If you aren't going forward, you are giong backwards

[betheman]

2. For those who subscribe to the belief that women are just amoral animals who only have loyalty to their current "feelings":

If women are amoral, then what are MEN? Moral, amoral, immoral, or something else entirely? And...WHAT, if anything, do you believe that men have loyalty to?

I refuse to believe that women are just amoral animals but I do believe they have a default emotional position which allows them to abandon or abdicate any responsibility when the sh!t hits the fan. they do it because they are more and more allowed to do it. men would probably do it to but throughout history, men get called to account and shamed, even by our own gender.
the legal system, the media, society, mainly western society, buys into the sh!t that were blame needs to be placed, if a man is involved, somehow he is responsible, if there is no man involved, then the feminist agenda kicks in.

men are slightly more loyal in general but not profoundly so, when we make a committment we generally stick to it, but maybe that is because the penalties are obvious and hard hitting

 

[Atom Smasher]

2. For those who subscribe to the belief that women are just amoral animals who only have loyalty to their current "feelings":

If women are amoral, then what are MEN? Moral, amoral, immoral, or something else entirely? And...WHAT, if anything, do you believe that men have loyalty to?

VU,

I'm not sure anybody is saying that women are "animals". What I see, though, is that in the last 40 years societal influences (the media) have affected that half of the population so drastically that there is almost literally no more societal pressure or expectation of living by principle.

For women, "how you feel" has been glorified as the only thing that matters in perception and decision making. Gone are the days when women adopted a lifestyle based on right & wrong, and based on keeping one's word even at cost to oneself.

Women today have been trained by the media to expect special treatment, to have an open license to vent toward men, to consider themselves universal victims and therefore exact "justice" (special treatment and the right to hit and insult men), and to be almost completely free of the expectation to be responsible for their words and actions. Therefore I observe that they usually say and do based upon what is expedient for them in any given moment.

They will almost universally justify the most horrific behavior by saying it was right because they "felt" it was right at the time. There is very little overriding and overruling guiding protocol that they follow.

This observation is visible in every facet of society. Play a game with a woman and there are no rules. They will make them up as they go (an allegory for life itself). When you go driving for the next few days, observe just who is chatting away or texting on their phones while driving (in states where that is illegal). You'll find that by far, it is women who have no regard for the law and no ability to project and take seriously the possible accident that can occur. Around here (NY), I women outnumber men probably 15 to 1 in this regard. It is expedient to ignore the law and common sense.

As you drive down the highway at 65 or 70 mph, just who is it that is whizzing by you at 80 or 90? In NY, it is women. Five to one by my estimation. The female aggression that has grown over the past 40 years is astounding. We just don't acknowledge how bad it really is because it has happened so gradually.

When the enemy wants to strike at society and mankind, he does not attack the man directly. He does it through the inherent weakness of the woman. The powers that be understand that by molding the easily malleable, society as a whole will crumble.

So in conclusion, are women animals? No, of course not. Are they mass hypnotized and deluded by the media? They most certainly are. Are they encouraged by every facet of society to feel privileged and generally not responsible for their words and actions? I think we all see the free passes they get on bratty, entitled behavior every day. Finally, are they encouraged to "feel" and act on those feelings in lieu of being encouraged to allow overriding principals of rules and morality guide their behavior? I'll let the reader answer that.

Men, on the other hand, are expected to attain toward mastery of emotion and the adoption of principled living. It's not that men always attain this, but it is what we aspire to. There are certain requirements to leadership, and of course mastery over emotion and principled living are at the core of good leadership. This also applies to business, leading a family, and on and on it goes.

Women are not animals. But they are certainly children. They are trained to be so, and it is the onus of the man to manage their volatile, childish nature without the former (40, 50 years ago) reward of nurturing and being taken care of by her. Women were once well-equipped to be a helper to their man, to serve his needs (physical, spiritual, and sexual) while he served hers. They have been transformed by the media (and by man's weakness) to be brats, and brats are incapable of attaining to high standards and principled, moral internal guidelines.

This, in my view, is the very definition of amoral. The weak have been conditioned to be something that is a gross amplification of the more base aspects of their nature. And man's weakness and lackadaisical attitude allowed it. Now we reap what we have sown.

Respectfully,
Atom

 

[Findog]

They will almost universally justify the most horrific behavior by saying it was right because they "felt" it was right at the time. There is very little overriding and overruling guiding protocol that they follow.

Case in point:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169009/how-out-rapist

This is disgusting. Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't get to be in contempt of court and not follow the directives of a judge because you consider the punishment meted out as too lenient. Anyways, brilliant post. There are still good women out there, but they are fewer and far between, and it's not intrinsic and ingrained genetics that account for the awful behavior of this generation's Western women, but the fact that they are incentivized to act this way. I see a big difference in women my age and my grandmother, mom and aunts.

If the goal of feminism was to give women the same opportunities and freedoms as men, I have no problem with that, but the way it has worked out is that they get all of the perks and advantages of equality, but for them it is optional to live up to the responsibilities and the accountability that goes along with it. Whereas men are still expected to live up to their obligations in the old patriarchal model, for women it has become optional for them to do so.

 

[samspade]

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

- "As Good As It Gets"

 

[iqqi]

As I pop back in from time to time it's funny how this thread keeps morphing, transforming, degenerating (YOU pick the word that you think is most appropriate) into other things as it goes on.

In a funny way, I think that this old clip from Seinfeld PERFECTLY sums up the whole subject of women ditching guys because of their jobs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyKlJbe1frc

That clip is STILL funny to me...

But on a more serious note, here are two questions for anyone who cares to answer them:

1. For those who think that the guy from Backbreaker's original post is a loser:

WHO do you think the best judge is of whether not that guy's life was STAGNANT and UNSUCCESSFUL------the guy himself, or the girl that he was in a relationship with? And WHY?

2. For those who subscribe to the belief that women are just amoral animals who only have loyalty to their current "feelings":

If women are amoral, then what are MEN? Moral, amoral, immoral, or something else entirely? And...WHAT, if anything, do you believe that men have loyalty to?

I'll take on your first question, I felt the second one was more rhetorical.

I don't think individuals are always the best judges of their own situations. This is for many reasons. And I don't know if judging is the correct verb here. I think "judgement" is a loaded word honestly, especially in this situation.

Think about a 17 year old who drops out of high school, not because he is pursuing some great goal so he doesn't need to stay within the well defined path of education. But because he smokes weed all day and is tired of waking up to go to school 5 days a week. Is it judgmental to say he should stay in school and graduate?

This guy in the OP isn't so much a loser, as a person who doesn't seem interested in self progression or improvement.

I'm not trying to be mean or condescending, because BB said this was a good guy. He likes the guy. But the guy doesn't appear to be motivated. And the bottom line about that, is that it isn't an attractive quality. Attractive, as in attracting good things into your life, including quality women.

This is a man in the prime of his life, when foundations are being built and solidified. The world is a huge opportunity. It is to do with what he pleases.

It appeared to me, from the information given, that this guy does not please to do much. That is totally his prerogative as it is anyone's here. But the choices you make in life affect the quality of your life, and also the opportunities that come your way. If we take it a step further, I believe that if you are not trying to improve your life, you are chipping away at your character.

Men won't break their word once given, women won't ignore their feelings, once triggered.

Oh, is that a fact?

 

[jhl]

This woman is a receptionist. If she craves such a better life, why isn't she out starting a business or trying to better herself or turning herself into a CEO or whatever else is good enough? No, she expects a man to provide that lifestyle for her.

Now that's a man's traditional role, so there's nothing wrong with that on the face of it. But since women want to be treated as equals, shouldn't they hold themselves to the same standard they hold their men to? They want every advantage of being equal plus every advantage of tradition and chivalry, with none of the responsibility.

Of course, once the guy does get a better career and starts making a little more money, then PUAs will start calling him a beta provider type.

This woman is a receptionist. If she craves such a better life, why isn't she out starting a business or trying to better herself or turning herself into a CEO or whatever else is good enough? No, she expects a man to provide that lifestyle for her.

Now that's a man's traditional role, so there's nothing wrong with that on the face of it. But since women want to be treated as equals, shouldn't they hold themselves to the same standard they hold their men to? They want every advantage of being equal plus every advantage of tradition and chivalry, with none of the responsibility.

I completely missed this important factor that Zekko brought up. The woman is a receptionist. In the hierarchy of jobs for woman, that pretty much ranks at the bottom of a scale for someone who is moderately attractive.

Moderately attractive women can get so many perks in going through life and advancing in the corporate world. Obviously she is attractive enough for a guy with decent game and with a beamer to mess around with her so I'm assuming she's probably going to be at least a 6.5 on the looks scale. However, she must be quite incompetent or unambitious for her to have that job.

It's one thing if you are super ambitious and going to great places in life and then lose attraction b/c your companion is a lazy, unambitious man, but it's a whole different issue if she is in that category. It's just like a 400 pound man complaining about fat women. Please.

 

[iqqi]

I completely missed this important factor that Zekko brought up. The woman is a receptionist. In the hierarchy of jobs for woman, that pretty much ranks at the bottom of a scale for someone who is moderately attractive.

Moderately attractive women can get so many perks in going through life and advancing in the corporate world. Obviously she is attractive enough for a guy with decent game and with a beamer to mess around with her so I'm assuming she's probably going to be at least a 6.5 on the looks scale. However, she must be quite incompetent or unambitious for her to have that job.

It's one thing if you are super ambitious and going to great places in life and then lose attraction b/c your companion is a lazy, unambitious man, but it's a whole different issue if she is in that category. It's just like a 400 pound man complaining about fat women. Please.

Someone mentioned here that you can't be against feminism, and also expect women to compete with men when it comes to success.

If I were a man, I'd be much more interested in a woman who seemed moral and intelligent enough to take care of my home and children. Not on a maid level, but I wouldn't expect a CEO to leave her career to raise the kids, and that is what I would prefer.

I was raised in a single parent household, so my own views for myself as a woman differ a bit. I would need to feel I alone could provide well for myself and children if it came down to it. But objectively, I admit I do not hold women who plan to marry and have a family in the same expectations bracket as men.

As such I also admit that my expectations for men are higher than my expectations for women when it comes to ambition. I'm not saying I think women should not have goals and ambitions. If a woman decided that aiming for the top, or aiming for DR or Lawyer status, wasn't for her because she knew she was going to end up taking off years to raise children, I wouldn't fault her. I would think a woman pursuing some kind of goal and education was more attractive than a woman who was floundering around in an entry level job.

I'd be interested in what you men here honestly thought about that yourselves.

 

[jhl]

It is a very true statement, with exceptions, but that only serves to prove the rule.

Men are true to their word as women are true to their feelings.

It seems that irks you, I wonder why that is?




I know plenty of GORGEOUS secretaries. I think you may be mixing up what men and women consider attractive....

Ah let me clarify what I wrote. The point is that a "gorgeous secretary" with a lot of ambition and some brains could advance like a skyrocket in the right jobs in the corporate world. There is a reason why she is there as a secretary.

 

[Lexington]

Can we all agree on one thing here? Can we agree that the woman was a branch swinger?

We can argue about whether or not the guy was ambitious enough. Obviously he wasn't ambitious enough for his receptionist girlfriend. But if it was purely about his lack of ambition, why didn't she just leave him? She didn't do that. She waited until after she got with Mr. BMW. Would she still be with this guy if Mr. BMW didn't come along? I think so.

Whatever your thoughts on this guy's (lack of) ambition, the girl's behavior was textbook branch swinging. By all accounts, this guy was a decent human being. He was described as being quite personable and well-liked. Yet we're piling on him because his girlfriend cheated on him and left when a better deal came around!?

And no, I'm not whining about hypergamy here. It is what it is. But let's call a spade a spade: this is branch swinging in its purest form.

 

[zekko]

Another thing is apparently both of these people were 23 when they started dating. Really, how many couples who get together at 23 these days stay together forever? I don't think four years is that bad of a run, honestly. The guy couldn't have been a complete loser to keep her for four years.

In any case, you can't really blame the girl for leaving her boyfriend if she wanted something else. It's the way she went about it that's rubbed most of the posters the wrong way. That and characterizing the guy as a loser because he hasn't advanced up the corporate ladder by age 27. If BB wasn't a good gambler, where would he be?

 

[Atom Smasher]

I agree, Zekko. I believe that real adulthood doesn't happen until age 28 or so. You are still figuring out who you are throughout your twenties. Most of the time significant changes occur in one's perceptions in that time period. I observe that women especially are completely confused and insecure in their early to late twenties. They follow the herd with complete abandon until they develop a slight sense of individuality and start to lose their youthful self-consciousness as they approach 30. I'm convinced that in our culture, adulhood is delayed until age 28 or thereabouts. I attribute this to the infuence of the media and to the fact that we have no rite of passage in our cuture, a necessary thing for good mental health and effective living. In essence, a rite of passage confirms a necessary shift from irresponsible childhood to expectations of responsibility.

I also observe that when a woman is actually in love, money is not a hindrance. Lack of money may cause strife in a marriage, but for a woman, true love tends to cause her to turn a blind eye to a man's financial status. Money of course may be an initial attractant, but once a woman falls for a man in the truest sense, the way he makes her feel eclipses finances.

Unfortunately, today love has become an assessment of "What's in it for me?" in the material sense and also in other less tangible senses.

For far too many young women, men are reduced to wooden ladder rungs.

 

[typical]

I have to severely disagree on the money issue, especially in this day and age. Remember we are currently living in a "keeping up with the jones'" society.

Nearly every single woman I've interacted with has shown hints of being able to trade up at a moments notice, most of the times its just me eavesdropping in on a few ladies having a casual chat about their lives which is always about who is screwing who and how much he makes and how good he looks. Many many times I've heard ladies say that if their man doesn't get a new job or pay raise they will start to look elsewhere for a "better man" aka richer and able to provide me a better lifestyle then the one I currently have.

Bottom line is HYPERGAMY DOES NOT CARE, no matter what you or I say or do Hypergamy does not care. If you are not the sh!t in her eyes at that particular moment then you are in deep sh!t.

Now I'm not saying there are no good women left, heck if you just want a quick fling or a fu(k buddy there are plenty but for a real relationship you are going to have to weed through a tonne of women to get a semi decent one.

That's why this forum and forums and blogs like rationalmale exist they teach men the tools to be able to approach date and reject women that don't fit into the mans lifestyle. Its that simple there is enough information here to cover all your basics and then some.

Some of the basic principles here are "Spin plates" and to keep your finances spread out so just in case you do get tied down to a lady and she fu(ks you over in the short or long run you have a secret stash set up (legally or illegally to save your bacon).

So you can all sit here and argue over things or accept them for the way they are and do your best to come out on top.

 

[Warrior74]

I have to severely disagree on the money issue, especially in this day and age. Remember we are currently living in a "keeping up with the jones'" society.

Are we? From where I stand we live in a trying to keep the shirt on your back society. The rich are getting exponentially richer an the poor are getting poorer. At least in the Western world. Only idiots and rich people are still trying to keep up with the joneses anymore.

 

[Findog]

Are we? From where I stand we live in a trying to keep the shirt on your back society. The rich are getting exponentially richer an the poor are getting poorer. At least in the Western world. Only idiots and rich people are still trying to keep up with the joneses anymore.

Yeah, I concur. The restaurant manager had a good job in one of the states hit worst by the financial crisis. That makes him a winner in my eyes.

 

[Findog]

If BB wasn't a good gambler, where would he be?

Scamming even more people out of web-design fees?

 

[ebracer05]

I also observe that when a woman is actually in love, money is not a hindrance.

This is absolutely true. I don't see any correlation with my success with women and my financial position. And besides, all of the DJ principles on this website would be invalidated if money was a requisite for a woman's love and/or attraction. Money is something that transcends a person. Confidence is something that is inherent to the person. Women tend to be attracted to a man's inherent qualities.

-Caveat - a man with several good inherent qualities will probably make a good wage.

 

[cordoncordon]

This is absolutely true. I don't see any correlation with my success with women and my financial position. And besides, all of the DJ principles on this website would be invalidated if money was a requisite for a woman's love and/or attraction. Money is something that transcends a person. Confidence is something that is inherent to the person. Women tend to be attracted to a man's inherent qualities.

-Caveat - a man with several good inherent qualities will probably make a good wage.

Exactly.

It is really sad that some people, especially women like iqqi, think that true love still boils down to how big a paycheck is, or at least plays a big part in it. Yeah, I could see if your bf was a deadbeat and refused to even look for a job. But if he makes an honest living and does what he loves doing-as the guy in the OP seems to do, a girl truly in love with a man would not care one iota what the guy makes. Sad commentary on the world today.

 

[cordoncordon]

Scamming even more people out of web-design fees?

What I find bad about that entire thing with BB is he came across here as so above board and honorable, to the point where he left this thread and board because he thought men were too lackadaisical and pvssified, when it turns out he has all that kind of stuff going on with his business.

Like I said earlier, don't believe everything you read on the internet. Many people who are losers IRL tend to embellish or outright lie in order to give their life some sort of purpose.

 

[cordoncordon]

Tell me pro "its ok to go on to the next best thing and walk all over others" people, was it fine for Kristin Stewart to cheat on twilight boy with a guy twice her age because he was a director and has more pull in the industry as far as getting her future roles? Because according to your line of thinking, that is all she was doing so that makes it perfectly ok right? I mean Robert Patterson? All he ever wanted to do was act, what kind of lowlife job is that? This older guy wanted to direct films!!!

Obviously I am being sarcastic, to a degree. But the point still holds as far as the op. Especially when I read this girl is just a receptionist. It's not like she is an attorney or a Doctor. She is a secretary.

 

[pdx1138]

Many many times I've heard ladies say that if their man doesn't get a new job or pay raise they will start to look elsewhere for a "better man" aka richer and able to provide me a better lifestyle then the one I currently have.

I've been on the receiving end of that myself. Many of us have.