Most young men are single - most young women are not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

Stop going to college and grad school and stop pursuing careers, so they’ll once again have to rely on men to put roofs over their heads.

Said nobody ever. Except you of course.

Fox News complains about childless “cat ladies” and says they ought to settle down, SAH and breed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

They want women to revert back to property instead of doing any work themselves. That's it.

True of many men. Look, dudes in America (esp white men) had a good run being at the top of the food chain, even if they didn't do anything to earn it other that being a dude. this is no longer the case. As the first PP noted, we (women) had to put up with a lot and fight tooth and nail to get those things. If we can do it, the poor men can figure out how to deal with it.

As for the "mass shootings, overdoses. . . . lousy woman mangers" etc. . . . it says alot about the poster who said it that they some how attribute to women. F you.

Only 100 years ago, I couldn't vote. 40 years ago, I couldn't get credit in my own name. Not only can I do these things now, but much more. I'm not property

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Are you appropriating the struggles of generations of women for yourself? What did you do?

You're joking, right? I've been groped AT WORK, verbally harassed AT WORK, paid less then men in my position. I've been presumed to be the secretary on more than one occasion. I've been dismissed by calling me by my first name at the conference table where every man at the table was Mr. So-and-So. I've seen men ding women in job interviews for being "a young mother."

The generations prior had it worse. But you're an effing idiot if you think those struggles are not still here in some form. That's number 1.

Number 2, the playing field is more level now. Not level. And many men -again, not all- see that as a threat. When you've been given a head start at 3d base for . . . . generations . . . and now you have to start at home plate with everyone else, it can be unsettling. But they're no victims. And while I can understand that it is hard for these guys to comprehend, it has been MUCH harder for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

Stop going to college and grad school and stop pursuing careers, so they’ll once again have to rely on men to put roofs over their heads.

You mean like whining about college debt and dumping it off on the taxpayer men who did not go to college? Don't kid yourself, you are still relying on men. In more ways than you realize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

We haven't made girls into boys. What a stupid thing to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

QUIT TRIVIALIZING WHAT YOUNG MEN ARE GOING THROUGH!

I think it's really sad and wish they could be helped. But what do you propose we do to help them besides force women to be with them?

Just acknowledge that they have legitimate struggles. Start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

Stop going to college and grad school and stop pursuing careers, so they’ll once again have to rely on men to put roofs over their heads.

Said nobody ever. Except you of course.

Fox News complains about childless “cat ladies” and says they ought to settle down, SAH and breed.

Because childless cat ladies complain about everything and we are all just trying to figure out something, anything to make them stop whining and realize how good they have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

QUIT TRIVIALIZING WHAT YOUNG MEN ARE GOING THROUGH!

I think it's really sad and wish they could be helped. But what do you propose we do to help them besides force women to be with them?

Just acknowledge that they have legitimate struggles. Start there.

This is too much to ask from this lot, yet they will scream from the rooftops about eMpAtHy. Like their paper pushing desk jobs are saving humanity smh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

We haven't made girls into boys. What a stupid thing to say.

Lot of masculine energy emanating from your post. You sure about that, sweetie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

Jeez, this pretty much illustrates the problem in one DCUM exchange. Thoughtful post about how boys can be raised to be more well-rounded, empathetic and happy. Response is, what, you want to make them sissies? (NP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

Jeez, this pretty much illustrates the problem in one DCUM exchange. Thoughtful post about how boys can be raised to be more well-rounded, empathetic and happy. Response is, what, you want to make them sissies? (NP)

Women do not like those sorts of effeminate men as partners; nor do other men like them. It's a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work. We need to start living in reality and acknowledge the revealed preferences of women through their actions, and not what they say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

They want women to revert back to property instead of doing any work themselves. That's it.

True of many men. Look, dudes in America (esp white men) had a good run being at the top of the food chain, even if they didn't do anything to earn it other that being a dude. this is no longer the case. As the first PP noted, we (women) had to put up with a lot and fight tooth and nail to get those things. If we can do it, the poor men can figure out how to deal with it.

As for the "mass shootings, overdoses. . . . lousy woman mangers" etc. . . . it says alot about the poster who said it that they some how attribute to women. F you.

Only 100 years ago, I couldn't vote. 40 years ago, I couldn't get credit in my own name. Not only can I do these things now, but much more. I'm not property

White men were the toughest bastards on the planet for awhile. They got soft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

We haven't made girls into boys. What a stupid thing to say.

Lot of masculine energy emanating from your post. You sure about that, sweetie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

They want women to revert back to property instead of doing any work themselves. That's it.

True of many men. Look, dudes in America (esp white men) had a good run being at the top of the food chain, even if they didn't do anything to earn it other that being a dude. this is no longer the case. As the first PP noted, we (women) had to put up with a lot and fight tooth and nail to get those things. If we can do it, the poor men can figure out how to deal with it.

As for the "mass shootings, overdoses. . . . lousy woman mangers" etc. . . . it says alot about the poster who said it that they some how attribute to women. F you.

Only 100 years ago, I couldn't vote. 40 years ago, I couldn't get credit in my own name. Not only can I do these things now, but much more. I'm not property

White men were the toughest bastards on the planet for awhile. They got soft.

White men still run the world. It just so happens that a bunch of them are now doing poorly as well. Apex fallacy is rampant in these discussions.