Originally Posted by ambience

John. you might like to add the "passive-aggressive" behaviors and lack/fear of making a commitment to a loving relationship being practiced by men from the time of the 60's. Coincides with the "feminist cause" and I can see a connection, or rather, disconnection by men.
Women since the 60's have been encouraged to have that career first, pushing the age of marriage and/or motherhood into the thirties. Then the bio clock starts ringing the alarm. Women, encouraged that they can still make babies "up to age 50" have gotten the wakeup call...most will not be fertile after age 40, and more dangerous if a first child.
Older Women have children now without the benefit of a husband because they are financially independent, don't want the male involvement in raising the his child, and don't trust the man to be a connected parent. Right or wrong, reflects the ambivalence between the sexes.
However, there is a new movement among young women to have the family fist and the career second, despite warnings that she will lose her place" on the career superhighway.
The behaviors of the gender conflicts seem rooted in a time when the "individual" was given most importance, and divisions between the sexes ignored the real value of two different approaches to a balanced life, male and female. And during this time, boys were devalued and girls were pushed forward in the educational system. :!:

This seems to jibe with articles I've read in the past couple years about why so many (presumably Xer) men find it difficult to get dates, let alone girlfriends or wives...and why an equal number of women lament the shortage of "good" men out there. It seems to boil down to a reluctance of men to take the lead in pursuing and conducting relationships, and the perception on part of women that such men are wimps unworthy of being loved.

Assuming this is true, why might this situation be? Obviously it hasn't been the case throughout human history, or else homo sapiens would have died out long ago. I say it has to do with the ugly (primary?) side of feminism, the demonizing of men by the media in the name of political correctness and righting some perceived wrong, over the past thirty-odd years.

After having it drummed into him throughout his childhood (by a Boomer mom who sang "I Am Woman" to him as a bedtime song, according to one account) that his very manhood was a Very Bad Thing, it is conceivable that a many an Xer man actually feels guilty about pursuing women and thus is weak and tentative in his approach (which, in the height of irony, turns most of the supossedly strong, invincible women off).

So what we've ended up with is masses of people who don't figure out who they really want to be until their thirties and forties when it's often too late to do much with it. Just another way in which the Boom Awakening fucked up the minds and lives of a great many people.

In The Introvert Advantage there was the scenario in which an extroverted woman assumes that an introverted man is a wimp-because he is an introvert. So roughly a quarter of the men fail the image because three-quarters of the women don't get introverts.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

In The Introvert Advantage there was the scenario in which an extroverted woman assumes that an introverted man is a wimp-because he is an introvert. So roughly a quarter of the men fail the image because three-quarters of the women don't get introverts.

There is some truth to that. In previous saeculae a hard-working, intelligent, introverted man would have been considered a prize catch as "the strong, silent type". However at least since the Awakening, women have fallen into an odd habit of referring to guys they find wimpy as..."nice" guys, and somehow "niceness" has somehow become associated more with introversion than extroversion (go figure). Many introverted guys, on the other hand, have taken the term "nice" literally and concluded that one has to be an outgoing, abusive jerk in order to get a date....and either suck it up and become jerks themselves, or eventually give up even trying to date.

So the end result is an awful lot of people (one quarter of the population sounds just about right) ending up alone, guys and girls alike. All because of a misunderstanding that -- like most things Awakening -- got way out of control.

Reminds me of Crossing Delancy, but without the happy ending.

Interesting thread.

In recent decades an enormous amount of new attention has focused upon abuse of women by men. What is almost never brought up is the possibility that the men are retaliating for abuse by women, specifically, by their mothers. I suspect this is true in a significant number of cases. O. J. Simpson, to cite one non-random example, was frequently beaten by his mother as a youth.

The black community seems if anything to be more prone to the idea that sparing the road = spoiling the child. Spike Lee has gingerly explored this a few times in his movies, most notably in "Get on the Bus," when a number of black men on their way to Farrakhan's march reminisce about how their mothers used to whack the hell out of them to keep them on the straight and narrow. Like so many abused children, they talk as if this was something to be grateful for. The exception is a guy with a white mother,who reports, to their amazement, that his mother never beat him.

I'm not saying mothers are responsible for all spousal abuse. I am saying they may be responsible for a good deal. And I certainly share the view that our society can't stand the idea that women are capable of hurting helpless incidents. Although I am against capital punishment, I was appalled by the incredible hypocrisy of the Texas court that refused to execute the woman--can't remember her name just now--who drowned her five kids. If anyone ever proved she didn't deserve to live, in my opinion, it was her. (Let's see--was it Andrea Yates? Yes, that's right.)

David K '47

I've done a bit of reading about this subject. People filter out others by, first, looking for flash. You may offer substance, but people are looking for shiny gold nuggets instead of the diamond in the rough. (Actually, I suspect that many divorced people chose fools gold). This is strongly emphasized by dating services & the like-the trappings of high social status. For men, money/power/flashy career. For women, physical appearance. Actually, these demands should filter out the vast majority of both genders.

Myself? One book commented that the personal qualities I have to offer would be more appreciated in a dog than in a man.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

There is some truth to that. In previous saeculae a hard-working, intelligent, introverted man would have been considered a prize catch as "the strong, silent type". However at least since the Awakening, women have fallen into an odd habit of referring to guys they find wimpy as..."nice" guys, and somehow "niceness" has somehow become associated more with introversion than extroversion (go figure). Many introverted guys, on the other hand, have taken the term "nice" literally and concluded that one has to be an outgoing, abusive jerk in order to get a date....and either suck it up and become jerks themselves, or eventually give up even trying to date.

So the end result is an awful lot of people (one quarter of the population sounds just about right) ending up alone, guys and girls alike. All because of a misunderstanding that -- like most things Awakening -- got way out of control.

It's more than just a misunderstanding. It's one of the many twisted values that Madison Avenue/Hollywood peddles intentionally, because it's profitable. :evil:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

So what we've ended up with is masses of people who don't figure out who they really want to be until their thirties and forties when it's often too late to do much with it. Just another way in which the Boom Awakening fucked up the minds and lives of a great many people.

The damage isn't done yet, either.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

There is some truth to that. In previous saeculae a hard-working, intelligent, introverted man would have been considered a prize catch as "the strong, silent type". However at least since the Awakening, women have fallen into an odd habit of referring to guys they find wimpy as..."nice" guys, and somehow "niceness" has somehow become associated more with introversion than extroversion (go figure). Many introverted guys, on the other hand, have taken the term "nice" literally and concluded that one has to be an outgoing, abusive jerk in order to get a date....and either suck it up and become jerks themselves, or eventually give up even trying to date.

So the end result is an awful lot of people (one quarter of the population sounds just about right) ending up alone, guys and girls alike. All because of a misunderstanding that -- like most things Awakening -- got way out of control.

Yes it's true, abusive jerks get laid more often - but really - look at who they are laying? Dumb bimbos. It's just a rule of nature - bimbos and assholes attract one another to create little bimbos and jerks.
Perhaps the real problem has been that you are a quiet introverted guy that was seeking bimbos at the bar instead of ladies at the library.

I wouldn't pin anything on the "Awakening" though. Come off it, prior to 1964 "quiet, shy guys" were known as nerds and passed over for abusive, buzz cut jock assholes by said bimbos. In fact, it appears, at least to me, that girls became more open to the idea of a "quiet shy" guy during the Awakening. They became open to a lot more things and options and I think that's a good thing.

Today I read celebrity stories about a 35 year old actress who's dating a 25 year old leading man. Then there's Gwyneth paltrow whose husband is five years her junior, Madonna's man is ten years younger, and Cameron Diaz's boy - Justin Timberlake is also.
I think that's great, and it would have been totally unacceptable pre-Awakening, a time when it was ok for some guy that was fifty to marry a 25 year old, but not vice versa, when all that mattered in being a man was making money and being able to provide, where men were completely shut out of the child rearing process, when physical punishment was the norm - when men had to live these closeted little lives all shut off from their true feelings and desires.
That time period sounds like it just plain sucked. I'm glad I grew up the way I did -
There are plenty of fish in the sea - and just between me and you Kevin - you can have children basically for the rest of your life. There are plenty of Boomer guys out there who waited REAL long to settle down and have kids. They look at me like I'm some kind of freak, but the truth is, in America, it's perfectly acceptable for a man to start a family at 45.
Another by product of that wonderful Awakening

Dear Ambience,

Originally Posted by ambience

> John. you might like to add the "passive-aggressive" behaviors and
> lack/fear of making a commitment to a loving relationship being
> practiced by men from the time of the 60's. Coincides with the
> "feminist cause" and I can see a connection, or rather,
> disconnection by men.

> Women since the 60's have been encouraged to have that career
> first, pushing the age of marriage and/or motherhood into the
> thirties. Then the bio clock starts ringing the alarm. Women,
> encouraged that they can still make babies "up to age 50" have
> gotten the wakeup call...most will not be fertile after age 40,
> and more dangerous if a first child.

> Older Women have children now without the benefit of a husband
> because they are financially independent, don't want the male
> involvement in raising the his child, and don't trust the man to
> be a connected parent. Right or wrong, reflects the ambivalence
> between the sexes.

> However, there is a new movement among young women to have the
> family fist and the career second, despite warnings that she will
> lose her place" on the career superhighway.

> The behaviors of the gender conflicts seem rooted in a time when
> the "individual" was given most importance, and divisions between
> the sexes ignored the real value of two different approaches to a
> balanced life, male and female. And during this time, boys were
> devalued and girls were pushed forward in the educational system.
> Exclamation

Those of us who happen to be men are always perplexed by female
behavior, and what appears to us to be its high volatility and
variability. A number of the things you've mentioned here have been
puzzling to many men of my generation for many decades. I certainly
don't have any explanation for why women do what they do, but they
sure do hurt a lot of people when they do the things you describe,
including themselves.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Kevin,

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

> This seems to jibe with articles I've read in the past couple
> years about why so many (presumably Xer) men find it difficult to
> get dates, let alone girlfriends or wives...and why an equal
> number of women lament the shortage of "good" men out there. It
> seems to boil down to a reluctance of men to take the lead in
> pursuing and conducting relationships, and the perception on part
> of women that such men are wimps unworthy of being loved.

With regard to this dating issue, my theory is that this has to do
with the gender balance. After WW II killed so many young men, the
gender balance favored men. Today, the ratio of men to women is
high, so the gender balance favors women. Presumably, after the next
war, things will go back the other way again.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear David,

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

> In recent decades an enormous amount of new attention has focused
> upon abuse of women by men. What is almost never brought up is the
> possibility that the men are retaliating for abuse by women,
> specifically, by their mothers. I suspect this is true in a
> significant number of cases. O. J. Simpson, to cite one non-random
> example, was frequently beaten by his mother as a youth.

I'll give you another example, which I've always considered really
mind-blowing.

I'm sure you remember ten years ago when Tonya Harding was the figure
skating champion who arranged for her bodyguard to take a hammer and
break the knee of her opponent, Nancy Kerrigan. In the end, Kerrigan
recovered and beat Harding in the 1994 Winter Olympics.

I became interested in this story, and I used CompuServe's Executive
News Service to collect all the news wire stories containing the word
"Tonya", and I collected several hundred stories over a period of
several months. 60 Minutes reran an old 1980s segment on
Harding in which she accused her mother LaVona Golden, of physically
abusing her.

I went back and read through all those several hundred news stories,
only one out of the several hundred mentioned her mother's
abusiveness.

It was pretty obvious that Tonya's hatred of Kerrigan was at least
partially rooted in being physically abused by her mother, but not a
single story picked up on that obvious connection.

The one exception that mentioned it (a 1/26/94 UPI story) told how
LaVona Golden slapped her daughter and forced her to urinate on
herself if she didn't behave or do well enough at ice skating.
Golden defended her abusiveness by saying that "she saw skating as
Harding's ticket out of trailer park poverty. 'I just wanted her not
to have a life like I had,' said Golden, who worked as a waitress to
pay for skating lessons and sewed her costume.

The title of the story? "Tonya was pushed to win by 'brutal'
mother."

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

> The black community seems if anything to be more prone to the idea
> that sparing the road = spoiling the child. Spike Lee has gingerly
> explored this a few times in his movies, most notably in "Get on
> the Bus," when a number of black men on their way to Farrakhan's
> march reminisce about how their mothers used to whack the hell out
> of them to keep them on the straight and narrow. Like so many
> abused children, they talk as if this was something to be grateful
> for. The exception is a guy with a white mother,who reports, to
> their amazement, that his mother never beat him.

The whole situation with the black community is truly disgraceful,
with 72% of black children born out of wedlock. The first time I saw
that figure I thought it must be a misprint (I thought it must be
12%). It's hard to imagine any more monstrous and destructive policy
than the ones that pay women to have children out of wedlock. They
have destroyed the black family, and subjected blacks to violence,
imprisonment and drug abuse, because women have been paid to have
fatherless children.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

> I'm not saying mothers are responsible for all spousal abuse. I am
> saying they may be responsible for a good deal. And I certainly
> share the view that our society can't stand the idea that women
> are capable of hurting helpless incidents. Although I am against
> capital punishment, I was appalled by the incredible hypocrisy of
> the Texas court that refused to execute the woman--can't remember
> her name just now--who drowned her five kids. If anyone ever
> proved she didn't deserve to live, in my opinion, it was her.
> (Let's see--was it Andrea Yates? Yes, that's right.)

There actually is research to support this view. You've undoubtedly
heard the oft-repeated statistic that children of male batterers are
more likely to become batterers themselves. But the more important
statistic, and the one you never hear, is that sons of female
batterers are FAR MORE LIKELY to become batterers.

The reason is obvious. When a boy sees his father beat his mother,
then he knows in his gut that it's wrong. But when a boy sees his
mother beat his father, then his feelings are much more ambiguous,
and he comes to believe that his mother LIKES violence, or even is
erotically TURNED ON by violence, so he's more likely to become a
batterer.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Tim,

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

> I've done a bit of reading about this subject. People filter out
> others by, first, looking for flash. You may offer substance, but
> people are looking for shiny gold nuggets instead of the diamond
> in the rough. (Actually, I suspect that many divorced people chose
> fools gold). This is strongly emphasized by dating services & the
> like-the trappings of high social status. For men,
> money/power/flashy career. For women, physical appearance.
> Actually, these demands should filter out the vast majority of
> both genders.

> Myself? One book commented that the personal qualities I have to
> offer would be more appreciated in a dog than in a man.

I got quite a laugh out of this, and I know the feeling.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It's more than just a misunderstanding. It's one of the many twisted values that Madison Avenue/Hollywood peddles intentionally, because it's profitable. :evil:

Were those the same values espoused by the Governor of California
(in 66 or 04)?

Why do Western Men adore Korean Women?



(Nikki Park & Wesley Snipes (left) and Woody Allen & Soon-yi Previn)

What is it about Korean Women that Western Men Like?

We know that Korean-American Alice Kim (Korean name: Kim Yong-gyeong)
will marry Hollywood star Nicolas Cage in June. Kim's uncle, an
executive at a credit agency, said in an interview with a Korean daily
paper that, "I understand that Alice Kim and Nicolas Cage will marry
in June." This marriage may be postponed, however; Cage is leaving for
Africa in July to shoot his new film, "Lord of War."

Why are American film stars into Korean women? Kenny, an executive at
a LA Koreatown broadcasting company, said in an interview with a
Korean broadcaster that, "Korean women are submissive and kind. They
are known to make breakfast, lunch and dinner for their husbands, help
their husbands well, and raise children well." There are also those
who feel that in the eyes of Western men, East Asian women possess a
sort of mysteriousness about them. They say that one can grow fond of
the unknown "Orient." 24-year-old James Cecil, an American living in
Korea, said, "Even Korean women who are not though of as pretty by
Korean men can give a sense of mystery to Western men." 29-year-old
English teacher Mike Conforty said, "Korean women are gentle, feminine
and quiet. I think Korean women are the prettiest of all East Asian
women."

Western men also seem to find the purity and conservativeness of
Korean women attractive. 25-year-old USFK soldier Blake Selesnew said,
"American women are too materialistic, but Korean women aren't. They
seem less snobby." Korea University English instructor Zane Ivy said,
"Korean women are conservative. They are conscience of what people
around them think, depend on their families and parents and are
submissive."

Before Alice Kim and Nicolas Cage, other Hollywood couples with Korean
women included Wesley Snipes and Nikki Park and Woody Allen and
Soon-Yi Previn. Less well known was "About Schmidt" director Alexander
Payne's marriage last year to Korean-Canadian actress Sandra Oh.
Meanwhile, Woody Allen attended a literature event last October in
Frankfurt, Germany and said he would write an autobiography containing
the story of how he split from long-time lover Mia Farrow and fell in
love and married Farrow's adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn.

(englishnews@chosun.com )

Re: Xers, Watters wrote that the trend to late marrying is at least partly due to the search for a soul mate.

Dear Kiff,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> Do you also teach your own children to be rude and disrespectful?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> No, but I've taught them to cut through nonsense when they see it.
> You can't achieve intellectual or moral clarity by simply sucking
> up to the powers that be.

Yeah, yeah, and I'm sure that you also taught them to eat their
vegetables and to wash behind their ears.

So tell me, exactly what "power that be" are you suggesting that I
am, to justify what you did?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> Unprovoked, certainly. But I think it's cowardly to take potshots
> at the young and then hide behind one's age. Respect goes both
> ways.

I wasn't really interested in taking a potshot at him. I mostly
wanted to take a potshot at you.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> Oh, indeed. You aren't immune from spreading rudeness around here
> on occasion. You insulted me during one of our discussions on
> feminism. You're impatient and condescending to people here who
> disagree with you.
> http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1175

Not with people who disagree with me, but with people who attack me
first. I don't claim to be a saint, but you can go back through all
my postings and you'll have a very hard time finding any place where
I was "impatient and condescending" with anyone except in response to
a message where someone attacked me personally first. I find that
people who criticize my attitude or behavior seldom bother to check
out or acknowledge the attitude or behavior that provoked it.

It's actually the other way around from what you say. I've been
getting called "arrogant" and "impatient" and "condescending" in this
forum for years, by people WHO DISAGREED WITH ME. That's the
opposite of what you're saying. I first really saw this in a
discussion of the causes of the civil war. I was called "arrogant"
because of the certitude with which I stated my views. Why even
bother to call me "arrogant"? Just tell me I'm wrong and leave it at
that. Instead, these people attacked me personally because I didn't
agree with them.

Calling me "arrogant" is like telling me I'm a Boomer. Frankly, I'm
very proud of the work I've done with Generational Dynamics, and
believe that it will turn out to be significant. I think I have a
right to be arrogant about it. If I'm not willing to vigorously
fight for its validity and value, then who will?

Now let's turn to the specific place where you say that I offended
you:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> If I were a good feminist, like Kiff, then I'd have to assume you
> were lying, because you're a victim and you're afraid that it'll
> be dangerous for you to tell the truth.

It was not my intention to offend you with this statement, but I
think you're right to feel offended because I unfairly personalized
this remark with the words "like Kiff," and I apologize for doing
that. I could have left those two words out and made the same point
without personalizing it.

But I don't apologize for the content of the statement. I made this
statement in the context of an argument about feminism we were
already having in a different thread. This statement was simply part
of that argument.

Feminist literature is loaded with statements that women are always
afraid to name their rapist, name their batterer, name their
harasser, name their abuser, etc., etc. And why are they afraid?
Because they're afraid of retaliation, afraid of being raped again,
afraid of being battered again, afraid of being abused again,
economically dependent, thinks that she's to blame instead of the
rapist or batterer or harasser or abuser, blah blah blah and on and
on.

This is all fundraising stuff. In divorce it's an excuse to extort
more money from the father, or to pay for feminist organizations to
collect money for "sensitivity training" for police. In colleges,
it's used to justify funding for "rape counseling centers" which are
supposedly needed because 25% of all college girls get raped, and
when the figure turns out to be only ½ of 1%, then the "rape
counseling centers" are needed because the other 24½% of girls are
afraid to admit they were raped, blame themselves, afraid of
retaliation, afraid of being raped again, afraid of not being
believed, blah blah blah.

There's nothing principled about any of this. There's Susan Estrich,
who claims she was violently raped by a black man in 1974, and then
who lectured for 20 years and wrote a book called "Real Rape" about
how men don't take rape seriously, about how policemen and politicians
cover up rapes and protect each other rather than admit to rapes, and
how women who claim they were raped are never believed. Then she
whored herself out to President Clinton by becoming his leading
defender when he was credibly accused of being a violent serial rapist
by several women, one of whom went on "60 minutes." It later turned
out that Clinton and Estrich had paid off NOW and other feminist
organizations to keep their mouths shut. I still can't get over how
she sold out her entire life's work for politics. I don't see how
this woman can even live with herself. But feminism isn't about
anything but votes and fundraising. And don't even get me started
about the Duke case.

(Continued in next posting)

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

(Continued from previous posting)

And feminists claim to be interested in the welfare of children, but
let's not forget how feminists came to the defense of Andrea Yates
after her premeditated murder of her five beautiful children. I'll
bet feminist organizations raised millions of dollars on the deaths
of Yates' children. How much is a dead child worth to feminists?
Maybe they should start a new ad campaign: Kill a child for feminism!

So anyway, I made that posting for the point that feminism is
completely unprincipled. Feminist literature is full of stuff about
not believing women "victims" when they claim that they weren't
raped, battered, harassed, abused, etc., because that's part of the
whole fundraising thing. I knew very well that you wouldn't
disbelieve Jenny, since she's your friend and besides, there's no
fundraising involved. (I'm not saying that to be offensive; I'm just
making the point again that this stuff is all about fundraising for
feminists.)

So let's get back to the statement that offended you. What was the
actual offense? I was saying that you're a good feminist, and I was
saying that good feminists follow feminist policy, which is to
disbelieve "victims." The fact that my posting was offensive to you
is actually proof that the point, and shows that feminism is
offensive even to you, when it's applied to you.

(It reminds me of an online radical feminist friend about ten years
ago. She was a manager and had told a slightly off-color joke to one
of her employees, and he made a formal sexual harassment charge
against her. She was absolutely off the wall furious that this was
happening. You can't imagine how much Schadenfreude I enjoyed over
this incident.)

I do apologize for offending you, but there's one thing that you
can't or won't admit -- that this forum contains a real nasty streak
of people, centered mostly in your own Clique of friends, that's
extremely offensive to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.

You have your own pat little set of Democratic Party beliefs, and
your own pat little set of feminist beliefs, and anyone who doesn't
agree is arrogant, condescending, cretinous and evil. And if we're to
judge by recent events then, as a woman, you're not afraid to play an
occasional game of "Let's you and him fight." (See paragraph #3 on
this page: http://www.ericberne.com/games/games...play_LYAHF.htm
)

And I'm not the only one. I disagree with a lot of what Marc says,
but I'm absolutely astounded by how offensively he's treated. He and
I are in similar situations, as he himself pointed out a few months
ago; although we have different views, in both cases we have to adopt
some sort of "bunker attitude" in order to deal with the mountains of
crap dumped on us. He and I handle it in different ways. He handles
it in his way, and I handle it by becoming "arrogant" and "impatient"
and "condescending" with people who attack me personally.

The fact that people who fail to march in lockstep with the party line
are villified in this forum means that it's impossible for a lot of
people to even come into to this forum. Why is this forum so
overwhelming Democratic -- something like 95%+? Don't Republicans
also read TFT? The answer is that they come into this forum, quickly
get the picture that they're not wanted, and either remain as lurkers
or leave.

You may be surprised to learn that there are several people in this
forum who have privately messaged me over the years thanking me for
my work. Why don't they post that in the forum? Because they're
afraid that they'll receive the same kind of offensive treatment that
I receive -- and we know how right that fear is.

I just wish that this forum had an active moderator. You might be
amused to learn that when I was running the "My ex-husband is now my
financial slave" forum, I always made sure that the feminists had a
chance to be heard. The people I had the most problems with were the
fathers' rights people, who were angry at me because I was a fathers'
rights advocate but still allowed feminists to be heard. I responded
to all the feminists' remarks, but that wasn't enough for them. I
actually had to put some of the fathers' rights people on moderation
because they insisted on treating the feminists abusively. An active
moderator can make sure that everyone is treated fairly.

Under the present circumstances, the only people who can post in this
forum are (a) people who follow in lockstep with the party line, or
(b) people, like Marc and me, who are prepared withstand the onslaught
of crap they receive when they don't follow the party line.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Ciao

Yes it's true, abusive jerks get laid more often - but really - look at who they are laying? Dumb bimbos. It's just a rule of nature - bimbos and assholes attract one another to create little bimbos and jerks.
Perhaps the real problem has been that you are a quiet introverted guy that was seeking bimbos at the bar instead of ladies at the library.

I wouldn't pin anything on the "Awakening" though. Come off it, prior to 1964 "quiet, shy guys" were known as nerds and passed over for abusive, buzz cut jock assholes by said bimbos. In fact, it appears, at least to me, that girls became more open to the idea of a "quiet shy" guy during the Awakening. They became open to a lot more things and options and I think that's a good thing.

Today I read celebrity stories about a 35 year old actress who's dating a 25 year old leading man. Then there's Gwyneth paltrow whose husband is five years her junior, Madonna's man is ten years younger, and Cameron Diaz's boy - Justin Timberlake is also.
I think that's great, and it would have been totally unacceptable pre-Awakening, a time when it was ok for some guy that was fifty to marry a 25 year old, but not vice versa, when all that mattered in being a man was making money and being able to provide, where men were completely shut out of the child rearing process, when physical punishment was the norm - when men had to live these closeted little lives all shut off from their true feelings and desires.
That time period sounds like it just plain sucked. I'm glad I grew up the way I did -
There are plenty of fish in the sea - and just between me and you Kevin - you can have children basically for the rest of your life. There are plenty of Boomer guys out there who waited REAL long to settle down and have kids. They look at me like I'm some kind of freak, but the truth is, in America, it's perfectly acceptable for a man to start a family at 45.
Another by product of that wonderful Awakening

Actually my present girlfriend is a bookish, library type... as have most of the women I've dated for any length of time. Bimbos have never really done much for me. There's something about not wanting or needing to think about anything that is a real... bone shriveler.

But honestly I believe it was the Unravelling that did all that you thank the Awakening for. The CR, for all that its purveyors touted "freedom" and "making love, not war", was if anything more coercive than the High was. I remember... I was there. The only difference between the 1T and the 2T was the values one was coerced into adopting. Only in the 3T did individuality finally trump the demands of whatever group you found yourself in, and of society at large... finally, one could do one's own thing without being ostracized by one's peers. At least that is how it was for me.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

(Continued from previous posting)

Under the present circumstances, the only people who can post in this
forum are (a) people who follow in lockstep with the party line, or
(b) people, like Marc and me, who are prepared withstand the onslaught
of crap they receive when they don't follow the party line.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

You're joking, right? I can't speak for the others on this board, but if one knows nothing else about me, one knows I don't follow anyone's party line about anything. I, for one, don't see any inherent conflict in being strongly populist/anti-corporate, yet being as tough-on-crime as any Law-And-Order Republican. And yet I've been regularly posting on this forum for the past seven years with minimal static.

FWIW, I find a modicum of truth in many of your tirades against feminists... however I do feel you paint women with too broad a brush, even those who (rightly or wrongly) consider themselves "feminists". I doubt seriously that Kiff condones spiteful women enslaving their ex-husbands financially, and I know for a fact that Jenny doesn't.

I might also add that the reason people dislike Marc is because he's an asshole... not because he's a conservative Republican. To illustrate my point, Virgil Saari is also a conservative Republican, yet he's arguably the most respected poster on this board. Why do you suppose he's most often referred to here as "Mr. Saari"?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

You're joking, right? I can't speak for the others on this board, but if one knows nothing else about me, one knows I don't follow anyone's party line about anything. I, for one, don't see any inherent conflict in being strongly populist/anti-corporate, yet being as tough-on-crime as any Law-And-Order Republican. And yet I've been regularly posting on this forum for the past seven years with minimal static.

FWIW, I find a modicum of truth in many of your tirades against feminists... however I do feel you paint women with too broad a brush, even those who (rightly or wrongly) consider themselves "feminists". I doubt seriously that Kiff condones spiteful women enslaving their ex-husbands financially, and I know for a fact that Jenny doesn't.

I consider myself a feminist. When I was divorced I was unemployed and searching for work (& registered with every temp agency in town) and asked my ex for a modest sum plus paying my health insurance. (OTH, I was willing to live in a one room apartment for the duration, too. And the kids were both frown.)

When I got a job with the University that ceased. When we went before a mediator to settle the last of the property division we were in agreement on just about everything. The only question then was who should pay for our youngest daughter's college tuition vs the rest of her needs.

The mediator pointed out that since she was over 18, neither of us was legally obligated to do so. We looked at each other in perfect agreement, then I took the tuition, which being a fixed sum I understood, and he took the living expenses, case closed, over & done with.

"A feminist is someone who believes that women are people."

I have always tried to act as if I were people.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I consider myself a feminist. When I was divorced I was unemployed and searching for work (& registered with every temp agency in town) and asked my ex for a modest sum plus paying my health insurance. (OTH, I was willing to live in a one room apartment for the duration, too. And the kids were both frown.)

When I got a job with the University that ceased. When we went before a mediator to settle the last of the property division we were in agreement on just about everything. The only question then was who should pay for our youngest daughter's college tuition vs the rest of her needs.

The mediator pointed out that since she was over 18, neither of us was legally obligated to do so. We looked at each other in perfect agreement, then I took the tuition, which being a fixed sum I understood, and he took the living expenses, case closed, over & done with.

"A feminist is someone who believes that women are people."

I have always tried to act as if I were people.

Most people agree with you, both that women are people and that all divorces aren't predatory.

The problem in defining "feminist", I believe, stems from an observation that the term has been co-opted by extremists, those who believe that "all people are created equal, but some people (females) are more equal than others".

Dear Kevin,

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

> You're joking, right? I can't speak for the others on this board,
> but if one knows nothing else about me, one knows I don't follow
> anyone's party line about anything. I, for one, don't see any
> inherent conflict in being strongly populist/anti-corporate, yet
> being as tough-on-crime as any Law-And-Order Republican. And yet
> I've been regularly posting on this forum for the past seven years
> with minimal static.

How do you feel about George Bush?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

> FWIW, I find a modicum of truth in many of your tirades against
> feminists... however I do feel you paint women with too broad a
> brush, even those who (rightly or wrongly) consider themselves
> "feminists". I doubt seriously that Kiff condones spiteful women
> enslaving their ex-husbands financially, and I know for a fact
> that Jenny doesn't.

I really agree with you, Kevin. I certainly don't have anything
against Jenny or Kiff or any of the many feminists I've known. Heck,
I've even had sex with some of them, which was a supreme sacrifice.
(I'm joking, I'm joking!)

I obviously feel a lot of anger on this subject, which won't be a
surprise to you or anyone, but the anger is directed at the people in
the divorce system, many (and perhaps most) of whom are really
out-and-out criminals, and in politics in general, gaining votes by
bashing men. I've known a lot of really nice guys who have been
totally screwed over in the divorce courts, for no other reason than
the sin of being a man, and it infuriates me.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Pat,

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

> I consider myself a feminist. When I was divorced I was unemployed
> and searching for work (& registered with every temp agency in
> town) and asked my ex for a modest sum plus paying my health
> insurance. (OTH, I was willing to live in a one room apartment for
> the duration, too. And the kids were both frown.)

> When I got a job with the University that ceased. When we went
> before a mediator to settle the last of the property division we
> were in agreement on just about everything. The only question then
> was who should pay for our youngest daughter's college tuition vs
> the rest of her needs.

> The mediator pointed out that since she was over 18, neither of us
> was legally obligated to do so. We looked at each other in perfect
> agreement, then I took the tuition, which being a fixed sum I
> understood, and he took the living expenses, case closed, over &
> done with.

> "A feminist is someone who believes that women are people."

> I have always tried to act as if I were people.

Pat, I've never had any doubt that you were a people.

Merry Christmas!

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Kevin,



How do you feel about George Bush?



I really agree with you, Kevin. I certainly don't have anything
against Jenny or Kiff or any of the many feminists I've known. Heck,
I've even had sex with some of them, which was a supreme sacrifice.
(I'm joking, I'm joking!)

I obviously feel a lot of anger on this subject, which won't be a
surprise to you or anyone, but the anger is directed at the people in
the divorce system, many (and perhaps most) of whom are really
out-and-out criminals, and in politics in general, gaining votes by
bashing men. I've known a lot of really nice guys who have been
totally screwed over in the divorce courts, for no other reason than
the sin of being a man, and it infuriates me.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Bush? I dislike him intensely. For one simple reason: This President would really love to privatize my job. To put more money into the hands of Halliburton et al. Even though this would cost the taxpayers twice as much money. Which dovetails nicely with GWB's wholehearted support and encouragement of offshoring our entire manufacturing base. Enough said.

The divorce system? I've heard many of the same horror stories myself. What's scariest about it is they could end up killing off the institution of marraige, with all that such implies, if when the dust settles most men are too afraid of ending up as indentured servants. OTOH, my own divorce went pretty smoothly. It cost me the princely sum of $500 in attorney's fees... no alimony, and no loss of half my assets, either. Signed off on July 25, 2002... by a female judge! I didn't even have to attend the "ceremony". So my thinking is that the whole opportunism thing is on the wane... gone the way of erstwhile million-dollar hot coffee lawsuits... which is what I would expect entering a Fourth Turning.