Have men become spineless in approaching women?

[Febreze]

Sexual harrassment from crazy women have hurt a lot of men & I guess it makes some of them afraid of approaching but what about those guys that only sit there & stare but never make a move?

 

I was hit on by a police officer on my way to work this morning inside of a coffee shop. I dont know what to make of it. I never dated a cop! Could I get into trouble for this?

[ThaWholigan]

Sexual harrassment from crazy women have hurt a lot of men & I guess it makes some of them afraid of approaching but what about those guys that only sit there & stare but never make a move?

 

I was hit on by a police officer on my way to work this morning inside of a coffee shop. I dont know what to make of it. I never dated a cop! Could I get into trouble for this?

 

I used to do that. It's just fear of rejection and humiliation in front of people. Not knowing how to approach correctly, words getting mixed up, it gets all crazy in your head.

[Shaun-Dro]

I used to do that. It's just fear of rejection and humiliation in front of people. Not knowing how to approach correctly, words getting mixed up, it gets all crazy in your head.

 

The OP said nothing about being afraid of rejection. She's just throwing out subtle signs of interest and not getting it tossed back. The cop in the coffee shop hitting on the OP is definitely risky. Those guys can be more than a handful if you ever date them.

[Oxy Moronovich]

These guys are not spineless at all. The more you blame them the longer this is going to continue.

 

You are not giving off the right signals. You have to be MORE obvious in this kind of one chance situation. You don't have to go so far as to ask the guy out... although that does work... just be VERY clear that you find him attractive.

Yes, did you read the original post. She only had a few incidents with men and she assumed all men are spineless. How is she so sure the dudes at the NYE party were actually interested in her? Aren't people usually drunk at a NYE party?

 

How about the guy at the supermarket? She made it seem like he was nervous to talk to her. He probably wasn't interested in her.

 

Febreze made it seem like all these men were interested in her when it's possible they were not. I'm thinking because she hasn't been getting any attention from men, she's bitter. So she made this thread to bash men. Usually when a person keeps saying stuff like, "Now I don't want to bash anyone", then that means they are trying hard to do exactly that.

[phineas]

The OP said nothing about being afraid of rejection. She's just throwing out subtle signs of interest and not getting it tossed back. The cop in the coffee shop hitting on the OP is definitely risky. Those guys can be more than a handful if you ever date them.

 

Some of the biggest poon hounds in my little city are cops.

Their like mini rockstars.

 

I've seen cops spending the day at the corner store just talking to the hot clerk trying to get in her pants when they should be on patrol.

 

A lot of the cops I used to know from the gym all had at least 2 GF's plus the chicks they picked up at the bar's for ONS.

 

It's unreal how much action those guys got.

[Wolf18]

Some of the biggest poon hounds in my little city are cops.

Their like mini rockstars.

 

I've seen cops spending the day at the corner store just talking to the hot clerk trying to get in her pants when they should be on patrol.

 

A lot of the cops I used to know from the gym all had at least 2 GF's plus the chicks they picked up at the bar's for ONS.

 

It's unreal how much action those guys got.

 

 

You think cops get lucky, you ought to see firefighters. My cousins is in the FDNY and I've been to his fire house in a little suburban neighborhood, these heroes literally get paid to work out and play poker. It actually kind of pisses me off, to the point where I want to invite some serial arsonists from the Bronx to ruin their damn hold-em tournaments.

 

I wouldn't date a cop because when you break up you'll be seeing him every time you need something from 7-11

[Dust]

You think cops get lucky, you ought to see firefighters. My cousins is in the FDNY and I've been to his fire house in a little suburban neighborhood, these heroes literally get paid to work out and play poker. It actually kind of pisses me off, to the point where I want to invite some serial arsonists from the Bronx to ruin their damn hold-em tournaments.

 

I wouldn't date a cop because when you break up you'll be seeing him every time you need something from 7-11

 

Why don't you become a fireman then!

[dasein]

In my area, cops are exactly like crooks, just on the other side of the law. So no, absolutely wouldn't date one, nor do I befriend them or want that element of people in my life.

[Feelsgoodman]

I'm not bashing men or anything so please hear me out, thank u! Just this past Saturday night I was at a NYE party with friends & really hooked my self up, looking my best with the right eyeliner, nice-fitting dress with the nicest form-fitting top. I was even guilty of leaving a few buttons open by the chest area

 

But all the men at the party did was look & look away. And whenever I'd get close to one of them, let's say to pass them or something, they would literally freak out like spill their drink or completely avoid eye contact with me & its starting to get depressing

I can see why you are confused, but I wouldn't have talked to you either. Not because I'm spineless, but because experience has taught me that women who dress and act this way are usually just attention whores. I'm not going to waste my time giving them validation.

 

My suggestion to you would be figure out a way to look good without showing off your tits. It just screams 'attention whore'.

[Wolf18]

In my area, cops are exactly like crooks, just on the other side of the law. So no, absolutely wouldn't date one, nor do I befriend them or want that element of people in my life.

 

 

Hahah, any young cop will tell you its the mafia in blue.

 

There are some good cops that are truly serving the people, but most of them are really just pigs who spend more time making law-abiding citizens life hell than they do fighting real criminals (because , you know, that's actually a challenge ).

 

If OP and the cute piggy get together and there's a nasty break up, you better believe he'll find a way to make her life hell. Who wouldn't if they were above the law?

 

Why don't you become a fireman then! [/Quote]

 

I actually took the FDNY test last year Lord knows when and if they'll ever call me, 30 thousand people took the test for about 150 open positions. And after that, they gave the test over and over.

[Dust]

 

 

I actually took the FDNY test last year Lord knows when and if they'll ever call me, 30 thousand people took the test for about 150 open positions. And after that, they gave the test over and over.

 

That's a lot better odds then winning the lottery! It's like a 1 in 200 shot. Not that bad...

[Cypress25]

Because if you aren't attracted to the Man approaching you make him feel like dirt for even approaching a lot of times[not you specifically but women in general] and crush his confidence even more..

 

Plus the few times a women seemed somewhat interested and showed what i thought were subtle signs of flirting turned out she wasn't interestd in me at all..

 

OK, so in the first scenario, you have women making it clear that they are not interested and they are not leading you on or giving you false hope. But you don't like that because they're being mean.

 

In the second scenario, you have women trying to be polite so as not to hurt your feelings. But you don't like that because it can be misinterpreted as flirting.

 

So what should women do when they are approached by a man they're not interested in? If they turn him down firmly, it crushes his confidence. If they turn him down politely, he thinks they're flirting.

 

Women are at least 75% to blame for this. Men cover the other quarter of the blame. We men remained the same through evolution, continuing to do what's expected of us. Women, on the other hand, try hardest to change men into something they're not just to fit both her comfort zone and her own ridiculous fantasies.

 

 

I really don't think men remained the same through evolution. No one did. We're not neanderthals anymore. Everyone is totally responsible for their own actions. You can't blame women for your behavior.

 

 

If it weren't for the stupid, unsuccessful feminist movement, we'd all be in good, healthy relationships, and only a select few would be outcasts with the inability to form anything meaningful beyond occasional gripes.

 

Actually the feminist movement was very successful. Women have the right to vote, the right to own property, and the right to equality in the workplace (theoretically) because of the feminist movement. That's what they were fighting for. "Good, healthy relationships" before the feminist movement were only beneficial to men. The husband could have a career and a life, whereas the wife was forced to be a homemaker (a maid to her husband, really). That's what prompted the uprising. Women wanted to be more than "wife and mother." They wanted to do more than cook and clean and have babies. They didn't want to be financially dependent on their husbands. Obviously, women didn't think they were in good, healthy relationships when they were subservient to their husbands.

 

The real result? Men traded away the virtual guarantee of a perfectly good and loyal girl to marry that didn't require any tricks or filling an absurd laundry list of "standards" for the very miniscule chance of scoring with a very hot chick for a night. Women are indiscriminate about how much sex they have, but extremely hypergamous about who gets it.

 

Are you saying you want to go back to the days when a man would have to marry the woman if he wanted to have sex with her? And he would have to use a condom every time because the BC pill didn't exist yet? And he would be expected to have a wife and kids by the time he was 25, and he would have to support the family by himself because his wife would not be permitted to work? Is that what you want?

[dasein]

Actually the feminist movement was very successful.

 

Yes it was, in its expressly declared Marxist/Leninist social control agenda of undermining the family unit by encouraging gullible women into polarized, victimization politics, removing men from the family, and placing the state in the stead of men in the function of raising children... frighteningly successful. 70-80% of the people in prison are from single parent households... YAY FEMINISM!

 

Women have the right to vote, the right to own property, and the right to equality in the workplace (theoretically) because of the feminist movement.

 

But with the above feminism had nothing to do. Or rather tell us how -exactly- feminism resulted in these things... do include names and dates please. Feminism is about discrimination against men and manipulating the endlessly venal nature of women politically with the promise of "free goodies." The end.

 

"Good, healthy relationships" before the feminist movement were only beneficial to men.

 

You mean beneficial to men like the 20 million who gave their lives in WW1 to protect their wives and children from oppressive states? or perhaps the 40 million men who died in WW2 for the exact same reason? Beneficial like that? Interesting.

 

The husband could have a career and a life, whereas the wife was forced to be a homemaker (a maid to her husband, really).

 

You mean a career like climbing into a dark hole and breathing poisonous dust and fumes all day? or going to a plant where men lost limbs or got crushed outright (like my great g-daddy did) every day? or maybe commute 3 hours every day to go to a factory so loud it totally deafened one g-daddy at 65... don't feel too bad for him, he died at 67, two years after retirement from being plain ole "worn the f-ck out," so he only had to endure the deafness for the last 2 years of his life. He oppressed 5 of his seven children right into college degrees and oppressed my grandmother into outliving him by 25 years. The -nerve- of him.

 

Or maybe a career like my other grandfather who worked from 5AM to 5PM every day until he was 85 in a warehouse while my grandmother earned more than he did (prefeminism of course) in her work at home. No one was burning crosses in their yards because my grandmother worked. Most women they knew worked too. This was from 1925-on btw. They oppressed each other right into thicker steaks on the dinner table every night due to the two earner income.

 

Or what kinds of "fun, fashionable, fabulous" jobs -exactly- were you talking about that men had over women prefeminism? When feminism came to be in the 60s, most Americans still worked in either agriculture or factories. Where's that glamour for men again?

[phineas]

You think cops get lucky, you ought to see firefighters. My cousins is in the FDNY and I've been to his fire house in a little suburban neighborhood, these heroes literally get paid to work out and play poker. It actually kind of pisses me off, to the point where I want to invite some serial arsonists from the Bronx to ruin their damn hold-em tournaments.

 

I wouldn't date a cop because when you break up you'll be seeing him every time you need something from 7-11

 

My buddy is fireman he's the EMT. We do pick on him for all the lounging they do.

On the other hand the people they do have to run into burning buildings every so often & take smelly people to the hospital so I think it's trade-off.

 

what's really sad is not a lot of people from my little city are actually able to pass the tests for either fireman or officer because their just too fat & out of shape.

They'd probably take me just because I wouldn't have to tilt the steering column up to get into the squad car. LOL!

But, i'm not interested in taking a pay cut.

Edited January 7, 2012 by phineas

[Dust]

My buddy is fireman he's the EMT. We do pick on him for all the lounging they do.

On the other hand the people they do have to run into burning buildings every so often & take smelly people to the hospital so I think it's trade-off.

 

what's really sad is not a lot of people from my little city are actually able to pass the tests for either fireman or officer because their just too fat & out of shape.

They'd probably take me just because I wouldn't have to tilt the steering column up to get into the squad car. LOL!

But, i'm not interested in taking a pay cut.

 

I thought Fireman EMT's were always getting called out for people who needed oxygen?

 

Take the pay cut eh. I heard Fireman make pretty good money like 60k to sit around. You must be getting paid 6 figures to sit around eh!

[carhill]

OK, so in the first scenario, you have women making it clear that they are not interested and they are not leading you on or giving you false hope. But you don't like that because they're being mean.

 

Most common for me was "I don't feel that way about you" and "I don't find you attractive"

 

In the second scenario, you have women trying to be polite so as not to hurt your feelings. But you don't like that because it can be misinterpreted as flirting.

This happened far less but, when combined with 'distance', meaning non-engagement, I got the message pretty quick.

 

So what should women do when they are approached by a man they're not interested in? If they turn him down firmly, it crushes his confidence. If they turn him down politely, he thinks they're flirting.

 

IMO, based on recollection, the seemingly 'harsh' rejections deteriorated my approach 'spine' far less than the ambiguous ones. Far worse and more deteriorating were the nebulous ones, which LS males tend to call 'emotional vampires'. My responsibility was failing to establish clearer boundaries of what ambiguity and nebulous behaviors I would or would not accept. I can actually recall former confidence in approaching markedly diminishing after a few such experiences.

 

So, perhaps contrary to some other men, I prefer the clear and unambiguous rejections. I got one of those the last time I dated a couple years ago and felt quite good about it. Clarity I like

[Cypress25]

Yes it was, in its expressly declared Marxist/Leninist social control agenda of undermining the family unit by encouraging gullible women into polarized, victimization politics, removing men from the family, and placing the state in the stead of men in the function of raising children... frighteningly successful. 70-80% of the people in prison are from single parent households... YAY FEMINISM!

 

I don't know what you're talking about. Feminism has nothing to do with single-parent households. Don't you think every mother wishes she had a partner to help her raise the kids? No woman wants to be a single mother. If a man chooses to abandon his family, it's not feminism that made him do it.

 

But with the above feminism had nothing to do. Or rather tell us how -exactly- feminism resulted in these things... do include names and dates please. Feminism is about discrimination against men and manipulating the endlessly venal nature of women politically with the promise of "free goodies." The end.

 

Good grief. How could you reduce feminism to that? OK, time for a history lesson. In the US, there were 3 waves of feminism. You can read about the first wave of feminism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism. Its primary focus was the suffrage movement, which resulted in women gaining the right to vote. You can read about the second wave of feminism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism. It was the Women's Lib movement, which focused on expanding women's rights in the workplace and reproductive rights, like access to birth control and abortion care. You can read about the third wave of feminism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism. This is when feminism expanded to include the rights of women of color, poor women, and gay and transgender women (as previous waves of feminism focused mainly on white, upper-middle class, heterosexual women).

 

Feel free to conduct more research on the topic. Educate yourself. Feminism has never been about discrimination against men. It has never been about casual sex or "free goodies." Feminists don't hate men. They just believe men and women should have the same rights.

 

You mean beneficial to men like the 20 million who gave their lives in WW1 to protect their wives and children from oppressive states? or perhaps the 40 million men who died in WW2 for the exact same reason? Beneficial like that? Interesting.

 

That has nothing to do with romantic relationships between men and women. There were plenty of single men who served in the army. I don't think soldiers joined the army because their wives made them do it.

 

Or what kinds of "fun, fashionable, fabulous" jobs -exactly- were you talking about that men had over women prefeminism? When feminism came to be in the 60s, most Americans still worked in either agriculture or factories. Where's that glamour for men again?

 

Feminism didn't start in the 1960's. That was the second wave of feminism. The movement started long before that. You're right, I wasn't thinking of men who worked in coal mines. But even for them, it wasn't women who put them there. They worked there either because they wanted to or because it was the only work available to them. They had options, women did not. Until the 60's, women were limited to secretarial or housekeeping jobs, if their husbands allowed them to work at all. It was the general assumption that a woman's place was in the home, as a maid.

[phineas]

I thought Fireman EMT's were always getting called out for people who needed oxygen?

 

Take the pay cut eh. I heard Fireman make pretty good money like 60k to sit around. You must be getting paid 6 figures to sit around eh!

 

They deal with gunshot wounds also.

 

60k after so many yrs.

They start around 30k in my city.

 

Unfortunately a voluntary pay-cut would mean i'd still be expected to pay child support based on my old salary.

 

And honestly I like the 9-5 thing. Though swing shift does sound kinda cool I don't think I could stand living with so many people 3 days in a row.

[dasein]

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

That's quite apparent.

 

There is and has only ever been one strand/wave of feminism. It was created by Marxists such as Betty Friedan in the 60s. "The Feminist Mystique" was not the product of a suburban housewife's ennui, but a carefully calculated propaganda piece written by a 30 year communist propagandist. 100% of the 60s feminists were Marxists with the clearly and very publicly stated goal of undermining all American social institutions, the family in particular (look it up on your wiki pages, these are well documented facts, not conspiracy theories). Marxism doesn't/didn't sell well to mass-middle America, so they created a fictitious "first wave" of feminism out of thin air full of a bunch of watered down noble sounding ripped off "samples" from the rule of law to keep those tuition checks and indoctrinees rolling into the elite universities that created feminism. Ironically, the "femindustry" is big business today, so what started out as an agglomeration of everything stinking and evil in Marxism/socialism has gone through a grisly transformation to everything stinking and evil in capitalism. The -worst- of both worlds if such can be imagined.

 

That's feminism.

 

Don't you think every mother wishes she had a partner to help her raise the kids?

 

No.

 

Single motherhood is a cottage industry over much of the country. Get pregnant>>> get check from the government. No man involved in that equation after the semen is obtained other than to transfer wealth from men to women as part of a cultural reproductive and judicial structure highly discriminatory against men.

 

Educate yourself.

 

I'm astoundingly well educated.

 

Feminists don't hate men. They just believe men and women should have the same rights.

 

This is called the "rule of law." It's been around for quite some time despite imperfect implementation. Did you know that non property owning men couldn't vote until just before women got the vote? Of course you didn't. Did you know that when voting rights were first introduced that the literacy rate was only 10% effectively making the right to vote of marginal worth for both genders? Of course you didn't.

 

That has nothing to do with romantic relationships between men and women. There were plenty of single men who served in the army. I don't think soldiers joined the army because their wives made them do it.

 

You said before feminism "relationships were only beneficial to men." So having your relationship partner willing to lay down their lives to protect you is not a benefit? Do tell. The rest of the quote above stands without much further comment, and I hope you take the time to express it to some veterans one day. Can't wait to hear their reaction.

 

Feminism didn't start in the 1960's. That was the second wave of feminism. The movement started long before that.

 

Yes it started in the 60s, and no there was no "movement" before that. What there was was a bunch of crafty 60s commies who knit together a "first wave" out of completely disparate elements to obtain some faux air of legitimacy.

 

They worked there either because they wanted to or because it was the only work available to them. They had options, women did not. Until the 60's, women were limited to secretarial or housekeeping jobs, if their husbands allowed them to work at all. It was the general assumption that a woman's place was in the home, as a maid.

 

Men worked so that their beloved wives and families would not starve. Feminism didn't give women any options they didn't already have. Both my grandmothers had college degrees (neither of my grandfathers did) and one worked... because she wanted to. The other stayed home and raised a large family... because she wanted to. My grandfathers worked dangerous, unfulfilling, backbreaking jobs for decades so that my grandmothers could do what they wanted in the safety of the home. THAT is the true state of prefeminist family life, and despite that you have drunk the koolaid, one day you may wake up and realize that feminism only took from everyone and gave nothing to anyone.

[PlumPrincess]

Yes it started in the 60s, and no there was no "movement" before that. What there was was a bunch of crafty 60s commies who knit together a "first wave" out of completely disparate elements to obtain some faux air of legitimacy.

What about the suffragettes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette

 

In most Americans films/tv series that are happening in the 60ies and tell about family life (Revolutionary road, the tv series Mad Men, etc), the guy works in the office and the wife is a stay-at-home-mom. Not much dangerous about his job.

[Woggle]

Feminism started out as a very positive thing. I can concede that women had very good reasons to petition for rights back in those days. The issue is that somewhere in the late 70s and 80s it devolved into the misandrist cult we have today. The movement has been hijacked.

 

Also single motherhood is constantly promoted by extreme feminists as some grand statement of independence and middle finger to the patriarchy.

[musemaj11]

Feminism is sexist. It teaches women to get without giving.

[musemaj11]

Haha. I likes you. You's funny.

 

I wouldn't say it's easy for certain guys to get women. But I definitely think every guy here who has never had a girlfriend could get one by the end of 2012 if he was more aggressive and assertive and broadened his standards somewhat (if applicable).

 

Notice I didn't say lowered standards...

As long as these guys remain virgins, they are never going to be good with women.

[irc333]

As long as these guys remain virgins, they are never going to be good with women.

 

And you base this assumption on what?

[dasein]

What about the suffragettes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette

 

What about them? They certainly weren't feminists, and their numbers and activities were greatly exaggerated by the 60s creators of feminism in retrospect. It's not hard to go back in history and create a "movement" by exaggeration, taking out of context and faulty correlations.

 

Did you know that the pioneer crusader against domestic violence in the UK is and always has been a very vocal antifeminist? Google "Erin Pizzey." Despite founding the first domestic violence shelters in the UK, Ms. Pizzey has had to spend much of her career under police protection due to death threats from feminists. They hate her. 100 years in the future, though, it would be quite easy to identify Ms. Pizzey as a "feminist" because of her pioneering work in feminist issues. Wouldn't be accurate or factual, just useful politically.

 

Taking a bunch of disparate, unrelated historical figures and trying to weave them into a movement is exactly what I'd do if, as a good propagandist, I wanted to hide my true ideological motives, and it is exactly what the Marxist creators of feminism did in the 60s.

 

In most Americans films/tv series that are happening in the 60ies and tell about family life (Revolutionary road, the tv series Mad Men, etc), the guy works in the office and the wife is a stay-at-home-mom. Not much dangerous about his job.

 

The reality at that time was that a vast majority of American men at the time worked in either farms or factories, not exactly glamorous tv fare. Just because 80% of TV programming focuses on the top 1% of wealth doesn't make it so IRL.

 

On a side note, "Mad Men" is one of the most ideologically slanted and historically inaccurate shows ever put on television. Office life in America is not in fact a playground for ass-grabbing white men who are busy "keeping the jews down," nor has it every been. Men you see, don't have the luxury of being women, many of whom can and do treat the corporate workplace as an extension of their own special little soap opera as opposed to a place to do any real work.