Post: #1

I know there is a thread already on ban bossy, but saw this article and felt it deserved its own thread. This guy checks off every mangina check box.

He thinks men should be attracted to women based on their educational and career accomplishments rather than their youth and beauty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/opinio...pants.html

Bossy Pants?

Quote:The same week that Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, helped start a campaign to ban the word “bossy,” so as not to discourage women from being assertive, the “Princeton Mom,” Susan Patton, who penned a widely condemned letter about why young women should focus on marriage in The Daily Princetonian, went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to flog her new book. This is what she told a group of young women working in the studio’s newsroom:
“You’re going to start looking for a husband in your mid-30’s? You’re going to be competing with girls who are 10 years younger than you. And not only can you not compete for men with women 10 years younger than you, because they are 10 years younger than you: they’re dewy-eyed, they’re fresh, they’re adorable.”

Quote:Dewy-eyed, fresh and adorable? What an anachronistic message to send to young working women — that desirable men, who presumably have their druthers, are so superficial and libido-driven that professional women can’t hold a candle to perky ones, that a woman who wishes to marry must submit herself to being chosen by the most superficial of men before the wick of her beauty burns low. This, according to Patton, apparently happens in her 30s, which could be only the first third of a woman’s life. This reinforces the most destructive gender stereotype.

Quote:Undoubtedly there’s some evolutionary-biological drive among many men and women to choose mates who are fertile and capable of protecting and caring for children, but those are only base instincts. Much of the youth-fetishizing, particularly as it relates to women, is culturally constructed and reinforced… This is a societal disease.

Quote:And it’s no better for little boys, who are constantly admonished to suck it up, toughen up, don’t cry, be a man, and don’t run, hit or kick like a girl.

Quote:We plant seeds of misogyny, often without being aware of it, while our boys are still sprouts. And then we wonder why so many men are emotionally suppressed and stunted. It’s because we’ve been telling them all their lives that emotions were effeminate and femininity was a curse.

Quote:Yet some still bemoan our current atmosphere as “feminized” — a rhetorical construction that in and of itself is misogynistic because it establishes femininity as a lesser, undesirable expression — rather than understanding that femininity and masculinity aren’t strictly gendered and their expressions not rigidly conveyed.

Quote:Our current turn toward tolerance for sexual identities and gender expressions isn’t about more people being less of a man or woman, but about more people feeling safe to be more wholly human. And it’s about freedom — freedom of expression, freedom of self-determination and freedom of fluidity.

Quote:We have to see our girls and boys as more than skirts and pants, damsels and squires, child-bearers and breadwinners. We must see them as — and encourage them to express themselves as — fully realized beings. Girls must be given safe space to be assertive and boys to be vulnerable without feeling that they have failed a test of gender normativity.

Post: #2

It's every bloody day it seems now with articles coming out like this. Maybe it seems exaggerated as it's all put up on here, but the articles have to be out there to be found by us.

What the hell is going on in America?

Post: #3

whats going on ???


the push back has occurred thats what. men are waking up and so are women.

Post: #4

If he's married, I'd bet a grand that his wife fucks other men.

Post: #5

(03-16-2014 01:32 PM)kdolo Wrote:  whats going on ???


the push back has occurred thats what. men are waking up and so are women.

They aren't pushing back, they're conceding to this progressive bullshit. Like this article here.

We're a tiny percentage of men here.

Post: #6

(03-16-2014 01:32 PM)kdolo Wrote:  whats going on ???


the push back has occurred thats what. men are waking up and so are women.

For some reason a high majority of journalists are unhappy liberals. They got their Obama, he has been a complete failure. They got their women's equality and two generations the failure is so obvious that everyone is starting to see it.

Newspapers are going out of business, as you can get most of your news online for free and most Americans who are willing to keep up with the news don't want some horrible liberal spin.

IMO, it is a last ditch effort to push for liberalism. Also a hope they can keep the core base of their current customers.

Because this article is complete shit.

Post: #7

New York Times has really jumped the shark. Now every second article is some white knight/feminist bullshit propaganda!

p.s. I'm really ashamed for having an actual subscription to them for about a year and thus giving them some $ 150. Fortunately, I wised up in time and did this:

Post: #8

(03-16-2014 01:42 PM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  If he's married, I'd bet a grand that his wife fucks other men.

More like he wrote this pro-woman article to prove what a sensitive, caring man he was so he could fuck more women.

It's "sensitive guy game" and was developed in the 1970s by cads like James Taylor, Alan Alda, the guys from Bread, and other men with "caring hearts" and wandering penises.

(It's important to remember that often the more pro-woman a man is, the more he's a cad. The big examples are Bill Clinton and Elliott Spitzer, but there are others. This is a strategy. Conservative women tend to see through it...sometimes.)

Post: #9

Unless kids are being raised by a strong model of masculinity, they're absolutely doomed!! These articles about reforming masculinity are everywhere now. If I was young kid growing up now, there's no way that I wouldn't believe 100% of what's currently coming out without a strong masculine presence to let me know that is false and has an agenda.

Post: #10

Top comment:

Quote:At 65 I still prefer women my age to younger women. Perky boobs and tight buns are nice but not nearly as great as intelligence and the hard-won wisdom that comes with age.

Post: #11

Wait, I just noticed something:

"Undoubtedly there’s some evolutionary-biological drive among many men and women to choose mates who are fertile and capable of protecting and caring for children, but those are only base instincts. Much of the youth-fetishizing, particularly as it relates to women, is culturally constructed and reinforced… This is a societal disease."

So it's a "base instinct" to want to choose someone who is healthy and capable of protecting and caring for your kids?!?! Beyond the sheer nonsense of this statement, why isn't Mr. New York Times telling women to go for unemployed cripples who didn't go to college? Why is the onus only on men to choose old hags?

This, to me, reads like something written by royalty looking down their nose at the minions. When you tell people they need to put sociological ideas ahead of having healthy, successful kids, you're so far off base you may as well be in Victorian England or pre-Revolution France, which is where this country probably is.

Post: #12

(03-16-2014 03:11 PM)Vato Maranzano Wrote:  Top comment:

Quote:At 65 I still prefer women my age to younger women. Perky boobs and tight buns are nice but not nearly as great as intelligence and the hard-won wisdom that comes with age.

Post: #13

(03-16-2014 03:19 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Wait, I just noticed something:

"Undoubtedly there’s some evolutionary-biological drive among many men and women to choose mates who are fertile and capable of protecting and caring for children, but those are only base instincts. Much of the youth-fetishizing, particularly as it relates to women, is culturally constructed and reinforced… This is a societal disease."

So it's a "base instinct" to want to choose someone who is healthy and capable of protecting and caring for your kids?!?! Beyond the sheer nonsense of this statement, why isn't Mr. New York Times telling women to go for unemployed cripples who didn't go to college? Why is the onus only on men to choose old hags?

This, to me, reads like something written by royalty looking down their nose at the minions. When you tell people they need to put sociological ideas ahead of having healthy, successful kids, you're so far off base you may as well be in Victorian England or pre-Revolution France, which is where this country probably is.

Right. He makes cursory comments that women need to be less superficial, but really his target is men.

Except that men accept reality whereas women don't. Men don't tell their fat friends who whine about not getting laid that they are beautiful just the way they are. They invite them to the gym with them. Men don't tell their friends who face career problems that everything will be ok. They try to give them their best advice about how to get out of their rut and give them a hand up through a job referral, invite them to a networking event, etcetera.

They act as if men are expecting women to be perfect. Not true. All many men are asking from women is to be cute and feminine. If a girl wants to slut it up, get tattoos, gain a ton of weight, whatever…so be it. But actions have consequences, for both men and women.

They love to try to shame men. But until scientists start getting all the pussy, I think I'll just go about my business as usual.

Post: #14

(03-16-2014 02:02 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 01:42 PM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  If he's married, I'd bet a grand that his wife fucks other men.

More like he wrote this pro-woman article to prove what a sensitive, caring man he was so he could fuck more women.

It's "sensitive guy game" and was developed in the 1970s by cads like James Taylor, Alan Alda, the guys from Bread, and other men with "caring hearts" and wandering penises.

(It's important to remember that often the more pro-woman a man is, the more he's a cad. The big examples are Bill Clinton and Elliott Spitzer, but there are others. This is a strategy. Conservative women tend to see through it...sometimes.)

That. Wikipedia says that he's a "single father of three children", wife divorced him shortly after the 3rd one's birth. I can't imagine why.

Post: #15

(03-16-2014 05:24 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 02:02 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 01:42 PM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  If he's married, I'd bet a grand that his wife fucks other men.

More like he wrote this pro-woman article to prove what a sensitive, caring man he was so he could fuck more women.

It's "sensitive guy game" and was developed in the 1970s by cads like James Taylor, Alan Alda, the guys from Bread, and other men with "caring hearts" and wandering penises.

(It's important to remember that often the more pro-woman a man is, the more he's a cad. The big examples are Bill Clinton and Elliott Spitzer, but there are others. This is a strategy. Conservative women tend to see through it...sometimes.)

That. Wikipedia says that he's a "single father of three children", wife divorced him shortly after the 3rd one's birth. I can't imagine why.

Post: #16

(03-16-2014 05:24 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 02:02 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  [quote='ElBorrachoInfamoso' pid='679644' dateline='1394995331']
If he's married, I'd bet a grand that his wife fucks other men.

That. Wikipedia says that he's a "single father of three children", wife divorced him shortly after the 3rd one's birth. I can't imagine why.

Not only that, I'd bet good money at least one of those kids isn;t his......

Post: #17

(03-16-2014 05:24 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 02:02 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 01:42 PM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  If he's married, I'd bet a grand that his wife fucks other men.

More like he wrote this pro-woman article to prove what a sensitive, caring man he was so he could fuck more women.

It's "sensitive guy game" and was developed in the 1970s by cads like James Taylor, Alan Alda, the guys from Bread, and other men with "caring hearts" and wandering penises.

(It's important to remember that often the more pro-woman a man is, the more he's a cad. The big examples are Bill Clinton and Elliott Spitzer, but there are others. This is a strategy. Conservative women tend to see through it...sometimes.)

That. Wikipedia says that he's a "single father of three children", wife divorced him shortly after the 3rd one's birth. I can't imagine why.

So he clearly has an axe to grind. Perhaps his wife left him for a younger man, hence why he's all about people dating within their age group.

Because if we know one thing, it's that feminism is self serving. A bunch of fat chicks want men to not judge on looks? Gee, I wonder why???

That Manboobz guy rails against red pill men. Why? Because he thinks white knighting will get him in good with women. Losing weight, going out and taking the good with the bad is too much effort for people like him.

I/we may not be perfect, but I don't expect women to change. I don't think women should change their preferences because people like what they like. If a woman doesn't like me, I could care less. Not everyone is going to like everyone else and to try and change society's rules on this is ridiculous.

What is most absurd is that feminists not only want to change the rules, they want to change them solely for their benefit. Don't want to go out with a girl because she's fat? You're shallow. Don't want to go out with a girl because she sleeps around? You're a slut shamer. Don't want to go out with a girl because she's obnoxious? You can't handle independent women.

However, they can judge as much as they want. From Girls to that SNL sketch where those fat women wanted 'muscular' guys, any man who doesn't meet those standards is cruelly mocked (i.e. the skinny men's rights guy was a wimpy virgin). As I pointed out, it was a case of classic projection.

It bothers me because I'm tired of these people expressing these views virtually unopposed (except for here). I've brought my attractive ex-gfs to company parties, only to see women give them dirty looks, and then make passive-aggressive comments about them. I've slept with coworkers (because they were attractive) only to see other women bully these women, in one particular case to the point of quitting. And it had nothing to do with whether or not these women were interested in me. It was because they hate it when younger and/or more attractive women get attention. It also bothers me because as a clean-cut guy, in good shape with a decent job, I've had several women (and their beta-pussy husbands/bfs) try and set me up with their fat/ugly friend, and when I politely decline (yet privately vomit) they try to shame me. Aren't they shallow for trying to set up their fugly friend with a desirable guy? Again, I'm not perfect, but I work hard to stay in shape and at my job, I know I bring something to the table. So naturally I expect the same from a woman.

So thanks to anyone who read my long post. My point is that like all feminists, this author's POV is not only wrong, it is dangerous and needs to be confronted in a thoughtful and direct manner at every opportunity.

Post: #18

Quote:He thinks men should be attracted to women based on their educational and career accomplishments rather than their youth and beauty.

Post: #19

My issue with militant feminism is that it ignores basic facts. Basic facts are this: Men are attracted to young, healthy-looking women. It's simple biology, and any book on evolutionary psychology (for example, The Evolution of Desire [1]) will tell you that.

I remember pissing off girls left and right because I put, on my online dating profile, that I would not date a girl with a BMI over 25. As Henry Rollins put it: Get fat on someone else's time.

[1] I should note that this link is not an affiliate link. I don't know whether affiliate links are allowed.

Post: #20

Dudes a fairly handsome Black guy, too. It's especially depressing when you see a mangina BLACK guy writing such drivel. We already know tons of White and Jewish dudes are pussies.

How sad. He could become DJ Chuck Blow and plow, but he's just a walking roast beef vagina.

Post: #21

I' pretty sure that the 'Blow' part of his name is just a moniker to appear more hip. Does anyone else think this guy always looks like he's edging toward an emotional breakdown?