I do agree with you on the first part. This is mostly due to social standards- the guy asking the girl out, asking for her hand in marriage, asking her to prom, etc. These things are just socially accepted, and are considered the norm [although, the other way around can happen, don't get me wrong]. The only time I've seen love happen is when the two are friends or have known each other, and then become a couple. I think it's rare for a woman to fall in love with a guy that randomly starts creeping [I speak from experience, makes me want to push guys away because creeping = no thanks].
Now the part I disagree with you on is when you say: Then there's other shit too like how dudes have to do all the manual labor and fill combat rolls in the military. Then we got Hillary Clinton up in our grill bitching about how women have it harder because they have to stay home while the guys go die in the war. No you fucking don't, dudes watch their friends die, in person, during the fighting. They have to kill or be killed. They have to dig the trenches, be away from the luxuries of home, etc. etc. Fine, you guys have it hard too, but you can't tell me that you're the "real victims of war." Fuck you Hillary! You used to be cool!
By saying this you are completely disregarding all service women. It's not just men who serve you know, women do too. I'm not saying this to be "feminist" Hilary gives women a horrible name... I just can't even. , I am saying this because I feel it wrong to discredit female troops. In fact, I myself even plan on enlisting in the USA infantry or USAF to be a fighter pilot/bomber. Incase you didn't know, there used to be [i'm not sure if they are still in place or being revoked] LAWS PREVENTING women from having a 'front-line' job, and we currently can not become paratroopers. There is no reason for this to be in place because everyone goes through vigorous training equally, and whether it be man or woman who can't take it, they will be discharged [the women out there who are fully qualified should have every right to a front-line infantry job granted proper training is given]. However, if you say this in regard to "military wives/ girlfriends" I can agree with you but only in part. It is emotionally and physically difficult for both the man and the woman in the relationship [especially if it is a married man/woman leaving behind a family/kids to be deployed]. Having a father who is a USN veteran I have read his letters to my mother and can understand the hardships both have went through. The woman/man needs to be appreciative of his/her service, and the man/woman needs to be appreciative of her/his love and support.
Tl;dr: both men and women can be ungrateful bitches.
I understand your argument completely(This is just for the relationship thing. I'll get to the other part next). But I do have to disagree with it. I have been in MANY, MANY relationships before. And the only one in which the guy initiated is the one I am currently in. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but, you do need to understand that the society in which we live in, privileged children are raised to believe that boys have to do all of the things you just explained, and that girls are to just sit there and "look pretty". Many girls(including myself), however, were raised to be more dominant and to not let people do simple things for them. (i.e. open the door, pick things up, or, to the more complicated in your situation, confessing attractions/ initiating relationships.) But there is also the question of dominance. Usually the dominant one in the relationship is the one that initiates it. And don't get dominance and manliness confused. How dominant someone is does not always determine how masculine someone is. If you don't want to be very dominant in a relationship, don't initiate it. But If you do, and you live around privileged people, you may just have to initiate it.
Now, onto the labor thing. Something that you should understand is that ever since the beginnings of civilization, women weren't even allowed to work. They were sent into the house and told by their dominant husbands to do "women things". Yes, Africa is an exception, but not by much. In addition, in Medieval times, women who worked or who were openly smart were called witches and killed, so that didn't help either. Up until the Industrial Revolution, women weren't even allowed to have decent jobs. And keep in mind that there's always been discrimination against them, and there has always been a standard for women to be gentle and weak. Actually, the only point in time where women had somewhat decent jobs was during World War II, and still we weren't even allowed to fight in war. It wasn't until May of 2012 when women were allowed to fight in open combat.
One of the reasons why people say women have it harder when their men are at war is that women's brains are set differently, therefore making women extremely emotionally unstable in very stressful situations (their loved-ones being at war). Another reason why is that many women who have husbands who go into war also have children. You may say "well, children aren't as bad as being at war.", but that's not what I had in mind. Consider this: A woman has a lovely husband and children. The man gets drafted into war. The idea alone of her husband going into war makes her stressed and unstable. Then the fact that her children may have to be raised without a father will also crush her. She may try to act optimistic, but on the inside, she thinks he might as well just die then. y6;'[/p/
I liked your first paragraph, you made some good points, and that was the issue I mainly made this thread for. The war thing is less important because it's mostly just one woman's opinion.
Now, onto the rest of your post. I'm well aware of past (and even current) discrimination against women (dumbass GOP) and I also didn't mean that women at home have it easy when their husbands/boyfriends go off to war. I'm sure it sucks, but I mainly take issue with Clinton's statement because it implies that women have it worse than the men who go off to war. As both parties have difficulty, I believe without a doubt that men have it harder in these situations, especially if they return with PTSD.
I think I may have interpreted this the wrong way then. You are right about the PSTD. I can't argue with it. I didn't mean for my comment to sound all like "YOU'RE WRONG AND BLAH BLAH AND I HATE YOUR POINTS AND BLAH BLAH ASSHOLE!", but... for some reason, everything I usually say comes out like that. I hope this is more mellow that before. ^^ But now that I think about it, this was posted in the complaints forum, and not the misogyny forum. And again, I really misinterpreted your post. PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR MY MISINTERPRETATION. Gahhh!
Oh yeah. Sorry for the late reply. I've just been having so much work and not enough time to reply.
xxEvilBlondiexxFeatured By OwnerJan 9, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
Dudes don't get enough appreciation for making shit happen. All the time I hear people say shit like "love will find you" or "love just happens when you least expect it." The funny thing is, it's always women who say this! Why? Because these things DO just happen to you. You just have to sit there and look pretty, and sure enough some douche who wants in your pants will come talk to you. It could be when you're at the library, at a bar, out to lunch, on a train, in the park, virtually anywhere. It's going to 'surprise' you because 90% of the places you go aren't specifically FOR hooking up, but dudes don't care about that.
How is some douche who wants in your pants always approaching you no matter where you are a good thing? More often then not that dude is not going to be "Mr. Right" nor is his attention desired. Though I suppose you could meet a decent guy like that (I'm not saying every guy who tries to pick up chicks in random ass places is necessarily a creeper), most of the time it will be someone you would not want as a partner who is at best annoying and at worst going to stalk, rape, and possibly kill you. But hey, as long as we're not the ones having to say hello.
xxEvilBlondiexxFeatured By OwnerJan 9, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
So anyway, besides blatantly ignoring what I actually said and honing in on my "worst case scenario" thing added to the end (which, though it is an extreme, is actually a valid point. I've known people who have been stalked. It's scary and it does happen, and mostly just to women), I also don't see the validity in any other part of your post. Women have an easier time getting a date... okay big deal. Men have an easier time peeing standing up. I don't think either of those things mean the other gender just in general has an easier time in life.
Men have a harder time because they fill combat rolls in the military. Well, for one that only counts for those in the military (people who made a choice to be in the military), and two, women don't fill combat rolls because they aren't allowed to. I don't think being discriminated against means you have an easier time even if it does result in you being unable to do difficult things. The same as being a housewife might be easier then having a job. That doesn't mean women in the past who were only allowed to do that had it easier.
But then again, I can see you're either a troll who's laughing their ass off right now at all the people getting mad at your idiotic bait post, or just an idiot, so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to say any of this.
I actually didn't take your worst case scenario, but listed all of the same possibilities that you did.
"Stalking happens mostly to women." There are tons of women out there who stalk their ex boyfriends, crushes, guys they went out with once, etc. It's a VERY common thing for women to go batshit crazy and be obsessive. So I don't buy that at all.
'Easier time dating vs peeing standing up." I never really said they had an easier time dating, as the dating process can be complex. This is just the complaints forum where you complain about anything and everything, so I felt like complaining about how I see a lot of women take for granted how hard the first steps can be. I really could have elaborated further too, like how I've heard women say things about how they "don't understand" why guys can't just ask them out when they know they want to. It's like, if it's so damn easy, why don't you do it then, you know?
Then with the whole military thing, I never argued that women don't fill combat roles because they're lazy or dainty or w/e you thought I wrote. I know they can't fill those roles, but the fact remains that not being allowed to fill such roles while men do all the fighting and dying does not make women the bigger victims here. That is what Hillary Clinton was claiming, and I was calling her on her bullshit.
The overall point being that there are challenges men face all the time that are never even considered by a lot of women. I never said we had it worse overall, but it's annoying seeing scorn from people like yourself because you think we all have it perfect. Be greatful for the shit you don't have to deal with as a woman in this society, and stop complaining about how "all men are douche bags because they have it so much better and do less with their lives."
There are people like you on both sides who think their gender is superior to the other, and meet any challenge to that notion with hostility. Get over yourself. People are people no matter what happens to be between their legs, we've both got our problems. The fact that you're so eager to counter my complaints with "one-up" complaints of your own is one thing, but the overzealous hostility over an issue you only PERCEIVED to be in the post (that is that I somehow said all men had it worse) tells more about your character than anything.
xxEvilBlondiexxFeatured By OwnerJan 10, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
"Though I suppose you could meet a decent guy like that (I'm not saying every guy who tries to pick up chicks in random ass places is necessarily a creeper)" There's the one you missed. I was merely trying to point out the obvious hole in your logic that seems to follow that being constantly bombarded with possible suitors was a good thing. It's not. And I'm also speaking from my own experience. The only guys who have ever come up and talked to me at the library, fast food places, ect. have been obvious creepers. Maybe it's different for other chicks. Maybe some girls get hit on by nice guys. I can't say they don't, but I can say that I don't.
And I never said women had it harder on the whole military issue. Yes, what Hilary Clinton said does sound like a load of bullshit. What I meant was, I don't think men necessarily deserve a huge pat on the back for doing something women aren't even allowed to attempt.
And I never said one gender was superior to the other. I believe in gender equality (in fact I don't even believe in the idea of gender as a social construct), and I don't believe we currently have that and women are way at the bottom in that regard so it makes me mad when people point out every little thing that men have it harder with and seem to think that means we're even. Maybe you didn't mean that, but that's what it sounded like.
I think you've jumped to more conclusions about me then I've jumped to about you. And yes, maybe I was overly hostile, I see that now and I apologize, but I only got that way after you disregarded my first post and made me out to be some "all men are rapists!" extremist. Forgive and forget?
"What I meant was, I don't think men necessarily deserve a huge pat on the back for doing something women aren't even allowed to attempt."
Well, you probably didn't MEAN this, but it almost sounds like you're saying our troops don't deserve a big pat on the back. I assume you mean that the troops do deserve one, but for being troops, not just men. I can understand that, but~! I still take issue when someone like Clinton, who is more or less considered a female role-model, claiming the exact opposite. To put it in context of our conversation, her statement can be seen to imply that women who remain at home during wartime are more deserving of a huge pat on the back than the troops are (male troops specifically for her statement, but one could see it as both male and female troops). We've come a long way towards supporting our troops since the Vietnam era where people spit on them upon their return, but shit like this just feels ungrateful.
By the sounds of your post, it sounds like we're in agreement on this anyway, so it's not really an issue. Of course, in all fairness, my post was a bit baited. I like to make my OP's sounds more hostile, humerus, and succinct to get people reading and commenting.
xxEvilBlondiexxFeatured By OwnerJan 11, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
Oh yeah, I see what you mean. That was a bit carelessly worded on my part and I definitely wasn't meaning that. When I said "men" in that statement, I was referring to the idea of the male gender, not the men as individuals. I respect the individuals who go into close combat, but don't necessarily think it should be winning them points in the battle of the sexes.
Although, as I said I agree that those staying at home while their husbands or other family go off to war aren't the biggest victim, I wonder if maybe Clinton's statement was merely trying to shed light on the fact that they do also suffer, but just went too far with it (I don't know what the exact statement was though, so I'm just going off what you said). Because it's an undeniable fact that those people would also suffer not knowing if their loved one was coming back, if they had a family not knowing whether or not they would have to raise their kids on their own, knowing there was nothing they could do to help them, and all that, but that would be something people might be less likely to think about then the more immediate danger faced by those in the war. But, yes it would be going to far to say they were the "real victims or war".
Yea, another user in this thread actually said something interesting as well. It was that Clinton was someone who travels abroad quite often, and therefore may not have just been talking about the United State's wars we're more familiar with. She may have been referring more to the context of third world countries and fighting happening within them. In such cases, women wouldn't exactly be 'safe' at home while their husbands were away fighting, but may be mostly helpless and defenseless to any invasion of their home.
Although the quote I have didn't specify that, and I'm not sure where she was when she said it. So I can't speak for the context, but it may be more innocent than it seams.
Applied to U.S. life, however, (which is likely since she is a U.S. politician, first lady at the time of saying it) it's pretty much bullshit.
*sigh* First of all, "do not take a hint" is kind of a bitch thing to say. Social queues can differ from region to region, city to city, neighborhood to neighborhood, and house to house. Your "hints" are possibly going to be different or delivered in a different way than what someone may be used to. Besides, why are all men stupid because they missed, or didn't understand, some indirect queue from your body language that was supposed to tell them to leave. See, this is what I'm talking about. You've got a superiority complex because you think people should just know these things without you having to say it yourself. Have you ever thought of, you know, just telling them directly that you're not into them and that you want to be left alone? By your logic I could say something along the lines of "all women are stupid because they can't tell I'm into them from my body language, they've missed so many opportunities because they just don't get it."
I mean seriously, do you realize how stupid that is? A guy swallows his pride and summons up the courage to talk to you, maybe even buys you a drink, and you don't even have the courtesy to tell him the truth? Because it makes much more sense to just let things go on, making the uncomfortable situation last longer? Or do you just do that so you have something to feel smug about later. "lolz guys r so stupid, they can't understand signals that I've intentionally made vague to avoid confrontation."
xxEvilBlondiexxFeatured By OwnerJan 10, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
Actually, I was kind of referring to a specific situation when I was using the internet at the library. Some guy comes up says hi to me. I say hi back. Reply to further conversation in the regular polite way, then say "well, I've got a lot of stuff I need to do *gesture to computer and turn away*" what I find to be an obvious, but polite signal that I don't really want to get into a huge conversation with him. I'm there to use the internet, not pick up dudes. He then sits down in the chair beside me, looks over my shoulder and is like "oh? Whatcha doin?". Which, fine. Maybe he didn't understand that I was trying to get him to go away, but that's still a bit of a personal space invasion and it made me uncomfortable. So then, I tell him what I'm doing. He keeps talking to me, ect. ect. I try to use ever polite trick I can think of to tell him I'm not interested without actually telling him, but it doesn't work. He keeps coming up to me every time I go to the library, and I don't know how to make him stop without being rude (because I'm extremely shy as it is so just talking to him is giving me a panic attack, let alone outright saying something like "I'm not interested, please stop talking to me"). That and the fact that he asked me my age and I was under 18 at the time and he was over 20. And he kept on talking to me. I mean, I guess you could say he wasn't trying to hit on me (I'm not an expert in that regard), but I'm pretty sure he was.
And maybe I might have seemed to encourage him after a while (smiling and responding to things he said), but simply because I had no idea what the hell to do in that situation and had already unsuccessfully tried to get him to back off and didn't have to guts to be what I thought to be rude.
It's not a superiority complex. I don't feel good about the fact that he didn't understand and leave me alone. In fact I feel kind of stupid and frustrated with myself that I couldn't make him understand, but I'm also frustrated with people who don't even seem to try to tell when their attention isn't wanted and just plow right along.
I can see how you were just trying to be polite in that situation. He also does somewhat sound like the type of dude who might even persist after you tell him "no, go away" simply because the fact that you were under 18 should have gotten rid of him anyway. Although there's also the possibility that when he found out about that he wanted to play it off as an "I was just being friendly, not hitting on you" kind of thing by continuing to talk to you. Sometimes we don't want to reinforce the stereotype that all we want is sex, so we try to play ourselves off a little bit instead of abruptly saying "oh ok, bye" and storming off. There are some who might interpret this sort of thing as a "guys only talk to me when they want sex" so we try to play it off even if we really DID just want to ask you out. (To be fair though, it's not as if women talk to men they don't know very often either unless they're interested in dating them.) Although, I don't necessarily believe that was his agenda, as I wasn't there, and your own instincts on the matter are probably reliable in this regard.
It does bring to light something interesting, however. I mean, the difficulty involved in telling someone "no" I think can be compared to asking someone out in the first place. We're all a bit scared of the reactions we may receive, or the feelings we may create. Like, if I ask someone out who's not into me (which is not initially known to me), I'm then putting them in the position of finding a way of getting me to leave. The very possibility of that may then be a discouraging factor, or I may become too distracted by looking for "leave me alone" signals to have a decent conversation. This may lead me to misinterpret something as a "go away" signal and then walk away leaving both of us wondering what we did wrong.
Similarly, a female might accept the request for a date of someone she's not into because she'd rather go out than hurt his feelings. Alternatively, it may cause her to act too polite in rejecting his 'advances' (for lack of a better word) which may lead to him not getting the message.
So... TL;DR: Too much empathy or selflessness may be a huge issue when it comes to dating. Shit is complicated.
xxEvilBlondiexxFeatured By OwnerJan 11, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah, there are way too many complications when it comes to that sort of thing... It'd be easy to say "if people were just honest with each other, there wouldn't be a problem", but honesty is difficult when you don't know a person especially when it pertains to sensitive issues like love and sex (which is a bit of a cultural taboo. Even if you want it, you can't say you want it). Even beyond the first meeting, there are issues about what you both want out of the relationship, and while those issues might be appropriate to bring up after a while of steady dating, "I just wanna get layed!" or "I want to get married and have five kids and a house in the suburbs!" aren't really first date conversation. And even by the time they're brought up, you might not know what you want yet, but whatever you say might have negative consequences or lead the person in the wrong direction even if you say you aren't sure.
Personally I think people should be in less of a dating mindset when they first meet someone. I would much rather date someone I had been friends with beforehand and already knew pretty well and would be able to gauge their reactions to things and be more open with, then a stranger that just came up to me at the bar (or wherever). But then again, that mostly applies to serious relationships. If you were just looking for sex, or even just a lighter "fun" relationship, it might work better with a stranger or someone you didn't know very well as it wouldn't ruin any previous friendship when you split up.
But I think the huge emphasis on dating in our society is mostly due to the idea that you need to get married and have kids to have a fulfilling life. If you just wait for a friendship to turn into something, it might be too late. You might not find the right person quickly enough and/or by the time you get married you might not be able to have kids. I myself don't really feel the need for any of this. I mean, I'm not against settling down if I was in love with someone. If I really liked someone, I might ask them out, or I'd date them if they asked me out, but if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. I'm cool with just being me by myself.
Girls expect guys to make the first move because our heads have been filled with crap from movies about a man coming and sweeping us off our feet. Also, that's how woman are wired. We usually, yes, there are some exceptions, don't want to be the one making the fist move. We are a lot more emotional and if the guy said know it would cut us deeper than they guy. I'm not saying guys don't have feelings, they do and yes, it's going to hurt them as well when they are rejected. But it's just common knowledge that girls are just far more sensitive when it comes to that. EVER girls dream is to be swept off our feet by this super handsome guy and live happily ever after with a bunch of romance thrown in. It's just how we are, not saying it's right because its not. Were just messed up in the head about romance.
O, blessed be the men, so very much exalted, for it is they who bear the true pain of love and war. Us womenfolk are so ungrateful for the suffering of these, the sons of Adam, so much so that we have become deluded into believing we are oppressed by their patriarchal society than they.
Yeeah, because it's worse to willingly enroll in the military, knowing that (at least if you're a somewhat thinking person) There Will Be Blood than to be a civilian in a war zone. I feel you're taking the particular phrase "Real victims of war" out of context since every time I've heard it in regards to women it has been about war zones in, for example Africa where mass-rape and mutilation is a conscious form of demoralization against the civilian population. Actually that has been a part of most every major war we have had and I do think it is worse since the soldiers, willingly enlisted or not are an active part of the warfare while the civilians have nothing to do with the conflict. Also women are a part of the military today so talking about "men" and "women" in that context is silly.