All This Talk About Women Aging....

[Trialbyfire]

My feeling about both sites is that the majority of users are probably pretty sound people, TBF. But that kind of vitriol I linked just tends to be more eyecatching I suppose.

Taramere, the site you linked to invaded this site about a year ago. Even back then, some of the original members of that site came onto LS and repudiated the current environment of that site, in that it's been taken over by the useless and the clueless.

 

The site was originally devised to help young men get a foot in the door. Instead it's turned into a vitriolic site full of the clueless.

 

It's happening here too but we've also acquired some other unsavory elements, kind of a triple whammy.

[Cherished]

It's not just that. From a pragmatic standpoint I've seen what a womans body looks like after having children at 22, and after having children at 32. The younger woman recovers a lot better.

 

No, it doesn't. It depends on how much time the woman spends exercising and working to get the body back.

Anyway that is really off-topic because if a man truly loves a woman, a few pounds is nothing and waiting a while for her to lose the weight is nothing because he loves her.

If a man would have your way of thinking and a primary concern is "how her body looks" after childbirth, he is not looking for a wife, mother, and life partner, he is looking for a sex doll, which you can actually purchase online, along with the baby doll.

[mr.dream merchant]

I can tell she's so angry at something that she's actually vicious. Only sees or reads what she wants to see. If you disagree with her, you're not merely a little bit on the other side, you're automatically an extreme misogynist whose mind she knows better than you do. Fun times.

 

Exactly. She's presumes all male posters are misogynistic so in every post she throws a little quip of "unfair degradation towards women" in some way or form, in every one of her posts. Its lame. Not every guy out there treats his female counterpart like ****. So quit preaching your pessimistic view of men onto others. Not you CLV, that was for JerseyShortie.

[clv0116]

I've looked a little to try and find the raw number, closest I have gotten was that for men aged 20 vs 50, there was a spread of 3 IQ points. The fact that offspring tend to trend toward average is gonna cost me a lot more from a statistical standpoint. If the trend was linear, I'm looking at 2 IQ points penalty IF I opt to leave the cryo-warriors out of the fray.

 

The IQ of my wife will probably have a lot more influence than that - I guess I better marry one of those big-brained Asian honeys.

[Trimmer]

There aren't many men like that, Trimmer. Even the decent guys generally seem to be too scared of "Captain save-a-ho" or "Mangina" labels to say anything against that kind of thing. Doesn't mean women here have to follow suit and say nothing about when we're getting crap thrown at us.

I never said, or implied, that you shouldn't. However, I do think that throwing back the same crap in return is as counterproductive as a gang-war drive-by shooting, will NEVER change those who put out the original crap in the first place, and will only serve to further divide those who might be inclined to listen to your case. Case in point: the supposedly humorous "response" threads that get started and just end up stirring the pot further. All they do is serve to entrench the extreme people deeper in their positions, and polarize those in the middle with sarcasm and barely concealed anger.

 

But that's just it Trimmer. You're only seeing this one thread and reacting to it.

Please give me more credit than that. I see plenty of those others - I see objectionable comments from both sides that I choose to ignore - not because I am afraid of a Mangina label or anything like that but because those responses just inflame and delight the thread-starters. Why do you think they come here to post that crap? Do you really think they believe they are going to change your opinons? It's the time-honored tradition of trolling on the internet. Don't feed the trolls.

 

I've seen time and again the sheer number of threads about how useless women are for the purposes of progeny, after they hit a certain age, how children born of any kind of union to women in their thirties and older, will have all kinds of problems. I'd like to see you react to those threads too.

See above.

 

Why are men getting so worked up anyway over this thread? All she did was post an article. Then she stated that it is ultimately up to God to decide.

Why would this set men off?

This was my only point in this thread, and its a SMALL one and it's just due to a particular sensitivity of mine: She didn't just say it was up to God to decide. It "set me off," as a parent, to hear her say that God was having the "last laugh" (ostensibly against the male gender as a whole) by burdening the children of older fathers with lower intelligence. My participation was a response to that sentiment, not by any stretch an indication of support of SS.com, the mysogynist rantings of those who start those lame-ass threads or spew lame-ass sentiments from either gender in either direction.

 

I won't get pulled into a "well he does it more" - "no she does it more" argument - I stopped investing my energy in those some time around middle school. You know the saying about internet arguments. Go ahead, you be the winner.

 

It just didn't seem to me that God is likely to get his kicks punishing the entire male gender (which was the implication in the OP,) by creating people of lower intelligence as a consequence of their individual fathers' ages. Feel free to blow off my point if you desire - you certainly don't need my permission.

[Trialbyfire]

Trimmer, you've now reacted to two reactionary threads, where there's been no reaction to the 100 anti-women threads.

 

I normally have a lot of respect for your opinions but this time, I think you need to review your bias.

 

I normally disagree with JS's perspectives, but in this, I can easily understand her reactionary thread. After about the 4000th time that women have been bashed on this site, it gets to an intolerable level. Ignoring it won't make it go away. If anything it just enables it more, since it seems to draw every unsavory element, like misogynists, racists, neocons and paleocons to LS.

 

The sad part is that members like norajane have almost ceased to post on LS. What a loss.

[Touche]

I'm shocked that anyone would let those pansy, whiny babies run them off. They're just annoying background noise to me. Who really cares what they think? Well maybe other annoying, whiny babies. Otherwise, who gives a fruck? Most can't sustain a relationship with a normal woman to save their lives. They're actually sad and should be pitied.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...the reason they start all these threads is because it's the only way they get any female attention at all.

[sb129]

After about the 4000th time that women have been bashed on this site, it gets to an intolerable level. Ignoring it won't make it go away. If anything it just enables it more, since it seems to draw every unsavory element, like misogynists, racists, neocons and paleocons to LS.

 

The sad part is that members like norajane have almost ceased to post on LS. What a loss.

 

I am sad that NJ doesn't post here as much.

 

Its tough- I try NOT to react to the controversial threads but sometimes they are sooo preposterous its hard not to, but when you do, you are therefore enabling them and encouraging them to continue.

[sb129]

And what Touche said about that being the only kind of female attention they get- I think thats true in many cases.

[Cherished]

An intelligent woman would not marry you, however.

 

I've looked a little to try and find the raw number, closest I have gotten was that for men aged 20 vs 50, there was a spread of 3 IQ points. The fact that offspring tend to trend toward average is gonna cost me a lot more from a statistical standpoint. If the trend was linear, I'm looking at 2 IQ points penalty IF I opt to leave the cryo-warriors out of the fray.

 

The IQ of my wife will probably have a lot more influence than that - I guess I better marry one of those big-brained Asian honeys.

[Trialbyfire]

I am sad that NJ doesn't post here as much.

 

Its tough- I try NOT to react to the controversial threads but sometimes they are sooo preposterous its hard not to, but when you do, you are therefore enabling them and encouraging them to continue.

I would normally agree with you on this but what's happening on LS is many-fold. They've brought their idiot friends, who then enable them and if you look around at some female members, they're also enabling them, not in conflict but in agreement. What this does is to self-fuel the problem, which causes more idiots to find LS via through google.

[mr.dream merchant]

There alot of gender bashing from both sides. Threads like these only provoke it.

[sb129]

I would normally agree with you on this but what's happening on LS is many-fold. They've brought their idiot friends, who then enable them and if you look around at some female members, they're also enabling them, not in conflict but in agreement. What this does is to self-fuel the problem, which causes more idiots to find LS via through google.

 

So whats the solution? Do we continue to counter attack with our superior wit and intelligence, do we have all these idiots on ignore, or do we go elsewhere like NJ did?

[Touche]

So what though? Who cares? Only a minority agree with them. The rest just laugh at them..men AND women.

 

It's like the KuKluxKlan...they're still around. They have their meetings but they're mostly ignored. They're not a threat and they're not taken seriously. I remember once they came to our old city for some march or something but hardly anyone showed up. The ones who did just laughed at them and mocked them.

 

I think the less attention they're given the better. But yes, I've even jumped in a time or two but I don't get all upset about it or anything. I don't expect I'll change their backward views anymore than they change mine.

 

I do actually agree with them sometimes. No one is always ALL wrong you know? They make some good points but it's lost among all the crap nonsense they spew so hardly anyone takes them seriously.

 

They need a PR person! Or a life.

[sb129]

There alot of gender bashing from both sides. Threads like these only provoke it.

 

I find to be harsher when directed at women. You only need to take a look at the currently active threads to notice that.

[Trimmer]

Trimmer, you've now reacted to two reactionary threads, where there's been no reaction to the 100 anti-women threads.

Flattered that you're keeping track of me.

 

You know what it is.... And this may seem backward to you, but all "those" threads are started and fed by dorks that I care nothing about, and who are just trolling. The ones that I respond to, when I do, are usually by people who I know at least a little on here - even JS - whose points I can at least empathize with and see a little bit, even if I don't fully agree. For example, in this thread, if the OP had quoted the article and made the simple and intelligent point that this is a counterargument to the ridiculous stance that older women are somehow worth less, I probably would have nodded and gone right by. I didn't even care about the poke at men, but it was the comment about God laughing at men, at the expense of children that inclined me to participate. This had nothing to do with my feelings about "all men this," and "all women that" arguments.

 

I normally have a lot of respect for your opinions but this time, I think you need to review your bias.

I think my posts speak for themselves as far as my philosophies about men women, spouses, ex-spouses, children, and families. I am at peace with that.

 

If you are keeping score and implying that my decision not to engage in defending against ridiculous generalization threads started by dorks - or exercising a choice over those which I do engage in - somehow reflects a bias that overrides my history of posting in real situations to real individuals, well, your loss. I am at peace with that, too.

 

I normally disagree with JS's perspectives, but in this, I can easily understand her reactionary thread. After about the 4000th time that women have been bashed on this site, it gets to an intolerable level. Ignoring it won't make it go away. If anything it just enables it more, since it seems to draw every unsavory element, like misogynists, racists, neocons and paleocons to LS.

You don't suppose it's exactly that outraged reaction that feeds their interest? Why in the world do you think sosuave targeted LS? It was specifically because of the disruptive reaction they wanted to try to foment, and until they were banned and cleaned out by the mods, they got exactly what they came for. It was probably - from their perspective - a thoroughly successful operation, specifically because they weren't ignored, and managed to create a frenzy like blowing on an anthill (try it!) That's exactly the same deprived need that feeds the "numerous" threads you jump into.

 

I understand what you're saying about defending what is right, but don't you suppose that these morons, if ignored, would just end up talking in circles to themselves until the wee hours of the morning, until they have to get dressed to go to their jobs changing oil and emptying your trashcan at your high-powered job in the financial industry?

 

I'm shocked that anyone would let those pansy, whiny babies run them off. They're just annoying background noise to me. Who really cares what they think? Well maybe other annoying, whiny babies. Otherwise, who gives a fruck? Most can't sustain a relationship with a normal woman to save their lives. They're actually sad and should be pitied.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...the reason they start all these threads is because it's the only way they get any female attention at all.

Its tough- I try NOT to react to the controversial threads but sometimes they are sooo preposterous its hard not to, but when you do, you are therefore enabling them and encouraging them to continue.

Background noise, enabling them.... I agree. But if I had said those, as a man, would it make me too afraid of being labeled a "Mangina" to take a stand?

[Trialbyfire]

So whats the solution? Do we continue to counter attack with our superior wit and intelligence, do we have all these idiots on ignore, or do we go elsewhere like NJ did?

Good question and something I continue to contemplate. If everyone ignored them 100% of the time, they would probably go away. The only problem is that this isn't going to happen, reliant on mood from individual members.

 

I honestly don't care if members follow these idiots to their own respective sites. The ones that do, will already have leaned their dysfunctional ways and are probably happier with their fellow dysfunctionals. I just wish they would keep their garbage off of LS.

[mr.dream merchant]

I find to be harsher when directed at women. You only need to take a look at the currently active threads to notice that.

 

The females of LS tend to do their male bashing within posts though, so looking at the current threads is only a certain element of it.

[Touche]

Flattered that you're keeping track of me.

 

You know what it is.... And this may seem backward to you, but all "those" threads are started and fed by dorks that I care nothing about, and who are just trolling. The ones that I respond to, when I do, are usually by people who I know at least a little on here - even JS - whose points I can at least empathize with and see a little bit, even if I don't fully agree. For example, in this thread, if the OP had quoted the article and made the simple and intelligent point that this is a counterargument to the ridiculous stance that older women are somehow worth less, I probably would have nodded and gone right by. I didn't even care about the poke at men, but it was the comment about God laughing at men, at the expense of children that inclined me to participate. This had nothing to do with my feelings about "all men this," and "all women that" arguments.

 

 

I think my posts speak for themselves as far as my philosophies about men women, spouses, ex-spouses, children, and families. I am at peace with that.

 

If you are keeping score and implying that my decision not to engage in defending against ridiculous generalization threads started by dorks - or exercising a choice over those which I do engage in - somehow reflects a bias that overrides my history of posting in real situations to real individuals, well, your loss. I am at peace with that, too.

 

 

You don't suppose it's exactly that outraged reaction that feeds their interest? Why in the world do you think sosuave targeted LS? It was specifically because of the disruptive reaction they wanted to try to foment, and until they were banned and cleaned out by the mods, they got exactly what they came for. It was probably - from their perspective - a thoroughly successful operation, specifically because they weren't ignored, and managed to create a frenzy like blowing on an anthill (try it!) That's exactly the same deprived need that feeds the "numerous" threads you jump into.

 

I understand what you're saying about defending what is right, but don't you suppose that these morons, if ignored, would just end up talking in circles to themselves until the wee hours of the morning, until they have to get dressed to go to their jobs changing oil and emptying your trashcan at your high-powered job in the financial industry?

 

 

 

Background noise, enabling them.... I agree. But if I had said those, as a man, would it make me too afraid of being labeled a "Mangina" to take a stand?

 

I don't know...would it? (Not sure I understood what you meant there.) Would you really care what some of them thought?

[Trialbyfire]

Flattered that you're keeping track of me.

It's easy to keep track since these are the only two divisionary threads you've participated in. It actually surprised me to see you in them, since you normally don't get involved.

 

You know what it is.... And this may seem backward to you, but all "those" threads are started and fed by dorks that I care nothing about, and who are just trolling. The ones that I respond to, when I do, are usually by people who I know at least a little on here - even JS - whose points I can at least empathize with and see a little bit, even if I don't fully agree. For example, in this thread, if the OP had quoted the article and made the simple and intelligent point that this is a counterargument to the ridiculous stance that older women are somehow worth less, I probably would have nodded and gone right by. I didn't even care about the poke at men, but it was the comment about God laughing at men, at the expense of children that inclined me to participate. This had nothing to do with my feelings about "all men this," and "all women that" arguments.

Okay, point taken. Just remember, I'm now keeping track of you!

 

You don't suppose it's exactly that outraged reaction that feeds their interest? Why in the world do you think sosuave targeted LS? It was specifically because of the disruptive reaction they wanted to try to foment, and until they were banned and cleaned out by the mods, they got exactly what they came for. It was probably - from their perspective - a thoroughly successful operation, specifically because they weren't ignored, and managed to create a frenzy like blowing on an anthill (try it!) That's exactly the same deprived need that feeds the "numerous" threads you jump into.

 

I understand what you're saying about defending what is right, but don't you suppose that these morons, if ignored, would just end up talking in circles to themselves until the wee hours of the morning, until they have to get dressed to go to their jobs changing oil and emptying your trashcan at your high-powered job in the financial industry?

There were many reasons why they came to LS:

• It got boring at the sausagefest.
  
• They were looking for recruits.
  
• They were looking to enlighten...thus save...the men on LS.
  

[Trimmer]

Okay, point taken. Just remember, I'm now keeping track of you!

Fair enough. Maybe you'll autograph the score sheet for me when it's all over!

 

 

The other thing I thought of (see, I really am thinking about your points here...) is that I tend to get much more involved in threads where it's a person - an individual - with an issue, than a thread that generalizes about a large group (usually, around here, a gender.) I only have so much energy to portion out, and I just find discussions of things going on in the lives of (supposedly) real individuals to be much more compelling than the blanket philosophical discussion threads, whether intelligent or moronic...

[Trialbyfire]

Fair enough. Maybe you'll autograph the score sheet for me when it's all over!

 

The other thing I thought of (see, I really am thinking about your points here...) is that I tend to get much more involved in threads where it's a person - an individual - with an issue, than a thread that generalizes about a large group (usually, around here, a gender.) I only have so much energy to portion out, and I just find discussions of things going on in the lives of (supposedly) real individuals to be much more compelling than the blanket philosophical discussion threads, whether intelligent or moronic...

Imagine what the comments would be!

 

Understood.

[MN randomguy]

Of course men loose free radicals and younger fathers have healthier babies than old men.

 

The reason the "How to be a Player" websites exist is because guys learn the fact that nice guys really do finish last.

 

If you don't want to be played,

 

A. Treat decent guys with the utmost of respect. Replace the term "nice" with "superior" in your vocabulary. Remember that they are sexually superior. If you feel like exploring your sexuality, being young, free love, blah, blah, blah remember that one day you won't be so young. Then what?

 

B. If you get played, make his life hell. Don't misdirect your hostility to the next guy.

 

C. If there's a "Oh, he's such a nice guy but I'm just not into him." Abandon your sisterhood. Do not try to dump your least desirable friend on him. If you're going to be "Just friends" with him that means wing womaning, and brutally honestly helping him find the most desirable (in his eyes not yours) mate possible.

 

These tips will make you unpopular. You have a choice, do you want to be popular or do you want to be in a healthy relationship with a quality man. Time to set priorities.

 

If you can't handle this you can try to compromise on everything and wake-up old and alone someday.

[boxing123]

I see this a lot... Older single women rooting for their friends to grow old and single as well.

[Stockalone]

I would normally agree with you on this but what's happening on LS is many-fold. They've brought their idiot friends, who then enable them and if you look around at some female members, they're also enabling them, not in conflict but in agreement. What this does is to self-fuel the problem, which causes more idiots to find LS via through google.

 

I can see your point. I think that one of the problems is that with enough abstract generalization, there is a grain of truth that I will agree with, mixed in there with all the over the top generalizations.

 

However, even acknowleding some aspects of the completely crazy ideas they are eventually revealing as the threads go on, is giving them reason to claim that everything they talk about is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

I have been guilty of that before. I am thinking of the "owning a woman" thread. I posted there and said that in a way, I do agree with the notion of "owning" your SO, but then the next time I looked, "owning" was taken as far as proclaiming the vast advantages that women would benefit from under taliban rule.

 

That certainly isn't anywhere close to what I had in mind when I agreed with "owning" your SO. At that point, however, the best thing to do from my POV, was to ignore the whacko brigade under General Burqa. They will interpret things the way they want anyway. It's not like rational arguments will make them change their view or approach.

 

But, if the women on LS feel deserted, feeling left alone to argue with those instigators without at least some of the LS men having their back, I can see why they feel that way.

 

But I don't think that is accurate. Most of the men, like Trimmer said, are probably simply shaking their heads at the nonsense they read and ignore it.

 

Others, like myself, need to do a better job of recognizing when it's the whacko brigade at work, and when it's a normal poster that is just venting because of a recent disappointment and thus fails to address a certain concrete incident, and instead includes all women in his rant.