or is legitimate in any way. Any assertion to the contrary is pure evil, or stupidity/emotional damage if the guy appears open to "enlightenment" by women. There are reasons why men see the world differently and have different reactions to things than women, until that is understood and accepted as a basis for discussion, there will never be genuine cooperative discussion. Women are entitled to have negative views, feelings, reactions to and about men, why aren't men entitled to the same without an attempt being made, in so far as possible, to make them disappear (obviously this won't literally happen). The my way or the highway attitude, while it may work in some situations can't work for half the human race. I think an understanding of biology shows the most promise of opening up some comman ground for discussion.

higher standards than men, (for everything but looks for sure, the looks issue is less clear cut) that is the point. If men discournted any women who displayed hostility towards men, the human race would be extinct. I'm not saying there aren't good reasons why this differecne between men and women exists, only pointing out that it does.

because no one who will sleep with them is good enough, men (almost)never say this. I know you will find this extremely difficult to understand but I am actually aware, can you believe it, that not every woman on earth wants to sleep with men.

that is pretty wierd

there is an honest look at the facts, you implicitly confirm my point that biology offers a way to go by your party line attempt to close off that line of inquiry. I'm curious as to what you think will be accomplished by simply resating the party line for the past forty years: "but it's only women who have REAL problems" in response to anythig and everything that is said.

exception of looks, women require more of men than men require of women in order to have sex/establish a relationship. Do you honestly dispute this?

well we agree on something

and in both cases men have to meet a higher standard to satisfy women than women have to meet to satisfy men.

and many fewer men than women have been able to escape poverty by marrying money. It's ridiculous that anyone would imply otherwise (even if it was an unintened by product of polical posturing for other reasons)

Is that your only requirement?

physically attrative and reasonably feminine/pleasant in her behavior will generally find her worth being around regardless of other accomplishements, attributes, or lack therof (unless she is a total lunatic or retard) if there isn't someone more attractive available. Of course if you are talking about marriage or a long term commitment more scrutiny in a variety of areas would likely be applied. Women, because they get stuck with the kids and pregnancy is a huge investment, are innately emotionally programmed to take a more discerning look (this discernment can take a variety of forms) at who they sleep with. I'm not saying that biology is destiny, but knowledge of it is something to be understood and taken into account, not suppressed. The suggestion that because men don't have the same standards and reactions to these situations that women do they are shallow and stupid really exemplifies the problem.

just in case?

are more demanding than men for what they require in a partner. I think there's good evidence for this. The original phrase, in the context of marriage, was "education, money, success" later amended to, "or the likely potential thereof", perhaps this is too narrow, especially if we aren't talking marriage or long term, but the larger point is valid I think. In my last sentence I should have said: "the belief that IF men don't have the same standards and reactions to these situations that women do that men are shallow and stupid really exemplifies the problem."

so I hear, although by the sounds of things I'm not sure for how much longer.

well, maybe the resolution of this is that it is more difficult for a man to be considered attractive. Really, something is different

but really as far as sex goes, if a woman posts a personal ad on line she will find lots of men willing to have sex with her, this is just a fact. A man posting an ad will not have women constantly e-mailing, iming him for sex. That's just the way it is, I mean c'mon.

probably does have some basis in reality. Of course not everyone who marries for money is gay, but a man whose PRIMARY FOCUS in selecting a woman to marry is money is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be gay. Of course the article was not about this, it was about the fact that far fewer men than before can afford to marry a woman with no money. The implication though that men and women now have the same priorites and preferences in a partner is bullshit.

This is true, because men who can't have sex are stressed out and have lots of problems but a woman who can't get everything her way is perfectly happy to hang out with her girlfriends, male or female, and enjoy celibacy, or as it is often put, happiness comes from within, stop being desperate, devlop yoursellf as person etc.

the collective status/influence of men all on it's own. It's probably true that they do and I suspect that the current idea female/feminist=human (by implication those who can't/won't think/feel/behave like females/feminists are less than) contributes, but whatever the laws and polices, if men can't find a different way to cope/indulge their risk taking, etc. they won't need radical feminism to keep them down, they'll be down all on their own.

harshly than women, because every womb is needed, but there's plenty of suplus sperm. This ethic is totally embraced by both traditionalists and feminists.