Western Women: a Dialog with Caveman
This is in response to Caveman’s “The Western Man is to Blame”. To start, I would like to state for the record that I agree with his basic premise; that the western man is to blame for the attitude of the western woman. There are some places where he correctly spots my hyperbole, but there are other points tagged as exaggerations which I contend that Caveman has wrong, examples to follow. However, the issue at hand should not be how we got to this sorry state of affairs, but rather what to do from where we are?
The original commentary was about dating western women. I read another reader’s submission, of which I can not remember the title (the memory is the second thing to go), that stated even western P4P was really out of the question once you have gone to SEA. In both cases the issue for this readership is that exposure to conditions in the east make relating to women in the west not worthwhile. One contention that I attempted to refute was that this was due to laziness on the part of us SEA mongers. I held that it was merely that once you know there were other options, you just can not be bothered to put up with western women’s attitudes. The pay off is no longer worth the trouble. Caveman’s (correct) argument is that the attitude of western women is the fault of western men. I believe that this is immaterial to the discussion.
The first point that Caveman had right, and one I was totally oblivious to, is that I was thinking that the goal of all this dating and pursuit of women is to end in marriage and family. It is so ingrained in my thinking that I did not consider alternative goals. I did my share of sport dating as a young man; maybe not as much as I would have liked, but enough to grow weary of it. Then I wanted to settle down, have a family and kids, and live the white picket fence lifestyle. I thought and still think that this is the point of a life well lived. What I got in my first marriage was an introduction to the marriage and divorce industry that strips men of their assets, dignity, and hopes for a family. If all you are interested in is a one night stand, than maybe the poor attitudes, and general low quality, of western women are of no consequence to you. If you are living the find them, feed them, f**k them, and forget them life, then little of what I say about the suitability of western women as partners may be of interest to you. I have retained some spark of the optimism about the institution of marriage that Caveman (perhaps wisely) has rejected. I found P4P in SEA to be very enjoyable, but not to my individual needs. It did open my eyes to better hunting grounds for what I did want. This is not about P4P.
A point that I feel Caveman missed the mark was his assertion that avoiding marriage is the solution to the imbalance of power in western sexual relationships, and that no woman can attach your assets if you do not marry her. In “Same Same but Different, by The GE Man, he states that in the UK you merely have to cohabitate for 6 months for the woman to have the legal right to rip off your assets. In the US it varies from state to state. I have been told that in New York City the woman need only stay overnight and move in furniture (a lamp will do) to establish cohabitation and presumptive rights to your assets. One case I know of first hand involved very similar laws in Louisiana as The GE Man quoted for the UK. A guy I worked with years ago on a consulting project had moved from Louisiana after breaking up with his cohabitation mate (no marriage) of just over 6 months. He was shocked to receive a summons from the divorce court for the parish (county) from which he had just departed. It took him a year, a lot of lawyer’s fees, and thousands of dollars in settlement costs to close out this unfortunate chapter in his life. Another case from the same consulting project was a guy had a girl move in with him for a little over a month. He got an offer for another project in a neighboring state, and told her to get ready to move. The next day she told him she would not be able to go, as her parole officer would not let her move across state lines. This was the first time he learned that she had been convicted of felony fraud, and was on parole from the state penitentiary. He threw her out. A few days later he came home to find the girl, her brother, and her father had a truck backed up to his door and were taking everything. He called the police. They showed up, but when they found out she had been a legal resident at that address (even for a month) they said there was nothing they could do. They would not get involved in a domestic dispute, and she could take what ever she wanted. He ended up having to put in barriers to prevent unauthorized vehicles from entering his driveway, and changing all the locks. She could still break in anytime she wished, and take what ever she wanted. The police offered no protection. And this was in a case where the man is an upstanding citizen versus a woman who is a convicted felon on parole.
The Caveman was partially correct in his response to my statement that women that I had known since we were teenagers had become totally unpleasant. He stated that men become unpleasant too, and few women would be interested in most of the old mongers found in Thailand. He was right in that we often do become less pleasant as we age. I must take the blame for where he went wrong. I apparently was not clear. These women had not become set in their ways and socially less concerned with the feelings of others. What I meant was they had become totally contemptuous of men, abrasive, unwilling to even hear any opinions other than their own, loud obnoxious and continuous in stating their opinions of men, and totally beyond the pale as a companion for any man (fairly intolerable even to spend a few minutes in their company). Caveman contends that their expectation of their ideal man coming to take care of them was not delusional because some guy would. This is not even close to true. These women will be alone for the rest of their lives, and pretty much that is the way they want it. The whole I want the ideal guy is just an excuse to put them selves on the dating sideline. Their sex drives are about zero. They have stripped one or more men of the bulk of their assets, and have raised their children subsidized by men made absent by divorce and the mother’s active efforts to separate father from child. They have got what they want from men, and have no real incentive in the marketplace to go to the trouble to get another. Another submission which I can not recall the title of quoted statistics about very few single women over 40 looking for, or being interested in, a relationship with a man. My experience with my sisters bears this out. They could not understand why I was getting married after 50. As far as they were concerned, that part of life should be over for me. They had no interest, and could not see why I had an interest, in the opposite sex. This bears on Caveman’s accurate observation that most of the complaints about western women come from older guys. I stated in my original post that dating didn’t really head south until you are dating women older than about 30. The younger guys have not yet been exposed to the horrible conditions they will face if they are forced into the after the sell by date dating pool, which is all that will be available to them after about 40, for most. If Caveman is in good shape, and is able to avoid this dating pool, then I salute him and wish him continued success. I don’t have much hope that this will continue indefinitely. He does have the advantage of apparently dating in the biker sub-culture; which has avoided the worst excesses of the dominant wimp man/feminazi culture. I hope this island of hope remains within the sea of the mainstream culture.
Caveman may have exposed a slight hyperbole on my part in regards to being thrown in jail for offending a woman by approaching her. I say this is only a slight exaggeration. Read “Gadzooks Hits the Trail Again”, by Gadzooks. He is currently living in his car for having the audacity to defend himself from his angry and violent wife by holding her wrists so she could not gouge out his eyes. By the way, he was arrested on his wife’s bare assertion taken over the phone, handcuffed, and thrown in jail. No evidence of any kind was presented by the absent wife. This is not the only submission telling of a man being thrown out of his house after his wife attacks him. If a man is attacked by a woman, in public or private, and does anything but stand there and take it, he will be arrested, if she feels like having him arrested. A friend was going on a hunting trip, to which his wife objected. He told her he was going and that was that. She called the police and told them he had hit her. The police show up while he was in the front yard holding a rifle. You can tell this did not go well. Guns were drawn. He could have been killed. That the police apprehended him while he was “armed” made any defense impossible. The only way he could avoid a long sentence was to plead guilty and take a suspended term. But now he has a record of armed violence against women. As Gadzooks notes, men are assumed guilty until they can prove their innocence; if they can.
There are many other “crimes” a man may be charged with which fall under the category of “not what he did, but how she felt about it”. And there is no defense against a charge based on how a woman feels. How can you prove she doesn’t feel a particular way; be it offended or threatened? There need be no proof of a reasonable connection between what you did and how she feels about it either. All the hostile environment sexual harassment laws are in this category. These were explained to me by a female administrative law judge who was teaching a business law class I was in. She felt these laws were unfair, and contrary to the principles the law should be based on. Don’t look for her to lead any street protests against them. She would be impeached the minute she spoke publically against these women’s liberation achievements.
It is obvious that Caveman has not been married. One statement that demonstrates this overwhelmingly is his proposal for a 50/50 relationship. My first wife was an example of that. Every thing we did had a micrometer put to it to ensure that she was not doing one iota more than her 50%. Of course this only applied to what was formally termed women’s work. Men’s work remained 100% men’s work. And you would still bring home the most money, and pay all the bills. I hold that you must have 100% control of everything that matters to you; especially the finances. If the woman doesn’t like the arrangement, show her where the door is. It may cost you a lot in a divorce, but you are going to go there anyway at this point, so at least retain your self respect. I have no fear of divorce. It sucks. But I have survived it, and have the scars to prove it. In marriage both partners must enter with the intent to give 100% to the other. This is why marrying these western women is a bad idea; they have no intent of giving 100%. Giving 100% does not imply become a door mat. You must be in control of what you feel is best for both of you. Trying to give your 50% and get your 50%, or share decision making 50/50, is a recipe for divorce right from the start. The other contention that demonstrates his never married status is his insistence that he will argue with a woman using logic and common sense. Is there a man alive that has not gotten in trouble for what he did in his woman’s dream? And her assertion is that she would not have dreamed it if it was not true. Where is your logic and common sense argument in this case?
Caveman is correct that the weak men acting in the social marketplace as if they had nothing to offer is what has fed western women’s enormous egos. Most western men don’t realize there is any other way, or that this is not the way it has always been. Many more will have to leave their countries and open there eyes to the rest of the world. I have little hope of this happening in the US. The damage is done. What do we do from where we are now? Caveman’s answer is for each of us on our own to just man up. He boldly states he would never let a woman tell him what he could and could not do. (Spoken like a bystander that has never been on the arena floor while his children, home, worldly possessions, and future income are being held hostage.) My contention is that the only answer is for all of us together starting to avoid these, as one friend put it, “men with tits”, and deal only with women with whom we have some chance of a long term, married, family existence; finding them where women still want to be wives and mothers. I found SEA to be a place where the possibility still seems to exist. I may be fooling myself, but I can’t accept a future where such hope does not exist. I also hope and pray that the weak men of the west do not go to SEA and screw up the last place I have found where it is possible (not guaranteed) for a man to get a fair shake in relationships.
As I ended my original entry; just say no to western women.
I'm REALLY interested to see if anyone wishes to argue in favour of Western women…