I can’t speak for MRA’s, because I’m not one. But, in my opinion, most men want to be men. That means, however, they need to stop listening to women. Women do not know how to be men. And they must especially stop listening to feminists.
You need to look more closely. Whenever there’s a proposal to make 50/50 custody the default, instead of every-other-weekend, feminists have opposed it. Whenever there’s a measure to get rid of alimony, feminists have opposed it. 97% of alimony goes to women.
As far as child-care, men have stepped up to the plate. We do more child-care than ever. But when it comes to divorce, feminists revert to the 1950’s.
I don’t think anyone is scorning the poor guy with an unfortunate crush.
They are scorning the guys in that situation that then turn blame on the woman, and women in general,m. We’ve all heard it before-- women are golddiggers, only want jerks, hypocrites, don’t know what is good for them, etc. all because he didn’t float one particular woman’s boat.
There shouldn’t be a default for custody… Every case is different and should be evaluated on its own.
Being nice is good. And it would be wonderful if everyone returned niceness with niceness. But unfortunately, everyone doesn’t. In fact, some people take advantage, instead. It’s an unfortunate truth, but a truth nonetheless. In any case, I agree it isn’t a good way to attract women.
On a side note, I still disagree with you about talking to women. I still do: they usually smile, or laugh, or say something back. But maybe women are different where you are.
I’m not sure what your point about being nice has to do with feminism.
What do you disagree with me about in terms of talking to women?
Well, we’re not really discussing any specific case here, we’re discussing it as a trope. And I think that’s rather telling, that this accusation is leveled so often as to have become a trope.
And so what if a guy does say some of those things? People say unkind things when they’re hurt or disappointed. They leap to conclusions sometimes to protect their own egos. I don’t think that necessarily means that they’ve been dishonest and underhanded from the very start.
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind about somebody as you get to know them. I never claimed that anybody is obligated always to want the same thing at all times. But they are obligated not to pretend they want one thing if they know that what they want is something different.
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
- As clairobscur said, if it was just about sex they wouldn’t be so focused on one person and so disappointed when it goes unrequited. And that’s not to say that they feel entitled to sex. We weren’t entitled to a new bicycle on Christmas morning when we were kids, but we could still be disappointed not to get it.
[/quote]
Nobody’s saying that anybody mustn’t or shouldn’t feel disappointed if a hoped-for relationship didn’t work out. But they shouldn’t automatically default to blaming the person who turned them down.
Remember, this exchange originated as a query about whether/when women should rightfully “get shit” for “putting” rejected suitors “in the friendzone”. My point is not that men should never feel unrequited attraction or never feel hurt when their attraction isn’t reciprocated, just that they shouldn’t assume that the object of their affections deserves to “get shit” for not wanting anything more than friendship with them.
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
- I don’t get the level of vitriol directed at these guys, even if the allegation were true. He was dishonest with someone to get what he wanted? People do that all the time, and yet the scorn here is worse than would be heaped on a used car salesman.
[/quote]
“Vitriol”? I think you’re being a bit oversensitive, at least as far as our exchange is concerned. We are discussing whether it’s fair to describe pretending to be someone’s friend as a cover for romantic interest as “shallow” behavior. That doesn’t seem very vitriolic to me.
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
And there’s this:Couldn’t we turn that around; any woman who makes friends with a guy and isn’t prepared to find out that he has romantic feelings as well is too naive to be making friends? When he takes her at her word and feels misled, it’s his fault for not knowing how the game is played and what she really meant.
[/quote]
What do you mean, “takes her at her word and feels misled”? If she made friends with him and did not express romantic interest in him, then there was nothing misleading about her behavior.
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
I just think there are other explanations. They let their emotions get too far ahead of the situation; they may be picturing a white picket fence and 2.6 children before they’ve even asked her out.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, that’s a mistake that anyone in love can make, and I don’t think it deserves condemnation. My point is simply that if you’re feeling that way about somebody who considers you a friend and doesn’t know that you feel that way about her (because you’ve never said anything about it and you haven’t even asked her out yet), then you have no right to blame her for treating you as just a friend, as though that were somehow “misleading” you.
Women have no right (and no obligation) to assume that all men who act friendly towards them are just pretending friendship as a disguise for romantic/sexual interest. If you treat a woman as a friend and don’t let her know that you’re interested in anything more than friendship, you shouldn’t blame her for accepting your friendship at face value.
Cite?
[QUOTE=LinusK]
As far as child-care, men have stepped up to the plate. We do more child-care than ever.
[/quote]
“More child-care than ever” does not equal “an equal amount of child-care”, or even “an amount of child-care proportional to each partner’s available non-working hours and/or relative contributions to family income”.
If men want full equality as domestic partners, then they have to take on an equal share of domestic responsibilities. I’m saying nothing against any individual couple choosing to have a non-50-50 split of the responsibilities for financial support, domestic duties, childcare, etc. But it has to be a mutually agreed-upon individual choice, not a default gender-based expectation.
Automatically expecting that one’s partner will do most of the domestic/childcare work because she’s the female partner, even if she also works outside the home as much as or more than the male partner, is sexist and unfair. And that’s why feminists object to those expectations.
Yes, and my reply was that men shouldn’t get shit for walking away from the “friendzone” either.
Not so much vitriol in this thread, but it does come up on this topic.
And again with the accusation of pretending to be someone’s friend. The trope seems to assume that, but without a lot to back it up. I don’t see friendship and romantic interest as being mutually exclusive. I don’t see these as cases of wanting one thing and pretending to want another, I see them as wanting both.
The quote was about women who say they just want a nice guy. Can you take them at their word? No, because the guy is supposed to know that she really means a nice guy that she’s attracted to.
Yeah, if a guy never says anything he’s got no right to complain that she doesn’t know what he’s thinking, but those guys seem to hold out hope more than disappointment. The friendzone complaints tend to start after the guy finally states his intentions and gets the explicit “I only think of you as a friend” talk.
Well, ISTM that that’s almost on the same level as saying “she really means a nice guy who’s a human being rather than an iguana” or “she really means a nice guy who isn’t made of antimatter”.
I still maintain that anybody who assumes that the phrase “I just want a nice guy” means the same thing as “I just want ANY nice guy, I have no criteria whatsoever for being attracted to a guy as long as he’s nice” is too naive and/or immature to be dating. We’re talking Human Sexual Attraction 001-level knowledge here.
You posted the link for a reason. I assume there was something you wanted people to take away from it. Are you going to remain criptic about it or are you going to summarize it in your own words?
Please post links to every single proposal and show every single feminist opposing it.
I’ll wait.
Or maybe I’ll just post a few links that show that leading feminist groups think just the opposite of your ridiculous claims. But that’s too easy.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but would you also say that the fact that inter-gender friendships have the potential for attraction, and things can turn awkward when it’s unrequited, is part of Adult Friendships 001?
I always thought it was 101, but whatever.
Everybody STAHP he’s not even trying anymore.
Would you consider NOW a leading feminist group? I didn’t make LK’s rather rash claim, which allowed you to pretend “nothing happened at all no sir unless I see all the feminists opposing every proposal” (even some drunk in a bar saying ‘why not shared parenting’ and you responding “I’m one of the good feminists who fell for the equality line, even though I do nothing about it and collude in ignoring the bigots, so ha ha you’re wrong LK”) - seriously though, anyone with an ounce of intelligence and an absence of prejudice can see right through your lame and shameful response. Address the issue, with an appraisal of the facts and an understanding of the matter, it would look so much more impressive than your cheap gotcha.
Anyway, here’s a link. It’s to an article at AVFM, so you can just dismiss it because you demonise Elam and therefore any facts he publishes are irrelevant, because boo! he’s the enemy! and shut up heretic! burn him! etc., but it’s a record of the National Organisation for Women (and other leading feminist groups) actively opposing shared parenting since the 80s. Because ‘equality’ isn’t a synonym for equality when feminists use it. It’s a whole other word meaning ‘half of yours for me, and all of mine’s my own’.
Opposing shared parenting - the feminist track record
ETA: and since it’s so terribly easy, get on with it. I have to wonder why you didn’t easily do it in the actual post.
This thread is captive on the carousel of time.
I said it that way because he said it that way.
Wow.
It’s shameful to demand proof for a claim?
The article doesn’t even come close to proving what it claims. It cites a state NOW chapter here and there opposing certain versions of proposals that it might rightfully oppose for other reason, not just in principle, and babbles on about NOW refusing to “sit at the table.”
Find me a statement by national NOW, not someone else speaking for it, that says “we oppose X” and that will be just fine.
I like your tactic of saying that I’m going to reject your link, thereby making it look like my standards are somehow too high or I can’t be satisfied, rather than it simply being a failure on your part. The closest fallacy I can think of for it is poisoning the well, but maybe there’s a better one.
Fine. Then let every case be different and evaluated on its own. That’s not the law in my state, however. The default in my state - and as far as I can tell - in other states as well, is every-other-weekend.
There’s a reason why there’s a default. It’s because not everybody can afford to litigate. In fact, given that litigating a divorce costs tens of thousands of dollars, most people can’t afford to litigate.
And then there’s the fact that all that money could have gone to the kids, instead of lawyers.
This thread, as is often the case, has strayed away from the topic. There’s a myth that being nice can elicit romantic feeling from a woman. I was simply agreeing the others, who said that attraction doesn’t work that way.
You’d said in some other thread that you don’t talk to women you don’t know. If you’ve forgotten about it, it doesn’t matter.