Are men upset with women?

[Is0tope]

Let me tell you something about women.

They're fucking shitty people. I'm serious. I've had it. I don't know how to fucking say it but they're fucking mental. There's no such thing as logic or reasoning to women. I wouldn't even define it as 'emotional' - more like absolute insanity.

You can't win. If you ask for their number, they have you by the fucking balls already. It's just the fucking way it is.

So yes, goddam right I'm upset.

It's the same bullshit every fucking time, and it's fucking awful. Girls take you to emotional highs like never before, and then they'll fucking shit on them.

I can't wait until I get my CDL.

I WILL work in this world, but DAMN if I become apart of it.

If you were asked for your number frequently by strange women, day after day, how'd you feel about them?

Edited December 30, 2014 by Is0tope

[DR DOOM]

Yeah well, I think women are pretty fucking awesome.

( a woman told me to write this)

[Spuffy78]

No, just tired of you blaming us for you're supposed lack of independence yet expecting us to fucking buy everything.

I buy everything I want with my own fucking money and my other half learnt long ago that if he wants to raise his eyebrows at yet another pairs of shoes arriving in the mail then he can happily take on the payment of the gas, the electricity, the communications, the rates, the fuel, the groceries, the Christmas presents, the birthday presents, the insurance policies, the vet bills, the home maintenance bills.......singlehandedly.

Cool. I was taking the piss tbh.

[Orsys]

Let me tell you something about women.

They're fucking shitty people. I'm serious. I've had it. I don't know how to fucking say it but they're fucking mental. There's no such thing as logic or reasoning to women. I wouldn't even define it as 'emotional' - more like absolute insanity.

You can't win. If you ask for their number, they have you by the fucking balls already. It's just the fucking way it is.

So yes, goddam right I'm upset.

It's the same bullshit every fucking time, and it's fucking awful. Girls take you to emotional highs like never before, and then they'll fucking shit on them.

I can't wait until I get my CDL.

I WILL work in this world, but DAMN if I become apart of it.

i guess referring to women collectively as shitty people doesn't give you a great starting point with them.

MGTOW may be for you.

[DR DOOM]

Once he has actually put his Johnson inside a woman he may change his opinion.

[Len Cnut]

Let me tell you something about women.

They're fucking shitty people. I'm serious. I've had it. I don't know how to fucking say it but they're fucking mental. There's no such thing as logic or reasoning to women. I wouldn't even define it as 'emotional' - more like absolute insanity.

You can't win. If you ask for their number, they have you by the fucking balls already. It's just the fucking way it is.

So yes, goddam right I'm upset.

It's the same bullshit every fucking time, and it's fucking awful. Girls take you to emotional highs like never before, and then they'll fucking shit on them.

I can't wait until I get my CDL.

I WILL work in this world, but DAMN if I become apart of it.

What happened with that bird who worked in the store you went to?

[GivenToFly]

Man, any group who are historically the most powerful are going to struggle to make concessions for the sake of equality, how many times have you heard the bullshit phrase "I just feel like it's not okay to be a straight, white, protestant male anymore..." or similar depending on the country you're in? These people are being made to confront a fraction of the discrimination that has been perpetrated in their name against minorities throughout history and they feel so fucking entitled that they throw the toys out of the pram when they are perceived to be disadvantaged even a little bit.

That doesn't mean I believe in "positive discrimination", not choosing someone for a job because they are a straight, white, protestant male is every bit as bad as not choosing someone who isn't; true equality should mean the best candidate for the job gets it regardless of what the fuck they are, physically, culturally, spiritually etc. It's a difficult line to tread tbh.

I agree with your first paragraph and it's essentially what I wanted to post. I disagree with the second part though. Power structures have a strong inertia to them, be it forced by the group in power or occurring by default and you need positive discrimination for some time to counteract that. If a position is seen as unattainable no effort will be made to attain it and it actually becomes unattainable then. If, for example, women think it's impossible to be a high ranking executive for a company they will make no effort to become one because it's not worth it; boardrooms, CEOs etc will take in the statistical anomaly of strangely few women being qualified to be executives and it becomes an entrenched rule: women can't be executives. The situation is self-perpetuating. So you can trust the companies themselves to make the experiment: ok, let's try some women too, who knows maybe this massive potential workforce can yield us some good hiring opportunities but who's going to go against the sure thing and make a bet? Not many. It doesn't even have to a malicious thing, it's just rational discrimination. The only way to counteract that is by outside intervention, namely rules, regulations, laws.

[Amir]

Man, any group who are historically the most powerful are going to struggle to make concessions for the sake of equality, how many times have you heard the bullshit phrase "I just feel like it's not okay to be a straight, white, protestant male anymore..." or similar depending on the country you're in? These people are being made to confront a fraction of the discrimination that has been perpetrated in their name against minorities throughout history and they feel so fucking entitled that they throw the toys out of the pram when they are perceived to be disadvantaged even a little bit.

That doesn't mean I believe in "positive discrimination", not choosing someone for a job because they are a straight, white, protestant male is every bit as bad as not choosing someone who isn't; true equality should mean the best candidate for the job gets it regardless of what the fuck they are, physically, culturally, spiritually etc. It's a difficult line to tread tbh.

I agree with your first paragraph and it's essentially what I wanted to post. I disagree with the second part though. Power structures have a strong inertia to them, be it forced by the group in power or occurring by default and you need positive discrimination for some time to counteract that. If a position is seen as unattainable no effort will be made to attain it and it actually becomes unattainable then. If, for example, women think it's impossible to be a high ranking executive for a company they will make no effort to become one because it's not worth it; boardrooms, CEOs etc will take in the statistical anomaly of strangely few women being qualified to be executives and it becomes an entrenched rule: women can't be executives. The situation is self-perpetuating. So you can trust the companies themselves to make the experiment: ok, let's try some women too, who knows maybe this massive potential workforce can yield us some good hiring opportunities but who's going to go against the sure thing and make a bet? Not many. It doesn't even have to a malicious thing, it's just rational discrimination. The only way to counteract that is by outside intervention, namely rules, regulations, laws.

I'm not sure regulation would be necessary, though. The "thinking it's impossible so not bothering" does dissuade the majority, yes, but like you said there are a few who take on the challenge and succeed. My thinking is that as that small number of women increases, less women will see executive positions unattainable.

[alfierose]

Man, any group who are historically the most powerful are going to struggle to make concessions for the sake of equality, how many times have you heard the bullshit phrase "I just feel like it's not okay to be a straight, white, protestant male anymore..." or similar depending on the country you're in? These people are being made to confront a fraction of the discrimination that has been perpetrated in their name against minorities throughout history and they feel so fucking entitled that they throw the toys out of the pram when they are perceived to be disadvantaged even a little bit.

That doesn't mean I believe in "positive discrimination", not choosing someone for a job because they are a straight, white, protestant male is every bit as bad as not choosing someone who isn't; true equality should mean the best candidate for the job gets it regardless of what the fuck they are, physically, culturally, spiritually etc. It's a difficult line to tread tbh.

I agree with your first paragraph and it's essentially what I wanted to post. I disagree with the second part though. Power structures have a strong inertia to them, be it forced by the group in power or occurring by default and you need positive discrimination for some time to counteract that. If a position is seen as unattainable no effort will be made to attain it and it actually becomes unattainable then. If, for example, women think it's impossible to be a high ranking executive for a company they will make no effort to become one because it's not worth it; boardrooms, CEOs etc will take in the statistical anomaly of strangely few women being qualified to be executives and it becomes an entrenched rule: women can't be executives. The situation is self-perpetuating. So you can trust the companies themselves to make the experiment: ok, let's try some women too, who knows maybe this massive potential workforce can yield us some good hiring opportunities but who's going to go against the sure thing and make a bet? Not many. It doesn't even have to a malicious thing, it's just rational discrimination. The only way to counteract that is by outside intervention, namely rules, regulations, laws.

I'm not sure regulation would be necessary, though. The "thinking it's impossible so not bothering" does dissuade the majority, yes, but like you said there are a few who take on the challenge and succeed. My thinking is that as that small number of women increases, less women will see executive positions unattainable.

It's not thinking it's unattainable that's the problem, it's the reality in the majority of cases. If you read any lengthy female discussion on the issue it's clear that no matter how intelligent, experienced and educated a person is it's incredibly difficult to balance high flying careers with caring responsibility and I'm not just talking about children either. The amount of unpaid caring work women do (broadly speaking as I realise some men do it too) is huge and in many ways is what prevents many societies collapsing under the strain.

Lots of women in middle age, at a time when they might otherwise be pursuing high ranking positions are finding they have elderly relatives to consider. Obligations don't always stop just because children have grown up, for women to be able to have careers in the same way as men society would have to find a way of replacing all the largely unseen caring that goes on. The financial cost of this would be absolutely massive and probably more unattainable than those CEO positions. The difference is it's work that is overlooked and under appreciated yet without it the country (specifically talking UK) would be fucked.

[Amir]

Man, any group who are historically the most powerful are going to struggle to make concessions for the sake of equality, how many times have you heard the bullshit phrase "I just feel like it's not okay to be a straight, white, protestant male anymore..." or similar depending on the country you're in? These people are being made to confront a fraction of the discrimination that has been perpetrated in their name against minorities throughout history and they feel so fucking entitled that they throw the toys out of the pram when they are perceived to be disadvantaged even a little bit.

That doesn't mean I believe in "positive discrimination", not choosing someone for a job because they are a straight, white, protestant male is every bit as bad as not choosing someone who isn't; true equality should mean the best candidate for the job gets it regardless of what the fuck they are, physically, culturally, spiritually etc. It's a difficult line to tread tbh.

I agree with your first paragraph and it's essentially what I wanted to post. I disagree with the second part though. Power structures have a strong inertia to them, be it forced by the group in power or occurring by default and you need positive discrimination for some time to counteract that. If a position is seen as unattainable no effort will be made to attain it and it actually becomes unattainable then. If, for example, women think it's impossible to be a high ranking executive for a company they will make no effort to become one because it's not worth it; boardrooms, CEOs etc will take in the statistical anomaly of strangely few women being qualified to be executives and it becomes an entrenched rule: women can't be executives. The situation is self-perpetuating. So you can trust the companies themselves to make the experiment: ok, let's try some women too, who knows maybe this massive potential workforce can yield us some good hiring opportunities but who's going to go against the sure thing and make a bet? Not many. It doesn't even have to a malicious thing, it's just rational discrimination. The only way to counteract that is by outside intervention, namely rules, regulations, laws.

I'm not sure regulation would be necessary, though. The "thinking it's impossible so not bothering" does dissuade the majority, yes, but like you said there are a few who take on the challenge and succeed. My thinking is that as that small number of women increases, less women will see executive positions unattainable.

It's not thinking it's unattainable that's the problem, it's the reality in the majority of cases. If you read any lengthy female discussion on the issue it's clear that no matter how intelligent, experienced and educated a person is it's incredibly difficult to balance high flying careers with caring responsibility and I'm not just talking about children either. The amount of unpaid caring work women do (broadly speaking as I realise some men do it too) is huge and in many ways is what prevents many societies collapsing under the strain.

Lots of women in middle age, at a time when they might otherwise be pursuing high ranking positions are finding they have elderly relatives to consider. Obligations don't always stop just because children have grown up, for women to be able to have careers in the same way as men society would have to find a way of replacing all the largely unseen caring that goes on. The financial cost of this would be absolutely massive and probably more unattainable than those CEO positions. The difference is it's work that is overlooked and under appreciated yet without it the country (specifically talking UK) would be fucked.

The caring problem is only going to increase in an increasingly ageing population, and I don't know what the solution would be. I have a few friends who are social workers and they're strained as it is.

[Orsys]

Regulation is tricky. Women worked, as they always have, but their work was not quantified by a dollar value. When women had to go out to work more to help support the family of course they would want the opportunities. They were not there. College was very biased towards white males right into the 60s. Regulation and "quotas" were there to try to bring women and other minorities to a more fair playing field. I can see that making white males very uncomfortable. But history was on their side for....forever. So here regulation to give fairness a kick start was essential. It gets women in the schools, in the door, and slowly up the ladder.

Hmmm, I wonder if these men's groups are primarily white male?

[magisme]

Society will be better when women can worry about making lots of money instead of taking care of loved ones.

[Redhead74]

Man, any group who are historically the most powerful are going to struggle to make concessions for the sake of equality, how many times have you heard the bullshit phrase "I just feel like it's not okay to be a straight, white, protestant male anymore..." or similar depending on the country you're in? These people are being made to confront a fraction of the discrimination that has been perpetrated in their name against minorities throughout history and they feel so fucking entitled that they throw the toys out of the pram when they are perceived to be disadvantaged even a little bit.

That doesn't mean I believe in "positive discrimination", not choosing someone for a job because they are a straight, white, protestant male is every bit as bad as not choosing someone who isn't; true equality should mean the best candidate for the job gets it regardless of what the fuck they are, physically, culturally, spiritually etc. It's a difficult line to tread tbh.

I agree with your first paragraph and it's essentially what I wanted to post. I disagree with the second part though. Power structures have a strong inertia to them, be it forced by the group in power or occurring by default and you need positive discrimination for some time to counteract that. If a position is seen as unattainable no effort will be made to attain it and it actually becomes unattainable then. If, for example, women think it's impossible to be a high ranking executive for a company they will make no effort to become one because it's not worth it; boardrooms, CEOs etc will take in the statistical anomaly of strangely few women being qualified to be executives and it becomes an entrenched rule: women can't be executives. The situation is self-perpetuating. So you can trust the companies themselves to make the experiment: ok, let's try some women too, who knows maybe this massive potential workforce can yield us some good hiring opportunities but who's going to go against the sure thing and make a bet? Not many. It doesn't even have to a malicious thing, it's just rational discrimination. The only way to counteract that is by outside intervention, namely rules, regulations, laws.

I'm not sure regulation would be necessary, though. The "thinking it's impossible so not bothering" does dissuade the majority, yes, but like you said there are a few who take on the challenge and succeed. My thinking is that as that small number of women increases, less women will see executive positions unattainable.

I agree with that completely, but I also think there is a fundamental aspect at play here, a physiological aspect of femininity.....women are generally not very aggressive. Some can be but the majority are not fundamentally aggressive, whether it be a mental or physical attitude. It's neither right nor wrong, it's just a reality of what most females are: nurturing, caring, organisational. And the unfortunate reality is that most high end corporate environments are aggressive and require an ability to continually sustain a degree of aggressiveness to maintain power. Men are fundamentally more suited to those environments.

[alfierose]

Man, any group who are historically the most powerful are going to struggle to make concessions for the sake of equality, how many times have you heard the bullshit phrase "I just feel like it's not okay to be a straight, white, protestant male anymore..." or similar depending on the country you're in? These people are being made to confront a fraction of the discrimination that has been perpetrated in their name against minorities throughout history and they feel so fucking entitled that they throw the toys out of the pram when they are perceived to be disadvantaged even a little bit.

That doesn't mean I believe in "positive discrimination", not choosing someone for a job because they are a straight, white, protestant male is every bit as bad as not choosing someone who isn't; true equality should mean the best candidate for the job gets it regardless of what the fuck they are, physically, culturally, spiritually etc. It's a difficult line to tread tbh.

I agree with your first paragraph and it's essentially what I wanted to post. I disagree with the second part though. Power structures have a strong inertia to them, be it forced by the group in power or occurring by default and you need positive discrimination for some time to counteract that. If a position is seen as unattainable no effort will be made to attain it and it actually becomes unattainable then. If, for example, women think it's impossible to be a high ranking executive for a company they will make no effort to become one because it's not worth it; boardrooms, CEOs etc will take in the statistical anomaly of strangely few women being qualified to be executives and it becomes an entrenched rule: women can't be executives. The situation is self-perpetuating. So you can trust the companies themselves to make the experiment: ok, let's try some women too, who knows maybe this massive potential workforce can yield us some good hiring opportunities but who's going to go against the sure thing and make a bet? Not many. It doesn't even have to a malicious thing, it's just rational discrimination. The only way to counteract that is by outside intervention, namely rules, regulations, laws.

I'm not sure regulation would be necessary, though. The "thinking it's impossible so not bothering" does dissuade the majority, yes, but like you said there are a few who take on the challenge and succeed. My thinking is that as that small number of women increases, less women will see executive positions unattainable.

It's not thinking it's unattainable that's the problem, it's the reality in the majority of cases. If you read any lengthy female discussion on the issue it's clear that no matter how intelligent, experienced and educated a person is it's incredibly difficult to balance high flying careers with caring responsibility and I'm not just talking about children either. The amount of unpaid caring work women do (broadly speaking as I realise some men do it too) is huge and in many ways is what prevents many societies collapsing under the strain.

Lots of women in middle age, at a time when they might otherwise be pursuing high ranking positions are finding they have elderly relatives to consider. Obligations don't always stop just because children have grown up, for women to be able to have careers in the same way as men society would have to find a way of replacing all the largely unseen caring that goes on. The financial cost of this would be absolutely massive and probably more unattainable than those CEO positions. The difference is it's work that is overlooked and under appreciated yet without it the country (specifically talking UK) would be fucked.

The caring problem is only going to increase in an increasingly ageing population, and I don't know what the solution would be. I have a few friends who are social workers and they're strained as it is.

Yes it's a massive problem and one most people don't start to appreciate until they have parents who are getting elderly. Solutions for decent adult social care are complicated, expensive and often woefully inadequate. Hence many families have to or choose to provide care themselves, by and large this falls to younger females but not always. I think it's one of the biggest issues as a country we have at the moment. People tend to think that all elderly relatives can just go in a home but don't realise that it costs hundreds if not thousands per week for specialist placements and to get it paid by the state is limited to the most extreme cases. My FIL had dementia for over ten years, he was only eligible for state paid care in the last 12 -18 months of his life. His wife and daughter did the rest and for several years it was pretty much a 24 hrs per day job.

[arnold layne]

Let me tell you something about women.

They're fucking shitty people. I'm serious. I've had it. I don't know how to fucking say it but they're fucking mental. There's no such thing as logic or reasoning to women. I wouldn't even define it as 'emotional' - more like absolute insanity.

You can't win. If you ask for their number, they have you by the fucking balls already. It's just the fucking way it is.

So yes, goddam right I'm upset.

It's the same bullshit every fucking time, and it's fucking awful. Girls take you to emotional highs like never before, and then they'll fucking shit on them.

I can't wait until I get my CDL.

I WILL work in this world, but DAMN if I become apart of it.

What happened with that bird who worked in the store you went to?

Fuck if I know buddy.

Time to chase this hangover with a few Prozacs, take this kitchen knife and wander somewhere.

[Roush]

Men are always upset with women. Y'all are a difficult bunch.

[Snake-Pit]

Sometimes males have their periods too, they may not be menstruating, but they're still like a bitch, it happens, the best advice anyone can do is to accept and move on.

[Guest Sleeping Like An Angel]

I've definitely come across a lot of men in the last few years who have some hatred and resentment against women. Their reasons seem different though.

I kept questioning one guy and it became clear that he just felt girls had it easier in general and he admitted to being actually JEALOUS of good looking women because he claims their 'life is easier'.

[ZoSoRose]

That is just stupid. I have my fair shares of complaints regarding women right now but to say someone's life is easier because they are good looking is very ignorant.

[magisme]

Whaaaaaaat? Being good looking doesn't guarantee a good life, but it definitely opens some doors.

[Dazey]

That is just stupid. I have my fair shares of complaints regarding women right now but to say someone's life is easier because they are good looking is very ignorant.

It's also true in many many cases.

[Amir]

That is just stupid. I have my fair shares of complaints regarding women right now but to say someone's life is easier because they are good looking is very ignorant.

It's also true in many many cases.

[netcat]

im jealous that good looking guys have it easier!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291055/Men-bank-good-looks-earn-average-colleagues.html

[magisme]

im jealous that good looking guys have it easier!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291055/Men-bank-good-looks-earn-average-colleagues.html

It definitely works both ways.

[Guest Sleeping Like An Angel]

That is just stupid. I have my fair shares of complaints regarding women right now but to say someone's life is easier because they are good looking is very ignorant.

It's also true in many many cases.

I have to agree.

I've seen so many people cruise by in real life because they are good looking. Honestly.

We even see it in music. I'm not much of a fan of female singers, there are very few good ones in my opinion, and the popular ones nowadays? Forget it! We have an absolute mess. A lot of actresses out there too who get the gigs clearly on looks, not acting ability!