The Western Man is NOT to Blame
Until this day, I never imagined that I would ever sit in front of a keyboard and write a Stickman submission in defence of western women. Especially since I am one of many who were badly burned by a western woman and went on to find love and happiness
with an Eastern one. But Caveman’s latest rant has led me to this sad state of authorship as he made certain assertions that I cannot let stand unchallenged. For those who usually skip these “western women” articles, there
is a Thai tidbit forthcoming, so please be patient
Caveman asserts, “And for the record, if indeed I did marry such a woman, my devotion to her would be the same. As things stand at this time, because of the realities of the LIBERAL court system in the USA, if I were to find a woman in the USA who I thought would be a suitable wife, she would also need to enter the marriage with assets equal to or greater than my own.”
For those living outside the USA or for those living in America but whose eyes are glued to Fox News, you should know that the US courts are certainly not bastions of liberal ideals. After eight years of judicial appointments by “Dubyah”,
most unbiased observers will tell you the current judicial system has a definite conservative bent. Indeed, you could even make the case that 4 of our 9 Supreme Court judges are not just conservative, but actual right-wingers, determined to wring
any liberalism out of every decision before them. Even if I exaggerate a little, the fact is the court system in the US is certainly not liberal.
But the main points I think Caveman is making is that he would never become legally entangled, via marriage or otherwise, because the western woman and the “liberal” laws would allow her to clean you out of all your assets.
For someone who decries exaggeration, I find this a curious sentiment as it is simply not true. Generally, assets acquired before marriage are safe as long as those assets are kept separate and not co-mingled with the wife’s. This can be
the case even for assets acquired after marriage as long are they are kept separate and they are clearly earned by one spouse. But, if you comingle then they can be considered shared assets and open for litigation, even if you were the major earner
in the relationship. Also, if children are involved or you’ve done something stupid, like hit your wife or had an affair, the courts will demand child support and could award punitive assets. Alimony is generally only considered when children
are involved or if the disparity of incomes is such that the court feels a “grace” period is needed, but almost always short term. The bottom line: if you use a little prudence and don’t act like an asshole, you can protect
your assets without fear of losing them in a US divorce.
Caveman continues: “What caused this phenomenon of the inflated ego of the Western female to arise? Why is it so in the USA and many other Western countries but not, by and large, in SE Asia and other places? It all boils down to that dirty word: politics. My observation is that the more socially LIBERAL a place is, the more it will be skewed to the "rights" and "benefits" that women “deserve” by virtue of the fact that they possess a vagina.”
Now, I am not sure how Caveman defines “socially liberal” so I went to Wikipedia and here’s what they said, “Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.”
Well, that doesn’t sound like a society where people with vaginas have more rights than non-vagina people. So politically, he must mean western liberalism, which is technically in force in almost all capitalist societies, like the US, Canada,
Europe, and Japan. And try as I might, I can’t seem to find any references to where women have more rights than men in these societies. Sure, women can sue if they feel they have been discriminated against, say in job hiring. But so can
men. And can anyone accuse Maggie Thatcher of having achieved political power by virtue of having a vagina (I know some will dispute that) then I am even more flummoxed by his statement, as Maggie was certainly no liberal and to my knowledge,
never advocated for increased rights for women.
But what is Caveman really advocating; a return or a regression to social conservatism? Think of the countries where this is in effect, like the Middle East or Africa, where women have very few rights if at all. Sure, divorce rates are low
in these countries; women have little or no protection outside of a marriage. Even in Thailand, which you could make the case for being socially liberal, women certainly have fewer rights than men. For example, when Thais divorce, there is supposed
to be a fair division of property. But in reality, it rarely happens and the man usually walks away with the lion’s share. And if there are children, the woman is usually awarded custody but the man almost never pays child support. Also,
for those of you who currently work or have worked in Thailand; what’s it like to be the prettiest girl in an office? The boss will consider this girl his personal property and make her life miserable unless she succumbs to his demands.
Not true at all – it might be what you observed where you worked – but this is not the case in general – Stick> I saw this so many times in Thailand (and in America with Thais as well) that I wondered if being born
pretty is really a curse. What rights do these women have in this situation: zero. Although self-serving individual men may applaud this system, is it really what we want for our mothers, sisters, daughters, and other women in our family?
But back to the main point he was making; the appearance of hubris of many western women. Yes, I said appearance because sometimes it’s real hubris and sometimes it’s a defence mechanism to protect them from all the assholes
that clumsily hit on them day after day. How can a guy tell the difference? But I will agree with Caveman on this point to a certain extent. Certainly, today’s western women seem more demanding than their mothers in general. But I don’t
think this is a societal thing as much as a personal choice some women have made to be more outspoken. If it’s their choice to be an inflated windbag, then as the Buddha noted, choices have consequences. In these cases, they have reduced
their choices of men to the shallow end of the self-confidence pool. Life goes on.
But there are many western women I know personally who have achieved successful long-term relationships. Using a combination of trust and affection, they have made a good go of it. Like my sister, who has had her ups-and-downs with her husband,
but now has a loving and steady marriage. My best friend is on his 4th marriage, but this one has worked because they both have worked at it the old fashioned way; lots of give and take. I suspect Caveman prefers the latter and not the former
in his relationships. That’s fine; too, it’s his right to be so. But it is certainly not the formula for a successful relationship unless the goal is to come away with more assets than your partner when it goes belly-up.
Certainly, I am not advocating jumping into marriage with eyes-wide shut, but to set off on a course of action based on notions of political indoctrination is just silly. Many people have asked me why I married a Thai woman, supposing I will
say something akin to Caveman’s outlook. But the true facts are I married my Thai wife because we met, we dated, and we fell in love; nothing more and nothing less. We didn’t meet in Thailand, we met in San Francisco. She wasn’t
looking for a walking ATM and I wasn’t looking for a submissive sex slave. She doesn’t try to leverage money from me and I don’t expect her obey all my commands. We have our differences but we make it work the old fashion
way. Could it have happened with a western woman? Of course. And, sorry Caveman, my wife and I have achieved this minor miracle in a socially liberal society. You can, too.
I think on this topic of Western women, I still like the points Korski made in It’s Not About Western Women