The answer to that is to grow a fucking pair and say "Ok." Never submit to her using sex as a doggie treat. Don't respond to ultimatums in general. Once she realizes she can't manipulate you, she'll respect you more...or want out, in which case, you're better off without her.
One other point, he doesn't actually have marry her to create the kinds of grief I'm talking about. Look up 'common law marriage', 'mandatory arrest', and 'primary aggressor'.
Obviously, I was referring to men who choose to marry, so I don't know why you're defending obviously irrational/hypocritical law and social custom with logical fallacies.
or maybe she could learn to fucking communicate like an adult? How about understanding that he won't always be on her wavelength just as she won't always be on his? Why do we excuse anti-social behavior in women while demonizing it in men?
I guess.. Too bad the state forces men into such cuckolded manginosity by making it nearly impossible to say 'no' to unreasonable women without losing everything.
My advice: If she's unwilling to compromise, keep the gaming rig and toss the woman. Marriage is about bilateral compromise, not 'whatever she wants, how she wants it.' If she doesn't like your hobby, she shouldn't have married you.
This is just a propaganda piece designed to drive home the narrative that women are systematically oppressed. "See look at our cherry picked 'science'! Girls are better than boys yet they don't dominate everything. OMG patriarchy!"
I should've stopped reading at 'right wing blinkers', but then I'd've stooped to an NPR level of reasoning.
I'm sure they do because countries that typically have no or weak welfare are rural, where extra hands on the farm are more valuable than the state aid.
The feminist narrative at the heart of your argument is flawed. I wasn't talking about the third world. I was specifically talking about the US system, where EBT cards are handed out to 'heroic' single mothers for the 'accomplishment' of having sex. The number one correlation for lack of maturity and success in poor children in this country is a lack of a father in the home. Then these kids grow up to repeat their parents' mistakes.
As far as 'sugar daddies' go, here in the states, the mother just waits until alimony kicks in, then divorces her 'starter husband' and the ivy league feminist indoctrinated judges award her disproportionate amounts of dad's paycheck, driving him into bankruptcy and then out of work and into debtor's prison for failing to pay. Mom, now 30ish, without any income, looks in vain for another man to latch on to (checkout dating sites for this phenomenon). Women in their 30s with children are undesirable to men who are looking for young, healthy wives to start families, so most of these women resort to fucking around on the side, purposely trying to get knocked up again so they can repeat the process.
If women want respect from and access to men's money, then they'll need to earn it as housewives while he's out making the bucks, or go out and earn their own the same way the men have to. In addition, making real life choices like the high power career OR having children, not both while expecting taxpayers and employers to prop her up, and others like her body, her right, her choice also being her responsibility, would go a long way towards earning mens' respect. This is equality of opportunity, and I have no issue with this. It's what I encourage for everyone. Until the state enforced feminist 'empowerment' is labeled as the hypocritical sexism it is, men have at least one perfectly justified reason for treating un(der)employed baby pumpers who game the system as the irresponsible dependent children they are. No one respects having to slave for another class who gets away with working less, even if it's a pauper's existence. Forcing people's hands makes them resentful. No group should be 'upsetting' any others' productive lifestyle, period, nor should the state engage in picking winners and losers.
HIV infection rate is controlled with judicious selection of sex partners. Most people, even the poor, in this country, know how to do this, but the left's insistence on destroying the family unit without suggesting viable alternatives has caused both sexes to look for sexual opportunity elsewhere, leading to dependence on the state for support, and misery on both sides.
Of course, they figure enough pressure from the poor will force redistribution..or maybe they live in rural countries where farm hands are always needed.
Just rewrite the law (abolish all the affirmative action) so that it applies to everyone equally instead of treating one side as oppressed and the other side as oppressor by default. The only way women are going to have respect as equals is if they are forced to earn it like the men.
Right. The only welfare offered by the taxpayer would be abortion and contraceptives. This way when one or both parents lose their job and the family needs assistance, they aren't encouraged to create more dependency.
People with education are smart enough to know when enough is enough, and in some cases, smart enough to know how broken DCF and 'family' court is. Welcome to the idiocracy where the uneducated and poor breed the most.
Until freedoms and due process rights are restored, along with new statues protecting privacy, remote controlled cars (and homes and..) will only end badly.
No. I just think leftist welfare policies encourage too much breeding by those least able to provide for themselves. Just cut the funding for that. No more ebt cards for babies.
I am not being harsh. You're oversensitive. I'd rather have my car do my bidding than put up with a 'publicly' owned car that subjects me to whatever control freakery the state (or insurance company) wants to assert.
Like I said, it depends largely on what decade he was in school and what terms were in use while he was growing up. How many more times do the 'proper' terms have to be replaced? Perhaps the focus should be on why the terms become pejoratives over time and fix that instead. Of course, this would require a reexamination of ideology, culture, and behavior, which few have the backbone for.
Get uppity or don't. No one implied you had to get anyone's permission. I choose not to. I don't get upset if someone calls me 'cracker' or 'whitey' or 'whitebread' or 'redneck' instead of 'caucasian.' I'll laugh and call that person a slur appropriate for their race in return, whether it's in jest, or not. If he laughs in return then we've established a rapport. If he gets butthurt, then he's a hypocrite who's not worth my time. People who can't take it shouldn't dish it. Those who claim that attributes like race and sex shouldn't matter seem to spend lots of time obsessing over and enforcing the use of proper terms for them.
Slashdot Mirror
and you are illogical as well as stupid?
Right. That should also apply to her.
The answer to that is to grow a fucking pair and say "Ok." Never submit to her using sex as a doggie treat. Don't respond to ultimatums in general. Once she realizes she can't manipulate you, she'll respect you more...or want out, in which case, you're better off without her.
Wow. Which of you has the pussy again?
The average gamer today is an early to mid 30s white male. Since he's paying the bills, he can game where he damn well pleases.
One other point, he doesn't actually have marry her to create the kinds of grief I'm talking about. Look up 'common law marriage', 'mandatory arrest', and 'primary aggressor'.
Obviously, I was referring to men who choose to marry, so I don't know why you're defending obviously irrational/hypocritical law and social custom with logical fallacies.
or maybe she could learn to fucking communicate like an adult? How about understanding that he won't always be on her wavelength just as she won't always be on his? Why do we excuse anti-social behavior in women while demonizing it in men?
I guess.. Too bad the state forces men into such cuckolded manginosity by making it nearly impossible to say 'no' to unreasonable women without losing everything.
My advice: If she's unwilling to compromise, keep the gaming rig and toss the woman. Marriage is about bilateral compromise, not 'whatever she wants, how she wants it.' If she doesn't like your hobby, she shouldn't have married you.
This is just a propaganda piece designed to drive home the narrative that women are systematically oppressed. "See look at our cherry picked 'science'! Girls are better than boys yet they don't dominate everything. OMG patriarchy!"
I should've stopped reading at 'right wing blinkers', but then I'd've stooped to an NPR level of reasoning.
I'm sure they do because countries that typically have no or weak welfare are rural, where extra hands on the farm are more valuable than the state aid.
The feminist narrative at the heart of your argument is flawed. I wasn't talking about the third world. I was specifically talking about the US system, where EBT cards are handed out to 'heroic' single mothers for the 'accomplishment' of having sex. The number one correlation for lack of maturity and success in poor children in this country is a lack of a father in the home. Then these kids grow up to repeat their parents' mistakes.
As far as 'sugar daddies' go, here in the states, the mother just waits until alimony kicks in, then divorces her 'starter husband' and the ivy league feminist indoctrinated judges award her disproportionate amounts of dad's paycheck, driving him into bankruptcy and then out of work and into debtor's prison for failing to pay. Mom, now 30ish, without any income, looks in vain for another man to latch on to (checkout dating sites for this phenomenon). Women in their 30s with children are undesirable to men who are looking for young, healthy wives to start families, so most of these women resort to fucking around on the side, purposely trying to get knocked up again so they can repeat the process.
If women want respect from and access to men's money, then they'll need to earn it as housewives while he's out making the bucks, or go out and earn their own the same way the men have to. In addition, making real life choices like the high power career OR having children, not both while expecting taxpayers and employers to prop her up, and others like her body, her right, her choice also being her responsibility, would go a long way towards earning mens' respect. This is equality of opportunity, and I have no issue with this. It's what I encourage for everyone. Until the state enforced feminist 'empowerment' is labeled as the hypocritical sexism it is, men have at least one perfectly justified reason for treating un(der)employed baby pumpers who game the system as the irresponsible dependent children they are. No one respects having to slave for another class who gets away with working less, even if it's a pauper's existence. Forcing people's hands makes them resentful. No group should be 'upsetting' any others' productive lifestyle, period, nor should the state engage in picking winners and losers.
HIV infection rate is controlled with judicious selection of sex partners. Most people, even the poor, in this country, know how to do this, but the left's insistence on destroying the family unit without suggesting viable alternatives has caused both sexes to look for sexual opportunity elsewhere, leading to dependence on the state for support, and misery on both sides.
Of course, they figure enough pressure from the poor will force redistribution..or maybe they live in rural countries where farm hands are always needed.
Just rewrite the law (abolish all the affirmative action) so that it applies to everyone equally instead of treating one side as oppressed and the other side as oppressor by default. The only way women are going to have respect as equals is if they are forced to earn it like the men.
Right. The only welfare offered by the taxpayer would be abortion and contraceptives. This way when one or both parents lose their job and the family needs assistance, they aren't encouraged to create more dependency.
People with education are smart enough to know when enough is enough, and in some cases, smart enough to know how broken DCF and 'family' court is. Welcome to the idiocracy where the uneducated and poor breed the most.
No. a flying car would offer way too much freedom for the plebes. There's no way the totalitarians in power would allow this.
Until freedoms and due process rights are restored, along with new statues protecting privacy, remote controlled cars (and homes and..) will only end badly.
Yeah, while you all subsist on insects and worms. what a palatable future.
No. I just think leftist welfare policies encourage too much breeding by those least able to provide for themselves. Just cut the funding for that. No more ebt cards for babies.
no worse than far-left reactionaries..plenty of dogmatism to go around.
Why not just end welfare that encourages pumping out babies by poor, uneducated people?
I am not being harsh. You're oversensitive. I'd rather have my car do my bidding than put up with a 'publicly' owned car that subjects me to whatever control freakery the state (or insurance company) wants to assert.
So if someone more powerful than you tramples your ass, you're ok with it because "Power is given, not taken"?
Your post is quite revealing, and kinda pathetic.
Like I said, it depends largely on what decade he was in school and what terms were in use while he was growing up. How many more times do the 'proper' terms have to be replaced? Perhaps the focus should be on why the terms become pejoratives over time and fix that instead. Of course, this would require a reexamination of ideology, culture, and behavior, which few have the backbone for.
Get uppity or don't. No one implied you had to get anyone's permission. I choose not to. I don't get upset if someone calls me 'cracker' or 'whitey' or 'whitebread' or 'redneck' instead of 'caucasian.' I'll laugh and call that person a slur appropriate for their race in return, whether it's in jest, or not. If he laughs in return then we've established a rapport. If he gets butthurt, then he's a hypocrite who's not worth my time. People who can't take it shouldn't dish it. Those who claim that attributes like race and sex shouldn't matter seem to spend lots of time obsessing over and enforcing the use of proper terms for them.
Not fascist, but yes, authoritarian to be sure. We have the worst elements of left and right authoritarianism disguised as democracy.
Is that what they're teaching in liberal arts programs now?