Re: Man Rules

On Jan 31, 5:22 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 1:28 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 31, 9:56 am, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have found that guys who make a big deal about the need to go dutch
to usually not be worth the trouble, although guys who accept an offer
to go dutch are fine.

Well, " big deals " are a relative thing. And, given that we've been told
for over 40 years now that women should be paid the same as men,
why would anyone be surprised to find that the flip side of that
message is that women should have an equal shot at PAYING ?
CF: The Equal Pay Act of 1963.

It isn't really a matter of fairness or anyone being surprised.

Thats a very easy thing to say, when one is on the well advantaged
side...

The truth is that men and women don't approach dating the same way.
If you want to argue that this is because of socialization rather than
nature, well, I can't argue with you, I really don't know, but the
difference is there nonetheless, at least on average.

Thats all well and good, but its also quite irrelevent to my point.

I quite understand that men and women are different, including in
dating.
My point is that women, in a so called egalitarian age, are
hypocrites,
when they insist that men do the asking ( Which opens men up to lots
of rejection. ) as well as doing most/all of the paying.

I think that by and large men still have the better side of that
equation.

Naturally, you have not had the " pleasure "of trying out the men's
role. Grass is greener fallacy...

Not asking partners out means your choice is restricted to
the people who ask you, and I imagine that most women spend far more
money fussing with their looks and trying to be attractive than men
spend on dates.

As those women do that anyway, that is spending for *themselves*.
IOW, it does NOT count as spending of *someone else*.

I further suggest that, if women want men to do those things, then
demanding that women get paid the same as men is an attempt by
women to make a profit on the whole deal. Double dipping.
Equality means just that, and it means that men have NO obligation
to do most of the asking, and all of the paying.

I'll also point out that the Female Centered ( How do I show that ?
Easy; Show me a 600 page issue of Grooms Magazine. )

There would be if men would buy it. They won't, so there isn't.

Indeed. Now, Ask The Next Question: Why won't men buy that ?

Wedding
Industry has a well publicised " tradition " wherin the *man* gets
the lovely privilege of paying 3 months of his salary on a shiny thing
for her. Wheres the " tradition " where she owes him a 3 month of her
salary for a gift for him ? Uh huh. Double dipping...

Men get wedding rings too, and if they don't demand large gaudy
expensive ones I don't see why that's the fault of women.

You just further showed that you don't understand men *at all*.

Who said "spend it on a man's gaudy ring" ? That ASSumes that
men and women's tastes are THE SAME. But, it was YOU who
claimed that men and women are *different*.

DO make up your mind, and stick to one argument, OK ?

Women could pony up the three month's cash on a big screen
TV...

A lot of guys *want* to pay,

See, heres where women simply don't know jack *** about men.

No, we DON'T. We understand that, given that women DO view men
as " providers ", that we HAVE TO pony it up.

This seems to be coming from the statistics bureau of your rear end.

Oh, so I have to prove ALL of my claims, but you don't have to prove
ANY
of yours ?

My dear, that " rear end " is yours.

It's clear that *you* don't want to pay for dates, but I never said
all guys wanted to pay.

Non Sequitur. I stated that MOST men don't wnat to. You offered NO
evidence that most men DO want to pay, and it goes against logic to
ASSume that most men LIKE to pay out $$$ for OTHER PEOPLE'S
fun.

Do you like to pay out loads of $$$ for a guy's meals ? Uh huh.

This doesn't mean that
we're particularly happy about it. In fact, more and more men are
saying " No " to the whole deal. See " The Marriage Strike. " Its
even findable on Wikipedia. Thats a major reason why the marriage
rate in California fell about 25% between '02 and '04.

Weddings are different that dates.

OK, I'll bite: How do you get weddings *without dates* ?

Also seehttp://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0812.html
The Marriage Strike, August 12, 2003, by Wendy McElroy

and are uncomfortable if you don't let them.

Myth.

Well if so then the men who told me this are lying to me, so I don't
know what to tell you. I have no reason to believe you over them.

That, of course, is the same argument that creationists use...

A particularly self serving one, at that. Theres a reason that
Fleetwood Mac had a hit song called " Tell Me Sweet Little Lies "...

Most married or "in a live in relationship" guys don't do their
fair share of the housework,

Thats actually quite untrue. Further, since on average, women do
many fewer hours of paid work outside of the home, its only logical
that they should do more hours of work *in the home*, so that
both spouses end up with similar total hours worked, at home and
on the job. Thats an actual " fair share ".

Again, this seems to come from the statistics bureau of your rear
end. I have quite a lot of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

and very very few want to stay home with the kids.

Grossly untrue. Read the intro to Dr., Warren Farrell's "The Myth Of
Male Power", pg. 20.

" In the past few years, I have asked more than 10,000 American
and Canadian men from all walks of life if they would *prefer* to
take off six months to a year after each child was born to be
involved with the child *full* time. *More than 80% of the men said
that full-time involvement with their children would be their
preference* -- but only if their wives approved and they weren't
hurting their families economically. ( About 17% of the men
prefer part-time involvement; about 3% prefer to remain
working full time. ) "

Staying home six months to a year is not the same as commiting to be a
stay at home parent.

" A difference which makes no difference is no difference. " James
Blish.

And really, how else are you going to answer
that question? "No, I'm not interested in being with my kid?"

Why do you ASSume that men lie so easily ? Thats misandristically
sexist of you.

I don't see a lot of stay at home fathers in the real world.

Indeed. Now, ask yourself why not, in light of the part of the reason
given, in the cited quote.

" but only if their wives approved ".

Theres a large part of the answer, with the rest being that non
provider
men aren't considered sexy or marryable by women.

A lot of
that is no doubt due to sexism but it isn't all female sexism.

I never said it was " all "due to that, so you may play with your
Straw
Woman on your own time. But, it IS true that women's attitudes, such
as you are displaying, ARE a major part of the problem.

Your ignorance on this issue adds to my point; modern women
believe that they know a lot about men ( Just like creationists
believe that they know a lot about science ), and ( As with
creationists ) they are very, very, VERY wrong.

In my experience guys who are excessively militant about not paying
more than their fair share turn out to be selfish or self-centered.

Well, you are verifying that the misandrous sexism of "The Rules" is
alive and well among women...

I'm just reporting my experience.

Thats gossip. Not science. HTH.

You certainly seem like a data point.

Thats an interesting attempted slur on a newsgroup where data
OVER faith is a primary viewpoint.

Notice that you are consistently unpleasant, not only in this
thread but in most others.

Fallacy of Ad Hominem Alone.

" If you *can't* answer a person's argument, don't worry ! You can
always call him names ! " Oscar Wilde.

Thank you for your concession on the actual topic.

How about any concern for men who
have to shell out $$$ just for a woman to sit, eating a meal, paid for
by him, with them ?

I have immense concern for these poor dears. I'm thinking of starting
a charitable institution.

Ah, condescension, how NOW of you.

I thought that sexism was supposed to be Bad. Apparently not, when
its sexism against men, by women.

I'm not sure where you get this from. Did I say sexism was good or
even that men should pay for dates?

Yes. Re-rad your own " I have immense concern for these poor dears.
I'm thinking of starting a charitable institution."

You can have the last word if you'd like, but I'm not really
interested in screaming debates.

Said the one to actually do the name calling. Said the one
who wants to deny actual citations, why providing NONE for her
own claims. How... creationist of you.

Thank you for that concession. Thats what is a part of going
negative *first*.

Just more proof that women do NOT want to hear what men are
actually saying, and experiencing...

Andre

.