Top 10 Criticisms I've Gotten.

I've gotten a load cool feedback so far, and much of it has been highly supportive. But naturally, I've also taken a lot of flak. It has mostly been the email equivalent of rocks with scribbled notes wrapped around them. Naturally, it's always amusing to read.

In fact, I expected this because I've voluntarily thrown myself open to all sorts of criticism. Naturally, some people write to suggest that I'm some kind of closed-minded crackpot of a bastard (if I was a true closed-minded crackpot of a bastard, I wouldn't have included an e-mail address at all, now would I?? Doesn't that reflect positively on me at least a little??) More importantly, I also wouldn't get any negative criticism at all if I'd kept my thoughts to myself, but then what fun is that? In fact, I feel somewhat vindicated by the observation that my harshest critics are often reduced to nit-picking. My core messages stand solid.

Apologies for the harsh language... but I prefer to write with a mixture of reason and natural human emotion. Heh, and one of the surest ways to get flamed in the writing biz is to take any side on a topic that is important to anybody at all. Naturally, because I'm living outside the U.S. and seem to be critical of many aspects of America, some of the more frothing patriotic types out there will probably assume that I'm a flag-burning anti-American and should shut the hell up. Yep, in the name of apple pie and free speech, I must be silenced!! (Heh.) No, I'm not anti-American per sé and I don't want to get too political in my writings... I just don't care for that nation's women.

I'd like to mention the most reflexive criticisms of me right up-front:

"You wimp" "whiner" "pussy" "dickless loser" There is a very ludicrous double-standard working against men: if a man doesn't voice his feelings, it means he's an unfeeling lunk. If he does voice his feelings and they involve pain of some sort, then he's a wimp/whiner/whatever. A wimp/whiner/pussy/dickless-loser is, naturally a man who doesn't respond to pain with stoic silence. He doesn't convenience others by shutting-up and taking it "like a man". Those epithets are used to shame a male for violating the culturally-imposed requirements of his gender-role. Yes, dammit-- I'm a wimp because I do not remain silent when I am in pain and when my rights are trampled. I do not remain silent when the law allows women to behave in predatory ways against me. I do not remain silent by pointing-out the flood of female bullshit that men routinely have to wade-through. If I am a wimp, then I feel NO SHAME for it. Sorry, you'll just have to find a more shocking insult to hurl at me.

"Okay, some women might be bad, but two wrongs don't make a right" you say? Very true... and in response to that- I'll simply point to every woman who justifies her man-bashing of today because of past "female oppression" a hundred years ago. Two wrongs don't make a right, but only when a woman is on the receiving end of the second wrong, eh? So, I must continually be forgiving while women don't have to be? Uh, sure.

It's no use to write to me and say, "Well, don't blame ALL women. You're focusing on a handful of evil bitches out there and blaming all of us for it! REAL women don't act the way you describe..." Well, 'REAL' women should be out there angrily denouncing the 'evil bitches', instead of sitting silently on the matter! How many REAL women ever speak-up whenever misandristic male-bashing occurs around them? Pretty few! 'REAL' women are quite content to enjoy having the option of reverse-discrimination open to them. If 'REAL' women are actually ambivalent on prejudice and discrimination, then 'REAL' women are no damn good at all!

Unsurprisingly, much of my criticism has come from women, but a bit has come from men. There's also the suggestion that I over-use italics- I don't know where people get that idea from. What can I say? Heh, I'm passionate. But anyway, I think I can break-down the criticism into a top 10 list of sorts:

1: I make too many generalizations.

Yes, this has to be the top one that I've gotten shot-at for. Although I try to qualify my statements, my disclaimers come-across as very, very weak. Okay, ten points for you. I can't deny that. My bad. Apologies for making hasty generalizations. It was wrong of me to do so. Am I allowed to stop apologizing now? Yeesh.

I'm always in the ongoing process of trying to rectify the problem... but if I re-title my site to be Some Women Seem To Suck Sometimes, and This In No Way Is Meant To De-Emphasize The Idea That Some Men Suck Too, But Just Try To Consider The Other Side Of the Equation For A Sec the audience will fall-asleep. What should I change the site name to? How about Most Female Behavior Sucks? I just don't know if that sounds as good. I know I make a lot of generalizations, but it's really hard to make the points I'm trying to make without using generalizations. And you know what? Never once do I say than men don't suck, too. Only difference is- in our society, the "men suck" attitude is so deeply-embedded in the landscape, we accept it as truth without even thinking about it. When someone says that women suck... well, that forces you to think a little bit, dunnit? I don't think I'll be changing the name of this site any time soon.

In my humble opinion that you are not required to agree with, let me say it NOW AND FOREVER: not ALL women suck... but too often, it feels like they all do.

2: I am a hypocrite.

Get the tar and feathers! String me up on the nearest lamp-post! Prepare the vat of leeches!
I see this one quite a bit... as if people generally aren't hypocrites during at least some points in their lives. Often, people make this accusation for different reasons, and they are often very vague when they call me this. Furthermore, they act as if the word 'hypocrite' somehow constitutes a comprehensive nullification of everything and anything I could ever possibly say. And it's extremely difficult for me to plausibly deny my hypocrisy without looking suspect, so it's a very disarming and easy accusation for a reader to make. So I'm not going to even try to deny it, because it'll just undermine my credibility.
Additionally, it's a waste of time for me to point-out that women themselves are habitual hypocrites to the Nth degree as part of their normal-life operating procedures. There is a clear double-standard at work against men: women are allowed to be serial hypocrites every day of the week, yet I am not allowed to be a much smaller hypocrite, even in much more limited circumstances. Why the dickens should I be held to standards that are clearly so much more stringent?

What can I say in my defense without looking suspect? Not much. Being a hypocrite is not necessarily a slur on one's character if one is actually willing to expose themselves to the bright light of scrutiny- so don't fall into the trap of thinking that a few instances of hypocrisy over the past 8 or so years automatically negates everything I could ever possibly say.

It's hard to adhere to one set of never-changing behavior throughout life when you still have to periodically readjust yourself to meet the grey-areas of a changing environment. And when you need to respond to a wide variety of situational instances throughout life, comparing a dozen contrasting instances over a period of years can start to reveal hypocrisy with the clarity of hindsight. Hindsight being 20/20, of course. (And you also need to realize that some of my actions are seen by you, the reader, out of complete situational context. It's often difficult to convey seamlessly complete and total contextual background in every piece of writing I crank-out, but I do try.) And finally, in the words of Walt Whitman: "Very well then, I contradict myself. I contain multitudes."
So, if I'm indeed a hypocrite, I'm exposing my hypocrisy in the past for what it is as that's the healthy thing for me to do. But then again, I've taken a hard look at myself over the years and after putting a lot of thought into it, I think the major reason why I seem like a hypocrite is as follows... If I'm a hypocrite, then it's because I'm very confused about the right way to interact with women due to the fact that what women say about relationships and expectations of male behavior often conflicts with what women do.
I'm not blaming my hypocrisy on women, I'm just saying it's a symptom of a very deep and befuddling set of confusions that I've been grappling with for the past 8 or 10 years... specifically, why is it that there are so many double-standards operating against me in the dating game? Why do women claim to be perennially disadvantaged when it is entirely obvious that so many institutions, laws and social traditions openly favor them? Why is it I'm told to regard women as equals, yet only *I* am expected to take the romantic initiative and be held responsible if I pressure her into sex? If she's an equal, why won't she hold doors open for me, too? If I'm supposed to treat the woman as an equal, then why is it only she seems to have an effective veto over most aspects of the relationship? Why is it that I'm expected to pay on a date even if she makes way more money than I do? Why is it women say they want honesty, yet then punish me for saying unpleasant truths? Why is it I'm told that I should try to be myself when she is dead-set on trying to change me into being someone different? Why is it that only a woman can rewrite the rules of behavior for both themselves and men whenever it suits them? And why is she the one who insists on deciding whose needs have to be met and when? Head... hurts, mommy... must... lie.. down...

Perhaps hypocrisy is the only possible reaction to these sorts of paradoxes? Please explain how is a guy supposed to react to these realities without contradicting himself from time to time? If the rules are conflicting and keep on changing, it's hard to be consistent. It's a set of situations that together seem to demand uncomfortable contortions from males from time to time- heh, I'd like to see a woman try to stick to the rules she requires a man to follow! Females neither realize nor care that they are hypocrites

I'd genuinely like to be less of a hypocrite as time goes on, so I appreciate it when people tell me this. It gives me pointers for my own personal improvement. Awareness of one's own hypocrisy is much better than ignorance of it... or smugly blinding oneself to it (ahem, yes I'm looking at you right now, ladies).

So, if anyone is going to write me and say 'you're a hypocrite', you've just read the response I'll give you.

3: I am superficial/I judge books by their covers.

Yup, this is another common one. It's often asked how much emphasis I put on a woman's looks, and it's also hard to deny this one without appearing suspect. So, readers tell me that I'm superficial... as if people somehow generally aren't superficial.

I suppose this is somewhat my fault for appearing superficial... my 1 to 10 point grading system, I never explained it very well.
It is highly subjective and is based on a number of things: the initial look might form the basis of the number, and it's merely used as a descriptive technique so that people can understand how I view the woman at first glance and it's NOT a judgment of her inherent worth. (A woman who's an 8 by my standards might be a 5 by another persons' standards... in fact, I've often found a woman attractive despite another guy wincing at her and saying 'woof!') As time goes on, the number also includes a woman's personality and actions... a woman can look like a 9, but if she's a backstabbing, compulsive liar she'll be reduced to a 2 or 3 pretty quickly. If a woman isn't very attractive, but reveals her personality to be truly cool, then she can move way up... Carey, (one of my best female friends), for instance, might be considered to be a 2 or 3 by most people at first glance... but in reality, she is one of the most fun and level-headed people I know... so that might move her up to a 9 based on personality alone (and she already has a boyfriend whom she is madly in love with, so she's not a dating prospect for me.) Jianglin... she's 9.9 on my scale. Not because of her looks. She became a 9.9 because of all the incredible kindness she showed me in such a short amount of time. And 10 is unattainable by mortals.
Anyways, the point is, my 'grading system' is highly subjective and shouldn't be used as proof that I judge a woman based solely on whether or not I like what I see. There are multiple factors involved. The 1 to 10 system is illustrative strictly for how I see the woman, and it is not a judgment of her inherent worth. Since I don't use photographs of these women, it's hard for me to describe how attractive they are at first glance... so I need to have some sort of grading system to get the idea across to the readers.

So... am I superficial? Very hard to say. I know the value of not judging a book by its cover... yet, I'm also attracted to attractive women (imagine that!) Perhaps it's a character flaw of mine? Hamlet had his indecisiveness, Othello his jealousy, MacBeth his ruthlessness... and I fall victim to being distracted by pretty things. Still you might accuse me of judging books by their covers (heh, and of course, normal people never do things like that!) If I looked at a woman and said "oh, she's fat- therefore I won't ever talk to her" then yes, there is something wrong with doing that. But I can't honestly say that I actually behave like that. In fact, I do my best not to. In fact, I never dare to even approach the hottest women I see.

No, you can't judge a book by its cover... but I can look at a book and tell you when it's made of paper! I can look at a book and tell you what language it's written in, what the title is, the topic, who the author is and I can read the back of the cover to find-out yet more! If the book is about Sherlock Holmes or written by Leo Tolstoy, then you could draw many conclusions about what the book will be like! You know, you actually can get a lot of information about a book by its cover, because that is how books are presented to the world!

The same is true for reading many (but not all) people. You don't even need to look at a woman to get insight about what she's really like. For instance, if I'm in a restaurant and I overhear the woman at the next table nattering for 5 full minutes about the "fucking idiot" waiter for bringing her salad with ranch dressing instead of pesto dressing, I probably can draw a few conclusions about her personality without even seeing her. It's all about me making decisions based on how people present themselves to the world, not about me only going-after the hottest women I lay eyes on. And I've been slowly finding-out that the more physically attractive a woman is on the outside, often the more corrupted she is on the inside. If I see a gorgeous woman walking down the street, I often wonder if she's got something to hide.

4: I'm not really a nice guy/I am a total bastard.

Some women write to tell me that I'm not really a nice guy... Why do they say this? They think that a nice guy is someone who will give and give and give and give and give and expect nothing in return. That definition of 'nice guy' is a totally ridiculous one. Gee, a nice guy must be some kind of total dope, hmm? Well, they mainly say I'm not nice because when I treat a woman decently, I (gasp) expect a woman to reciprocate! Oh my God, I'm a creep! I must have some sort of ulterior motive or be attempting mind-control! I'm trying to manipulate her! I'm using my behavior as a bargaining system! I want a mindless puppet woman whom I can turn on and off like a VCR!

Hah, naturally a woman will assume that me being 'nice' is a form of mind control! Mainly because it is women who try to dangle their affection-out as a lure, so they insist I must be doing the same thing! Women project their own characteristics onto me and proclaim me guilty of the flaws they know they have themselves. Fine, call me a manipulator if you will... but don't forget that women usually try to manipulate men to the Nth degree. Again, I'm being held to a double-standard that is clearly so much more stringent for males.

Ahem, no I'm not out to manipulate a woman. And I'm not operating under the impression that I 'own' a woman and have the right to dictate her behavior (heh, like a woman feels as if she shouldn't dictate a man's behavior! As if a woman feels as if she shouldn't try to 'domesticate' or 'perfect' a man somehow!) And while it is true that I get a lot of personal satisfaction from treating women nicely, I also expect a woman to reciprocate the good treatment I give her by acting like my good treatment is actually worthwhile. (For those women out there who are reading this right now, I know you're probably not familiar with the word 'reciprocate'. 'Reciprocate' is just a biiig, fancy word for returning polite behavior when someone is polite towards you... or, conversely, not returning shitty behavior when someone is not being a bastard... For instance, if I do not check-out the breasts of other women in the presence of my date, I expect my date to not gush-on about what a great, tight butt our waiter has. If I'm trying to treat you respectfully, then a little civility and manners from you would be nice now and then. Maybe cut-back on your thanklessness a trifle, okay? And offering to help pay for dinner once in a blue moon would be great, too. Got it? So, why don't you try spelling it out with me until this word sinks-in, ladies? R-E-C-I-P-R-O-C-A-T-E.)

I actually think that my affection is worth something! Isn't this a sign of a healthy self-perception? No no no, I must have a reaaaal big personal problem to think that showing a woman affection might be something that would inspire her to do nice things for me, too! (See Criticism #8.)

Oh, you say I shouldn't expect a woman to be obligated to reciprocate anything if she doesn't want to, is that right? That I shouldn't be setting these sorts of expectations for how a woman should behave if I'm not some sort of would-be control-freak who only thinks of his own self-interest? Some women might insist that the act of me giving affection is some kind of selfishness in disguise. Or I use my kindness as a bargaining chip.
Well, if that is a big no-no for me, then why is it that women typically think that a man somehow owes her something in exchange for having sex with her? That she will often consider sexual intimacy as some kind of mortgage of obligations to her that the man has to pay-off afterwards? Don't women consider their affection (especially their sexual affection) as a perfectly legitimate bargaining chip in eliciting responses from a man? Won't the woman get upset if her one-night stand doesn't give her the post-coital telephone call that he is 'obligated' to give her? Doesn't a woman ever expect to not get something back from a man if she ever gives him a gift? Is this not the exact same reciprocation principle that women invoke to a much greater degree with just about anything she does for a man when her affection is involved?!? Again, I'm being held to yet another double-standard.
I'd appreciate to have someone explain to me exactly why its all right for a woman to have these kind of expectations for men to follow, but not okay for me to have the much-less ridiculous expectation that a woman should think that my affection is actually worth something? Why are women allowed to think they have the right to share a man's money and material possessions after having sex with him, but I am not allowed to expect that a woman should so much as return the good treatment I give her? I don't think my expectations are at all unthinkable when you see how totally selfish female expectations are.

If I'm decent, I expect a woman to reciprocate by treating me decently. I'm like a puppy. If you treat a puppy with love, the puppy will continue the cycle by loving ya right back. But if you kick a puppy, and kick it over and over again, it will learn to be mean to you one day. Yeah, sure, everyone gets kicked throughout their lives... but I'm starting to think that I've been kicked maybe one too many times.

So... I am a total bastard? Hmmm, yeah, I have to say that I distinctly give-off that impression based on what I've written. I come-off as an obnoxious, opinionated, foul-mouthed weasel. All I can say is: I have plenty of friends, and my friends are all extraordinarily wonderful people. And none of them would ever guess that I run this site. If I was truly horrible and obnoxious, I'd probably be on my own all the time (but ironically, I'd have more sex partners). But then again, I knew that posting my thoughts wouldn't win me too many popularity contests. Especially in the eyes of women.
It's hard for me to prove my self-proclaimed niceness. It's really hard to do... All I can say is: I do my best, and based on the feedback I get from most people in real life, I am a pretty nice guy.

5: I let women walk all over me.

Yeah, I have to agree. Er, or rather, I used to let women walk all over me. I thought that I was just respecting them by making accommodations for their well-being. I always thought that if I treated a woman generously and affectionately, she'd be generous and affectionate in kind. But now I know better: if I give her an inch, she'll try to take a mile. An American female is so incredibly self-obsessed and thick-skulled, that she is just plain incapable of recognizing anybody's needs except for her own. Now I'm painfully aware: the more you give a woman, the lazier and more demanding she will typically become. Now that I'm able to anticipate various behavior-patterns, I feel better prepared to react to them in a proper fashion. Believe me, I won't let it happen again. I have little to no patience for bitches anymore.

It's kind of odd... it is always expected of men to restrain themselves into not walking all-over their wives or girlfriends, yet women are not restrained by any similar principle when interacting with their boyfriends or husbands. Another double-standard... anyone keeping score so far?

And just for the record: I do not try to pursue women who are bitches. Here is the main reason why I seem to end-up with bitchy women: I am constantly in a state of naïve optimistic hope that my date will not turn-out to be a bitch this time... but there are simply too many of you women out there who pretend to be non-bitchy for the first few meetings.

6: I drink too much.

I suppose I probably look like a real booze-hound. That's probably my fault for writing too many drinking stories.

In Japan, drinking is a time-honored tradition. Who am I to turn-up my nose at that sort of tradition?

But alcoholism can be a very serious problem, and it's ruined many lives.. So has drunk driving and so on... But, I always drink responsibly and I'm always careful. Mainly because I don't want to ever cause any havoc.

If it makes you feel better, I haven't had a hangover in years. And I do know how to have a good time without alcohol. In fact, most of my best friends are non-drinkers and I have plenty of fun with them. So... I don't think I drink too much at all, and I appreciate the concern for my well-being.

7: If I want honesty from a woman, Japan isn't the right place to be.

People have said that, in fact, I'm in precisely the wrong place. Yeah, I know that. Japanese people are often known for stifling their own opinions for the sake of preserving good interpersonal relationships. I'm well-aware of this. The language itself is full of ambiguities and verbal loopholes to avoid giving too-direct an answer. There's even a phrase for this sort of thing: tatemae honne. ('Tatemae' meaning one's façade and 'honne' meaning one's inner nature.)

But as for honesty: in the mind of an American woman, truth is as malleable as fiction because her definition of 'truth' can change every five minutes. The effect is almost the same as being a compulsive liar. In the U.S. I did get some honesty (or at least the relativistic, filtered, spinned version of dishonest-honesty that women chose to give me), but I also met few women who were interested in having a good relationship. I hope that it's not an inverse correlation between honesty and good relationships, because I've always thought that it shouldn't be that way... all I can say is, I do my best to encourage every Japanese person I meet to speak his or her mind to me and not worry about hurting my feelings.

Which do I want more? Honesty or a good interpersonal relationship? Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I'd like to have a lot of both, if possible. As I said: this sojourn will be an interesting experiment, meaning that I don't know how it will turn out. And I've noticed that the divorce rate in Japan is much lower than it is in the U.S. There seems to be something interesting at work over here...

8: I blame women for my problems when the reality is: I am actually the problem.

That sure is the simplest explanation, innit? Occam's razor, after all. Naturally, a woman will assume that it must be a problem that the man has, and that her own behavior can never be imperfect. It's always the man's fault.

Some women have claimed that the real issue is that I probably have a low self-esteem, and that is why women aren't attracted to me and that is why I tend to get sucky American women. That sounds like a good explanation, but answer me this: how can I have a low self-esteem if I truly believe that my affection is valuable and that the woman I give affection to ought to show appreciation for it?

In real life, I make an effort to show some humility and perhaps this comes-across to some as a low self-esteem. But I think I've revealed through my writings that I actually do believe I have many attractive qualities and I think I deserve to have a great girlfriend. I actually do have a good self-esteem even if I'm not vociferous about proclaiming it outside of my writings. And (this is what truly pisses-off the female readers) I am even warped enough to think my affection is so valuable that the vast majority of American women are substandard compared to what I deserve. Apparently, a good self-esteem is what I need- unless my self-esteem causes me to think that American chicks are beneath my dignity. That is an unacceptable level of self-esteem for me to have, it seems!

Is it symptomatic of a low self-esteem for me to claim that my affection is valuable? I'd have to say no: that my own perceptions of my affection is the result of a healthy self-esteem, and not an unhealthy self-esteem. I'd be more than happy to have someone answer me this: I think my affection is quite valuable... so how is this is a result of a low self-esteem? And to top it all off... a few women even wrote-in claiming that based on how I write, I've got to be an egomaniac! (Heh, so I either have too-low a self-esteem or too-high a self esteem? I must be messed-up in either case!)

So, even though I think I have a good self-esteem, this is not to say that I lack self-reflection: for the longest time, I used to believe that I was the root problem. In fact, that was my first assumption for a long time. It was me. There must be something wrong with my flirting techniques. I had flaws that made me unattractive and that was the reason why women didn't like me. Internally, I magnified every quirk and idiosyncrasy of mine totally out of proportion and had an unshakable resolve to improve my own behavior. But one day I made a simple realization: I might have flaws, but I have no control over another woman's prejudices. None whatsoever. A woman's prejudices are her fault and I am not to blame for them. I can be the most loving, nurturing, romantic guy on the planet, but it don't make a lick of difference if she's fascinated by the bad-boy look or has exploitative demands on how I should act towards her.

Regardless of what I do, it won't make a lick of difference if half the country is determined to be stuck in their own little irrational, f'd-up, female ways. In that situation, I am definitely not the problem. I 've met plenty of guys with obviously dysfunctional personalities who get far more tail than me, so it's certainly not that women are repelled by dysfunctional men. And I've noticed that quite a few women over the age of 40 will agree with me that a huge number of women in their 20s and 30s are batshit-loony (I always prefer interacting with women in their 40s, because they're actually reasonable). When faced with these undeniable observations: am I necessarily the problem 100% of the time? Unlikely. The problem doesn't always exclusively come from the male side of the dating game, sweethearts. Sorry. You women are pretty fucked-up yourselves.
Sure ladies, you can call me a wimp, a pussy, say I'm not strong enough, I lack self-esteem, whatever makes you feel superior. But whatever label you slap on me, you can't escape the fact that females will not take responsibility for their own idiocy and expect everybody else in the world to pay for their own private failures. If women ever act like complete assholes, they will insist they aren't at fault for their own behavior. Whenever confronted by evidence of their wrongdoing, they will switch into 'charming girly mode' and feign innocence. And whenever a woman doesn't WIN, she will do whatever it takes to play 'victim' and connive sympathy. Furthermore when women come-together into their little cliques, they enforce horrible standards of conformity on each other through exclusion and rumor-mongering. And you know it's true.

I'll concede: I am not perfect. I know I will never be perfect. But I'll keep trying. Some of my self-admitted flaws: I'm kind of wierd, and I sometimes have a wierd sense of humor. I'm not the best-looking guy in the world. I'm not the smartest, most affable guy on the planet. Sometimes, I have darned unusual eating habits and sometimes read obscure books. And I don't spend huge amounts of money on my appearance. But despite all that, I do deserve a shred of decency from time to time. And a better relationship does not reside exclusively in my own self-improvement, dammit.

9: If a woman rejects my romantic advances, then I jump to the conclusion that she's an irredeemable bitch.

Absolutely not. I get irritated if a woman rejects me by wrapping it in a fraudulent envelope. She shouldn't coat it in sickeningly-sweet garbage like "you're so NICE" or "you're such a good FRIEND" and later whine to me that she never meets any men who treat her as well as I do. She should be up-front and honest with me and say: "I think you're not a big-enough asshole/rich enough/good-looking enough to have sex with you." If she says "there's no chemistry between us", then she should also say "this 'chemistry' includes looks and/or money, and you just don't have enough." If she says "I don't want to spoil our friendship", she should also say "I prefer to keep you in a position where you will provide me with a self-esteem boost whenever my boyfriend makes me feel worthless."

If she can't admit those things, then she's a boldfaced liar. If she would ever just admit any of those things, it would be a rejection that I can live with. Why is it so freaking hard for a woman to not lie? Because I might think badly of her? Because I might lose respect for her? Too late for that! I've lost so much respect for American women, there is absolutely no way in hell they can possibly sink any lower in my eyes! But I imagine some gal out there will yet manage to surprise me on that, too.

10: I feel this way because I've had a few bad experiences. If only I'd meet a nice woman, I'd change my opinions immediately.

No, I feel this way because my experiences with women have been all-too typical! It's not that I don't look for nice women- there are simply too many bitches out there who've made a lifestyle out of pretending they're non-bitchy. Ask any guy. Not some star athlete or millionaire who says "Oh, I'm a nice guy and women love me- therefore women love nice guys..." no, go talk to an average man about how wonderfully and lovingly women have treated him throughout life. Women appreciate niceness from football stars or that guy on the dance-floor who has 10 girls hanging-off him- but not quite so much when it comes from a guy who wraps tacos for a living.
No matter how good a man might be, he must be the one who improves himself to please women. Yet women only need to be themselves-- no matter how horribly they might ever behave.

Many women, especially those in the U.S., are brought-up to see men as adversaries. Men are the big enemy who need to be out-smarted and out-played. Men are seen as a source of free entertainment while she gets to concentrate on whether enough of her needs are being met, screw his needs. If it would make them feel better about themselves, women can abuse whomever they like. And yet, they do all this and continue to insist: "Oh, I'm a great woman. There's never anything wrong with how I possibly behave. If someone doesn't like what I do, then they obviously have the problem."

Women who treat men lovingly are exceptional. Women who try to fulfill other peoples' needs are exceptional. Women who put other people first are exceptional. Women who are genuinely kind and selfless are exceptional. And even if a woman is genuinely nice, there are no guarantees that they won't turn into utter bitches one day. That is the main problem, dears, not I.

I appreciate all the feedback I've gotten, thanks. I hope that you'll stop demanding that I apologize for being as honest as I can possibly be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is nothing wrong with change, so long as it is in the right direction." -- Winston Churchill.

Back to Home