Why Women Don’t Negotiate
By Marc H. Rudov
Hooked on Entitlements
Each week for the past two months, I have appeared with Lis Wiehl in a featured slugfest over women’s rights on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto. As we’ve debated the topics of flex-time for working mothers, the purported gender wage gap, the economic value of stay-at-home moms, and the pandering to women of presidential candidate John Edwards, the essence of our battle has been the same: whether or not women, who supposedly want equality with men, deserve special privileges.
American women control almost 60% of national wealth and make 80% of the purchases. They comprise 54% of the electorate and graduate college 33% more frequently than men. Through the Roe v. Wade decision, they have the unilateral right to opt out of parenthood. Moreover, the American woman can, with impunity, engage in maternity fraud (lying about her fertility or use of birth control) and paternity fraud (lying about her child’s real father).
Wait, there’s more. American women bring 70% of divorce actions, have children out of wedlock at least 37% of the time, and are invariably “entitled” to child custody, child support, and alimony. When women falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence, thereby committing felonies, they are never prosecuted. The list of female rights and privileges goes on and on and on. Yet, to Lis Wiehl and most feminists, women are, somehow, at a disadvantage to men.
There are three calamities every man dreads in his life: prostate problems, divorce, and seeing a female cry. Few little girls are old enough to see their fathers suffer from the first calamity, but they’re never too young to witness them getting hosed in female-biased divorce courts — at the hands of their manipulative mothers.
More basically, as toddlers, then continuing as adolescents and even adults, girls perfect the art of manipulating their fathers with tears, whining, foot-stomping, and screaming tantrums. Because these fathers are such pushovers and seemingly give their daughters everything, they actually fail to give them the most-important gift of all: the word NO! Compounding this problem is that, because so many mothers are either divorced or never married, so few fathers spend enough time with their daughters to impart any influence whatsoever.
Adding to her bag of tricks, the savvy postpubescent girl recognizes how to manipulate the other men in her life, too. She gets free meals, cars, tuition, vacations, homes, and jewelry — which she views as entitlements — by raising her hemline, lowering her neckline, shrinking her waistline, and leveling her spine.
So, when a woman enters the workforce, if her “negotiating experience” is largely comprised of emotional and sexual bartering and manipulation — without having had to employ any intellectual skill or ever expecting to hear NO! — she is ill-prepared to wrangle with employers over compensation.
What happens frequently is that a woman hears NO for the first time in her professional life, and she doesn’t know how to handle it. Her first thought: unfairness. Men, on the other hand, are accustomed to being rejected in their personal and professional lives. They expect it. So, for men, negotiation — the art of mutually arriving at a win/win point — is required for survival. Are all men good at negotiating? Of course not. Do all men in similar positions receive the same compensation? If you think so, you are naive.
Because women, as a rule, don’t negotiate, they have a deserved reputation for accepting whatever their employers offer them. In their 2002 book, A Woman’s Guide to Successful Negotiating, the father and daughter team of Lee E. Miller and Jessica Miller claim that women fear negotiating because they are obsessed with pleasing others. I think their point is somewhat valid, but, in general, I totally disagree with it. In childhood, adolescence, dating, marriage, and divorce, women are the ones being pleased — not the ones doing the pleasing. So, exactly when do they learn to negotiate — or, for that matter, that negotiation is ever required? Good question.
To master anything in life, whether playing golf or negotiating, one must incorporate a combination of skill, drive, practice, desire to improve, and results — both success and failure. Learning to take failure in stride as a learning experience is extremely important to achieving success. Unfortunately, because most women are raised to be takers, isolated from the pains of failure, they never learn this critical lesson.
Every sales or negotiating course includes some variation of this principle: success is like a ladder; every time you hear “no” — which you will hear most of the time — you ascend one more rung until, ultimately, you reach yes. Put another way: nobody, ever, will just hand you something worthwhile. Ask any college-age girl if she’s ever heard this axiom, and she will laugh in your face.
This is why John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama promise women more “equality” legislation and programs, and find receptive audiences: women are trained from birth to expect — and get — special privileges, just for being women. This pandering does not help women at all; it keeps them in expectation mode, instead of inspiring them to work harder and smarter — and learn negotiating skills. Demagoguery may get politicians elected (and reelected), but they will have to serve a whole population of women hooked on entitlements. How do women benefit from this?
When a woman is negotiating professional compensation, it is akin to acquiring a car or a house: she must enter the transaction with deep knowledge of the product (she is the product), the buyer, the seller (she is also the seller), and marketplace conditions — as well as her bottom line and the point at which she is willing to walk away from the deal. If she is deficient in such knowledge, she has no business being at the negotiating table.
Let’s say a woman is applying for a position, which, according to her research, pays a range of $80K to $100K (the hiring manager, like the car salesman, always knows when his counterpart is an informed, skilled negotiator — and when she’s not). This boss offers her $80K. She accepts the offer. I repeat: she accepts the offer. I repeat again: she accepts the offer. If she then discovers that a man (or another woman) has a similar position at $100K and concludes that the boss discriminated against her, she’s correct: bosses, car salesmen, and realtors discriminate against bad negotiators. Instead of going to her lawyer or her Congressman, she should go to Amazon.com to order a book on negotiating.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
I never stated nor implied that women can’t negotiate. I opined that women, in general, don’t negotiate. They have been trained to believe they don’t have to, and both wining/dining men and demagogic politicians validate those beliefs. Yet, Oprah Winfrey and Katie Couric and Meg Whitman (CEO of eBay) and Anne Mulcahy (CEO of Xerox) and Patricia Russo (CEO of Alcatel-Lucent) have proven that women can negotiate very well.
Women will find themselves being treated like equals when they act like equals — when they negotiate instead of nag, when they win instead of whine. The examples of equal women, like those mentioned in the previous paragraph, abound. Women are responsible for their own successes and cannot blame men, employers, or politicians for their failures.
A woman seated at the negotiating table — for a car, a house, or a job — who, in the back of her mind, equates victimhood with sisterhood, will lose. Eventually, she will realize that capitalism trumps feminism. Negotiation is at the core of capitalism; feminism isn’t. Are you a capitalist or a feminist? You’ll find out at your next negotiation.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 55+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
May 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Women have been taught…… no indoctrinated to beleive that somehow they are special and that the “regular rules” men have always had to follow do not apply to them. They have, in effect become socially,legally and morally bankrupt. They think that if they want to do it and especially if “it ” is done to a man, then somehow it’s OK.
I have always lived a world, where no matter how hard I tried, sooner or later, if I did wrong , I paid for it. I never really got away with anything.
It may seem that the women are quit literally getting away with murder, but in God’s Universe, they will pay. It may take a while and the corrupt legal system will not be the one to hold them accountable. But mark my word, they will be held accountable and if my own experience is any indicator, then the longer they hold out and the more they kick , scream and struggle, the more severe and long lasting the punishement will be.
I will not take pleasure in seeing that happen, Oh … they will richly deserve it when it happens. I won’t take pleasure in it.
I do take pleasure in seeing wrong righted and the innocent and the blameless restored. In accounts being squared and the wrong becoming repentant.
May 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
The question is whether women are able to mentally compartmentalize the various expectations and benefits they receive from their parents, boyfriends, husbands, and employers.
We do this all the time: We know that the way we act at home, with loved ones who CARE about our feelings and needs are different than what we get in the workplace. Most women, I believe, understand this as well at some level. That said, I agree with Marc that women may have it soft in their lives and then “to please others” just take the first off given to them rather than negotiate. Also, women may not drive such a hard bargain because they perceive, correctly, there’s a safety net waiting for them that men lack.
I’m wondering when society finally gets to the limit of the privileges and benefits women require to keep this pseudo-equality racket going. Marc, you forgot to mention that women can legally abandon their newborn children (for the first month or two) in most states to avoid thousands of babies being found dead in dumpsters EACH YEAR. How long before that grace period is extended to a year? And then maybe permanent? In the meantime, a man who tries to walk away from his fully unwanted children is a deadbeat.
So things just keep getting more and more outlandish and rediculous. When will the reality become undeniable to everyone including women? When will enough be enough?
May 21st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
when a young man transitions into manhood, and no longer sees his mother as a god, but as fully human like the rest of us. He begins to take his first steps into responsible husbandry of the world he lives in..
American men who are infantile man childs looking for a mother figure, simply have never transitioned into adult manhood…they remain psychologically castrated man-childs, or as Marc would say EUNECHS..
when one takes the bold step into responsible manhood, only then can he see the world through his own eyes, instead of the eyes of his mother..
rock on Marc..I’de fly wing man for u anyday bro..
May 21st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Good article. Thx..
May 21st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Robert Stevens wrote: I have always lived a world, where no matter how hard I tried, sooner or later, if I did wrong , I paid for it. I never really got away with anything….”
EXACTLY! I too have ALWAYS been called down to the carpet for the most minor infraction, all the while women are given free passes.
I have also noticed this in popular culture, the slightest transgression, even raising ones voice; a man may make is turned into a FEDERAL FELONY and a crime against humanity… While women get a slap on the wrist if even that….
May 21st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
The ladies are also genuinely astonished that what they want, or think they deserve, is not already clairvoyantly known and acted upon by those in the superior positions (male or female, doesn’t matter).
True in business, the dating routine, marriage, and family relations.
The Fairy Tale Philosophy of Life.
May 21st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I like what you have written.
Having worked in a petticoat jungle, I find that they definitely do like it when anyone says NO to them.
May 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Not getting away with things…..interesting take…it shows up in marriage counseling even, where there is presumed guilt by ogre man, and the fix startes there. Then, in a form of negotiating, the modern American man, knowing he has no cards to play, will negotiate, he will agree to therapy, to medicate himself, to sleep on the couch a month, to move out awhile, whatever it takes to get her sensation of “getting” to where she feels comfortable. All the while though, she didnt negotiate, she just waited, in fact maybe her just “being” is her negotiating point….she exists therefore she deserves.
May 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Marc I enjoy reading your insights and observations into gender in America today.
I write this without a mean spirit; if you start adding references and or footnotes to your writings, I expect that in a few years you ought to receive an honorary graduate degree in social studies.
Further if you taught a class on a campus (albeit a conservative one), I also expect it would be the most attended class on campus.
Keep up the good fight.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
When little girls become accustomed to being rewarded for unreasonable expectations and nobody bothers to educate them, they keep having unreasonable expectations. I don’t see it ending any time soon, and now little boys are being rewarded for the same things. If a child is protected from all negative outcomes, he or she will not know how to deal with them when they occur later in life. They’ll just think the people who denied their expectations are mean.
And no, most women don’t know how to negotiate, or when they’re expected to negotiate, because they’re never been taught how or when to do it.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
scribble..excellent point…our boys are being raised solelly by their mothers, and are adopting all their mothers fears..and the boys are growing up not being able to take care of themselves…
May 21st, 2007 at 7:09 pm
A very powerful statement, Marc. A comprehensive round up of the ‘entitlement’ issue and well connected to the negotiation topic: a totality that can’t be shown in a 20 second sound bite response on TV.
One small point. I have found, as in this, that even when carefully composing such an essay it is all too easy to include mythologies such as – ” women try to please”, as though this were a quality of women that men do not have or do not do. Everytime a woman – or a writer – talks of a seemingly positive quality in a woman, it carries the implication that it is not just common to all women but foreign to men.
I am sure that sometimes, occasionally, women, even small girls, do try to please, but in my experience it is not usually from a sense of altrism but as a form of bargaining or even shaming/victimhoodery/manipulation.
This is female ‘negotiation’. I call it the “Florence Nightingale’ ploy. She was a star user of her ‘good works’ to manipulate her career ascendancy. She never volunteered to to anything really hard, man-hard, like go into battle with a gun in her hand.
Individual men have to overcome their nature when dealing with women so as not to be easily fooled. Men’s hearts must become hardened; thick skin has to go deep.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:20 pm
scottkirk,
It’s not only the male-free influence, it’s also the tendency to “protect” children from things they should learn to deal with, like losing a game, falling down, getting into scrapes and squabbles with other kids… does all children a disservice. And the kids who aren’t being coddled aren’t being growing up strong. For the most part they’re growing up mean. They’ll kick the metaphorical crap out of the coddled bunch, if not the literal crap.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
This, important, topic needs to be explored in the context of the ongoing claim that _men_ are non-communicative and taciturn.
`Non-negotiation,’ when you can prevail by not negotiating, is also actually itself a negotiating tactic that’s often particularly potent and disingenuous.
I sure get tired of hearing that honest dialogue would be too “threatening” or that holding an open discussion of an issue would be presenting the women involved with an “unsafe space,” and then that the men haven’t communicated.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:28 am
Marc, I think you have hit on something with your article. In the past (before feminism) men and women needed each other. Men had little or no domestic skills and women had little or no ‘real world’ skills. In a marriage a man dealt with the real world to provide for his family and the wife took care of him, their family, and the household. The man got what he needed by negotiating with the world and the woman got what she wanted by making demands on her man.
In a good relationship (I would say the majority of them) the man knew it was in his best interest to keep his wife happy and give her anything she needed. A women, for her part, got what she wanted by pleasing her husband and… making demands. A wise women knew that abusing her man could mean that she would lose her connection to the real world (and her meal ticket) and so she kept her demands reasonable.
I’m not arguing that we need to turn the clock back to these times or that this kind of relationship is the only one that works. However, there was a balance and, with the rise of feminism, the balance has been distrupted.
As women have moved into the real world, not being able to negotiate would seem to be a major handicap. You can demand all you want but in a capitalistic economy, real world limits won’t budge. Women, however, have overcome this problem by taking control of the government and forcing entitlements.
I quick look at historical facts will show that once women got the vote, taxes have risen drastically. Women suck the money out of men’s wallets (’demand’ their money) and then demand services from the government. No longer do they have to negotiate for a job they just demand that companies meet their ‘legal’ quotas for women in the workplace. No longer do they have to negotiate for a fair salary they just demand that companies pay them the same salary as men. No longer to they have to get along with the men they work with they demand special treatment and sue men for harassment if they don’t get it.
This is a long note just to make the point that it is incumbent on all of us (both men and right thinking women) to reduce taxes as much as possible. Taxes are the root of the power that women wield in the real world. You can’t demand services from a government that has no money.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
Another great example of a successful women (instead of whining) is Margaret Thatcher.
I’m from the USA, but from what I understand she succeeded at the game the way it stands (instead of crying and making the rules changed just for her).
She has a phd in math and physics (unless I’m remembering wrong). Truly unusual for a women.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 am
This is what all the minority groups believe (although women aren’t a minority). Their definition of equality is:”hire me because I”m _______”
Insert whatever term is relevant, black, female, gay or whatever.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 am
On today’s edition of “The View,†a discussion on the propriety of male nannies led Rosie O’Donnell to declare that she would never hire one to care for her adopted children.
Barbara Walters asked her, “Are you worried about homosexual tendencies? Is that what you are saying?â€
O’Donnell replied, “No, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexual†[sic]. To which Walters said, “Oh, pedophilia.â€
Men are bad with children, women are good with children.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
wadestar,
Women do not derive their power from taxes.
Women derive their power from men who fear them and don’t understand female sexuality.
How many men will do ANYTHING a woman wants for fear of not getting laid? Answer: MOST
How many men will do ANYTHING a woman wants for fear of being labeled politically incorrect? Answer: MOST.
If you Google my name, you will see how much feminists hate me. Why? Because I am the rare man who will go onto radio & TV to criticize bad female behavior. That’s my crime. Men are NOT supposed to do that. I do it all the time.
Deference to women is tantamount to sacrificing power to them. If men would just stop behaving like eunuchs (most do), women would not only respect them more, they would lose their lopsided power.
I have written 56 articles and two books about this. Check them out.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Thank you Marc.
Some People say they are leaders but are unwilling to confront the disease at the root.
By all means, do Press On.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Cons! – Make sure you don’t miss Marc’s Comment #19 above.
“Defrence to women is tantamount to sacrificing power to them.”
“Women derive their power from men who fear them and don’t understand female sexuality.
How many men will do ANYTHING a woman wants for fear of not getting laid? Answer: MOST
How many men will do ANYTHING a woman wants for fear of being labeled politically incorrect? Answer: MOST.”
This the TRUTH, and the WHOLE Truth.
This is why when a man voices ANY dissatisfaction it is ABUSE of the Woman, because his dissatisfaction is a sign that he is nolonger in the condition of FEAR.
So the Police are called in to RESTORE MARITAL-MARTIAL LAW of Woman.
Thank you Marc, now I do not just feel better about my choice to leave and divorce as a matter of Spiritual Principle, and psychological self-preservation, but this proves that the matter was one of State sponsored terrorism.
Thank you. Thank you.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
You’re 100% right Marc Rudov. Most men buckle like a belt in the face of their woman.
I feel like I’m really starting to piece together (not necessarily the way women think–impossible) but the rules involved.
And I guess the main #1 rule, is to be aware of when she’s mindf*cking you and STAND YOUR GROUND!
My wife and I enjoy a good relationship, but things are kind of falling apart around us–lots of bad news (I don’t want to go into), but it involves cancer of loved ones and lots of other things.
Well, my wife started this thing with calling me and essentially griping & griping–in an angry hysterical tone. It could be about a co-worker or family-member–it could be anything.
It was short in the beginning, but started getting longer & longer. Finally I realized she was using me like an emotional tampon! Sure, after she griped to me, SHE felt all relieved and clean, BUT I had all this emotional gunk she had discharged all over me.
I told her from now on she would talk to me in a civil quiet voice or I was terminating the conversation!
Result–we had great sex that night, and she hasn’t done it anymore!
It has really really sunk in that if you buckle like a belt to your woman, then she might be happy in the short term.
But, in the long term she will be very unhappy, why? Because she will realize (even if only subconsciously) that she is spending her life with somebody she doesn’t respect.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Last comment: if more men stopped being doormats to their wife, then there might be a lot fewer divorces.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Marc wrote — “How many men will do ANYTHING a woman wants for fear of not getting laid? Answer: MOST”
Of course, your books are all about getting laid, right?
Well, to be accurate, your books are about how to only “perform” the least degree of what she wants to get laid, right?
What really pisses me off about your ideology is that you propose that men should masquerade, dissemble, lie, and subject themselves to self-defiling pantomimes —
just for “pussy?”
And, what enrages me even more is that you are marketing this as a philosophy of masculine empowerment!
According to Mike L.’s democratic MND ethics, you can ban me now.
Or, (my suggestion), in the interests of your own good karma….
respond sincerely.
Marc … I just can’t get your “Catch-22″ for men.
It may be brilliant and I may be dim.
But it looks like 3-card monty on 7th Avenue in NYC to me.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
DW2G!
Looking for positive affirmation and confirmation of your assumptions of facts that you do not know?
Assuming facts that lead you to be enraged?
I hope Marc does not answer you. Until you actually read his book and have facts to come back with.
Jackal Congradulations on leaning how to disarm as opposed to placate!
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
tjurston861…
Would you lend me your copy of Marc’s book?
Like Marc, I love all the pussified goals he suggests men ought to endorse, but ( unlike Marc) I do not wish to pay for his recommendations…
Why do we have to PAY for his wisdom?
Saints have placed handsupon lepers…
Mother Teresa et. al. ????
Marc should be giving away his secrets….
If he really cared about men’s “liberation,” yes?
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
BTW –
Marc CAN AFFORD not to answer!
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:27 pm
It’s Angela Merkel, current German chancellor, who has the backgound in physics and education, but Margaret Thatcher, likewise, had substance and ideas, and didn’t become the political force she was through feminist wiles and manipulation.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
DW2G,
That is a matter of Marc’s Policy.
I gave all of my information away when I had a website on the Fraud of the IRS and the truth of the definition of Exempt income in subtitle A.
Money flowed like mad.
It is good you admitted that you have not read Marc’s Book. Greater reason not to respond to you. I would not if I were him, logic dictates taht nothing constructive can come from it. Your tone and choice of words gives a clearer indication that is will be a verbal donniebrook.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Saint Margaret Thatcher had a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry. But, with inflation and all…….
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 am
Marc, I agree with you that women are very successful at manipulating men on a one-on-one basis and this was a very successful skill for the old fashion marriage. My point was that this skill isn’t as useful in dealing with the sometimes hostile adversaries found in the real world. To do that you normally need to negotiate and, as you point out, women are *not* good at that.
However, what they have succeeded in doing is legislating a playing field where negotiation is not allowed. Such a playing field is not economically sound so it must be funded from the outside, i.e. through taxes. Men would never support such an arrangement directly but, by manipulating the government, women have succeeded in making the arrangement not optional.
We will never get justice by competing with women on a playing field that tilted against us. The only way to succeed is by attacking the root of the problem. If we reduce taxes the non-negotiated playing field will collapse.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 am
wadestar said: “Marc, I agree with you that women are very successful at manipulating men on a one-on-one basis and this was a very successful skill for the old fashion marriage. My point was that this skill isn’t as useful in dealing with the sometimes hostile adversaries found in the real world.”
Mr. Wadestar, if you actually read my article, you will discover that this is the point I made.
I find, frequently, that people like to use the comments section to rewrite and repeat my articles. Why?
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
DadWith2Girls,
I enjoy reading your words. With every keystroke, you reveal your lack of wisdom, perspective, maturity, IQ, and appeal to women.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 am
Marc, I’m sorry. I didn’t make myself clear. I was not responding to your article but, instead, to your response to my last comment.
In that comment you disagreed with me and claimed that women didn’t get there power from taxes. In my comment I was making the distinction between one-on-one power that we both agree women do have (and here is where you thought I was repeating your article) and the power that women wield in today’s society which I still claim is derived from our taxes.
If you read my comment more carefully I think you will agree that your snide remark was unnecessary.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
Wadestar,
One-on-one female power x 160 million = feminism. This has NOTHING to do with an abundance of taxes — and everything to do with the lack of testicles.
The degree of a woman’s one-on-one power is a function of her man’s lack of one-on-one power. This has NOTHING to do with taxes.
You are seeking an excuse for male wimpiness, and you are using taxes as that excuse. In fact, there is no excuse for male wimpiness, but it prevails — in bed, in the restaurant, in state and federal legislatures, in female-ly courts, in gynoversities, and in the media.
The more you look to external factors — like taxes — as an excuse for male wimpiness, the more you resemble feminists who blame everyone and everything for their lack of success — despite having LOTS of success.
Women don’t negotiate because they are used to wimpy, pathetic men handing them everything. Men have no one to blame but themselves for creating this mess. Women have no one to blame but themselves if they don’t like their titles and salaries. I made this point in my article.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
In response to WLS…
I guess I qualify as the one with the ’sad Tax Protester mentality’ since, I believe, I’m the only one who mentioned taxes in this thread.
That said, I think your post was actually very supportive of what I was saying. Marc seems to be saying that if we all just ’stand up as men’ then we can overcome this problem. I was pointing out that there is a bias against men that has become institutionalized. If a man stands up he is very likely to get smacked down by the court system (or, as you say, one of the other ‘overwhelming social forces surrounding him’).
While you say my tax protesting is an excuse for inaction I would argue that it is just the opposite. We can blah, blah, blah on these blogs all day long and it really has very little effect. I propose action. I propose we attack the problem at the root and fight to reduce taxes. No one can claim that fighting for lower taxes is anti-women, racist, discriminatory or against any other PC standard and yet reducing taxes will weaken all the PC nonsense and feminist crap we have to content with every day.
You say that ’some collective effort is required’ and I agree. My suggestion is that we fight to reduce taxes. Is there some other effort you would like to suggest?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
(Marc R. ) – ” DadWith2Girls, I enjoy reading your words. With every keystroke, you reveal your lack of wisdom, perspective, maturity, IQ, and appeal to women.”
Marc, if you and I ever teamed up, it would be devastating for feminism.
You want to make money, and I want to change minds.
That’s a promising basis for a limited insurrectionary partnership. And Mike LaSalle is the broker-ENTREPENEUR, right?
Seriously, do you think we disagree on anything crucial to men’s futures?
Except the servile subjection to “pussy” that you market as male liberation?
With respect to your slammin’ me — rhetorically speaking —
Wow! Your comment re. “lack of appeal to women†schtick was revealing! (Shame and blame tactics so old and tired…)
You are a feminist after all!
BTW, in slammin’ me, you left out my age, height, and heterosexuality.
All characteristics you might have used to demean me….
I am having second thoughts about our partnership.
I require integrity, reliabilty, and a bad sense of humor.
So far, you have demonstrated only one.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:11 am
“When women falsely accuse men of… domestic violence, thereby committing felonies, they are never prosecuted.”
That’s what a reasonable man would assume, however, in California, the last time I looked it up, a felony false accusation of domestic violence by a woman is only prosecutable as a misdemeanor. I’m not sure what it is in other states.
IF YOU INCENTIVISE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW TO HOLD HARMLESS FEMALE FALSE ACCUSERS, THEN WOMEN WILL FALSELY ACCUSE – ergo – “If you build it they will come.” The later is a quote from the movie Field of Dreams, the former is the nightmare reality under present day FemiNazi Kalifornia’s, witch hunting domestic violence laws.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Lack of negotiation by women is only a part of the picture in the wage gap myth, but a significant part of the picture it truly is.
Negotiating a salary can come into play for salaried positions, but can come into play for hourly wage positions as well. Education, skill level or other factors can be used to leverage the potential employer to begin starting pay at steps above the entry level.
Comparable worth is a socialist formula that has been used by gender feminist minded folks in places like the AAUW to say that some female dominated jobs (nursing, librarian, etc.) are comparable to some male dominated jobs. See page nine (9) of this AAUW document: http://tinyurl.com/255rfc
Of course, supply and demand and the free and open marketplace of jobs are thrown out the window when commie worth, er, comparable worth comes into play. Equality of outcome becomes the criterion on which job equality is determined instead of equal access and equal opportunity based on skill, ability, education, etc.
Under the perspective of commie worth, if women disproportionately compete but do not get hired for jobs, the system is discriminating against women. Under the perspective of commie worth, if women do not work as hard ,or long ,as men and thereby get a smaller paycheck, obviously the system is discriminating against women.
Geez, now that I think about it, there may be widespread discrimination against women by car dealerships, because women may not work as hard as a man to nail a car salesman down to a good deal. Yet somehow, according to gender feminists and women’s studies instructors, the female is the superior sex.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Women are constantly claiming to be superior at communication skills. Negotiation is a communication skill. Ergo, women must be better negotiators than men.
Q. What is wrong with this syllogism?
May 24th, 2007 at 5:54 am
My, my, my, thurston861, I’m very impressed with your keen grasp of the English language and how well you can craft an argument. If you are confused by what I mean then go read “You’re An A$$hole” by Joe Blow and reference notes 17, 12, and 32.5. Also, if my group “Smack All A$$holes” is ever in your area then you had better look out.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:00 am
wadestar – spoken likr true 13 year old.
if you came to my neighborhood I would call CPS because it is illegal to beat other people’s children.
Hint: Bring a bludgeoning implement comensurate with your frontal lobes.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Touche thurston861! Your response to my post, that ridicules your ability to express yourself in proper English, is a 3 line rant that contains two misspellings and numerous grammatical errors. Once again I must bow to your obviously superior intellect.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I write from a phone.
Last time a person indicted my intelligence due to my lack of typing skills on a phone and lack of spell check is was a Woman.
So quite changing the subject to deflect from the issue.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:09 am
thurston, if you write from a phone I am seriously impressed. Tried that myself a few times a few years ago and finally settled for just reading my email on it. I’m too slow and dull to write this stuff up on a miniature keyboard.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
thurston861… I apologize for ridiculing your typing. You are correct, this type of communication lends itself to a large number of typos and it was wrong of me belittle you for it. (Although your typos are so frequent that they are getting in the way of your message.)
I do stand by my assessment that you seem to have a complete inability to state your argument. Your last posting is a prime example. I have no idea what you are trying to say. I mean… blah, blah, blah… when does it end? What does it mean?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
whoops… my last post references a message from thruston861 (I believe it *was* message #48) that now seems to have been removed. I guess I’m not the only one who found it incomprehensible.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
[...] Read: “Why Women Don’t Negotiate” [...]