Stop trying to be one of the Sheeple and do your own thing!

Post Reply New Topic

I bet the percentage of men turned off by unemployed women is much smaller due to society's sexism.

I think a man in school, including my age, can get dates up until their late 20's. But straight unemployed and mooching off Uncle Sam/foreign equivalents or Mom and Dad? It's going to be rough regardless of age...

So that's how it happened to work out. Too often, though, employment is a proxy for other things, like education, intelligence, personality, and looks. So unemployed men, in reality, have a taller hill to climb than even the statistics would suggest.

I'm glad you're happy, though. But you can hardly use yourself as a generalizable example to reassure gents with false hope. You are the exception.

That's because you are not a marriage oriented woman, most women are I guess, even in your country.

One thing is certain:

Humans are apes.

I'm not particularly happy though (and not due to lack of money)

It seems to me that no matter how many people you have in your life there's never enough attention available off people

Everyone's getting what they want out of the situation except me

Actually I don't think that is the true dichotomy. It's more bimodal. If you're eccentric you have a higher chance of being successful AND a higher chance of winding up completely screwed. I'll admit the latter seems more likely though if you don't have an exceptional talent. If you're "normal" and well balanced on the other hand you have a much better chance of finding a comfortable place somewhere in the middle.

Also, what about people who work their ass off to have tons of money only to fall into boredom, burnout, and existential depression, because they don't have anything that truly makes them happy anymore? What about people who don't take a raise to become a middle manager because they prefer to do their own work rather than the stress of being put in charge of telling other people what to do and having to deal with other people's f**k ups that are out of their control? Are they just weak for that? Are people weak for not having a preference for power? For not wanting to have to control and manipulate other people? True, society rewards people with power more, but what's the point if you just don't care about that and can't make yourself care about that? I think it's part of our asinine right-wing culture that puts business people at the top of the social totem and just assumes that must be everyone's ideal and the only other option is being a loser, parasite, bum, or starving on the street. If you don't care that much about power and competing it must be drilled into your head that you are unworthy of respect or happiness.

I don't know

I assess a person by whether I can have interesting conversations with them. If they are too conventional it restricts conversation a lot. It's all "Where have you been, what have you done, what have you bought?"

I discuss TV programmes, books, films, what people are like, what I bought at supermarket, politics all sorts - anything potentially in other words. Most people have rigidly-defined 'conversational topics' - you can't discuss anything.

I have boredom, burnout, and existential depression, and I don't have money or power either. Lose-lose.

I am a far-left socialist, to the left of Hugo Chavez and just as crazy, and I still ascribe to those notions of power. I have a love-hate relationship with society where, like you, I have contempt for society and love to flout its idiotic rules but also have some ingredient of self-interest. It's a weird mix. Sometimes, flouting society's rules is a good way to get ahead. Hence, my point about power being different from conformity.

I think what makes people strong or weak is their capacity to get what they want -- note, I said capacity, not actually getting it. So, people on here who can't get a girlfriend or boyfriend are weak (yes, I said it, and I include myself in that but for other reasons).

I really, really hate competition. I just like to get what I want. So, in a way, I'm weak too.

Not to single you out but this has been puzzling me and now that you have brought it up again...You've said that before about hating competition and yet you don't believe in monogamy. Isn't a polygamous relationship or even 'friends with benefits' involving more than one other person vying for the same person's attention?

BTW I'm with nessa on this (rich man/poor man and where our values are as women.) The rich guys I knew were usually conceited and arrogant along with it. I chose guys based on who they were as a person and if they were interesting to me. I had a rich guy interested in me even for marriage, but am happy with my husband. We are definitely not rich. I don't regret my decision whatsoever. See unlike what some say marriage is not a "form of prostitution" and women really do have scruples.

All of the women I've known have dated guys who were still in school (when they were also) or about to go through more school, guys who were unemployed or underemployed, etc. It really is about who's a good guy, for most women, I think. Of course you will have people who only want money or who will marry anyone rich but those have their male counterpart in men who only want a certain type of wife as well. They sort of deserve each other most of the time.

And by the way that isn't to say that everyone rich is bad or every older man/younger woman couple is superficial or fake - not at all. I'm saying that to hear all women want a rich man and won't date a poor man is false and sounds a little down on women, to me.

That's an insult to apes. At least THEY maintain some sort of balance in their society and natural environment. Humans are... well... uh.... [shrug]

Knowing what you want and being able to get it == "strength"
Knowing what you want and not being able to get it == "weakness"
Not knowing what you want in the fist place == ???????
Being biologically incapable of being fulfilled == ???????

According to evolution if you don't produce spawn and pass on your genes you are "weak". Has nothing to do with what you actually want out of life.

I'm far left at heart but I don't think anarcho-communism will work in the modern world that is based on large scale trade and mass produced goods. People just aren't empathetic enough to cooperate without being forced to in groups of more than 100 individuals. Anarcho-capitalists are even dumber in thinking people unable to compete by the rules to survive won't just break the rules.

Sorry if I'm rambling off topic.

Here, have a Tom Waits song...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDjEDmgytOA[/youtube]

going out to all the depressed and bitter people.

Not saying you're necessarily bitter and depressed. I suppose it's possible to accept the negative aspects of human nature and reality and not be bothered or obsessed over it.

Baaahahahaha! The sheeple will find all of you feeling bitter and resentful, and then..... I don't know.

I am a totalitarian leftist. I think most people are stupid sheep who will follow whomever has the loudest voice and the biggest gun. This is usually a bad thing, but it could be a good thing if the loudest voice and the biggest gun belong to people who agree with me.

Evolution isn't a good explanation. People breed like rabbits. So I don't think reproduction is an important survival advantage anymore. What's important is what you do with your life within the greater society. We could always create new kids in test tubes with 180 IQ's if we really had to.

Thus, Evolution--and the nature and purpose of life--have completely changed with modern technology. In fact, individual reproduction was never necessarily a goal. Groups evolve, not simply individuals. So, even in the past, traits with weaker reproductive capacity could be favored if they impacted human society to the extent that it made the offspring of others more likely to survive. This is probably why the genes of eccentric aspie geniuses never died out. Thanks to Edison, Newton, Flemming, Einstein, and others with limited individual reproductive capacity, the reproductive capacity of millions more has been enhanced. I think Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene might give some perspective here.