How is it possible?

[Igor_1066]

Modern Mephisto's lamentation this morning on "Women and Profanity" and the number of Amens that it recieved set me to wondering. I've been doing the Yahoo! personals thing again latterly, and there are enough women in my area with profiles to constitute a statisticly significant sample. No matter how I slice the data or randomly browse the data base, I seem to find nothing but women who describe themselves as "giving, nurturing, traditional, feminine, homebody" and on and on. Where are the hyperbutch power women that MM and his fellows complain of?

How can a single universe of women be at the same time far too butch for them and far too femme for me? More practically, where are they looking that I am overlooking? And how are they missing all of these hyperfemmes that I keep stumbling over?

 

[crazybbwgirl]

Maybe the ladies you are browsing are looking for the big M. So they try to sound like good marriage material. And MM is talking about his local barflies? Hell I don't know.

 

[capricious_chic]

Generally people see only what they want to.

If all you look for is the negative, out of fear or disdain, that is typically all you will encounter simply because we all have attributes that another will see as negative if they look hard (and not so hard) enough.

 

[Macdaddy23]

Maybe the ladies you are browsing are looking for the big M. So they try to sound like good marriage material. And MM is talking about his local barflies? Hell I don't know.

Sexy av Crazybbwgirl

 

[Guest]

 

[bisexplicit]

Shut the fuck up, you fucking fucker.

(I don't know where they get the idea that all women aren't lady like all the time.)

 

[Igor_1066]

Maybe the ladies you are browsing are looking for the big M. So they try to sound like good marriage material. And MM is talking about his local barflies? Hell I don't know.

So you're suggesting that the power women hunt elsewhere? Do you think that bars are the best venue or do you have other suggestions?

 

[J.B.]

We, are complex beings.

 

[bisexplicit]

Oh, and I think when people put up personal ads, they try to display a personality that they think other people would want - not necessairly how they themselves are.

 

[Guest]

 

[Igor_1066]

(I don't know where they get the idea that all women aren't lady like all the time.)

As you and I know, a woman that has ambitions needs to present as much more butch than the men she associates with, since "clubability" is an essential requirement of access to the higher levels of power.

 

[Igor_1066]

Oh, and I think when people put up personal ads, they try to display a personality that they think other people would want - not necessairly how they themselves are.

The worst part is that they seem to be able to fool themselves as well as everyone else.

 

[smartandsexy]

Modern Mephisto's lamentation this morning on "Women and Profanity" and the number of Amens that it recieved set me to wondering. I've been doing the Yahoo! personals thing again latterly, and there are enough women in my area with profiles to constitute a statisticly significant sample. No matter how I slice the data or randomly browse the data base, I seem to find nothing but women who describe themselves as "giving, nurturing, traditional, feminine, homebody" and on and on. Where are the hyperbutch power women that MM and his fellows complain of?

How can a single universe of women be at the same time far too butch for them and far too femme for me? More practically, where are they looking that I am overlooking? And how are they missing all of these hyperfemmes that I keep stumbling over?

Why should swearing and nurturing be mutually exclusive?

 

[Igor_1066]

Why should swearing and nurturing be mutually exclusive?

Modern Mephisto's thread was more a generalized complant as to the lack of traditional, submissive, etc., women. The swearing thing was a hook to hang it on, a symptom as it were.

 

[huskie]

Modern Mephisto's lamentation this morning on "Women and Profanity" and the number of Amens that it recieved set me to wondering. I've been doing the Yahoo! personals thing again latterly, and there are enough women in my area with profiles to constitute a statisticly significant sample. No matter how I slice the data or randomly browse the data base, I seem to find nothing but women who describe themselves as "giving, nurturing, traditional, feminine, homebody" and on and on. Where are the hyperbutch power women that MM and his fellows complain of?

How can a single universe of women be at the same time far too butch for them and far too femme for me? More practically, where are they looking that I am overlooking? And how are they missing all of these hyperfemmes that I keep stumbling over?

they change after you put the ring on their finger and say I do......

 

[smartandsexy]

Modern Mephisto's thread was more a generalized complant as to the lack of traditional, submissive, etc., women. The swearing thing was a hook to hang it on, a symptom as it were.

I think it's a mistake to lump them all in together. One can be traditionally feminine but not necessarily 'ladylike'. The classic stereotype of the strong Irish woman springs to mind - wonderful mother and homemaker, but is likely to swear like a trooper too.

 

[Igor_1066]

I think it's a mistake to lump them all in together. One can be traditionally feminine but not necessarily 'ladylike'. The classic stereotype of the strong Irish woman springs to mind - wonderful mother and homemaker, but is likely to swear like a trooper too.

The point of this thread is that he is complaining that there are too many strong, competant, independant, powerful women in the world, and too few of the reverse. Many are agreeing with him, and adding their own anecdotal evidence. I cannot find enough of the type of which they are complaining. How is this possible?

 

[bisexplicit]

The point of this thread is that he is complaining that there are too many strong, competant, independant, powerful women in the world, and too few of the reverse. Many are agreeing with him, and adding their own anecdotal evidence. I cannot find enough of the type of which they are complaining. How is this possible?

I haven't read the thread, but I think he's a moron if he's complaining about strong and independent women.

And I agree that there aren't two categories of women, either. I love to bake, and I love children, but I don't put up with crap, either.

 

[smartandsexy]

The point of this thread is that he is complaining that there are too many strong, competant, independant, powerful women in the world, and too few of the reverse. Many are agreeing with him, and adding their own anecdotal evidence. I cannot find enough of the type of which they are complaining. How is this possible?

I went back and reread his original post and I don't think he said that at all. He didn't mention that women shouldn't be powerful, competent, independent etc, just that he would prefer if they kept their appearance and their language pretty whilst being so.

I think you might have made those other associations yourself and are creating false dichotomies. It seems to reveal a lot about the way you classify women. I genuinely don't mean to jump on you, but it might be worth reflecting on what I say. Perhaps those women that you're boxing off as being a certain 'type' could actually include someone you could enjoy spending time with if you opened your mind a little and learnt about them as individuals. Just a thought.

 

[Igor_1066]

Perhaps those women that you're boxing off as being a certain 'type' could actually include someone you could enjoy spending time with if you opened your mind a little and learnt about them as individuals.

I haven't actually "boxed off" anyone much. I've been very easy about who I'm willing to go out with. I haven't discovered any hidden gems, however. They're all pretty much as they describe themselves, and sometimes quite a bit worse.

 

[Igor_1066]

I went back and reread his original post and I don't think he said that at all. He didn't mention that women shouldn't be powerful, competent, independent etc, just that he would prefer if they kept their appearance and their language pretty whilst being so.

I think you might have made those other associations yourself and are creating false dichotomies. It seems to reveal a lot about the way you classify women. I genuinely don't mean to jump on you, but it might be worth reflecting on what I say. Perhaps those women that you're boxing off as being a certain 'type' could actually include someone you could enjoy spending time with if you opened your mind a little and learnt about them as individuals. Just a thought.

I reread the original post, just to see if I could find what you found. I'm sorry to say that I found nothing but "Matthew Craigism" in fancy dress.

 

[smartandsexy]

I haven't actually "boxed off" anyone much. I've been very easy about who I'm willing to go out with. I haven't discovered any hidden gems, however. They're all pretty much as they describe themselves, and sometimes quite a bit worse.

Fair enough. The whole dating thing can be very hit and miss, I know. Best of luck.

 

[tribbles]

How about martial arts classes? Gotta be some tough ladies in those......or kickboxing...

 

[Igor_1066]

How about martial arts classes? Gotta be some tough ladies in those......or kickboxing...

Or gyms, if it was just about physically powerful. Of course, you get the emotionally high powered women there as well. High end clubs, bars near courthouses and financial districts, there are lots of possibilities. What I want to know is why so many guys, particularly guys that don't want them, seem to bump into them everywhere. Murphy's Law, do you think?

 

[kotori]

...Murphy's Law, do you think?

Murphy Brown's Law.