Well being that as it may. In my experiences people who only want things like this are generally very controlling and not someone you want to be around. It has nothing to do with it being “about me”
The attributes and behaviours noted in the list are about attitudes and events that occurred before you first meet them. No one can “control” the past of someone they meet. Even if a person who wanted someone who conducted themselves with respect for others was actually “controlling”, your assertion is based on this faulty assumption. Hence it is illogical.
The concept of being “about oneself” is valid in that the conduct that is admonished (as in hedonistic pursuits without consideration for others or future repercussions) is WHOLLY about only seeing oneself in the equation. Hence you are incorrect again.
This Cherry and not that one.
I’m not impressed because of the chavanistic things in this article like “she follows” and “she doesn’t have kids” since that kind of mentality IS 1950’s oriented…Where a girl should just be quiet and take care of the house while the man goes off and does what he wants, pining away for his return because he is the only one she has ever known (but no…Don’t take this as I think cheating is okay. Cheating is NEVER okay). Looking at this, most women would likely say “nu-uh”
You are merely cherry-picking colour commentary in order to support a faulty view of the bigger picture. Even so, feminists love to ignore the clear physiological and biological differences between the sexes to promote a pseudo-equality that is really a seriously pro-female environment.
Essentially they want all the benefits and advantages of being a woman. For example, most women can get laid for just being a woman, while few men have that ability. On top of it, they want a level playing field where men generally have the advantage. Equal pay for unequal ability to do physical labour is ridiculous (but ever so politically correct). Just wearing a uniform doesn’t make one a super-hero. One has to actually possess the powers.
The 1950’s western world ideals really speak to accepting and appreciating the differences between the genders. Feminists only see specific things (such as the woman being quiet) and think that everything “Leave it to Beaver” has to be replicated.
Women were less prone to “cheating”, not because of any enforcement of the 1950’s ideal, but more so because of accessibility to birth control that was effective without immediate prior application (aka the birth control pill). The 1960’s changed all of that. The experience in itself should be clear indication of how rapidly the abuse of power occurs once those without the maturity to handle that power suddenly gain it.
Most people would love to profit without cost. That is human nature and is not specific to gender. Looking at this article, most reasonable people would see that the “you go girl” advocates are foolish in thinking that actions come without consequences. It should be clear that if one wants people to appreciate them once their “I’m young and sexy and I know it” phase is history, they better demonstrate some humility and respect for others.
Certainly some “Pink is my heroine” types will actually think that they can continue that charade into their 30’s. A whole new generation of angry left-over feminists will be spawned.
The Fashion of Passion
I can only speak for myself but I would rather a PARTNERSHIP where we are equal and both be able to tell things to the other, not this sense of the woman has to be this perfect little submissive person and the man exerts his “superiority” over the woman. That is very old fashioned.
One of the biggest fallacies that feminism promotes is that equality is necessarily uniformly reciprocal. In terms of the genders, it really isn’t.
As was mentioned above, women have advantages in some things, and men have them in others. Women take the lead over men in some endeavours and vice-versa. This misinterpretation that the women is submissive at all times and in all events is purely the disambiguation of critics who are unable to accept the difference between the sexes.
Superiority is something that is contested in conflict. How feminists see relationship dynamics as some kind of power struggle is telling of their “chip on the shoulder” attitude in general. When the article talks about the woman being loyal to her man, it is implied that the man is just as loyal to her (hence the part about “she’s a keeper”). How feminists love to ignore that “she’s a keeper” to promote this misconception that the author is talking about the man demanding all the power is actually quite sad.
The idea of two people complimenting each other to form a strong relationship has been around a very long time. So, yes, it is “old fashioned”. Some things shouldn’t change just because some people think that “girl power” is anything more than misguided feminism.
The Attack of the Crones
It is not an attack. I am being very truthful. This article is one sided and slightly frightening. I agree with some of them such as not being materialistic but that’s only if he too is not, and judging by this article it’s quite all right for a man to be a gold digger (comes from a good family.) If this article was reversed and instead of it being signs SHE’S a keeper it was HE’s….I’m sure you would be offended too.
It really is an attack when one considers that the premise for the criticism is based on purposeful misinterpretation. It is doubtful that you cannot see the fallacies that you employed.
There is a notable difference in presenting the whole truth versus snippets of it to suit one’s argument. A couple of these transgressions have already been pointed out. So while one attempts to appear non-judgmental, it is easily seen that the protest is fuelled by a prejudice.
While the article can be couched as “one-sided” since it presents a list of attributes that one gender should look for in a mate, it isn’t intended to comprehensively cover both gender’s selection process. To suggest that it was is a surreptitious attempt to taint the article as biased (which it is not).
It indicates that it is quite all right for a man to be a gold digger?
No. Your interpretation and logic is flawed.
If the woman is from a good family (or perhaps a good and well-financially established family), it doesn’t mean that the man is “after the wealth” in the same way that true gold-diggers are. The whole point of the woman coming from a good family is that the odds of being emotionally well-adjusted and mature are better than that of one coming from a situation where there are many dysfunctional issues. Again, it’s about a GOOD family structure (not necessarily a WEALTHY family structure).
As far as who has more accumulated wealth upon entering the relationship, you may want to reread the article. Your interpretation is clearly NOT what was said.
As far as the reversal of roles, it has already been pointed out that the significant attributes of men are wholly different from those of women. One cannot simply replace one gender and quote the same criteria. It should be clear that it doesn’t work that way. Equality is necessarily based on how the individual components fit into the equation. You cannot assume homogeneity in the constituents.
Hope this cleared up any misconceptions you have. I honestly hope this article is a joke btw.
Even if this was not intended as some veiled condescending advice, it is rather moot since I have not presented any misconception.
On the other hand, your entire argument is based on the premise that the article was intended to be comprehensive for both genders (which it was not). Your criticisms are founded on top of disambiguation and they are constructed with some dubious logic. As was just noted, you have not even interpreted the “good family” concept correctly, and, wholly ignored the articles comments on the wealth of the man versus the woman.
You will have to try harder than this in order to find any fault with the article.
Wishing that the blog entry was purely whimsy, that from even a cursory review of your comments shows that it is premature and likely denigration wrought from a pre-existing bias.
Please try again.