Well behaved women seldom make history

The latest Wal-Mart Halloween commercial here in the US reminded me of grerp’s post Piece of Advice #74: Do not confuse being difficult with being strong:

If only girls have more moxie then they will become men!

Too bad it isn’t true, since all we are getting from this mass experiment is a group of unpleasant irresponsible women instead.  On the bright side, for those of us with daughters this is an excellent teaching moment.  What better way to teach her not to be a bitchy little girl than by noting it when commercials like this come up?

Edit:  One of the comments on youtube captures the feminist infatuation with moxie perfectly:

I love the girl’s attitude when she says “I can’t read”🙂

This entry was posted in Feminists, Halloween. Bookmark the permalink.

136 Responses to Well behaved women seldom make history

  1. Opus says:

    Terrible Ad.

    Brassy women bear the same resemblance to (strong) men as Transvestites do to women.

  2. Chels says:

    Awwwww come on Dalrock, that was such a cute commercial!

    And since when is a 4 year old suddenly a woman? As well, little girls can’t be “bitchy”, and the one in the commercial just has a sweet tooth, like most kids. If you put a bowl full of candy in front of kids, what do you expect, what kid can resist taking just one? Kind of deserving of a house egging lol

    REALLY bad example of making your point, picking on a little girl :s

  3. herbn says:

    Shouldn’t the feminists be against suggesting reading is too hard for women (reading the typical feminist’s comments on the web I’m starting to believe that it is, but still)

  4. A great example. What’s interesting is how the boy shows self restraint and the girl does not. He at least hesitates and thinks about taking another one whereas the girl just confidently prances up and dives in. A perfect imagery of entitlement. The confused look on his face afterwards of “what just happened” I think captures the speed at which such girls have taken over the culture and how boys or men are left in their dust.

  5. I don’t know how, exactly, to say this, but one of the things I find most annoying about young “feminists” (and I use the term loosely) is that they have often seemingly patterned themselves after the worst characteristics of men, and not the best. The guys I’ve worked with have been some of the best, most heroic men to ever walk the face of the earth. They never swaggered around acting like badasses, even right after doing something that would make a normal man piss his pants. They were super masculine, but they weren’t assholes.

    A lot of women in corporate America have mistaken being an asshole for being “strong and assertive.” If you want to work with men, effectively, there probably are times when you may have to assert yourself to avoid ending up at the bottom of the pecking order. But, you don’t have to be a total bitch about it. You can have a sense of humor about it, and turn it into a win/win. You don’t have to step on other people to get to the top (you just have to do good work). In fact, you will often get to the top a lot faster if you don’t make many enemies and you help your peers along the way.

    Do some men act like hypercompetitive assholes? Sure. But no one likes them or respects them much. Why would you want to model yourself after an asshole?

    Sidebar: We do the leaving the candy out at our house thing every year, and have done so for 12 years. We have yet to return home to an empty bowl. Most kids in our neighborhood must voluntarily limit themselves to one piece of candy (or their parents make them do so). Apparently, moxie hasn’t made it to this part of the south yet. Thankfully.

  6. Chels says:

    A perfect imagery of entitlement.

    Or maybe it’s just the age difference–the boy seems like he’s at least 8, whereas the girl is around 4.

    I wonder what y’all would say if the roles were reversed–the boy taking a hand full of candy and the girl the one showing self-control, you’d probably say that it’s an attack on masculinity and a show of female superiority.

  7. Chel: Like a rorschach blot, sometimes what people see in things like this says more about the person making the observation than it does about the blot. I see a poorly parented, unmannerly child. Plus, my daughter could read at 4.

  8. Lara says:

    Chels has a point, there is an obvious age difference between these two kids which makes the girl’s behavior seem a little less obnoxious.

  9. Lara says:

    And my son is 6 and still can’t read very well so it’s believable to me.

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    As it happens I already viewed this commercial with the sound off, then with the sound on, purely by coincidence. The message I got with no audio was reinforced by the same spot with audio. I’ll admit up front that I come to this advert with certain premises in my head.Here is the message I take away:

    “There are rules in the world. Boys must obey, while girls do not have to.”

    Boys have responsibilities to do right no matter what. Girls get choices…

    Or to refer back to a previous thread: girls get authority, but no responsibility. Boys get exactly the opposite.

    This is a fundamental pillar of feminism.

  11. slwerner says:

    Chels – “I wonder what y’all would say if the roles were reversed–the boy taking a hand full of candy and the girl the one showing self-control, you’d probably say that it’s an attack on masculinity and a show of female superiority.”

    Why the Hell would you think that.

    I’m quite confident that all the men here (and most men in general) would be appalled at a such behavior from a boy (and think what he needs is some good old-fashion disciple as applied to the seat of his pants).

    The entire point of using a girl in the role was that, as a girl, she would be afforded more latitude in her behaviors than would a boy. This is something that most people intuitively understand – a girl doing something that would be unacceptable if done by a boy (of comparable age/maturity) can be considered cute.

  12. Chels says:

    Boys have responsibilities to do right no matter what. Girls get choices…

    Wow, nowhere in the commercial is that present, nowhere does it mention responsibilities/choices.

    You’re talking about a little kid being tempted with candy, what kid can resist taking just one? I know that I couldn’t at that age, at least not with my parents to stop me from dumping the whole bowl in my bag.

    Posts like this just make me want to throw my arms up in the air and say “do what you like honey”, because it’s clear that no one is ever going to be pleased with whatever action a girl/woman takes:

    –If the girl was to take one piece, and the boy more, people would interpret it as attacking boyhood
    –If the girl takes more than one piece and the boy one, people interpret it as being entitled/bossy/domineering/aggressive/etc

    Until all women adhere to a very narrow definition of femininity (quiet/demure/fades in the background/avid supporter of patriarchy type of gal), you’re never going to be satisfied.

    And yes, the girl could show more restraint, but a little girl cannot be a bitch.

  13. Regardless of age, the girl seemed to know full well what she was doing….it shows in her attitude and the sassy way she said she “can’t read”. Even if she truly could not read, the boy told her what the sign said but she shrugged it off and went on her merry way.

  14. Lara says:

    I saw a boy around the age of 8 or so wearing a t shirt that read, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

  15. Chels says:

    Why the Hell would you think that.

    Ummmm because if a girl is shown in a better position to a male, it’s obviously promoting female superiority, and it’s a waaaaar on boys *rolls eyes*

    I’m quite confident that all the men here (and most men in general) would be appalled at a such behavior from a boy (and think what he needs is some good old-fashion disciple as applied to the seat of his pants).

    The entire point of using a girl in the role was that, as a girl, she would be afforded more latitude in her behaviors than would a boy. This is something that most people intuitively understand – a girl doing something that would be unacceptable if done by a boy (of comparable age/maturity) can be considered cute.

    No,it wasn’t, there’s no subliminal message in the commercial, other than “buy more candy!”. And maybe you’d criticize the boy for his actions, but you’d also say that it’s more feminist propaganda, girls being shown in a better light than boys!

  16. Lara says:

    Child actors are usually a nightmare in real life so it probably is her real personality.

  17. Perhaps “bitch” is too strong of a word for a young girl, but she can certainly be a “brat” and graduate into “bitch”. Different words for different age levels that all mean the same thing.

  18. slwerner says:

    Lara – “I saw a boy around the age of 8 or so wearing a t shirt that read…”

    It looks like your post got cut-off.

    I believe the rest it it was intended to read:

    “that his mother bough for him because she thought it was cute – and a good idea at the time”

    I wonder if she was trying to imply that she had born the boy because, at the time she chose to do so, she thought it would be a good idea to have a baby. Now, 8 years later, she’s reconsidered an is now announcing to the world that she believes that she made a big mistake (poor kid doesn’t get the underlying message being sent at his expense).

    Spencer’s (the adult-oriented novelty store) used to carry little t-shirts for toddlers that had such sayings as “my dad is an asshole” emblazoned on them.

    I suppose you would believe that toddlers who would be seen wearing those shirts were the ones intending to send a message?

  19. slwerner says:

    ”…because if a girl is shown in a better position to a male, it’s obviously promoting female superiority, and it’s a waaaaar on boys *rolls eyes*…because if a girl is shown in a better position to a male, it’s obviously promoting female superiority, and it’s a waaaaar on boys *rolls eyes*”

    Oh, BS!

    What gives, Chels? Did you decide to dress-up your comments as A-holes for Halloween?

  20. Chels says:

    the boy told her what the sign said but she shrugged it off

    And how was it any of his business what she does and why should she listen to him? You guys should be happy, there’s finally a commercial out there that clearly demonstrates how much better boys are than girls who are just evil evil entitled evil entitled bitches.

  21. Dalrock says:

    @Chels

    As well, little girls can’t be “bitchy”

    Of course they can. Your fundamental premise is wrong, which is why you don’t understand the problem with the commercial.

  22. Chels says:

    What gives, Chels? Did you decide to dress-up your comments as A-holes for Halloween?

    LOL No, just annoyed, Dalrock seems to be on a roll with bad posts, but I am exaggerating my comments so that perhaps people would see how ridiculous it is to portray a little girl’s actions in such rigid terms.

  23. Chels says:

    Of course they can. Your fundamental premise is wrong, which is why you don’t understand the problem with the commercial.

    No, it’s not–girls cannot be bitches, they can be brats, but not bitches.

    And instead of your title being Well behaved women seldom make history it should be Well behaved GIRLS seldom make history because you’re using a girl as an example.

  24. Dalrock says:

    @Laura Grace Robins

    Regardless of age, the girl seemed to know full well what she was doing….it shows in her attitude and the sassy way she said she “can’t read”. Even if she truly could not read, the boy told her what the sign said but she shrugged it off and went on her merry way.

    Of course she knew. She even grabs another piece after claiming she didn’t know she should only take one, just to prove that girls such as her don’t have to follow the rules.

  25. TikkTok says:

    {passing out the tin hats} 😆

  26. dannyfrom504 says:

    “She even grabs another piece after claiming she didn’t know she should only take one, just to prove that girls such as her don’t have to follow the rules.”

    exactly, which is why she CAN be a bitch. i have a 4 year old niece and she shit tests like a champ. i could totally see her pulling some crap like this. commercials like this is why i seldom watch network TV.

    if i ever have a son, he’s gonna be a tough lil’ hombre that doesn’t tolerate women like this little girl.

    and you’re right, said women seldom make history, but they DO typically end up married and not eating a cup of soup for one while her 8 cats run the house.

  27. slwerner says:

    Chels – ”I am exaggerating my comments so that perhaps people would see how ridiculous it is to portray a little girl’s actions in such rigid terms.”

    While this particular commercial may not seem to be a particularly egregious example, I think you’re missing how this fits into the bigger picture.
    For very young children, many improper behaviors tend to be seen as cute – based on their inability to understand.

    But, at some age, they do begin to understand – and that’s where boys and girls begin to take decidedly different tracks. If a boy is believed to be able to understand, he is expected to behave properly. On the other hand, even if a girl is expected to understand, if she either adopts and innocent look, or a sassy disposition, it is likely that she can effectively continue getting away with (some) bad behaviors based on her cuteness alone.

    The real problem with this is that it sets the stage for more egregious behaviors as children get older.

    It wasn’t that long ago when it was considered cute for girls to wear t-shirts that said ”Boys are dumb…Throw rocks at them!” to school; even while, at that same age, boys found themselves getting into trouble if the dared to say something arguable no worse about girls. The girls were learning that, since they were cute, their bad behavior was acceptable – unlike that of the boys.

    I would imagine that Dolrock is merely concerned that the idea of women-to-be being able to use their cuteness( which will eventually morph into sex-appeal) to get away with more bad behavior being purposefully displayed using such a young girl.

  28. “And how was it any of his business what she does and why should she listen to him?”

    She should listen to the sign, which was presumably placed by an adult who young kids should respect. Its not a matter of listening or obeying a boy. It’s about respecting instructions. It is none of his business, but if she truly couldn’t read he was nice enough to let her know what the sign said.

  29. Anonymous says:

    The commerical was clearly made to appeal to women – to portray them as being tough and agressive, which women seem to love to think about themselves.

  30. The Continental Op says:

    The commercial was not a spontaneous thing. These are children acting out what some adults wrote and put together, and marketers decided to promote. Just pretend the children are adults for a check of what the adults behind the commercial are saying.

    The boy told her what the sign said, and she sassily made an excuse and did what she wanted. Microcosm of life in the feminist society. Dalrock nails it once again.

  31. Lara says:

    One good thing about the commercial that we should recognize is the girl’s admission she cannot read. At least they didn’t try to portray her as super smart.

  32. Gio says:

    Okay… now we’re REALLY clutching at straws.

  33. slwerner says:

    Lara – “At least they didn’t try to portray her as super smart.”

    The other view-point would be that they were portraying her as clever enough to recognize that by claiming that she could not read (even if she actually could), she could “get away with it”.

    Fits in with the way girls will play dumb to try to get boys to do things for them (like homework), and women will continue to do likewise into adulthood.

  34. CL says:

    Chels and Lara are being obtuse. The whole point of the ad and what makes is “funny” is the girl’s bitchy attitude. It’s cringe-worthy. But you see, the boy shows himself to be morally superior to the girl! So there is a grain of truth in there somewhere.

  35. CL says:

    Oh, and it’s not just playing dumb, but playing dumb with a demeanour that is deliberately saying, “I know I’m not supposed to take more than one, but I’m going to do it anyway.”

  36. greyghost says:

    Chels is just playing dumb for team woman. One thing women will do is act all incredulous and demand to have things explained with the various “yeah but” replies until you get mad and hit her. She then gets to claim victim of abuse. Lara is just being Lara. She used to spend a lot of time on the spearhead with those crazy comments. dalrock you must be getting bigtime because Lara has found you. Good luck with that .

  37. 7man says:

    Yes, Team Woman is vast and there is always a member present to voice an opinion.

  38. Chels says:

    I am not playing dumb but I do recognize that I’ve been kind of an asshole to Dalrock, so I’ll concede and say that he is right in this post if the commercial was using adult actors.

    As well, there is no “team woman” for me, but I do stand by my comment that a girl cannot be a bitch (are you really comfortable calling a 4 year old a bitch? I’m not.) Her actions might not be considered appropriate by adults, but she’s behaving in a childish manner because she’s a kid (who apparently really likes candy).

  39. Gwen says:

    The first time we saw that ad I said that the girl was a brat, my husband agreed that she was repellent and we let it go. The next time the ad came on I didn’t have to say anything. My daughter looked at me and said, “She’s bad, Mommy!” (But then, my kids rarely get away with pulling the “I’m so cute!” ploy. At least not with me. Daddy’s a little more malleable. Mommy’s a guaranteed meanie.)

    While I don’t normally use the word, I have to disagree that little girls can’t be bitches. Although I will concede that I am biased by the fact that I caught the little queen-bees-in-training actively tormenting my 4 yo – not by accident, but deliberately and with full knowledge of what they were doing. It’s the closest I’ve ever come to losing it with a child.

  40. Lily says:

    TFH, don’t know about the gina tingles, but reading your comments does give some laughs.

    I don’t like that term myself, sounds awfully vulgar. But arguably if one were looking for them from someone other than one’s husband or significant other, one would probably be better served going out and talking to (if doing nothing else) with an actual real life alpha man? Rather than some random men on the internet whose looks and charisma are not demonstrated. In any case, there are always plenty of videos of Jason Statham et al on youtube. Much more likely to entice any gina tingles I’d imagine.

  41. The Continental Op says:

    I am not playing dumb but I do recognize that I’ve been kind of an asshole to Dalrock, so I’ll concede and say that he is right in this post if the commercial was using adult actors.

    Hah. The writers are adults. Unless you really are dumb enough to believe those children were just being themselves.

  42. James A says:

    “(are you really comfortable calling a 4 year old a bitch? I’m not.)”

    I’m quite comfortable with calling a 4 year old girl a bitch, just as I’m equally comfortable with calling a 4 year old boy a bastard–if thats what they act like. This isn’t about the child being unknowledgeable, this is about a child exhibiting selfish entitled behavior in defiance of an authority figure, and pleasing themselves at the expense of others. Sure, they are children–thats why we spank them and punish them and show them the correct behavior. If the girl had simply been unknowledgeable, she would have thanked the boy for the information and carried on with proper social behavior. She did not, she ignored the boy and continued to please herself at the expense of others (namely, the children who arrive after the bowl is empty). When you say “oh, they’re just being children”, you’re supporting the sort of dreadful behavior that carries on through life. At what point does it go from “she’s just being a child” to “she’s just being a teenager” to “she’s still in college” to “she’s just on her period” to “she just left her husband, cut her some slack”? Bad behavior is bad behavior at any age, and it is never to be celebrated; at most it is to be tolerated.

  43. Chels says:

    Hah. The writers are adults. Unless you really are dumb enough to believe those children were just being themselves.

    Were Dalrock and the other commenters criticizing the writers? Unfortunately, they weren’t, but decided to pick on a little girl instead.

  44. Doug1 says:

    A great and pithy example of the one sided indoctrination we get everyday.

    I wonder what Chels is like in the flesh. She just doesn’t get it most of the time that’s for sure.

    Anonymous Reader —

    Here is the message I take away:

    “There are rules in the world. Boys must obey, while girls do not have to.”

    Boys have responsibilities to do right no matter what. Girls get choices…

    Or to refer back to a previous thread: girls get authority, but no responsibility. Boys get exactly the opposite.

    This is a fundamental pillar of feminism.

    Well said.

  45. Doug1 says:

    TFH–

    We have already established that women cannot connect the dots that lead to seeing the big picture.

    Yeah a whole lot can’t. Some can. Susan Walsh can. Bhetti can. Sofia can.

  46. Joseph says:

    Chels can’t.

  47. Desiderius says:

    DW,

    “one of the things I find most annoying about young “feminists” (and I use the term loosely) is that they have often seemingly patterned themselves after the worst characteristics of men, and not the best.”

    We have a winner.

    Apex fallacy + mirroring = The Leaden Rule

  48. Doug1 says:

    Chels–

    Were Dalrock and the other commenters criticizing the writers? Unfortunately, they weren’t, but decided to pick on a little girl instead.

    Wrong. We’re criticizing the feminist cultural messages that she’s evidently been indoctrinated with. We’re criticizing this sort of one sided “moxie”.

    Where in our current advertising or media culture do we see guys getting public approval for getting away with more than girls can? If you go back to pre PC feminist days you saw that in movies and TV shows quite a bit. Not more. Except maybe in some shows that portray much earlier times.

  49. lion says:

    @Chel

    Awwwww come on Dalrock, that was such a cute commercial!

    And since when is a 4 year old suddenly a woman? As well, little girls can’t be “bitchy”, and the one in the commercial just has a sweet tooth, like most kids. If you put a bowl full of candy in front of kids, what do you expect, what kid can resist taking just one? Kind of deserving of a house egging lol

    REALLY bad example of making your point, picking on a little girl :s

    First off, the cuteness of a commercial is irrelevant. The message in it is, especially when told to millions of people. It is important because the constant repetition of these messages becomes internalized and affects the entire society. Both men v women, and women v. women. A woman who internalizes the message that it is noble to lie and steal will have a proclivity to those behaviors when she interacts with other women, she will also pass that message to her sons. I personally believe we have enough thieves and liars in our society, others may disagree.

    If you have daughters, and you believe this is an important message to teach them, I suggest you do it privately, in which case, the only people who will likely have a problem with your message will be those who get stolen or lied to. On the other hand, this message was directed at a mass audience, many of whom are children. Knowing the imbecility of the average American parent, I assume that not one of them stopped the commercial, took the child aside and said “Now Suzie, stealing is wrong, and you should not be proud if you are illiterate.” Not that saying so would do a damn bit of good.

    Second, the only reason why girls can’t be “bitchy” is because you simply say so. I disagree, if anything I believe both bitches and dicks are simply overgrown children who show no responsibility at all. Probably because their idiot parents and idiot teachers thought there was no reason to teach them otherwise. The character in this propaganda clip, I mean “advertisement”, was portraying a thief and a liar. But also shamelessness in the same. It is the lack of shame more than anything else that is disgusting.

    Third, he isn’t picking on a little girl, he is picking on a commercial made by highly paid whores and prostitutes who work on Wall St. The technical term for such people is “advertising executive”.

  50. greyghost says:

    As well, there is no “team woman” for me
    You don’t openly decide you are for team woman. You can openly use conscious thought to not automaticlly go team woman but you have no choice your hamster is too strong. You also choose to keep yout hamster and then engage in conversation here trying to show every one how cute your hamster is. You thoutlessly and with a knee jerk reflex take a team woman take on a subject that you have allowed to become who you are. The last 3 articles have been very telling on how you reacted to Dalrock. It will never be normal for you to not be team woman (that itself is normal for a woman) You will have to always think and strive to repress it. This is how arranged marriages and wedding vows work. You live for charater, honor and commitment with a near sacrificing respect for those that live that way. Never do things for the gina tingle(love) You will see things you never saw and find a much wider and richer world of relationships.
    BTW that little girl was acting fairly typical of a little girl today. (the liitle bitch) That is why the ad works

  51. lion says:

    @Chel

    Just realized, the cuteness of the commercial actually IS relevant. It is relevant, because it means the commercial has more impact and effectiveness in spreading whatever propaganda, sorry, message that is inherent to the commercial. Therefore, I say that it is precisely because it is cute that Dalrock should criticize it.

  52. Chels says:

    No, I certainly do get it. However, I don’t believe her actions –taking more than one piece of candy—warrants the reaction she got and the names that she was called, from adults who are supposed to know better (ranging from a princess to a bitch).

    People here have taken this action out of proportions and made it into something that it’s not—it’s not sexist, it’s not an attack on boys, and it’s not even a fair comparison since the boy is much older than she is (boys are more moral than girls; ha!)

    Everything else is jumping to conclusions.

  53. Chels says:

    I’m not on team woman, but I’m not on team man either; I walk in the middle. I will readily criticize a woman for her actions when she’s in the wrong and will take the man’s side. However, I don’t subscribe to the whole “boys rule, girls drool” rhetoric promoted by some.

  54. Doug1 says:

    TFH–

    Yeah, I agree with all you just said. Female allies are very important. Having game savvy alpha males on board anti misandry and anti feminism is also important.

  55. Joseph says:

    “However, I don’t subscribe to the whole “boys rule, girls drool” rhetoric promoted by some.”

    We don’t promote that crap either. Men prefer real statistics and stable living conditions, neither of which is dealt with well by feminists.

  56. Doug1 says:

    TFH–

    I’d love a link to your four ways comment. Is it in another thread?

  57. Doug1 says:

    Chels–

    it’s not sexist, it’s not an attack on boys, and it’s not even a fair comparison since the boy is much older than she is

    This ad isn’t really an attack on boys, no, though if anything he looks like more of a sad sack chump than an upright moral kid – body language, facial expression and stuff. What the ad does do is celebrate her “cute” moxie — and that she’s therefore entitled to not be reprimanded for ignoring the candy donor’s honor code wishes.

  58. Anonymous says:

    “A lot of MRAs don’t see the value in having this small cadre of women against misandry. There is immense value, because everyone can agree that manginas/whiteknights are a large part of the misandry problem. Manginas/whiteknights exist only because they receive a uniform message from women. If even a few women were against misandry, manginas would become confused, and thus less intense in their misandry…..”

    That depends. Do these women oppose welfare, child support, divorce payments, and student loans? If not, they are only contributing to the problem…

  59. greyghost says:

    TFH
    Man she answered so like it was out of her control. She had to know we were watching and bingo just as predicted. Good thing we weren’t at a night club running game for sex. I’d be stroking that ass in the back seat of her friends car in parking lot right now.

  60. Anonymous says:

    “This ad isn’t really an attack on boys, no, though if anything he looks like more of a sad sack chump than an upright moral kid – body language, facial expression and stuff. What the ad does do is celebrate her “cute” moxie — and that she’s therefore entitled to not be reprimanded for ignoring the candy donor’s honor code wishes.”

    The purpose is to portray self-indulgent behavior as being desirable in women – for the wider purpose of encouraging women to spend all their money, their husband’s money, and money they don’t have on consumer products.

  61. Anonymous says:

    “This is how arranged marriages and wedding vows work. You live for charater, honor and commitment with a near sacrificing respect for those that live that way. Never do things for the gina tingle(love)”

    Actually, women did have gina tingles for their patriarchal husbands. This is becuase: 1) men were socialized to practice “Game”(just watch how any old-timer interacts with his wife, constantly negging etc.); 2) husbands had real power in those socities – the power both to protect/revenge their wives as well as protect them – and this was attractive to women.

  62. Dalrock says:

    @Chels

    I am not playing dumb but I do recognize that I’ve been kind of an asshole to Dalrock, so I’ll concede and say that he is right in this post if the commercial was using adult actors.

    You aren’t being an asshole. You are being a bit melodramatic when you accuse me of attacking an innocent little girl by pointing out bitchiness, but this is different. Either way, no harm, no foul.

    As well, there is no “team woman” for me, but I do stand by my comment that a girl cannot be a bitch (are you really comfortable calling a 4 year old a bitch? I’m not.) Her actions might not be considered appropriate by adults, but she’s behaving in a childish manner because she’s a kid (who apparently really likes candy).

    I think there is a subtle distinction. I’m referring to the behavior, not the little girl as a person (or the actress playing the little girl). I suspect what rankles you is your perceived permanence of my judgment. But I’m not calling her a bitch. I’m pointing out that she is acting like (or being) a bitchy little girl. Contrary to feminists, bitchiness exists. It describes something real. The girl in the commercial is acting in a bitchy way. In life if allowed to continue for long enough, one would eventually label her as a bitch.

    Feminists have taught us to trip over ourselves not to think un pc thoughts or use un pc words, for fear of committing crime-think. In the end this is profoundly damaging, including to women and girls themselves. The secret is, once you stop worrying about it it turns out it was never really anything at all. There is no crime-think, only truth and not truth. It is quite freeing. Feminists are free to stamp their feet, but I’ll still call it like it is. Their resulting temper tantrums are actually quite amusing.

  63. I don’t know how, exactly, to say this, but one of the things I find most annoying about young “feminists” (and I use the term loosely) is that they have often seemingly patterned themselves after the worst characteristics of men, and not the best.

    So very much this. I have been saying this for years, every time I hear a woman say that a man was “intimidated” by her. There’s a large difference between assertive and aggressive. Aggressive tendencies in either gender are considered unattractive. Many women take on the extreme of each characteristic and end up coming across like a ball busting jerk who always has to be right. The woman’s male friends will offer an explanation to her problem of not being able to find a “good man” because men find her intimidating. Instead of being concerned with this label, many women take satisfaction in it and find it an ego stroke. They rarely ever realize that when a man says she’s intimidating he’s really saying she’s unlikeable. He’s softening the blow by using a word to describe her demeanor that won’t generate an angry reaction. Because, really, she’s not looking for a solution to the problem. She’s looking for someone to tell her that it’s a weakness in the man’s make-up, not one in hers.

    Women pattern themselves after how *they* perceive men to act. But that perception is usually based upon the men they have chosen to surround themselves with and who they, though they will deny it, find attractive.

  64. I don’t know how, exactly, to say this, but one of the things I find most annoying about young “feminists” (and I use the term loosely) is that they have often seemingly patterned themselves after the worst characteristics of men, and not the best.

    So very much this.

    Women take on characteristics based upon how they perceive men to act. But those perceptions are not based on a broad population of men. Rather, their perception is based upon the men *they* surround themselves with and that they, though they will deny it, find attractive.

    Most women don’t understand that when a man suggests that men find her intimidating, what he’s actually saying is that men find her unlikeable. Instead of being concerned with such a description, she often takes satisfaction from it and sees it as a compliment. But then, she’s not really looking for feedback or a solution to the problem when she turns to her male friends for guidance. She wants to be told that the reason she has such trouble meeting men is due to a weakness is the man’s make-up, not one in hers.

  65. Eric says:

    Dalrock;

    If these feminist bitches are so proud of little girls not knowing how to read, how are these same girls supposed to cope in the future with their illiterate. half-civilized boyfriends? Most women I know have to do lots of things that require literacy in dealing with their men: reading psychiatric drug prescriptions; signing bail-bonds; not to mention simple things like ordering off menus—just to name a few!

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    So very much this. I have been saying this for years, every time I hear a woman say that a man was “intimidated” by her. There’s a large difference between assertive and aggressive

    There is something to the feminist claim. It’s related to the claim that men “fear women’s anger”. I’m finding in the last few years that I’ve been exposed to so much “women’s anger” in my life, it’s like a constant low-level headache – and I’m becoming indifferent to it, tired of it even. However, it is true that a woman shouting in my face still does provoke a couple of reactions, and at least one of them is a surge of the complex chemicals called “fight or flight”. Except I’m prohibited from fighting. And I’m generally not able to leave, physically. So this creates a lose-lose situation. Nowadays I’m working on cultivating a deliberate, emotionless position of amusement at such displays, but it was not always so.

    Hmm. This reminds me of something posted earlier this year, I think it may have been J, on what she called a “useful argument” between her and her husband. I’m going to ponder this. Thanks for this observations at this time.

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    One more thought.

    The writers of this little dramatic bit of propaganda show the boy restraining himself and as a result, the girl is able to have “her share of the goodies”, where “her share” is clearly defined as “whatever it takes to make her happy”. And that surely fits in with the message I receive daily from many different cultural directions: the purpose of Western civilization is to make female humans happy, no matter what it may cost.

    That’s it. That’s the purpose of everything: to make girls and women happy. At any cost.

  68. Apex fallacy + mirroring = The Leaden Rule

    Can someone explain this in non-MRA-speak for those of us who just speak plain old English and aren’t part of “the movement”?

  69. Chels says:

    Note that Chels is the owner of the infamous ‘A lot of women stand up for men in their heads’ comment.

    I knew that it will come back and haunt me, but that is not how I said it–I simply said that women don’t stand up for men even if they disagree because they fear backlash.

    You aren’t being an asshole. You are being a bit melodramatic when you accuse me of attacking an innocent little girl by pointing out bitchiness, but this is different. Either way, no harm, no foul.

    That’s so nice, thanks🙂

  70. Ah, nvm, google is your friend (and mine). I think I understand.

  71. jso says:

    wish the boy would have treated her like she was any one of the scum of arkham city

  72. L says:

    I thought you might like to see this article Dalrock.

    Empirical evidence continues to accumulate confirming the evolutionary psychological hypothesis that men respond with more intense jealousy than women to a mate’s sexual infidelity whereas, women respond with more intense jealousy than men to a mate’s emotional infidelity. (PDF file – Evolutionary Psychology)

    http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09417429.pdf

  73. Anacaona says:

    I think it was obvious that she was claiming she couldn’t read to get away with it she was playing clever girl because she knows how to get away with the rules while the boy clearly tempted was dumb for not finding a way to get what he wanted. Very insidious commercial the reflects the modern view of women vs girl. If a woman wins, no matter how is good if a man loses no matter how is good. Horrible times to live in.

    Now Dalrock tell me you are going to make a post about Kim Kardarshian trashing marriage once again by getting married to have a special day and a pretty dress and now calling it quits after less than 3 months because marriage is not glamourous as a wedding? Pretty please?

  74. Doug1 says:

    TFH–

    Thanks.

  75. grerp says:

    Again, thanks very kindly for the linkage, Dalrock. You sent many people my way today.🙂

    The little girl is full of attitude. If I saw her do that, I’d make her put it all back and three pieces from her treat bag too. Little snot. You can not nip that in the bud too fast.

  76. bobsutan says:

    Awww, a little girl who’s apparently a liar AND selfish. Great example to set advertising people. /s

  77. bobsutan says:

    RL says:
    October 31, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    And Kim does not want to pay Kris spousal support: http://www.tmz.com/2011/10/31/kim-kardashian-divorce-kris-humphries-files/.

    More evidence marriage to women is the princess for a day event, the act of GETTING married, and not about the commitment and BEING married. I wonder how many women looked at her little fairytale wedding and thought “I want to be like that some day”. Great example indeed. :rollseyes:

  78. grerp says:

    That depends. Do these women oppose welfare, child support, divorce payments, and student loans?

    I don’t know about the other women bloggers mentioned, but I tend to be in favor of things that disincentivize bad behavior. I’d be for removing the subsidies on promiscuity and illegitimacy (welfare, WIC, section 8, etc.) and making divorce less attractive (default dual custody or default father custody if you really want to see those rates drop). It’s a complex situation, obviously, because so much seemingly unavoidable child suffering is factored into the equation and in the short term you cannot let masses of children starve or go homeless. Longer term, however, forcing people to pay the actual price for their behavior would result in less suffering as fewer children will be living into the sorts of unstable situations that have become commonplace.

    I have no idea how to implement those kinds of policies, however, and, of course, the political will is absolutely not there, so I don’t really need to further speculate.

    Happy Halloween, y’all.

  79. MAX a writer says:

    I learned long ago that the more you expose yourself to the public, the more you are likely to fail. Her wedding was an extravagant display of boastfulness. The first sign of failure. At least if she would have had a quiet wedding with no press, the failure wouldn’t be as public. And who knows – it may have even succeeded in lasting longer than 8 weeks.

    Kris is her 3rd husband by the way.

  80. RL says:

    Suddenly, Kim and this guy suddenly had “irreconcilable differences” after 2 month, so surprising!😀

  81. MIX says:

    “default dual custody or default father custody if you really want to see those rates drop”

    What would drop is the number of stay at home moms.

  82. I don’t really have a problem with student loans, though i’m doing everything in my power so that my kids won’t have to take out loans for school. However, some kids don’t have that family structure, and I’m not opposed to giving them options, though I feel like the courses of study should be strictly limited.

    Welfare, in my opinion, is an irreparably broken system. If we really wanted to get kids out of poverty, we’d have to do an entire system of re-eduction in a lot of these families because a lot of welfare recipients have very low levels of educational attainment, don’t know how to cook nutritious/healthy food, tend to have poor family management skills, and have zero money management skills. If we wanted to get people out of poverty, instead of just maintaining them as indigents for the long haul, we’d require them to participate in all kinds of educational programming, attend classes, volunteer in their children’s schools, etc. It shouldn’t just be a blank check.

    I would do away with no-fault divorce and only award child support in situations where it is warranted (woman who did most of the child-rearing whose husband leaves her for his secretary or something, etc.). It’s not fair to financially penalize a woman who through no fault of her own ends up raising kids by herself. However, I think that child support recipients should have to submit itemized receipts on a monthly basis.

    I don’t believe in alimony.

  83. MIX says:

    I don’t see the problem with the commercial. The boy is clearly almost twice the girls age so of course he’s going to act more responsibly. Like another commenter said, she’s just a little kid with a sweet tooth. Had the genders been reversed we’d probably be reading how misandrist it is that little boys are portrayed as uncontrollable, greedy little monsters and girls are portrayed as smart people with a conscience who can read and do the right thing.

  84. Prof. Woland says:

    Chels,

    If you don’t like the word bitchy, how about pushy? Literally? The first thing I noticed was how the little brat elbowed the boy then checked him like a hockey player.

  85. rmaxd says:

    @dubiouswoman
    “It’s not fair to financially penalize a woman who through no fault of her own ends up raising kids by herself. ”

    Do you ever objectively stop playing for team woman?

  86. rmaxd says:

    forgot to include this quote from aptly named dubiouswoman lol …”(woman who did most of the child-rearing whose husband leaves her for his secretary or something, etc.)”

    It is up to the woman to ENSURE her OWN financial security in case things dont work out, as men are FORCED to do by law …

    Have women never heard of savings, semi-part time work as they raise their kids, or how about plain old planning ahead in case things dont work out two or three years down the line?

    Is this too much to ask for team woman, to actually grow the hell up & show some mature adult like reasoning?

    Do you even understand the concept of personal responsibility? Grow the hell up, show some maturity, & adultlike rational, instead of the constant team woman whining

  87. rmaxd says:

    It is intolerable & dangerous for their long term financial stability & the security of their children, for women to continously state this form of immature entitlement like drones

    Life has no guarantees, even with a husband or welfare goverment, you & your kids are still hundreds of times more secure & well off IF you financially plan ahead, IF you want to raise kids as a stay at home

    There is no get out of life pussy pass for women & their kids

    I know women, single welfare moms with the exact same entitlement disease, these women have no real security, no real home for their kids, scraping by on welfare is nowhere near an ideal environment to raise your kids in

    Welfare is not a substitute for being prepared for the worst, all women have a care to their children & their own security to plan financially for the worst, like all normal human beings, you are not or will ever be exempt no matter how hard you bat for team moron

  88. Brendan says:

    I think it was KK’s second husband, actually. Her first marriage lasted at least 3 years or so.

  89. Do you ever objectively stop playing for team woman?

    Do you ever objectively make logical sense?

  90. Well behaved women seldom make history

    Just like everyone else. The vast majority of the human race did not make history and most alive today will die without making history. That is just the way it is. But even most of the wome who are making history, it is make-believe history. “First woman to______” vice “first to ______”. Real accomplishment ought not be gender qualified.

    I have it on good authority that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro, were all very not well behaved either.

  91. MIX says:

    “Have women never heard of savings, semi-part time work as they raise their kids, or how about plain old planning ahead in case things dont work out two or three years down the line?”

    A “semi-part-time-job” won’t do diddly squat. The only reasonable way to “plan ahead” in today’s world is to build a full time career and have 1 kid only – at the very most.

  92. PT Barnum says:

    This is how arranged marriages and wedding vows work.

    They never worked. That is just stories told by bossy parents who HATE HATE HATE that kiddie is now defying their Divine Rule. How DARE the least favorite son get a hotter wife than their boy! HOW DARE HE.

    The world is turned upside down. There ought to be a rule. So let’s just lie and make stuff up!

  93. I don’t believe that there is any evidence that arranged marriages were anything other than a transfer of property/financial arrangement for most of history. They certainly didn’t turn into love matches, for the most part, and there is plenty of historical data which attests to this fact. A typical way of resisting change is to mythologize the past.

    Y’all might like to arrange marriages for your daughters, but I doubt seriously that many of you would have wanted to be married off to some old man (or get an ugly wife) for economic reasons. And, that’s the unvarnished reality of the arranged marriage gig.

    You want to see what arranged marriages really look like, in all their glory, especially for women? Do a little research on Colorado City, Arizona. Plenty of arranged marriages there, and of course, the womenz aren’t being abused or sold off to benefit their families or anything.

  94. greyghost says:

    Do you ever objectively stop playing for team woman?

    Do you ever objectively make logical sense?

    The actual answer is no. This is someone that is team woman all the way and is proud of it.

  95. Lara says:

    Professor Hale,
    Excellent point about few people making history which makes the saying seem silly. Anyway I prefer, “Good girls go to heaven and bad girls go to Wildwood, NJ.” That’s more in keeping with reality.

  96. Dalrock says:

    I took the kids trick or treating last night. Our son is around one and a half, so he rode it out in the stroller. I stayed back and off to the side with him and watched while our daughter went up to each house. At one house a girl pushed past me loudly declaring “lady coming through!” (said with a strong emphasis on lady), which wasn’t needed since I was off to the side anyway. Still, I can’t imagine a boy doing that saying “gentleman coming through”. One of the first houses we went to had a bowl out with the honor system. It was picked clean and it had only been dark for maybe 5 min. Probably just some little girl being strong, independent, sassy, and cute!

    Our son is at the age where he will say a new word once out of the blue and then never repeat it. He has a few words/phrases he chooses to use on a regular basis and the rest he just whips out to show us he can and then refuses to repeat them. I love you means hello, and cracker means food. I was stressing to our daughter that she needed to say thank you loud enough that I could hear it. At one house she said it very nice and clear, and as soon as she did our son said clear as day “good girl”.

  97. Doug1 says:

    Dubious Wonder–

    I don’t believe in alimony.

    Child support clearly includes a stealth alimony component for all but lower and lower middle class payers (men). When child support=also stealth alimony was jacked way up on a before tax percentage basis starting in the late eighties under the male demonizing “dead beat dads” sloganeering, there was orginally in the national model piece of legislation a cap on the amount of income it would be assessed on, around $60k I believe, adjusted for inflation. Feminists succeeded in getting that change to within judge discretion in about all states initially, and then not long after the caps were either done away with or made much, much higher, e.g. 300k in NY, with judges still able to assess on more above that amount.

    Texas assesses 20% for one child, 25% for two of AFTER TAX income, with a ceiling at 75k, with judges able to assess more only under unusual circumstances. Make that 17% for one kid and it’s getting more reasonable. Most states its something like 22% of pre tax income for one, 28% for two, which isn’t reasonable at all esp. for upper middle class and up payers in high tax states.

    I think the Texas model, but with the default being joint physical custody and no child support paid to or by either spouse except directly on the kid, should be what it’s changed to.

    I think for kids past around 8 fathers if they’re involved with their kids tend to make the better, more important parents. The having both is better, usually.

  98. MIX says:

    “This is how arranged marriages and wedding vows work. ”

    “They never worked. That is just stories told by bossy parents who HATE HATE HATE that kiddie is now defying their Divine Rule. How DARE the least favorite son get a hotter wife than their boy! HOW DARE HE. The world is turned upside down. There ought to be a rule. So let’s just lie and make stuff up!”

    “I don’t believe that there is any evidence that arranged marriages were anything other than a transfer of property/financial arrangement for most of history. They certainly didn’t turn into love matches, for the most part, and there is plenty of historical data which attests to this fact. A typical way of resisting change is to mythologize the past.”

    “You want to see what arranged marriages really look like, in all their glory, especially for women? Do a little research on Colorado City, Arizona. ”

    I think at least half the world still engages in some sort of arranged marriage system and if you want to see how they really work, get to know some immigrants from “over there”. Silicon Valley California and New Jersey are 2 immigrant rich areas to start with.

  99. I think the Texas model, but with the default being joint physical custody and no child support paid to or by either spouse except directly on the kid, should be what it’s changed to. I don’t really know what other women get. What I asked for in terms of child support was for both of us to split the costs of the kids pre-paid college tuition program, health insurance and dental equally, and then any other educational/recreational costs. I carry the insurance through my work ($200 per kid), and I pay the prepaid tuition ($200 per month). He pays me $200 a month for both kids. I paid for my daughter’s braces, he eventually came around and coughed up $1k of the $5k I spent. I hope we will split my son’s braces. The rest, I pay for….that includes shoes, clothes, school lunches, school supplies, etc.

    I probably can’t shift the system but I can live my own values.

  100. PT Barnum says:

    I think at least half the world still engages in some sort of arranged marriage system and if you want to see how they really work, get to know some immigrants from “over there”. Silicon Valley California and New Jersey are 2 immigrant rich areas to start with.

    Are you trying to support my argument, are or you just completely clueless?

    Do I really have to post some immigrant arranged marriage advertisements specifying caste, earning amount, and lightness of skin?

  101. MIX says:

    “Do I really have to post some immigrant arranged marriage advertisements specifying caste, earning amount, and lightness of skin?”

    Why not? surely you wouldn’t expect marriages to be arranged on frivolities like, “my favorite movie is V for Vendetta, my favorite flavor of ice cream is mint chocolate, i love mountain climbing and chilling at the beach with a couple of cold beers, and believe in being true to myself. am looking for someone who will love my dog as much as me and is not afraid to experiment in the bedroom.”

    Traditional, family oriented cultures work on entirely different premises.

  102. Anacaona says:

    Wow demonizing arranged marriages now?! All you have to do is go and visit some Muslims, Jewish and other closed religious communities and see for yourself and for historical data does the Taj Mahal, the song of songs and probably half the India literature count? Weren’t they love songs and examples of love among married men and women all through history before we created the revolutionary concept that people must be in love before getting married instead of falling in love all through it? Really people get out a bit more, the world is a huge place and history didn’t started in 1776… just saying.

  103. Reactions to such simple displays reveal far more about the viewer than the intended message. The war of the sexes has made victims of us all. Few have escaped its wrath, its endless mental and physical anguish haunting us to our graves. This is the price we pay for allowing children the freedom to decide a nation’s fate. While we clash with our screeching dialectics and endless blame games, the titanic of human civilization sinks ever further into chaos.

    Are your predecessors to blame, Dalrock, the guardians of our spiritual identity who forsook their duty to defend Christianity’s central dogmas? Or are atheists to blame, TFH, for incrementally destroying the credibility of spiritual institutions and consequently their power over societal customs?

    Alas, the hour is late, and such debates are meaningless. We must now face the demon we have unleashed by allowing infantile impulse to dominate our destiny. I shall tune my fiddle, for burning of Rome is but the beginning…

  104. Ceer says:

    @ Prof. Woland

    Chels doesn’t like terms loaded against women/girls. Pushy implies that the girl was prone to such behavior. Just because we see her intentionally shoved the boy out of the way with her shoulder, we shouldn’t assume this situation implies anything negative about her at all… In fact, the behavior is totally acceptable. Women like Grerp give…blah…blah…blah… Oh, who am I kidding. We all know what this commercial represents…except Chels, apparently. Good luck telling her.

    @ Chels

    Come on. You know the female kid is in the wrong. Halloween on the honors system may seem like a small moral prescription…but it’s applicable to most children. The parents here really SHOULD be doing what they are…discussing the moral and practical implications of analyzing the commercial.

  105. L says:

    @ Dubious Wonder:

    Men in those cultures are also forced into arranged marriages… you conveniently omit that fact from your diatribe. Males also care about “love,” and “compatability,” as well as “honoring your parents,” just like the females that you think suffer from it.

    Secondly, your divorce [and current relationship with the ex] sucked/sucks. We get it. I know it sucked, you know it sucked, everyone else knows it sucked. Your anecdotal experience does not equate to the experience of everyone else, nor does it invalidate hard data. When you can get over this fact, I think you’ll be able to engage in dialogue better.

    I’m sure I might seem like a dick; lose your emotions, and look at things factually.

  106. greyghost says:

    The love and mutial respect between any body that works tegether for a goal bigger than themselves is very powerful. An easy example is the bonding that accurs between soldiers,miners football players etc. that are brought to gether to perform a very demanding and difficult task.

  107. tm says:

    The little girl may not be a real ‘bitch’ given her age (although she may have what it takes to become one when she grows up), but the ad uses children the same way in which traditional fables use animals to make a point. The guy gets the short stick, the girl takes as much as she wants and expects not to be held accountable, and everything is business as usual.

  108. tm says:

    She says ‘I can’t read’ with the attitude that she’s perfectly aware of what she’s doing and the fact that she won’t be held accountable. There’s a very funny French comedy (sadly not released in the US) with Depardieu and Jean Reno as gangsters. At one point they steal cops uniforms and they run into a couple of teenagers on the street who assault them while saying arrogantly ‘you can’t put us in jail, we’re minors’. They get punched in the face by the two fake cops. Priceless🙂

  109. imnobody says:

    I don’t believe that there is any evidence that arranged marriages were anything other than a transfer of property/financial arrangement for most of history.

    I don’t think arranged marriages can work in a individualistic society like the Western one. But this sentence is bullshit. I quote “The Art of Choosing” of Sheena Iyengar.

    Usha Gupta and Pushpa Singh of the University of Rajasthan decided that this was a question worth exploring. They recruited 50 couples in the city of Jaipur, half of whom had had arranged marriages. The other half had married based on love. The couples had been together for varying lengths of time, ranging from 1 to 20 years. Was one set of couples enjoying greater marital bliss than the other?

    Each person separately completed the Rubin Love Scale, which measured how much he or she agreed with statements like “I feel that I can confide in my husband/wife about virtually everything” and “If I could never be with my [loved one], I would feel miserable.”

    [..]. The couples who had married for love and been together less than a year averaged a score of 70 points out of a possible 91 on the love scale, but these numbers steadily fell over time. The love couples who had been married ten years or longer had an average score of only 40 points. In contrast, the couples in arranged marriages were less in love at the outset, averaging 58 points, but their feelings increased over time to an average score of 68 at the ten or more years mark.

  110. Men in those cultures are also forced into arranged marriages… you conveniently omit that fact from your diatribe. Males also care about “love,” and “compatability,” as well as “honoring your parents,” just like the females that you think suffer from it.

    I think it’s a given that men are forced into these, as well. I have several (male) Indian and Nepali friends, including a couple in our neighborhood who left Nepal so that they could marry without their families’ consent (they’ve been together for 20+ years). My biggest face to face familiarity is with the arranged marriages in polygamist families in Utah, though, where I lived and worked for 10+ years. In those situations, teenaged girls are often married to men in their 30s and 40s, without consent. Abuse is normalized; escape almost impossible because the girls are kept uneducated and economically deprived. THAT is a realistic outcome of arranged marriages, because primarily women are seen as property, not people. Whenever someone touts the wonders of the past, such as extolling the virtues of arranged marriages, I think, “for who”? Arranged marriages were about as positive for women as slavery was for blacks.

  111. L:

    Secondly, your divorce [and current relationship with the ex] sucked/sucks. We get it. I know it sucked, you know it sucked, everyone else knows it sucked. Your anecdotal experience does not equate to the experience of everyone else, nor does it invalidate hard data. When you can get over this fact, I think you’ll be able to engage in dialogue better.

    The question was asked whether feminists in this thread support certain social mechanisms. I responded to that question. My post was not an attempt to address larger trends, but simply to articulate my opinions and experiences (as requested).

    I did not address my sucky marriage in this thread, I addressed the issue of child support/alimony, and how I think it should be handled (and in fact, handled it in my own personal circumstance). When you can get over being an arrogant dick who can’t stick to a subject, you’ll probably be able to engage in dialogue better. Cheers.

  112. imnobody says:

    From “The Culture Code” by Clotaire Rapaille:

    Japanese men and women often ask me to describe how Westerners marry. I tell them that a young man meets a young woman (often one younger than he) and they begin the process of getting to know each other. If he happens to fall deeply in love, the man will ask the woman to marry him, and if she loves him as well, she will say yes. (Obviously, it’s more complicated that this in practice, but I get the main points across this way.)

    Stunned expressions always meet this description. “The man is young?” the Japanese questioner will say. “If he is young, how can he possibly have enough experience to make a decision of this type? Only his parents can know what kind of marriage is appropriate for him and will allow him to raise the best family. And you say the woman is younger. That means she is even less experienced than he is!”

    They save their greatest contempt, though, for the notion that Westerners marry for love. “Love is a temporary disease,” they tell me. “It is foolish to base something as important as the creation of a family on something so temporary.” This is still the prevalent sensibility in Japan today, even though the “content” of Japanese culture has changed. While Japanese teens might date more often than their parents did, and might spend more time meeting up at clubs, most marriages are still arranged and few have anything to do with romance. This all might sound terribly harsh to American ears, but there is at least some logic in it: while nearly half of all American marriages end in divorce, the Japanese divorce rate is less than 2 percent.

  113. rmaxd says:

    “Abuse is normalized; escape almost impossible because the girls are kept uneducated and economically deprived.”

    Isnt that the exception then the norm, when it comes to arranged marriage,

    thats also the stock answer most feminist indoctrinated womyn spew, whenever traditions where the man gets the upper hand come up

    Arranged marriages are in fact hundreds of times superior to western marriage, which involves sluts sleeping with hundreds of men before their biological clock kicks in & finding the nearest pussy whipped mangina to screw over … basically every man hating lesbian feminists day job …

    If you had any idea of the ACTUAL process involved in arranged marriage for the REST of the sane world, it is in fact a far safer way form of finding a mate for both male & female, then the feminists form of screw all beta men

    It also prevents women most importantly from sleeping with hordes of bad boys & thugs & satisfies a womans hypergamy by getting in touch with the richest blokes, their social circles naturally filter suitable candidates for women to CONSIDER

    Also it is the WOMAN who indicates shes looking for a guy to settle down with, which triggers the search for suitable guys she might be interested in, by her friends, relatives & close friends, who go out of their way to filter out assholes & badboys, ie indians hate badboys

    This also allows real betas to enter the scene for consideration, something unheard of in the hordes of sluts r us dating scene in the west

    The underage betrothal of under age brides, is only practised in backward primitive villages & tribes, & the odd ridiculously traditional family in more developed areas

    Also the same applies to compulsary arranged marriages …

    I have NEVER seen compulsary or underage betrothal ever practised in the hundreds of relatives i know, or their hundreds of families

    What dubious woman, quite stupidly & ignorantly refers to is the usual basic ignorant biased & sexist not to mention racist propoganda spewed by feminists & racists & imperialists

    The vast majority of traditions of mating & marriage in 3rd world countries are hundreds of times more superior then the western forms & cultures of immature & illiterate feminist filthy degenerates of sluts & whores

    I genuinely find western cultures of mating highly damaging for women & their relationships, due to the biological nature & the genuine frailties of women,

    Marriage should be vetted as much possible to GUARANTEE a future a for the couple & their children

    The fact sexist feminists & women such as dubiouswoman would even support western cultures of sluts & whores, shows how sexist & biased & evil in nature they are towards women

  114. rmaxd says:

    How sad is it women go batshit crazy after being screwed over by feminism & damaged by being allowed to sleep with hundreds of alphas & thugs,

    to the point they cant even form anywhere near a relationship with the guys they actually want to settle down with

    Yes these sluts & whores bought into it, & theyre responsible for their own actions, but it doesnt lessen the tragedy of their actions or the degeneracy & backward ignorance of feminist gender studies, & the degenerate society it allows these sluts & whores to begin with

    Sorry. but i find the current state of western women, truly disgusting

  115. rmaxd says:

    Hmm … actually is dubiouswoman simply trolling?

    She actually admits to stealing $2000 a month from her ex-husband as child support, in addition to her own funds & tries to pass it off as not alimony ….

    What kind of hare brained planet is she living on … planet whacked out outright lying broad?

    What other crackpot feminist theory has dubiouswoman NOT bought into …

    What other crackpot feminist entitled crap does she NOT practise?

  116. MIX says:

    Dubious Wonder, I agree with you 100% about FORCED marriage, such as in that crazy cult in Utah. But arranged marriage between adults of similar age is a different thing altogether. It takes more the shape of an assisted marriage, and the last word rests on the couple, whether they want to go through with it or not.

  117. In the third world, where these statistics about how wonderful arranged marriage is because of low divorce rates, it is much more like forced marriage than most people would be comfortable with in the U.S.

    Hmm … actually is dubiouswoman simply trolling?

    She actually admits to stealing $2000 a month from her ex-husband as child support, in addition to her own funds & tries to pass it off as not alimony ….

    I write in complete sentences with proper grammar. Also, I know the difference between $200 and $2000. My child support is $200.

    Go troll someone else. High school boys are too young for me.

  118. John Robie says:

    We tend to attract into our lives what we are. The little dude wasn’t actually practicing self control – he was reaching for a second piece of candy. All of a sudden a girl who also has no self control appears in his life! Ta-da! He did it to himself! Of course, they’re all just little kids so they don’t know any better, right?

  119. rmaxd says:

    If its just $200 & you earn a significantly higher sum, why are you taking anything at all then?

    & whats this sudden obsession with grammar, logic not hard enough for you? … as in you’re not on welfare stop stealing your ex-husbands money …

    BTW Dubiouswoman you dont even know what modern day arranged marriage is like in 3rd world countries, even after mix & myself point out blatantly its nothing like forced marriage, seriously give the feminist rhetoric a rest, your embarrassing feminists everywhere …

    When examined modern arranged marriages are far superior & safer to the modern sluthood, & screw beta’s over in marriage you seem to love … & theres nothing forced about them, the woman gets to choose who she wants to see & has the final say & only after many months or years of dating or courtship

    Feel free to expound your latest feminist inspired fantasy, why the above isnt true, we cld do with the entertainment

  120. PT Barnum says:

    Oh, and young women and men pairing off by themselves doesn’t work because the state and the media have done everything in their power to prevent this from working.

    So failure isn’t all that surprising. DA.

  121. PT Barnum says:

    They save their greatest contempt, though, for the notion that Westerners marry for love. “Love is a temporary disease,” they tell me. “It is foolish to base something as important as the creation of a family on something so temporary.” This is still the prevalent sensibility in Japan today, even though the “content” of Japanese culture has changed. While Japanese teens might date more often than their parents did, and might spend more time meeting up at clubs, most marriages are still arranged and few have anything to do with romance. This all might sound terribly harsh to American ears, but there is at least some logic in it: while nearly half of all American marriages end in divorce, the Japanese divorce rate is less than 2 percent.

    While the fact that Japan failed to progress in any way for more than 2000 years under their “culture” may seem terribly harsh to a Japanese, it is the truth. Up until the 1800s colonial period, their technological level was little different from what you could fine quite easily BC.

    Like no Phonetic Alphabet, as an obvious example. So when I mean they were pre-BC, I mean they were pre-BC.

  122. If its just $200 & you earn a significantly higher sum, why are you taking anything at all then?

    Because I felt that him contributing financially (even though the amount was relatively small) was important to keep him engaged with his kids, and to allow him to be able to say that he is supporting them. He had not historically been very fiscally responsible. It was about the principle of the thing more than the money.

    You’re right, I could have paid for everything. How would that have looked to my kids?

  123. greyghost says:

    It would have matched your I’m the woman in charge and equal to all attitude.

  124. L says:

    @ Dubious Wonder:

    It was not given that men suffer from it; you didn’t even speak of it. You only mentioned that females suffer from it. I too, know men from Hindu background that left their families’ approval to seek out their own choices. I also know some that took the choice [arranged marriage to a girl had been decided by the parents when they were only 2 years old,] and are happy in the marriage.

    Secondly, you single out one example [that of fundamental Mormon’s,] and suddenly attribute it to all arranged marriages, across all cultures. You seem to do this in most of your posts. Again I must say, that you should stop using anecdotal evidence, and stop cherry picking examples to make your points [we all know your points.] If I were to say “A man I know was robbed, and the robber was black, this is the example I’m speaking of when I say I don’t trust blacks,” my argument would be worthless. Not only is it offensive to all blacks, it is poor logic, and could not be used to argue ANYTHING. This is how your arguments come across.

    Finally, you didn’t have to address your situation with your ex in this thread. You mention it in EVERY thread. Otherwise, how would I even know to bring it up?

    I admitted I might come across as a dick. If using hard facts or data, and omitting anecdotal experiences or generalizations from discussion makes me arrogant, then yes, consider me an arrogant dick. I think you’ll have to consider most practitioners of science dicks as well.

  125. rmaxd says:

    @dubiouswoman

    “He had not historically been very fiscally responsible. It was about the principle of the thing more than the money.

    You’re right, I could have paid for everything. How would that have looked to my kids?”

    This might look logical to you dubiouswoman, but you do realise you’re just confirming what guys’ve been saying about women making irrational excuses to take money from their ex-husbands?

    It would be quite easy for me to call you out on the above comment, but even you must admit its a weak arguement when explained to a third party … ?

    The guy obviously wants to be involved in your childrens lives up to a point, as he keeps in touch with your kids, how is a few $200 a month going to keep him anymore interested in your kids, then he is at the moment?

    Also as for keeping him financially responsible for raising your kids … you’ve basically cut him off from raising your kids in any manner whatsoever, how is a mere $200 going to make him responsible for raising any part of your kids?

  126. rmaxd says:

    “While the fact that Japan failed to progress in any way for more than 2000 years under their “culture” may seem terribly harsh to a Japanese, it is the truth. Up until the 1800s colonial period, their technological level was little different from what you could fine quite easily BC.

    Like no Phonetic Alphabet, as an obvious example. So when I mean they were pre-BC, I mean they were pre-BC.”

    Arranged marriages are designed to protect women, not men, a very big distinction, & monopolise women at the expense of poor men, by richer families, by giving women social mobility

    ie the ability to marry into richer families, something poorer men have never been able to do

    Western traditional monogamous families allowed poor men, & even encouraged the poor to marry, the monopolisation of women was strictly restricted to aristocracy

    Also the loss of a rich middle class played an important part in the rich aristocrats not having a large pool of women to monopolise

    It also made it easy for the average poverty stricken serf to find a wife, no rich middle class to monopolise or allow a stepping stone for women to use as social mobility, ie no or very little marrying into rich families

    The extreme social class differences, allowed poor men to build families & opportunities

  127. rmaxd says:

    forgot to add …

    In the west, while the aristocrats controlled the land, the poor were given alot more opportunities then in the east, precisely because of the lack of arranged marriages

    ie. no massive amounts of ancestory lines controlled the availability of women, as they do in places like india

    Thus preventing women from controlling technology & progress, by not usurping the role of men in social politics & allowing men to control social mobility

    Traditional forms of marriage allow women social mobility, at the expense of men

    Western forms, ie no interference or very little, from aristocrats & no large ancestral lines of families controlling women, as in india, allowed men large amounts of social mobility, & allowed the genius & ideas of poverty stricken men to spread into society

    It also inadvertently gave way to men only cultures, ie monkhood, monasteries where women were totally rejected, giving rise to the massive technological birth of the industrial age

    Men only cultures, allowed poor men to pursue technologies & science, without having to build massive families or wealth, effectively allowing men to progress society, without the need to have a family

    This man only culture was a first in history, while the east had its monasteries, & india had segregated male societies, women were never totally rejected as they were in monkhood or catholicism

    also the equivelant man only cultures in other parts of the world, they never had as much power or influence, as the man only culture in the west, which eventually formed into the christian catholic church

    The total rejection of women as a theology played an important part in the technological progress of most societies

  128. Aqua Net says:

    “also the equivelant man only cultures in other parts of the world, they never had as much power or influence, as the man only culture in the west, which eventually formed into the christian catholic church

    The total rejection of women as a theology played an important part in the technological progress of most societies”

    And no doubt it also played a role in the ahem, scandals, that cough, have rocked the Catholic Church in the last so many decades.

  129. Aqua Net says:

    “It also inadvertently gave way to men only cultures, ie monkhood, monasteries where women were totally rejected, giving rise to the massive technological birth of the industrial age

    Men only cultures, allowed poor men to pursue technologies & science”

    The industrial age was not ushered in by Catholic monks and priests. This is a bunch of bull.

  130. natsufan says:

    That sort of stuff pisses my off.

    I am not American. Where I come from, equality means equality. Which basically translates as no one can cheat in the marriage, and stuff like that.

    I hate it when American media try to sell the idea that being a proper woman is being a man. I love men, mind you, but I don’t see the point in imitating the rude behaviour that some boys usually have before they grow up into men. I mean… violence is cool? Rudeness is cool? So, if you are well-behaved and polite, you can’t change History? For starters, that’s ridiculous and… well, historically inaccurate.

    I am not the kind of woman who thinks “men should be men” and “women should be women”. I think everyone should be smart, commonsensical, hard-working, courageous and as physically and emotionally strong as they can.

    What I don’t get is since when does “senseless rudeness and violence” translates into strength. Strong people don’t act like vandals. You don’t have to be rude to be strong.

    I am just glad not all this nonsense has been imported into my country. But I fear that the ubicuous American media may yet cause a contagion.

    I asked a few of my female friends about this. At least everyone thinks the main characters in Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives are either superficial, vain, insensitive, cruel, selfish, and as one said, “snakes”.

    I just don’t know what happened there, but when I read these blogs it sounds pretty scary.

  131. tspoon says:

    The problems besetting the catholic church stem from the actions of team V’s best buddies – team G, with the associated degeneracy which inevitably follows either of those teams anywhere they become established.

  132. Pingback: 40 years of ultimatums | Dalrock

  133. Pingback: Don’t expect Republicans to Support Men: Iraq Department « Patriactionary

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s