"Are Men Necessary?"

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!

Moderator: Dave Young

"Are Men Necessary?"

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:43 pm

http://www.calendarlive.com/dating/cl-w ... 5914.story

Smarten up, gals! Drop your IQ if you want to score with the male ego.

By Samantha Bonar, Times Staff Writer

NEW York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is in town next week to discuss her new book, "Are Men Necessary?," and, ostensibly, to expound on the obvious punch lines the title seems to set up.

Her tome is based on anecdotal experience and cites a couple of studies that arrived at the revelation that men prefer subservient, less-intelligent women as romantic partners. The notion is: Given their druthers, successful men would rather have relationships with secretaries, waitresses and maids.

I wonder how much grant money those academics got. Let us hypothesize that subservient and not-too-bright women are easier to control than someone who knows enough (and has the financial independence) not to put up with a man's garbage.

And why does a man need to control a woman? So that she will not reject and abandon and thus humiliate him. Interestingly enough, the researchers also say that men believe that smart women are more likely to cheat on them. Call it the smart-sneaky connection. There could be something to this, as smart-sneaky men have been cheating on women for eons.

(A confession: I do understand why men fall in love with their maids. I absolutely adore mine — after all, she scrubs my kitchen floor, which seems the height of kindness and generosity. Sometimes she makes me egg rolls too — what could be more lovable?)

Researchers have apparently found that men prefer long-term relationships with subordinates rather than co-workers or supervisors. Women, however, showed no significant preference for socially dominant men, or for socially inferior men. They appear to hanker for their peers — while, sadly, their peers are at Applebee's hitting on the women who bring them their burgers and pies.

I always assumed that alpha men wanted alpha women, that kings wanted queens. Not so. I guess that holds true only for wolves.

In addition, British researchers have recently "discovered" that the higher a woman's IQ, the fewer prospects she has for marriage. (Jane Austen could have told them that.) To be a droll, dry, wry, sarcastic or clever woman is deadly, apparently. (Yes, you may point out the example of Mr. Darcy, who loved Elizabeth Bennet's witty repartee, but I still say he's secretly gay.)

In other words, you can be tall, blond, thin and a former runway model, but that all counts for naught if you are smart and successful and, thus, annoying. I guess everything my mother told me about the male ego is true. This, apparently, is why American men travel to Shanghai, Kiev and Bangkok in search of dates.

I have therefore decided to modify my romantic résumé:

Education: San Diego State

Major: public relations

Minor: stripping

Employment: wait person, Cheesecake Factory (Why? Because I totally love cheesecake!)

Employment goal: Las Vegas showgirl. And a mommy.

Honors and awards: Baby-sitter of the year, Manitowoc, Wis.

Hobbies: I am trying to learn to knit so I can make those big fluffy scarves, but I get so upset when I make knots!



I also have decided to limit my vocabulary to 10 monosyllabic words (not counting contractions and articles):

You

Big

Strong

Yes

Chips

Game

Beer

Man

Want

Great

For example: "Big strong man want beer?" "You want chips?" "You great!"

I will avoid these words like New Orleans:

Me

I

Why

What

Can

Will

No

Never

Stop

Yuck

As in: "Why do you insist on my wearing these sheer red stockings?" "Can I have one of your beers?" "Will you let me know if you are married?"

But for the most part, I plan to not speak. I will alternate between giggling and tittering. I will be vacuous as I vacuum.

The payoff will be a man who loves and wants me. Whoever "me" is. I'm sure he can fill me in on that. Hee hee.

Men, the problem with this dating strategy is that even the most dedicated of doormats will eventually wake up, grow up — or get smart.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Are Men Necessary

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:06 pm

I guess the new book, “Are Men Necessary” really hit a chord with reviewers at “the Times” since this is at least the second review of the book in just nine days.

This second review of the book is as lacking in skepticism as the first review: it accepts every idea the book proposes without questioning its validity.

Of the sexist lies that this book seeks to promote are that, men have “garbage” that must be put up with while women have no negative social characteristics (none that are worth noting or that must might have to put up with, anyway). Women are thus perfect and men are decidedly imperfect and needing repair (or face extinction the title seems to suggest).

Describing this hateful book as a tome is inappropriate. The book is, rather, a thinly veiled attack on men. The title is decidedly hateful (Is the issue of men’s necessity in society even discussed or is the title designed to promote the idea that men are decidedly inferior to women?).

What is the book based on? Anecdotal experience and a couple of studies that arrived at “the revelation that men prefer subservient, less intelligent women as romantic partners.”
I wouldn’t mind seeing the data that this book relies on as I am fairly certain it doesn’t say what the reviewers say about men.

The researchers also say men believe smart women are more likely to cheat on them. The reviewer does not bother to refute this claim of female infidelity by smart women, but rather tries to assert women’s right to cheat based upon the idea that, “Smart-sneaky men have been cheating on women for eons”. Thus, the argument of the reviewer seems to be that two wrongs make a right. Thus, if men have cheated for eons, it must be ok for women to do so for at least as long (if not longer).

The reviewer (like the author) makes many sexist assumptions about men and women that have yet to be proven.

“and why does a man need to control a woman?”

The assumption is that men try to control, women do not.

That has yet to be proven.

What is wrong with wanting to choose a partner who will not abandon and reject you in your time of need? Isn’t the whole point of having a partner so that we have someone on our team when the going gets tough?

Here is the main message that men and women are supposed to get coming away from this book:

Men, the problem is with you and you have to change if you want things to get better.

Women, there is nothing wrong with you and you need change nothing.

Men, you know you are wrong, now change……..
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby -Metablade- » Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:51 pm

What is it about this book that outrages you most?
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.
User avatar
-Metablade-
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm

Postby Stryke » Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:02 pm

People write and people buy terrible and stupid books all the time .

I dont for one second beleive men control the vast majority of relationships .
Stryke
 

Harvey...

Postby gmattson » Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:25 pm

Maureen Dowd was on a couple talk shows hyping her book. It was my opinion, based on her interviews, that the book was strictly "humor" based and not to be taken seriously.

Have you actually read the book or are you just reading the title and the equally humorous review?

I get these email jokes sent to me on a regular basis, with essentially the same message.... you know....

men like beer

woman like puppy dogs
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Mount Dora, Florida

Postby Valkenar » Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:09 pm

Yes, this is a joke. A fairly stupid and over-used one, but nothing terribly new or exciting.

If the opposite book was written, I think you'd see a few feminists getting bent out of shape about it, but the vast majority of people (male and female) just dismissing it as a dumb book by a jerk. Do you really think this book is going to be received so much differently?
- Justin Powell
Valkenar
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Postby Stryke » Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:15 pm

Yeah it`s like asking if beer is necessary !!! :lol: :lol:
Stryke
 

Postby TheGreatWhiteBuffalo » Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:36 pm

In addition, British researchers have recently "discovered" that the higher a woman's IQ, the fewer prospects she has for marriage. (Jane Austen could have told them that.) To be a droll, dry, wry, sarcastic or clever woman is deadly, apparently.


:roll: Yeah because I love having to explain something 15 times to someone before they understand it. I think that most men would want someone at their own intelligence level. She just seems like an angry beeyatch whose attitude has kept her from getting a man.
Si vis Pacem, Para bellum
TheGreatWhiteBuffalo
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:25 pm

Postby f.Channell » Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:39 pm

She should add the word "shopping" to the list to avoid.

I hear that word from my wife I feel ill......

the only good shopping to a Uechi man is in Chinatown. 8)

F.
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
User avatar
f.Channell
 
Posts: 3544
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Valhalla

Postby -Metablade- » Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:56 pm

I wonder how the reaction would be to this book if the title were:
"How to understand and appreciate the generic, stereotypical, and misinterpreted differences between Men and Women as seen through the money-hungry exploitive eyes of a pop-psychologist's quackery."

..... Instead of the Post-Feminist-Line-Grabbing-Emotion-Manipulating title they went for to obviously sell more books.

The story has been told before folks, this is just the same tired old message in yet another different package.

Yeah yeah..yeah...I get it. (Yawn)

They rule, we ******.

They are the architects of sanity and civility, while we just eat beer-flavored bananas, lay around in our own filth, and scream and howl like monkeys on smack.

How original. :roll:
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.
User avatar
-Metablade-
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm

Postby AAAhmed46 » Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:45 pm

Anyone ever read "101 lies men tell woman" ?

This book basically says repeatedly that men lie to get laid or a date, woman lie to spare feelings.

Anyone read that?
AAAhmed46
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Postby Panther » Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:37 am

AAAhmed46 wrote:This book basically says repeatedly that men lie to get laid or a date...


Yeah... So... :P

BTW, on a sidenote Ahmed, the thing I really find insulting about your current sig is the fact that I get bombarded with the question directed at me everytime. How about a little consideration. 'K?
User avatar
Panther
 
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby AAAhmed46 » Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:59 am

So, what do you want me to get rid of, the part about asking you or the sig it self?

P.s. dont worry, by next week ill probably change it...again. This time, something none chuck norris related. Now im aiming for something more Uechi.
AAAhmed46
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Postby Panther » Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:38 pm

I was referring just to the first part directed at me. You've dropped it, so thank you.
User avatar
Panther
 
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby Bill Glasheen » Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:06 pm

It doesn't surprise me that Maureen Dowd wrote such a book. I've been watching her for years as a guest commentator on the various Sunday morning talk shows, where they solicit views from a grab bag of "influential journalists" of various political persuasions. Maureen Dowd seems to be typecasted (quite appropriately) as the angry liberal feminist with the anti-male chip on her shoulder. In the several years I've watched her comment on TV and read her articles, I haven't once agreed substatively with anything she said that was based on opinion.

Quite frankly Maureen reminds me of a certain subculture of the lesbian community at UVa. A lesbian friend of mine used to talk about a handful of lesbians who would chastise her for talking with men (such as myself). And it drove them absolutely bullschit when I would hug one of their lesbians friends. A self respecting lesbian could be shunned for that kind of behavior, you know... :roll: Quite frankly these are people badly in need of couseling.

But then there are quite a few people out there who fit in that category... :wink:

I'm sure Maureen has her loyal readers who would eat up a book like this - even if it is tongue-in-cheek. What-ever... Let them have their little pity party. It makes them feel superior, you know. :wink:

The thing I want to know is this. Where were these allegedly superior IQ women when I was on the dating scene? I spent half a lifetime looking for a mate who was an equal in any way to my six highly achieving sisters and my mom who was valedictorian of her high school. Intimidated? Sorry... More like avoiding the beatch factor like the plague. Can you blame a halfway intelligent man for shunning a mate lacking in the most basic social skills? IQ alone does not a man/woman make. Sorry, missy...

Let's put it this way. I'll put half my sisters, my mom, and any number of a few women I dated up against Miss Dowd any day of the year. Measure on any factor you consider worthy of "achievement." She couldn't hold a candle to any of them on a windless day. 8)

Eat your heart out, Maureen, not that you really cared in the first place.

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
 
Posts: 17308
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Next

Return to Realist Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests