Umm you need to learn to count. There are too many asterisks for it to be a "gendered" insult. It's a bodypart everyone has FYI.
Neckbearded
This is nothing but a shaming tactic I thought enlightened folk like you Lord Owlington were supposed to be above that and if Im not mistaken its "gendered" too.
While I don't do this to troll I do get a kick out of the fact that we now live in a time where saying "Women are no better then men" is mysoginy but people like you can say without a hint of irony that "Misandry doesn't exist".
But whether or not "women are no better then men" was not the question - the question was, are women by default in charge of relationships? (Most here seem to think no) Why are you so focused on framing basic egalitarian ideas in a way that implicitly puts down women? You choose to phrase it as "Women are no better then men" - is not "Men are no better then women" or "Women are no worse then men" not equally true statement? Were this an isolated post from you, I'd probably shrug it off and not think anything of it... but it's not.
This is besides the fact that no one in this thread ever suggested that women were somehow better then men - you're the one who had to drag the idea into the conversation in the first place. Only a few people have declared "Women do X, men do Y" (which I disagree with btw), and never have anyone had a value judgment to accompany it. Literally no one else here seems to subscribe to the "Man bad, woman good" narrative that you accuse feminism of, so why are you trying to bring that into the discussion? Keep that talk in the thread that was set up for it.
But sure, some women are cruel... so those who date women need to be wise about how they pick their prospective partner, and be able to recognize when a relationship is going south, and be willing to end it (Just like those who date men have to do!). Which I'm guessing most people in this thread already knew. So. Yeah. In later news the sky is blue...
While I don't do this to troll I do get a kick out of the fact that we now live in a time where saying "Women are no better then men" is mysoginy but people like you can say without a hint of irony that "Misandry doesn't exist".
I think I would be happier if I thought you were trolling, than that you honestly believe some of the things you post. (LadyLuck has already commented on 'no better than', so I'll not type out what would basically be a repeat.)
Of course misandry exists; mysoginy doesn't, though*.
*Misogyny does.
In fact, case in point posted just below you. Note the assumption that the only thing you gain from being in a relationship with a woman is sex. Note that emotional support/happiness/companionship from being in the relationship is not considered a gain.
Further note that the woman is said to 'suck out your wealth and belongings'. There is no consideration that the woman will be financially successful herself, and perhaps more so than the man.
Observe also that once the couple has children, the woman is said to 'oppress' the man, and that if the man 'fights back', the woman will take everything. It's just assumed that the man is the greater financial contributor. If the man has contributed less financially, he would gain, not lose, from the divorce.
The only thing you gain from being in a relationship with a woman is sex.
While this might be true on a regular base before proposing and marrying, you will find out, that afterwards she will be far more unlikely to have sex with you and in the final step she will completely refuse to have sex with you.
She will sexually dry you out while still sucking out your wealth, your belongings and when there's nothing left your soul.
It gets even worse when you have kids. As a man you will always live under her opression, knowing if you start to fight she will just divorce and take whatever you have, your house, your car and your kids.
Leaving you with nothing.
It's best to stay away from them at all - Or pump them, afterwards dump em. Sex on a regular base is not worth the drama.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Call me a traditionalist but if you pay most to 100% of the rent and bills, you should de facto be in charge of the household. This is not limited to men. I know I earned way more than my ex-fiance and paid the lion's share of the rent and bills. So I had a lot of say.
Call me a traditionalist but if you pay most to 100% of the rent and bills, you should de facto be in charge of the household. This is not limited to men. I know I earned way more than my ex-fiance and paid the lion's share of the rent and bills. So I had a lot of say.
Money talks.
Why can't the two members of the couple contribute different but equally valued things to the relationship? I don't get how contributing money makes someone the defacto leader while contributing time and energy (for example) doesn't.
Call me a traditionalist but if you pay most to 100% of the rent and bills, you should de facto be in charge of the household. This is not limited to men. I know I earned way more than my ex-fiance and paid the lion's share of the rent and bills. So I had a lot of say.
Money talks.
Why can't the two members of the couple contribute different but equally valued things to the relationship? I don't get how contributing money makes someone the defacto leader while contributing time and energy (for example) doesn't.
For example, the average salary for a full-time live-in nanny is US$34k. If you subtract that from your earnings and add it to your partner's, you might find things a bit more equitable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
The only thing you gain from being in a relationship with a woman is sex.
While this might be true on a regular base before proposing and marrying, you will find out, that afterwards she will be far more unlikely to have sex with you and in the final step she will completely refuse to have sex with you.
She will sexually dry you out while still sucking out your wealth, your belongings and when there's nothing left your soul.
It gets even worse when you have kids. As a man you will always live under her opression, knowing if you start to fight she will just divorce and take whatever you have, your house, your car and your kids.
Leaving you with nothing.
It's best to stay away from them at all - Or pump them, afterwards dump em. Sex on a regular base is not worth the drama.
There's more to life and relationships than sex. Your view of women seems very spiteful to me and if you think all of them are like that then perhaps you're looking to meet nice girls in the wrong places.
Call me a traditionalist but if you pay most to 100% of the rent and bills, you should de facto be in charge of the household. This is not limited to men. I know I earned way more than my ex-fiance and paid the lion's share of the rent and bills. So I had a lot of say.
Money talks.
There's so much to dissect in your post, but it all comes down to you reap what your sow.
Once you start using how much you earn against how much your partner earns as a platform for "who wears the pants" you really aren't quite cut out for marriage. This isn't a criticism to you directly, but to the idea of it.
I'm not saying that every marriage needs to be 50/50
But when you start using leverage against your partner, its not a good indicator.
The only thing you gain from being in a relationship with a woman is sex.
While this might be true on a regular base before proposing and marrying, you will find out, that afterwards she will be far more unlikely to have sex with you and in the final step she will completely refuse to have sex with you.
She will sexually dry you out while still sucking out your wealth, your belongings and when there's nothing left your soul.
It gets even worse when you have kids. As a man you will always live under her opression, knowing if you start to fight she will just divorce and take whatever you have, your house, your car and your kids.
Leaving you with nothing.
It's best to stay away from them at all - Or pump them, afterwards dump em. Sex on a regular base is not worth the drama.
You sound like a bitter young man who had his heart broken who is trying to convince themselves they never liked the person by making judgements on women and the institution of marriage.
Honestly, this type of thinking is only going to hurt you and cause you more loneliness.
Why can't the two members of the couple contribute different but equally valued things to the relationship? I don't get how contributing money makes someone the defacto leader while contributing time and energy (for example) doesn't.
Not much time and energy is required for a relationship without children.
The idea that money doesn't define a relationship and how it works is naive at best. A lot of divorces happen because of money issues.
The idea that money doesn't define a relationship and how it works is naive at best. A lot of divorces happen because of money issues.
Money is a big factor in life PERIOD
Divorces over money issues happen when the other factors of their relationship stop working SUCH AS: love, respect, communication, teamwork, collaboration, family identity, effort, the ability to problem solve as a couple...
Protip: Don't ever marry a woman you would be afraid to face in divorce court.
I say all this to ask: whether you agree with the practice or not, does my experience with this matter reflect your own? Or are the men I know abnormally wimpy?
You know it's taken me years of observation of my friends, their friends, their wives, and more to finally conclude that there are many men who enjoy that 'submissiveness'.
By 'enjoy', I mean they honestly are more at ease emotionally with saying stuff like she's always right. They are a little unstable doing everything on their own and emotionally are more stable being a little 'mothered'
"Remember to say 'yes, dear.'"
"It is better to be happy than to be right."
"Happy wife, happy life."
"She'll always win/She's always right."
are not positions taken by one of equal bargaining power. A position like "she's always right" is in my opinion not a kind of healthy 'compromise'. Simply reverse "she's always right" with "he's always right" and see how that sounds. "Or happy husband, happy life."
Every relationship has it's own dynamic. Some men enjoy and feel secure with that kind of emotional babying. They find comfort in having *someone*, anyone really.
I happen to not be one of those men. But I'm in no position to judge other people and their relationship dynamics.
The idea that money doesn't define a relationship and how it works is naive at best. A lot of divorces happen because of money issues.
Money is a big factor in life PERIOD
Divorces over money issues happen when the other factors of their relationship stop working SUCH AS: love, respect, communication, teamwork, collaboration, family identity, effort, the ability to problem solve as a couple...
Protip: Don't ever marry a woman you would be afraid to face in divorce court.
You don't have to tell a working person that money is a big factor in life period. I'm quite aware of it. You might want to tell that to the students and youth on here.
Money affects those other issues. When you're struggling to pay the mortgage and put food on the table, communication and other niceties are ancillary to survival.
Call me a traditionalist but if you pay most to 100% of the rent and bills, you should de facto be in charge of the household. This is not limited to men. I know I earned way more than my ex-fiance and paid the lion's share of the rent and bills. So I had a lot of say.
Money talks.
There's so much to dissect in your post, but it all comes down to you reap what your sow.
Once you start using how much you earn against how much your partner earns as a platform for "who wears the pants" you really aren't quite cut out for marriage. This isn't a criticism to you directly, but to the idea of it.
I'm not saying that every marriage needs to be 50/50
But when you start using leverage against your partner, its not a good indicator.
There are no such things as equitable relationships. There will always be some degree of power struggle over issues like how to raise the kids, how to split the money, etc. There are no relationships without fights. Money is a big part of that.
Pretty much 100% true. I've known one case where the woman wasn't in charge and the guy was an *******. Seemed borderline abusive.
Women are like cats. If you piss off your cat, you are screwed. You wake up the next morning and the cat has pissed all over your clean laundry. And pood on your pillow. And it's hissing at you. Saying "you didn't pet me the right way last night. Now feed me or I'm leaving you."
Guys are dogs. They're very trainable and they usually just want a belly rub. That being said, its very easy for the cat to get the dog to do what It wants just so the dog doesn't have to put up with that cats crazy **** again.
Little known fact cats can be trained, they just take far more time and energy to train.
Obviously dogs are more easy to train, but I always get a chuckle when people have absolutely no control over their cat.
@comments about money:
Since the vast majority of divorces are primarily about one thing, money. I would say money is a HUGE issue in 99% of marriages, even if the marriage works for 50 years money will still be an issue at all times.
It is so disappointing that people can be smart enough to master a game as complex as Magic, and still be stupid enough to ask a question like this when they live in such a blatantly sexist society.
Usually those who get divorced over money issues, place too much on it. Same could be said of any issue a divorce happens from.
Another thing many are forgetting, relationships were quite different not too long ago. We look at history and see high brow people like JFK cheating and being a womanizer. This was quite common at all levels of society back then. Men had a woman at home taking care of their children and another woman for going out and having a good time. The trick was keeping the lady at home happy so you could live this double life. I am not saying I agree with the way of life, but thats where some of those sayings come from.
One last thing on the money issues, the more money a couple has, the more probelms it usually brings. Rich people have problems too and they are just as bad as those poor people deal with.
One last thing on the money issues, the more money a couple has, the more probelms it usually brings. Rich people have problems too and they are just as bad as those poor people deal with.
I don't necessarily agree with the idea of "mo money mo problems." Less money equals hustling, which is dangerous in itself. I've had friends who hustled just to get by. Fencing, dealing, trafficking, prostitution, the works.
If you have more money and have relationship problems, a divorce where the partner takes half is a big consideration. Being broke and desperate can equal hard time or getting killed.
Ladyluck-But whether or not "women are no better then men" was not the question - the question was, are women by default in charge of relationships? (Most here seem to think no) Why are you so focused on framing basic egalitarian ideas in a way that implicitly puts down women? You choose to phrase it as "Women are no better then men" - is not "Men are no better then women" or "Women are no worse then men" not equally true statement? Were this an isolated post from you, I'd probably shrug it off and not think anything of it... but it's not.
This is besides the fact that no one in this thread ever suggested that women were somehow better then men - you're the one who had to drag the idea into the conversation in the first place. Only a few people have declared "Women do X, men do Y" (which I disagree with btw), and never have anyone had a value judgment to accompany it. Literally no one else here seems to subscribe to the "Man bad, woman good" narrative that you accuse feminism of, so why are you trying to bring that into the discussion? Keep that talk in the thread that was set up for it.
But sure, some women are cruel... so those who date women need to be wise about how they pick their prospective partner, and be able to recognize when a relationship is going south, and be willing to end it (Just like those who date men have to do!). Which I'm guessing most people in this thread already knew. So. Yeah. In later news the sky is blue...
My post was in response to Lord Owlingtons and I did not phrase it as "Men are no better then women" because it would make a hell of a lot less sense in the context I was using it.
Why would "Women are no better then men" be putting women down but not "Men are no better then women"? I don't view feminism alone as the source of all men's issues or misandry by any means and I didn't bring feminism into this thread. I do however believe society angelifies women and demonizes men in many ways and relationships are one of those ways. All relationship problems are viewed as a product of a mans short comings (not sensitive enough, not good enough in bed, not good enough of a provider etc.). Can you honestly deny this? Can you give counter examples?
This issue is at the heart of who has power in relationships (heterosexual ones anyway). If it is always about the man having to prove himself worthy how can you possibly view that as balanced.
I have to concur that money is a big issue in relationships. Making ends meet, how much is each person "contributing" to making ends meet, who gets to decide how much is spent on and on what, are all important questions every couple has to work out. This of course, again, involves explicitly communicating expectations. When it's not clear what each person's privileges and responsibilities are, that's where problems start.
However, I don't agree with the idea that whomever makes more money unilaterally should have "more power" in a relationship. I do think that it's generally a bit selfish to spend excessive amount of money on things for yourself when your spouse is the one that earns most of said money. However, what if the $-making spouse doesn't really care? For instance, my significant other makes more then me right now simply because he's employed and I'm not, but he doesn't have a lot of tastes/hobbies he cares to spend money on. Were we hypothetically married, I'd probably do more discretionary spending then him, and he wouldn't have a problem with it, because me spending $20 a month to play in FNM isn't likely to put him in the poor-house. If we were both ok with it and it worked for us, then it's really no one else's business to judge.
I would say women are in charge now. I wouldn't blame the women, though. I would blame the men. The modern man will do anything for a woman. The women are predators, they sense this, and exploit it. While a man is nice to a woman, she smells blood and goes in to start wasting his time and money. The modern man doesn't care though, he thinks if he puts the woman in her place, or even stops being as nice or generous, he will lose the woman.
The tragedy of modern society is that this is true. All the women want is money, and the beta males have it, and are willing to give it. Alphas males can't compete, so their only option is hypergamy. When they have a one-night-stand, think they wear condoms? Yeah! So which male is reproducing? The beta male is. He is making more and more beta males. His children will genetically be beta males, he will teach them to be beta males, and they will learn from example to be a beta male.
Why can't the two members of the couple contribute different but equally valued things to the relationship? I don't get how contributing money makes someone the defacto leader while contributing time and energy (for example) doesn't.
You are right. In a traditional relationship the man would earn the money, put food on the table, keep his woman safe. The woman would in turn cook, clean, have sex with him, and raise his children.
The only thing you gain from being in a relationship with a woman is sex.
While this might be true on a regular base before proposing and marrying, you will find out, that afterwards she will be far more unlikely to have sex with you and in the final step she will completely refuse to have sex with you.
She will sexually dry you out while still sucking out your wealth, your belongings and when there's nothing left your soul.
It gets even worse when you have kids. As a man you will always live under her opression, knowing if you start to fight she will just divorce and take whatever you have, your house, your car and your kids.
Leaving you with nothing.
It's best to stay away from them at all - Or pump them, afterwards dump em. Sex on a regular base is not worth the drama.
The tragedy of modern society is that this is true. All the women want is money, and the beta males have it, and are willing to give it. Alphas males can't compete, so their only option is hypergamy. When they have a one-night-stand, think they wear condoms? Yeah! So which male is reproducing? The beta male is. He is making more and more beta males. His children will genetically be beta males, he will teach them to be beta males, and they will learn from example to be a beta male.
Alpha and beta males? Is this some kind of fraternity thing? I don't think we have those over here.
While the concept of alpha and beta males has been used to describe the intergroup dynamics one can observe in certain groups and could refer to a theoretical personality type you appear to have turned them into effectively seperate species, umm weird. This sounds like PUA/Game nonsense.
The only thing you gain from being in a relationship with a woman is sex.
While this might be true on a regular base before proposing and marrying, you will find out, that afterwards she will be far more unlikely to have sex with you and in the final step she will completely refuse to have sex with you.
She will sexually dry you out while still sucking out your wealth, your belongings and when there's nothing left your soul.
It gets even worse when you have kids. As a man you will always live under her opression, knowing if you start to fight she will just divorce and take whatever you have, your house, your car and your kids.
Leaving you with nothing.
It's best to stay away from them at all - Or pump them, afterwards dump em. Sex on a regular base is not worth the drama.
Troll warning. - Blinking Spirit
At the risk of feeding the troll, I wanted to address this comment because though vitriolic, it encapsulates a kind of anger and resentment that can brew in response to a perception that women are "in charge" of heterosexual monogamous relationships.
I think certain men who are going through a divorce proceeding can feel this way.
From what I've seen if you sucuumb to certain kinds of societal/mental pressure to
1) be married by a certain age.
2) be scared of being alone.
3) to just marry anyone because you don't believe you can play the dating game
4) or even marry for sex.
then you set yourself up positionally to be more likely to fall to that kind of thinking, where the women have the power and are "in charge"
Suppose you are this hypothethical person Bob.
Bob is terrified of being alone. He thinks he needs to get married before 30 as some kind of lifetime achievement, and he is not very confident in his ability to attract a mate.
He is absolutely thrilled by Alice who agrees to be with Bob. Alice is relatively attractive and Bob is not. Bob fears that if he loses Alice he will end up alone. Bob honestly thinks that Alice is his once chance in life to find someone. Bob is discouraged by the dating game and hates it.
Bob and Alice have some disagreements however.
Every argument, every challenge she brings to the table, Bob feels he has no choice but to submit because of his fear. Bob can't risk a lifetime of unhappiness for a stupid argument about which movie they are going to see tonight.
If this were poker, Alice would consistently raise, and Bob would consistently fold.
Overtime, Bob's feelings of resentment begin to grow. He feels Alice has all the power. She is pretty and attractive, can always find another man, while he was lucky in life to end up with such a "great catch".
The problem is that women are "in charge" of such a relationship because Bob is unable to adequately stand up for what he wanted. Bob is unable to stand up because of his fear of being alone.
It's easy to see why someone like Bob can over time, come to see the relationship and marriage in general (if he imputes his situation to others) as extortive.
The woman can extract her wants (money, support, small emotional day to day demands) and pack up and leave any time, and Bob has no choice but to give in to her demands.
Why does Bob have no choice but to give in?
It is not her fault. More than anything, it was Bob's own inability to assert himself and to stand up for his own wants that created the assymetric relationship in the first place.
Bob had a choice not to enter into such a relationship, and he has a choice now not to stay in such a relationship.
But he gave up that choice due to things like societal pressure and his own fears, and by so doing sowed the seeds to be exploited himself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Umm you need to learn to count. There are too many asterisks for it to be a "gendered" insult. It's a bodypart everyone has FYI.
This is nothing but a shaming tactic I thought enlightened folk like you Lord Owlington were supposed to be above that and if Im not mistaken its "gendered" too.
While I don't do this to troll I do get a kick out of the fact that we now live in a time where saying "Women are no better then men" is mysoginy but people like you can say without a hint of irony that "Misandry doesn't exist".
This is besides the fact that no one in this thread ever suggested that women were somehow better then men - you're the one who had to drag the idea into the conversation in the first place. Only a few people have declared "Women do X, men do Y" (which I disagree with btw), and never have anyone had a value judgment to accompany it. Literally no one else here seems to subscribe to the "Man bad, woman good" narrative that you accuse feminism of, so why are you trying to bring that into the discussion? Keep that talk in the thread that was set up for it.
But sure, some women are cruel... so those who date women need to be wise about how they pick their prospective partner, and be able to recognize when a relationship is going south, and be willing to end it (Just like those who date men have to do!). Which I'm guessing most people in this thread already knew. So. Yeah. In later news the sky is blue...
Of course misandry exists; mysoginy doesn't, though*.
*Misogyny does.
In fact, case in point posted just below you. Note the assumption that the only thing you gain from being in a relationship with a woman is sex. Note that emotional support/happiness/companionship from being in the relationship is not considered a gain.
Further note that the woman is said to 'suck out your wealth and belongings'. There is no consideration that the woman will be financially successful herself, and perhaps more so than the man.
Observe also that once the couple has children, the woman is said to 'oppress' the man, and that if the man 'fights back', the woman will take everything. It's just assumed that the man is the greater financial contributor. If the man has contributed less financially, he would gain, not lose, from the divorce.
Money talks.
Why can't the two members of the couple contribute different but equally valued things to the relationship? I don't get how contributing money makes someone the defacto leader while contributing time and energy (for example) doesn't.
For example, the average salary for a full-time live-in nanny is US$34k. If you subtract that from your earnings and add it to your partner's, you might find things a bit more equitable.
There's more to life and relationships than sex. Your view of women seems very spiteful to me and if you think all of them are like that then perhaps you're looking to meet nice girls in the wrong places.
There's so much to dissect in your post, but it all comes down to you reap what your sow.
Once you start using how much you earn against how much your partner earns as a platform for "who wears the pants" you really aren't quite cut out for marriage. This isn't a criticism to you directly, but to the idea of it.
I'm not saying that every marriage needs to be 50/50
But when you start using leverage against your partner, its not a good indicator.
You sound like a bitter young man who had his heart broken who is trying to convince themselves they never liked the person by making judgements on women and the institution of marriage.
Honestly, this type of thinking is only going to hurt you and cause you more loneliness.
Not much time and energy is required for a relationship without children.
The idea that money doesn't define a relationship and how it works is naive at best. A lot of divorces happen because of money issues.
Money is a big factor in life PERIOD
Divorces over money issues happen when the other factors of their relationship stop working SUCH AS: love, respect, communication, teamwork, collaboration, family identity, effort, the ability to problem solve as a couple...
Protip: Don't ever marry a woman you would be afraid to face in divorce court.
You know it's taken me years of observation of my friends, their friends, their wives, and more to finally conclude that there are many men who enjoy that 'submissiveness'.
By 'enjoy', I mean they honestly are more at ease emotionally with saying stuff like she's always right. They are a little unstable doing everything on their own and emotionally are more stable being a little 'mothered'
are not positions taken by one of equal bargaining power. A position like "she's always right" is in my opinion not a kind of healthy 'compromise'. Simply reverse "she's always right" with "he's always right" and see how that sounds. "Or happy husband, happy life."
Every relationship has it's own dynamic. Some men enjoy and feel secure with that kind of emotional babying. They find comfort in having *someone*, anyone really.
I happen to not be one of those men. But I'm in no position to judge other people and their relationship dynamics.
You don't have to tell a working person that money is a big factor in life period. I'm quite aware of it. You might want to tell that to the students and youth on here.
Money affects those other issues. When you're struggling to pay the mortgage and put food on the table, communication and other niceties are ancillary to survival.
There are no such things as equitable relationships. There will always be some degree of power struggle over issues like how to raise the kids, how to split the money, etc. There are no relationships without fights. Money is a big part of that.
Little known fact cats can be trained, they just take far more time and energy to train.
Obviously dogs are more easy to train, but I always get a chuckle when people have absolutely no control over their cat.
@comments about money:
Since the vast majority of divorces are primarily about one thing, money. I would say money is a HUGE issue in 99% of marriages, even if the marriage works for 50 years money will still be an issue at all times.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Another thing many are forgetting, relationships were quite different not too long ago. We look at history and see high brow people like JFK cheating and being a womanizer. This was quite common at all levels of society back then. Men had a woman at home taking care of their children and another woman for going out and having a good time. The trick was keeping the lady at home happy so you could live this double life. I am not saying I agree with the way of life, but thats where some of those sayings come from.
One last thing on the money issues, the more money a couple has, the more probelms it usually brings. Rich people have problems too and they are just as bad as those poor people deal with.
I don't necessarily agree with the idea of "mo money mo problems." Less money equals hustling, which is dangerous in itself. I've had friends who hustled just to get by. Fencing, dealing, trafficking, prostitution, the works.
If you have more money and have relationship problems, a divorce where the partner takes half is a big consideration. Being broke and desperate can equal hard time or getting killed.
My post was in response to Lord Owlingtons and I did not phrase it as "Men are no better then women" because it would make a hell of a lot less sense in the context I was using it.
Why would "Women are no better then men" be putting women down but not "Men are no better then women"? I don't view feminism alone as the source of all men's issues or misandry by any means and I didn't bring feminism into this thread. I do however believe society angelifies women and demonizes men in many ways and relationships are one of those ways. All relationship problems are viewed as a product of a mans short comings (not sensitive enough, not good enough in bed, not good enough of a provider etc.). Can you honestly deny this? Can you give counter examples?
This issue is at the heart of who has power in relationships (heterosexual ones anyway). If it is always about the man having to prove himself worthy how can you possibly view that as balanced.
However, I don't agree with the idea that whomever makes more money unilaterally should have "more power" in a relationship. I do think that it's generally a bit selfish to spend excessive amount of money on things for yourself when your spouse is the one that earns most of said money. However, what if the $-making spouse doesn't really care? For instance, my significant other makes more then me right now simply because he's employed and I'm not, but he doesn't have a lot of tastes/hobbies he cares to spend money on. Were we hypothetically married, I'd probably do more discretionary spending then him, and he wouldn't have a problem with it, because me spending $20 a month to play in FNM isn't likely to put him in the poor-house. If we were both ok with it and it worked for us, then it's really no one else's business to judge.
The tragedy of modern society is that this is true. All the women want is money, and the beta males have it, and are willing to give it. Alphas males can't compete, so their only option is hypergamy. When they have a one-night-stand, think they wear condoms? Yeah! So which male is reproducing? The beta male is. He is making more and more beta males. His children will genetically be beta males, he will teach them to be beta males, and they will learn from example to be a beta male.
You are right. In a traditional relationship the man would earn the money, put food on the table, keep his woman safe. The woman would in turn cook, clean, have sex with him, and raise his children.
Of course this is skewed now that women are allowed to have jobs and they can steal all of the mans money in a divorce (even if a pre-nup is signed: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302295/Millionaire-s-wife-won-landmark-pre-nup-victory-actually-left-having-AFFAIR-cousin-s-husband.html .)
You don't agree with him, so he is trolling.
Infraction for trolling -Senori
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
Alpha and beta males? Is this some kind of fraternity thing? I don't think we have those over here.
Oh good grief.
I'm curious; your words imply that you would prefer women not be allowed to have jobs. Why not?
At the risk of feeding the troll, I wanted to address this comment because though vitriolic, it encapsulates a kind of anger and resentment that can brew in response to a perception that women are "in charge" of heterosexual monogamous relationships.
I think certain men who are going through a divorce proceeding can feel this way.
From what I've seen if you sucuumb to certain kinds of societal/mental pressure to
1) be married by a certain age.
2) be scared of being alone.
3) to just marry anyone because you don't believe you can play the dating game
4) or even marry for sex.
then you set yourself up positionally to be more likely to fall to that kind of thinking, where the women have the power and are "in charge"
Suppose you are this hypothethical person Bob.
Bob is terrified of being alone. He thinks he needs to get married before 30 as some kind of lifetime achievement, and he is not very confident in his ability to attract a mate.
He is absolutely thrilled by Alice who agrees to be with Bob. Alice is relatively attractive and Bob is not. Bob fears that if he loses Alice he will end up alone. Bob honestly thinks that Alice is his once chance in life to find someone. Bob is discouraged by the dating game and hates it.
Bob and Alice have some disagreements however.
Every argument, every challenge she brings to the table, Bob feels he has no choice but to submit because of his fear. Bob can't risk a lifetime of unhappiness for a stupid argument about which movie they are going to see tonight.
If this were poker, Alice would consistently raise, and Bob would consistently fold.
Overtime, Bob's feelings of resentment begin to grow. He feels Alice has all the power. She is pretty and attractive, can always find another man, while he was lucky in life to end up with such a "great catch".
The problem is that women are "in charge" of such a relationship because Bob is unable to adequately stand up for what he wanted. Bob is unable to stand up because of his fear of being alone.
It's easy to see why someone like Bob can over time, come to see the relationship and marriage in general (if he imputes his situation to others) as extortive.
The woman can extract her wants (money, support, small emotional day to day demands) and pack up and leave any time, and Bob has no choice but to give in to her demands.
Why does Bob have no choice but to give in?
It is not her fault. More than anything, it was Bob's own inability to assert himself and to stand up for his own wants that created the assymetric relationship in the first place.
Bob had a choice not to enter into such a relationship, and he has a choice now not to stay in such a relationship.
But he gave up that choice due to things like societal pressure and his own fears, and by so doing sowed the seeds to be exploited himself.