump straight into bed with at first. Didn’t mean that would never have happened or I was trying to manipulate them into a relationship I wanted. But I guess they felt as Thad does.

    Like


  493. @Witchsistah,

    You put that so well that I can’t add anything but a cosign.

    Like


  494. on Mon Sep 27th 2010 at 19:03:38 Menelik Charles

    Thaddeus said:

    1) I was dating a friend from school and we were both attracted to each other and had known each other for about a year. One night we go out and we start making out. The woman knows me pretty damned well by this time and I know her. She’s already been married once and is, in fact, a mother. We’re both on holiday. Does she want to go off someplace? No? Fine, no probs. I didn’t think much about it then, other than feeling slightly irritated because it seemed to me that her “no” was more pro forma than anything else.

    2) During that same period, my relationship with Ana Paula became very serious PRECISELY BECAUSE we were having sex and spending a lot of time together, getting to know each other even better.

    3) So when Carnival rolls around, Ana and I run into this woman on a date and she immediately gets pissed off, as if I had been playing her or as if I was somehow her property. Hell, we’d kissed and she turned down an offer for more. This is supposed to give her some sort of claim on my soul? She almost slapped Ana in the face, in fact.

    4) Apparently, she thought she had engaged in some sort of game-winning strategy by putting off sexual intimacy. In fact, she’d just opened the doors to a rival who didn’t have the patience for games and was just being herself: Ana and I started sleeping together simply because the both of us wanted to and we were FRIENDS.

    Menelik say:

    I very rarely find myself agreeing with Thad (I see him as a feminist, anti-masculinist, flame-thrower) but on this occasion he really hits the nail on the heads as regards the ‘no-sex-before-commitment’ game played by many a modern, manipulative, female. I mean, the hypocrisy of the woman concerned simply beggars belief!

    Certainly there are women out their who wish to remain virgins before marriage, or at least be in a loving, committed, relationship with a chap. These women have my utmost respect since I, and many mature men, believe such a stance to be an essentially feminine expression (even if their rationale is of a religious base). We are prepared to dance to their tune if they’re are ladies in the mould of a sister Jeri or Y. If not, well, we move on.

    Anyway, yeah, some women put out early and still keep the man to whom they’ve put out. Such women, I insist, tend to be of the feminine persuasion. A man may sense this, and actually feel honoured to have made love to her (I’m NOT joking folks!). Then she starts preparing his meals; doing his washing; spending quality time with him, and winning his heart by stealth.

    No female hypocrisy at any stage of such a relationship; just an honest, open, loving expression of human sexuality and romance. We appreciate this a world in which female privilege has seriously manipulated and emasculated the modern man.

    Mores the pity.

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  495. And how about instead of having responded “neutrally” to all her suggestive emails, you just told ol’ girl what was up. “Sorry, you missed the Thad train by not purchasing a dyck ticket, and I got someone else taking care of that anyway. I really like her. Oh, how’s your kid doing?” No need to even mention Ana’s name. Just should have let ol’ girl you weren’t interested in her cookies anymore.

    So much for all that openness and honesty bs.

    Like


  496. Then she starts preparing his meals; doing his washing; spending quality time with him, and winning his heart by stealth.

    And how is that any LESS manipulative than a woman not putting out because they want a committment first? She’s still doing stuff for a guy to get a committment out of him, not because she just likes doing it (in this instance)?

    Seems like it’s only “manipulation” when a guy isn’t getting what he REALLY wants (sex) and not ish he feels is not as essential.

    Like


  497. That should have read:

    Just should have let ol’ girl know you weren’t interested in her cookies anymore.

    Like


  498. So, if a woman doesn’t f*ck you, for WHATEVER REASON, when you want her to, she’s automatically a kokkteasing b*tch or trying to manipulate you?

    Witchsistah, why do I get the impression that if I said I like hamburgers you’d accuse me of being a cannibal?

    First of all, I’m talking about a SPECIFIC CASE, not a general rule.

    Secondly, “cocktease” and “b.itch” are your accusations, not mine. I didn’t find her to be a “cocktease”: I found her to have unrealistic expectations about life, love and sex.

    Thirdly, it wasn’t me that she physically threatened but my by then-girlfriend Ana Paula.

    Now go figure: this woman almost punched my date because FOUR MONTHS earlier, we had made out ONCE and had no further IRL interaction since then. This is not the behavior of a well-adjusted person who has realistic expectations about human sexuality and what men are or are not likely to do, any way you cut it.

    Maybe she didn’t want a p*nis (I don’t know what this blog’s program thinks are “no-no” words so I’m using my own judgement with theh asterisking) in her at that time.

    Did I say she SHOULD have wanted a p*nis? What I am saying is that she obviously thought she could have it at any time, all she needed to do was snap her fingers and it would come running. She thought it was hers to do with as and when she pleased.

    She was wrong. That’s my point.

    I have no beef with her not wanting to have sex that night and I didn’t then. What I DO have a beef with is her assumption that once I made the offer, it would be open for whenever she wanted to take me up on it. And what I REALLY have a beef with is that she treated the woman I then went on to date as if she were a b**** who was sniffing around her personal fireplug.

    She has every right to say “no”. Fair enough. But I have every right to go about my merry, as well. She apparently thought that shouldn’t be the case.

    Well, she dodged a bullet too. She dodged a guy who demanded she put out before she would have a snowball’s chance at his heart (I don’t know if she knew that was a requirement or not). She just didn’t know that at the time.

    Witch, most men are not going to love you before sexual intimacy. In fact, most WOMEN are not going to love you before sexual intimacy. Love grows with intimacy. The idea that I should have given my heart to her on a platter is simpleminded romantic bullshit BECAUSE LOVE DOESN’T HAPPEN THAT WAY. It is an expectation bred of endless romantic stories and fairytales. No, women don’t have to have sex if they don’t want to. Certainly not. But truly, realistically, if demand love before sex, you’re either probably going to get played or you’re not going to ever have sex. And most likely, you’re gonna get played.

    That’s the stone cold truth.

    And, by the way, I told her the truth. I said flat out that I had just left a relationship and that I certainly wasn’t looking for a new one at that time and so if we had sex, it wasn’t going to mean commitment, at least not right away. And fine: she didn’t like that idea. that’s her right.

    But we’re still friends and you know something? Since then she’s gone out with guy after guy, all of whom were a hell of a lot less honest than me and many of whom she had sex with and then left her shortly after. It’s not hard to figure out what a woman like her wants to hear, Witch: it IS hard to tell a woman like that the truth. You seemed to be pissed because I was and am honest with what I tell women.

    “Give her your heart”? Do you have any idea how easy it is to FAKE soemthing like that? women fall for that sort of line every day: it’s the oldest trick in the playa’s book, in fact.

    Jeezis…

    And how about instead of having responded “neutrally” to all her suggestive emails, you just told ol’ girl what was up. “Sorry, you missed the Thad train by not purchasing a dyck ticket, and I got someone else taking care of that anyway. I really like her. Oh, how’s your kid doing?” No need to even mention Ana’s name. Just should have let ol’ girl you weren’t interested in her cookies anymore.

    Actually, I did tell her several times that I was seeing other people. That fact apparently didn’t register. You apparently think one needs to slap someone in the face to get their attention. Maybe I should have, but if I had, we wouldn’t still be friends today, that’s for sure. “Hell hath no fury” and all that.

    Like


  499. on Mon Sep 27th 2010 at 20:17:32 Menelik Charles

    Menelik said:

    then she starts preparing his meals; doing his washing; spending quality time with him, and winning his heart by stealth.

    And how is that any LESS manipulative than a woman not putting out because they want a committment first? She’s still doing stuff for a guy to get a committment out of him, not because she just likes doing it (in this instance)?

    Menelik replies:

    manipulative? No. Women behaving in a manner I describe above tend to do what they do because THEY are committed to the guy! Usually, they have reason to be so manipulation does not form part of such a set-up.

    Jesus, why do some women on here write as though about to bury a grandparent? Is there no joy in their lives: even simple ones?

    I love Black women; I love feminine women. A feminine Black woman – whether she puts out or not, will win the heart of virtually any mature, responsible, man who should find her physically attractive. Women whose fathers were committed to them as they were/are to their wives. These women have both the hearts and ears of men even when they are furious (cos they be so cute when they’re angry lol). They don’t need to manipulate any man!

    Menelik Charles
    London England

    Like


  500. @MC
    I very rarely find myself agreeing with Thad (I see him as a feminist, anti-masculinist, flame-thrower)…

    Funny how I’m a feminazi according MC and a complete sexist pig according to Witch and SWW/Blakgenius.

    I guess I must be doing something right if I’m pissing off the extremists of both genders! 😀

    Let me make things perfectly clear once again: the hypocrisy of both MEN AND WOMEN beggars belief when it is looked at from a vantage point outside of the normative sex/gender system.

    Both sexes are playing each other and then whining about how hard it is to find true, honest love.

    Being honest with oneself and ABOUT oneself would be a good start, but I guess it’s just too tempting for most people to lay their sexual and emotional frustrations at the feet of the opposite gender, rather than do the mature thing and take responsability for them.

    Like


  501. Witchsistah,

    Very good points. It doesn’t seem like one can actually “know” whether a person is being manipulative unless s/he says something to the effect of “I’ll only do X if you do Y”. It also depends on where you’re coming from–in my personal situation (as a 20-something at a religiously-affiliated university), I would say the vast majority are in that in-between category: not necessarily waiting until marriage but not comfortable having casual sex. Hell, for some people a makeout is scandalous.

    I think a good deal of people (younger ones especially) are uncertain about owning their sexuality, and the models they imitate from television/media put them in a pretty bad light. That’s how I feel about hookup culture (here at least)–most people aren’t doing it because they are particularly horny or because they want to be “players”; it’s just what they think “college students” should be doing.

    Like


  502. Thad,

    I’m not claiming male privilege doesn’t exist, mind you, but I don’t think it’s as operative in SEXUAL relations as some feminists would claim.

    I am necessarily say it mainly works in sexual relations or that it’s the most important. We are discussing sexual behavior here, yes, but it’s hardly the only place where you can observe male privilege.

    Also, I am not sure if you’re implying I’m a feminist: I am not, at least not in academic sense of the word.

    Furthermore, my work with wh.ores has convinced me that at least HALF the populatuion which maintains the double standard is made up of women themselves.

    Hmm… I thought you worked with sl.ts (prostitutes), not wh.ores (manipulative women). You defined the difference between the two.

    And yes, I do think you’re right here: women often maintain double standards nothing less than men; however, it still doesn’t mean it’s not part of male privilege.

    In other words, if women themselves weren’t holders of rights, married women at least CUSTOMARILY had some privileges, as long as they managed to cut themselves off, clearly and decisively, from wh.ores.

    You are right, but once again: who started that? If there wasn’t for male privilege there would be no lack of privilege for women, so the number of sexual partners or marriage would not bother women at all. They had to adopt this strategy

    I am not defending women for buying into double standards and adopting this strategy, but one can’t say they did it because they had the same power and privilege like men did.

    Both the dogmatic views of gender and race which are frequently expressed on this board have their intellectual roots in Marxism and the view that humanity is divided, dialectically, into oppressor and oppressive classes.

    I admit this could be/is the case with me. I grew up with Marxism. The view of divided humanity was installed in me in pre-school. I do not necessarily believe everything, or even most of it, but it’s obviously difficult to get rid of.

    So I do think observing oppressor/oppressive dichotomy can be useful for

    However, I do acknowledge things are not that simple, not at all. You can never take one aspect of identity or one aspect of privilege (and forget all the others) in order to form general opinion on what’s going on. ESPECIALLY if it’s about people’s individual experience. We all know you can belong to all privileged groups but still lead a miserable life full of obstacles.

    But I do think privileges can be discussed and researched as phenomena, and that such discussion should stay away from derailment about other types of privileges, no matter how relevant they are for individual’s experience. (For example, nobody says class doesn’t play a role and that being a working class white is the same as being an upper class one. But to derail discussion about white privilege with “I’m poor, I don’t have privilege” is bad, not just because it’s rude and makes everything about you, but because it prevents the topic in question (white privilege) to be discussed.

    So all in all, I do believe individual level is the only one that can be truly researched, while privileges can be researched as phenomena. Collective level and generalized conclusions should be given only to present ONE possible interpretation and not to be taken as a fact.

    The problem is that privilege axises are not all interchanegeable. In spite of what Marcuse and Angela Davis imply, class is not race is not sex.

    Of course not, but there are some similar mechanisms, at least on basic levels. If nothing else, people react the same to all of them- those who have privilege either deny it or see it as a no big deal, and those who don’t see them as an explanation for the discrimination they get.

    Like it or not, however, men learn an awful lot of what they know regarding “good” and “bad” girls from their mothers, sisters, grandmas and aunts.

    Yes. Like we agreed, women still play this game; but it doesn’t change the fact it’s a game men started and made it to suit their needs.

    Like


  503. That’s how I feel about hookup culture (here at least)–most people aren’t doing it because they are particularly horny or because they want to be “players”; it’s just what they think “college students” should be doing.

    Exactly. How is THAT any healthier sexually than saving it for marriage or refraining from sexxing someone right away to avoid the “easy” or “slut” label?

    Like


  504. I think a good deal of people (younger ones especially) are uncertain about owning their sexuality, and the models they imitate from television/media put them in a pretty bad light.

    y’know, it’s funny how everyone in the world seems to think that they are the only person – or at most one of a very small number of people – who DON’T imitate models in the media.

    Like


  505. Yes. Like we agreed, women still play this game; but it doesn’t change the fact it’s a game men started and made it to suit their needs.

    Yup, men started it because they wanted to fukk all the p8ssy they wanted but didn’t want anyone to fukk “their women.” Like I said, IRRATIONAL. You can’t go tippin’ in someone else’s garden and not expect a few of your turnips to turn up bruised or stolen. Forget about the whole idea of women NOT being property.

    And what does it say that many women play this game and WIN. I think THAT is the beef here. Folks who set up an unfair system don’t expect the other side to learn enough to get over on them. Those guys could have said “Bytch, BYE!” to those chicks who wouldn’t put out unless they got a committment. But they also bought into the hype of that