Post by V on Sept 1, 2010 17:24:16 GMT -5
There's a LOT to write about this, so I may break it up into different posts.
Now, I'm sure everyone has at least seen The Thinking Housewife's website once or twice. F brought this particular post on that site to my attention the other day and apparently Ms. Wood is still getting comments on it. Right now, I'm just going to go into the actual post itself that sparked these comments.
Ms. Wood put up on her site an e-mail that she was sent, from a man who is trying to "convert" a liberal, feminist woman. Here is my commentary about it, beginning with the first sentence.
He's interested in this young woman, but he's trying to change her. So, what this tells me is that he likes the way she looks, and if only her personality and values and ideals and...well the gist of what REALLY makes her a person were also as attractive as her body is. This is a recipe for disaster right off the bat.
Unfortunately, many people don't seem to understand this, but if you have to change a person in order to see yourself having any sort of future or long-term relationship with them, then they are not the person for you. Not right now. There's nothing to say that they might not change later on their own, but if you have to actively attempt to change someone before you can see yourself with them...just get out. It isn't worth it. More than likely it is just going to end up in disaster. It isn't fair to you or to them to waste such time trying to change a person into what you feel that your ideal life partner should be like.
For the next bit. Non-rational reasoning? How does he know if someone has a rational or irrational reason for being a feminist before they even tell him? In this portion, it sounds like he's not really talking about her, but about female feminists in general. He seems to me to be the one with the chip on his shoulder. He already has decided that feminism in general is irrational and therefore anyone who is a feminist must have irrational reasons for being one.
He goes on to imply that if said feminist resists purely dispassionate discussions about feminism and the nature of a good marriage (read: she disagrees with him and knows already that they are not going to agree; she wishes not to argue) must mean that she has a chip on her shoulder. Why? Just because he cannot get her to see things his way? Or because she doesn't want to debate with him because she knows it won't go anywhere except, perhaps, to an argument? Or both? Neither of these prove that she has a chip on her shoulder, although it makes HIM sound as if he does. He's already decided she's a simple and irrational woman who is a product of the societal times against her actual nature.
The very first sentence of his second paragraph says what he thinks about liberal women. They're corrupt. All of them. He makes no exceptions, although he does give them the benefit of the doubt by saying that it isn't always their fault. Sometimes they're indoctrinated from an early age to feminism. So why is he after this woman, anyway? Well, probably because of what I said earlier. She's good looking. That's it!
I really don't understand what he's talking about here or why it has anything to do with anything. Perhaps, I'm just dense. Or maybe the stupid thus far has rotted my brain a bit and lowered my IQ.
The only thing I have to say about the rest of this paragraph is that I don't know when or where he went to high school, but last time I was in high school this was not the type of reading material we had assigned to us. The Feminine Mystique and The Second Sex are not really written for high school students, anyway, to my knowledge. This is recreational reading that you read on your own. Or, maybe, depending on the class or classes you are taking, it might be assigned or just recommended reading material for a college course. But, not for high schoolers. So, that's just utter nonsense, anyway. Not that this entire post of his isn't asinine.
Ohhh! I get it now! Most of the women in college have brains and use them, so they aren't easily manipulated into changing their entire values and principles systems just for him. Well, why not troll Wal-Mart? I'm sure there are a lot of girls working there that are at or around his age and either have not passed high school or did not go any further after that (although, I wouldn't count on that working, either. I only have a high school diploma, and even I know bullshit when I smell it). Poor him. He doesn't want compromise HIS world view, so he has decided that in order to settle down with a woman or just simply have a long-term relationship with one he is going to have to force them to change THEIR world view instead. Wow, what perfect sense (note: that was sarcasm).
What?? What is he talking about? Does he even know what he's talking about? I cannot comment on this because the idiocy of it forces any logical answer to this to be impossible.
Wow, he is dense, isn't he? Okay, I can explain this for him right now. This woman doesn't want to talk to him about it, because she thinks he sounds like an idiot when he does, and there's no use arguing with idiotic rhetoric. Often it's so asinine that there is no rational argument TO idiocy simply because an idiot doesn't understand he's being an idiot. Otherwise, one would hope he would stop it. And further, this also means that you are NOT life partner material for this girl. She either ONLY considers you a friend or she considers you a short-term boyfriend. Either you're a rebound or she considers you good for casual sex and general conversation. In other words: SHE'S NOT THAT INTO YOU.
Some women just don't like to argue! Sometimes there is a reason for this. Perhaps she thinks you're being a jerk. Perhaps she thinks you're a Neanderthal. Perhaps she feels put on the spot and isn't ready to have an in-depth debate (read: most people don't carry around an index of links and books to refer you to when debating away from a computer screen or library).
Honestly? I think she was probably telling him to go away. She didn't want to argue about it, she could tell it would be futile. This is often why I do similar things. If not that, then perhaps she just wasn't sure how to put it into a concise summary. But, really, if it were me, I wouldn't bother to try. He's already got his mind made up. He expects her own ideals to be fluid, but his own should not have to budge a bit. Unfortunately for him, that makes him a perfect example of what he was just complaining about with this girl.
Or, if I wanted to be extremely nice about it, maybe she IS a bit of a flake and she has no idea why she's a feminist other than she just doesn't like the implications of taking the rights from women that we've already secured away.
However, I've noticed that conservatives get very, very upset with you if you refuse to stoop to their level of arguing or if you just simply seek to end the argument. So, I'm more inclined to think that she knew where this was going and just decided to drop it before it got that far.
That's quite right. Women don't like to have freedoms taken away from them, especially after it took for-fucking-ever to secure those rights. However, I don't understand why this is so hard for conservative men to understand. You often see them whining and moaning that feminism is just a way to subjugate men, but their solution is to subjugate women instead. No one likes to be subjugated. It doesn't matter what your gender is, what your race, religion, etc. is. Nobody likes it and the thought of it scares even those who have never had to worry about it.
My solution: do not subjugate anyone, treat everyone as equal human beings.
For the record: feminism is NOT about subjugating men. The only arguments that "prove" that it is seem to be from weirdo women who don't understand what feminism is in the first place, despite considering themselves feminists, or from mens' rights activists who sound even more asinine than the confused women.
This sounds ridiculous. There's a reason for that. What he's actually doing in this sentence is equating women to children. They don't have any real idea of what they're doing/saying/believing. They just do it because it comforts them...from what I don't know. And, they need a man to teach them the right way. So, ladies...this man considers us children. Run, do not walk, away from this man.
This one is my favorite!! Love for a traditionalist man will move a woman to change! Sounds like he's reading too many Harlequin romances, to me. Note that he says nothing about love for a feminist woman prompting a man to change. Nope! That's the woman's job, dammit. And, also, any woman who does not agree with him about "traditionalism" is a childish idiot who is incapable of being honest, even with herself.
And with his last few sentences, it's basically the same philosophy as a guy deciding a woman decides what kind of car she will buy simply and solely on whether or not it is a pretty color. You have to make her curious about your lifestyle to get her to change, because obviously once a woman is curious about something she likes whatever it is she has become curious about. What??
What nonsense is this? I don't know how to respond to this, but I mentioned it by quote simply because it is so ridiculous. Behold the pretty colors, ladies, and be mesmerized into not realizing he's a jackass!
YOUR woman. You are now property, ladies. You know. Like cattle. Usually, I don't pick on this. But, this guy sounds like the type of man who would really believe it. And, might I reiterate, that if you are insisting upon changing everything about this woman except her outward, you don't love her you just think she's hot. Completely different.
And this man wonders why he can't have a serious conversation with a woman? Sad.
To read the post in it's entirety, go to the following address:
www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/08/romancing-a-feminist/
Now, I'm sure everyone has at least seen The Thinking Housewife's website once or twice. F brought this particular post on that site to my attention the other day and apparently Ms. Wood is still getting comments on it. Right now, I'm just going to go into the actual post itself that sparked these comments.
Ms. Wood put up on her site an e-mail that she was sent, from a man who is trying to "convert" a liberal, feminist woman. Here is my commentary about it, beginning with the first sentence.
He's interested in this young woman, but he's trying to change her. So, what this tells me is that he likes the way she looks, and if only her personality and values and ideals and...well the gist of what REALLY makes her a person were also as attractive as her body is. This is a recipe for disaster right off the bat.
Unfortunately, many people don't seem to understand this, but if you have to change a person in order to see yourself having any sort of future or long-term relationship with them, then they are not the person for you. Not right now. There's nothing to say that they might not change later on their own, but if you have to actively attempt to change someone before you can see yourself with them...just get out. It isn't worth it. More than likely it is just going to end up in disaster. It isn't fair to you or to them to waste such time trying to change a person into what you feel that your ideal life partner should be like.
For the next bit. Non-rational reasoning? How does he know if someone has a rational or irrational reason for being a feminist before they even tell him? In this portion, it sounds like he's not really talking about her, but about female feminists in general. He seems to me to be the one with the chip on his shoulder. He already has decided that feminism in general is irrational and therefore anyone who is a feminist must have irrational reasons for being one.
He goes on to imply that if said feminist resists purely dispassionate discussions about feminism and the nature of a good marriage (read: she disagrees with him and knows already that they are not going to agree; she wishes not to argue) must mean that she has a chip on her shoulder. Why? Just because he cannot get her to see things his way? Or because she doesn't want to debate with him because she knows it won't go anywhere except, perhaps, to an argument? Or both? Neither of these prove that she has a chip on her shoulder, although it makes HIM sound as if he does. He's already decided she's a simple and irrational woman who is a product of the societal times against her actual nature.
The very first sentence of his second paragraph says what he thinks about liberal women. They're corrupt. All of them. He makes no exceptions, although he does give them the benefit of the doubt by saying that it isn't always their fault. Sometimes they're indoctrinated from an early age to feminism. So why is he after this woman, anyway? Well, probably because of what I said earlier. She's good looking. That's it!
This process usually occurs on a mostly unconscious level, and it’s a rare woman who has attempted to rigorously place her liberalism on a theoretical framework.
I really don't understand what he's talking about here or why it has anything to do with anything. Perhaps, I'm just dense. Or maybe the stupid thus far has rotted my brain a bit and lowered my IQ.
The only thing I have to say about the rest of this paragraph is that I don't know when or where he went to high school, but last time I was in high school this was not the type of reading material we had assigned to us. The Feminine Mystique and The Second Sex are not really written for high school students, anyway, to my knowledge. This is recreational reading that you read on your own. Or, maybe, depending on the class or classes you are taking, it might be assigned or just recommended reading material for a college course. But, not for high schoolers. So, that's just utter nonsense, anyway. Not that this entire post of his isn't asinine.
As a college student at a public university, it seems nearly impossible to meet traditional-minded girls. Even the campus churches are corrupted by liberalism. (I should note here that I am not a Christian, but have great respect for “pure” Christianity.) So it’s inevitable that a red-blooded male will face the possibility of meeting a beautiful, kind, feminine woman – with a catch – she is liberal.
Ohhh! I get it now! Most of the women in college have brains and use them, so they aren't easily manipulated into changing their entire values and principles systems just for him. Well, why not troll Wal-Mart? I'm sure there are a lot of girls working there that are at or around his age and either have not passed high school or did not go any further after that (although, I wouldn't count on that working, either. I only have a high school diploma, and even I know bullshit when I smell it). Poor him. He doesn't want compromise HIS world view, so he has decided that in order to settle down with a woman or just simply have a long-term relationship with one he is going to have to force them to change THEIR world view instead. Wow, what perfect sense (note: that was sarcasm).
I have dated liberal girls several times, and it has very often become an issue at some point. I often tried to reason (usually in the vein of Jim Kalb) and attempt to explain to them my position on sexual roles, racial differences, organic local change vs. violent top-down liberal change, etc.
What?? What is he talking about? Does he even know what he's talking about? I cannot comment on this because the idiocy of it forces any logical answer to this to be impossible.
But a curious thing has happened. First of all, it is often the case that the girl doesn’t seem to understand why it matters that we are ideologically incompatible, and wishes I would drop it.
Wow, he is dense, isn't he? Okay, I can explain this for him right now. This woman doesn't want to talk to him about it, because she thinks he sounds like an idiot when he does, and there's no use arguing with idiotic rhetoric. Often it's so asinine that there is no rational argument TO idiocy simply because an idiot doesn't understand he's being an idiot. Otherwise, one would hope he would stop it. And further, this also means that you are NOT life partner material for this girl. She either ONLY considers you a friend or she considers you a short-term boyfriend. Either you're a rebound or she considers you good for casual sex and general conversation. In other words: SHE'S NOT THAT INTO YOU.
Or when she does agree that it matters, dispassionate arguments often reinforce her liberalism in some ways and make her more defensive, even if she acknowledges the force of your argument.
Some women just don't like to argue! Sometimes there is a reason for this. Perhaps she thinks you're being a jerk. Perhaps she thinks you're a Neanderthal. Perhaps she feels put on the spot and isn't ready to have an in-depth debate (read: most people don't carry around an index of links and books to refer you to when debating away from a computer screen or library).
One girl informed me that even though she couldn’t explain what a feminist was (she couldn’t disagree with my logic as to why mainstream feminism was a corrupt ideology), she was a feminist nonetheless and maybe she would one day be able to explain it to me. Her identity as a feminist was largely symbolic, in other words.
Honestly? I think she was probably telling him to go away. She didn't want to argue about it, she could tell it would be futile. This is often why I do similar things. If not that, then perhaps she just wasn't sure how to put it into a concise summary. But, really, if it were me, I wouldn't bother to try. He's already got his mind made up. He expects her own ideals to be fluid, but his own should not have to budge a bit. Unfortunately for him, that makes him a perfect example of what he was just complaining about with this girl.
Or, if I wanted to be extremely nice about it, maybe she IS a bit of a flake and she has no idea why she's a feminist other than she just doesn't like the implications of taking the rights from women that we've already secured away.
However, I've noticed that conservatives get very, very upset with you if you refuse to stoop to their level of arguing or if you just simply seek to end the argument. So, I'm more inclined to think that she knew where this was going and just decided to drop it before it got that far.
Liberalism is the water in which we swim, and women especially are keen defenders of the status quo and its symbolism.
That's quite right. Women don't like to have freedoms taken away from them, especially after it took for-fucking-ever to secure those rights. However, I don't understand why this is so hard for conservative men to understand. You often see them whining and moaning that feminism is just a way to subjugate men, but their solution is to subjugate women instead. No one likes to be subjugated. It doesn't matter what your gender is, what your race, religion, etc. is. Nobody likes it and the thought of it scares even those who have never had to worry about it.
My solution: do not subjugate anyone, treat everyone as equal human beings.
For the record: feminism is NOT about subjugating men. The only arguments that "prove" that it is seem to be from weirdo women who don't understand what feminism is in the first place, despite considering themselves feminists, or from mens' rights activists who sound even more asinine than the confused women.
Ideology comforts and provides an impassioned vision for how to live life, even if it’s ultimately much more radical then they realize.
This sounds ridiculous. There's a reason for that. What he's actually doing in this sentence is equating women to children. They don't have any real idea of what they're doing/saying/believing. They just do it because it comforts them...from what I don't know. And, they need a man to teach them the right way. So, ladies...this man considers us children. Run, do not walk, away from this man.
Except for the most exceptional, philosophically honest and capable women the path to traditionalism will not come from mere reason, but from some emotional impetus, like love for a traditionalist man.
This one is my favorite!! Love for a traditionalist man will move a woman to change! Sounds like he's reading too many Harlequin romances, to me. Note that he says nothing about love for a feminist woman prompting a man to change. Nope! That's the woman's job, dammit. And, also, any woman who does not agree with him about "traditionalism" is a childish idiot who is incapable of being honest, even with herself.
And with his last few sentences, it's basically the same philosophy as a guy deciding a woman decides what kind of car she will buy simply and solely on whether or not it is a pretty color. You have to make her curious about your lifestyle to get her to change, because obviously once a woman is curious about something she likes whatever it is she has become curious about. What??
The vision must be positive and emotionally captivating, and must be shown to her only by way of invitation, at her own inclination.
What nonsense is this? I don't know how to respond to this, but I mentioned it by quote simply because it is so ridiculous. Behold the pretty colors, ladies, and be mesmerized into not realizing he's a jackass!
It is better to obtain short term agreement from your woman and focus on loving her within the emotional landscape of traditionalism.
YOUR woman. You are now property, ladies. You know. Like cattle. Usually, I don't pick on this. But, this guy sounds like the type of man who would really believe it. And, might I reiterate, that if you are insisting upon changing everything about this woman except her outward, you don't love her you just think she's hot. Completely different.
And this man wonders why he can't have a serious conversation with a woman? Sad.
To read the post in it's entirety, go to the following address:
www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/08/romancing-a-feminist/