Advice to young men from an old man

[Courtesy Flush]

From Best of Craigslist. Keep the final comment in mind.


http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/279126743.html

[Taverner]

1. I liked it - a little hard on women

But more or less spot on...

My guess is he got screwed in a nasty divorce. Having known guys who have been there before, his anger is understandable.

He should have added this one:

Never get married. Marriage is a legal contract which allows your ex to attempt to take everything you have. A marriage means higher taxes too. If you really love somebody, you don't need the state to bless your relationship.

[dropkickpa]

2. dislike women much?

Some good advice in there, but I slipped in the misogyny and sprained my woman bone.

[mark414]

3. good advice

even though "97% of it is worthless"

:thumbsup: to the author - it's good to know that someone's lookin out for me

[zanne]

4. Now you can join Young Misogynists of America.

The bitterness in that "advice" post is too obvious. This guy lost in court.

[mark414]

5. uh...

2. Don’t hate women. It’s a waste of time

and any way, i won't be joining that organization anytime soon

everything, with a grain of salt

[Taverner]

7. Exactly - the baby and bathwater should be in seperate compartments

[Kutjara]

8. How about...

"Don't hate women, because doing so is baseless, stupid and irrational"?

The statement you quote is pretty strong evidence that the author has a misogynist agenda. His clear implication is that the reason we shouldn't hate women is because it wastes time, not because it's a pitiful activity. If someone could demonstrate a less temporally profligate way of hating women, the author would be all over it.

[datasuspect]

9. how do you deduce a temporal inference from "baseless, stupid, and irrational"?

put down the agenda, step away from the identity politics.

[Kutjara]

12. Er...perhaps you might care to reread?

Two separate statements, two separate meanings.

[datasuspect]

16. i was reading your quote

perhaps you should strive to make yourself clear and at least cite the source of your quote.

[Kutjara]

19. I was rephrasing the listmakers point in what would have been...

...more useful language. "Don't hate women, not because it's a waste of time (whatever the hell that means), but because there is no reason to do so."

[datasuspect]

20. eh, it's a craigslist posting

big deal.

there's bigger fish to fry out there.

[Kutjara]

23. Nice copout.

So go and fry them. In this thread, we're talking about what the OP posted.

[datasuspect]

25. i know who i am

i stopped tilting at windmills ages ago.

[Kutjara]

26. Good for you. n/t

[mark414]

10. christ, it's a post on craigslist

and he's only one man - lots of it is good, some of it's worthless; i'm not a woman hater so don't give me a fucking lecture

grain of salt...grain of salt...

and i agree with you that hating women is baseless, stupid and irrational. hating any large collective entity is baseless, stupid and irrational (exceptions made for Nazis and the Bush White House...and maybe the people behind American Idol too). i dispense my hate purely on a case by case basis.

[Taverner]

11. Looks like someone didn't take a class in critical thinking

Critical thinking gives you the salt shaker you need - otherwise everything is divided up into "good" and "evil."

[Kutjara]

15. I was expressing an opinion not giving you a "fucking lecture."

So it's on craigslist. So what? It was posted here, presumably in order to garner comment. I commented. Your problem with that is...?

Yes, he's one man. So what? People who express opinions are generally individuals. They are all "one man" or "one woman." Is there some threshold number of opinion holders that needs to be exceeded before a response can be made?

Very little of the author's advice is good. Well over 97% is worthless (unless, of course, you buy into the "poor men" school of self pity). If you want me to walk you through why, I'll do it, but I wouldn't want to be guilty of giving a "fucking lecture."

Sometimes you have to use so much salt that the dish becomes toxic. Such is the case here.

[Kutjara]

6. Rehashed "Iron John" bullshit.

Neo-misogyny and Victorian values dressed up as wisdom. I particularly loved #22. After essentially characterizing women as a crowd of manipulative bitches, he advise that we "have and nurture friendships with women." Why, I wonder? Presumably so we can meet their hot friends.

[NashVegas]

13. Maybe a Bit Confused

17. Don’t speak ill of your wife/girlfriend. Back her up against the world, even if she’s wrong. She should know that you have her back. When she needs your help, give it. She should know that you’ll take her part.

18. Don’t cheat on your wife/girlfriend. If you must cheat, don’t humiliate her. Don’t risk having your transgressions come back to her or her friends. Don’t do it where you live. Don’t do it with people in your social circle. Don’t shit in your own back yard.

19. If your girlfriend doesn’t make you feel good about yourself and bring joy to your life, fire her. That’s what girlfriends are for.

20. Don’t bother with “emotional affairs.” They are just a vehicle for women to flirt and have someone make them feel good about themselves. That’s the part of a relationship they want. For you it is a lot of work and investment in time. If they are having an emotional affair with you, they’re probably fucking someone else.

21. Becoming a woman’s friend and confidant is not going to get you into an intimate relationship. If you haven’t gotten the girl within a reasonably short period of time, chances are you won’t ever get her. She’ll end up confiding to you about the sexual adventures she’s having with someone else.

22. Have and nurture friendships with women.

21 & 22 kind of contrast, but overall, I don't have too much of a problem with his comments.


About Iron John, I have to wonder: what percentage of those who criticized it for misogyny ever actually read it?

[Taverner]

14. Yes, Robert Bly's Iron John was anything but misogynistic

Now the "mens movement" that morphed into "christian warriors" is chock full of misogyny

But Iron John just said that men need to define themselves outside their parents.

[NashVegas]

17. I Agree On Both Points

I read it when all the brouhaha was going on - and was almost disappointed that it didn't seem anywhere near what it was depicted as.

[Kutjara]

18. Iron John misogyny is insidious.

Because the book couches its arguments in the language of "self-actualization," it disguises its essentially anti-human thesis in psychobabble and "feelgood" platitudes.

Let me take each of the points you list and recast them in less veiled language.

17. Stick up for the little woman, even when she's wrong. Women get really miffed if you don't defend them (because they're so weak and feeble and can't possibly solve their own problems), so, if you want to have any hope of getting pussy again in this lifetime, bite the bullet and act like a Neanderthal when the occasion demands. Chicks really dig a cave man.

18. If you want to cheat, don't get caught. Girlies think fidelity is important (bless 'em), so don't rain on their parade. Pretend that what they want is what you want.

19. It's all about you, so dump anything that stands in the way of the cosmic wonderfulness of you.

20. Relationships are all about pussy and nothing else, so don't get tangled up in that "emotion" crap. Feelings are a trap.

21. See #20.

22. Nurture friendships with those women who are too ugly to consider fucking.

Nowhere in this advice is anything about the reciprocal benefits that relationships confer. It's all about some he-man doing right by the "little lady." Frankly, the whole thing is pathetic crap.

[mark414]

24. re: #19

would you stay in a relationship with someone who didn't make you feel good about yourself or bring joy to your life? or should i stay with a girl who destroys my self-esteem and makes me feel miserable because doing otherwise makes me a misogynyst? and #17 doesn't seem like anything but a call to loyalty. would you not stand behind the one you loved 100%?

i am not trying to argue here, i am just saying that some of this stuff is practical advice for either sex - it is all about perspective and methinks you are reading too much into this...

that is all i will say about this, because arguing on the internet is like the special olympics....though i won't finish that cause that's a whole 'nother flamewar just waiting to happen

i'm sorry for being an awful terrible he-man woman hater, excuse me while i go down to the cigar room to shoot the shit with all the guys about all the sweet ass we nailed this weekend while our girlfriends (humanoid pleasure flesh-bots) were out of town

[Kutjara]

28. The problem is that it's all completely one-directional.

The advice precipitates the illusion that man is the "giver" and woman the "taker." Point #19 is a good example of this. Two people in a relationship should want to make each other feel good about themselves. The woman needs something too. Maybe the reason the man doesn't feel his self-esteem (an overrated concept if ever there was one) isn't being stroked is because he's done nothing to deserve the stroking.

Regarding #17, standing by your woman is great, but not if you are doing it simply because "it's what guys do for their women." My problem with most of this advice (including the get in a fight" BS) is that it bears no relationship to the reality of human interaction. It's like some weak-minded attempt at Kipling or Hemingway.

[hfojvt]

32. seems to me like #17 made the guy a giver and #19 made him a taker

The old guy did not use the phrase 'self-esteem'. Nor did he mention a motivation for #17 and I am not sure why that matters.

'the reality of human interaction' I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, but it does seem individualistic, all about 'I' and without any 'we'. "Everybody else worries about themselves." That seems to cynically undermine the notion of a 'team'. Then again, alot of people pushing the notion of team are the owners and managers who worry more about themselves than they do about the team.

[NashVegas]

27. Oh My

it disguises its essentially anti-human thesis in psychobabble and "feelgood" platitudes.

I disagree. There's nothing anti-human about letting a guy be a guy and do all the stupid things that come with it (exceptions for anything that involves senseless violence). If a guy wants to feel all masterful at the barbeque grill, that's not going to victimize me in any way. If my boyfriend wants to change my car oil because it makes him feel helpful, it's not going to weaken me in any way.

On your points:

17. If my partner wants me to have his back, he'd damn well better have mine.

18. You missed the "don't cheat" part of the advice.

19. Why should anyone remain in a relationship (where they have no other responsibilities, such as children) with someone who treats them like dirt? Talk about anti-human ...

20. Most close male-female relationships, excepting familial ones, are about attraction. There's no law that says one must act on the attraction, but to claim it's not there at all is to engage in denial. For many (male and female both), making friends among the "conveniently unavailable" is the easiest thing in the world to do. Taking the risks involved in creating and nurturing an intimate relationship, that's scary.

21. See #20 :D

22. If the shoe fits ...

[Kutjara]

29. Look at the wording the guy uses.

There's nothing reciprocal about it. It's all "how to play the game for your benefit." Regarding your points:

17. Nothing is said about you (the woman) having the man's back. He's doing it for you (even when you're wrong - what a little trooper he is). Seems he doesn't expect you to have his back, or that your support irrelevant. Certainly too irrelavant to mention.

18. If he'd stopped at "don't cheat" and then explained why it's a bad idea (love, trust, respect), that would have been one thing. But he then goes on to give some chickenshit rules for covering up infidelity that are essentially designed to give everyone a smooth ride in public. Screw how the cheated-on woman feels, as long as everything looks fine from the outside. Again, this is more about preserving the man's self image as a "stand-up guy" than any respect for the woman.

19. Ego stroking is a two-way street. If she isn't doing it for you, maybe you aren't doing it for her. Maybe that's something that could be addressed before moving onto the latest model.

20. True, but this guy is saying that women are essentially using the "lure" of sex to "get what they want" (which, presumably, isn't sex). This both treats women in a stereotypical way (women want this, women don't want that), but also perpetuates the myth that women are less interested in sex than men It also perpetuates the myth that men are less interested in emotional relationships than women. Both myths are extremely unhelpful.

[mark414]

30. it is written by a man with the express purpose of being for and read by other men

thus the one-sidedness - i don't go and read the SCUM manifesto and take issue with its 'one-sidedness' because i know it's not meant for me.

okay, this was my real last post.

[Kutjara]

31. Yes it was, and he clearly believes that men are...

...one dimensional creatures with one (or possibly two) things on their minds. His advice is insulting to both women and men.

[hfojvt]

33. In regards to #19

It is a two way street, but which comes first? My brother describes his relationship as "I am an a$$hole and she's a beach. Sometimes I am an a$$hole because she's a beach and sometimes she's a beach because I am an a$$hole." So I try to tell him to stop being an a$$hole, but there is momentum and patterns. It's hard not to be an a$$hole if somebody is being a beach, and it's hard not to be a beach if somebody is being an a$$hole. At some point, after you've tried your best, it probably is better to just call the whole thing off, because you have sand in the gears of your relationship.

I do not read #20 that way. #20 and #21 are saying this "Becoming a woman’s friend and confidant is not going to get you into an intimate relationship." #20 was not about emotional relationships it was about emotional 'affairs'.

[NashVegas]

35. While It May Be Intended As a 'For Your Benefit'

Can you acknowledge that what is good for one person is also often good for another, as well?

17. "Don’t speak ill of your wife/girlfriend."

As posted elsewhere on the thread, the audience intended is about the 'he'; however, #19 could easily represent that.

Situation 1: You're at a bar with 4 men and one of them is trashing your girlfriend. Are you going to keep your mouth shut? Why? Why not?

Situation 2: If you are the one trashing your partner, I'd assume you were signaling (consciously or not) your availability for an affair. Check out this study on Mate Poaching. It made headlines a couple of years ago :

http://www.bradley.edu/academics/las/psy/pdfs/schmitt_shackelford-pspb-2003.pdf

18. It's an age old rule of civility from times when people accepted the reality of marriage with affairs. Don't humiliate your spouse in society.

19. See 17.

20. People are confused, all kinds of confused, when it comes to relationships - witness the book sales numbers. I think you're reading into his words and seeing hostility, where I see acceptance of how things work.

Can we agree that a woman who regularly enjoys the company of a man, knows he is attracted to her, and has no intention of sleeping with him, may not be doing anyone any favors - including herself - and that it may not be because she is intentionally leading him on for any knowingly selfish purpose? If so, can we agree that there's nothing wrong with walking away from such a relationship?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. I can sort of see where these are coming from:

17. Don’t speak ill of your wife/girlfriend. Back her up against the world, even if she’s wrong. She should know that you have her back. When she needs your help, give it. She should know that you’ll take her part.
Good advice for men or women. Don't bad-mouth your s.o. to the world.

18. Don’t cheat on your wife/girlfriend. If you must cheat, don’t humiliate her. Don’t risk having your transgressions come back to her or her friends. Don’t do it where you live. Don’t do it with people in your social circle. Don’t shit in your own back yard.
Good advice for men or women. Don't humiliate your s.o.

19. If your girlfriend doesn’t make you feel good about yourself and bring joy to your life, fire her. That’s what girlfriends are for.
Good advice for men or women. If your lover makes you feel inadequate and is high-maintenance, break up.

20. Don’t bother with “emotional affairs.” They are just a vehicle for women to flirt and have someone make them feel good about themselves. That’s the part of a relationship they want. For you it is a lot of work and investment in time. If they are having an emotional affair with you, they’re probably fucking someone else.
I'm not sure what he means by an "emotional affair." I think he's actually talking about a variant of #21.
21. Becoming a woman’s friend and confidant is not going to get you into an intimate relationship. If you haven’t gotten the girl within a reasonably short period of time, chances are you won’t ever get her. She’ll end up confiding to you about the sexual adventures she’s having with someone else.
Now this actually ties in with the complaints that come up in the Lounge about once a month: "I listened patiently to this woman about what a jerk her abusive boyfriend was, and then she didn't fall in love with me!" It's good advice for either men or women. Playing "shrink" to a man or woman who is hurting from a bad relationship is highly unlikely to put you in line to be their next s.o.
22. Have and nurture friendships with women.
It's what I tell all those young guys who whine around in the Lounge about how shy and lonely they are. They see women as objects that they WANT, not as full human beings who have their own needs and wants.

[Schema Thing]

34. good post!

[AngryAmish]

21. You hit the nail on the head