[QUOTE=simeon the crushed;134953]as to the original post i think among women there is a sense that if a man isn't with a woman  he's not 'under control' , women alone can claim they're empowered and say things like ' i need a man as much as a fish needs a bicycle' but it seems very often men are seen as 'broken women'. that without a woman a man is a lesser and incomplete being, in general as well i think there is an air of suspicion around a man who is straight but has no interest in being with a woman, even one night stands, the only explanation people can think of is that he must be a 'loser' rather than the idea that he just might have other pursuits in his life or have a higher calling than just procreation.

or it could be that he's been there, done that and has now moved on to a different stage in his life where he feels satisfied to simply treat women as friends and nothing more, I'm in this category, i've loved, lost, learned and i now have other things i feel are more worthwhile to pursue, i think there still is a prevailing idea that men constantly 'want' women and that men are just 'broken women' and need a woman there to 'fix' them.

even 400 years ago coffee houses were being banned because they were men only and it was seen as 'seedy' and of 'ill repute' for there to be establishments where men can just exist in a place without women and so there were campaigners to get coffee houses banned not because they saw coffee as bad but because men were spending time there and not with women! the writings of the time reflect this sentiment, if there isn't a woman involved in a man's life then there must be something suspicious about him, I'm starting to feel this is the attitude my female mental health workers have, that i need persistent female 'poking' to better myself[/QUOTE]

I remember talking to someone who studied American History, who did say one of the "principles" Ameirca was founded on -- and which was very prevalent in early American history -- was the notion that women were more virtuous than men (Tocqueville would have used the phrase more "industrious") and that men needed women to control and "civilize" them.

I think, in our modern society, it's all run amuck the degree with which women go -- no, they don't do it on their own, they are controlled and "deployed" by society to do it -- to control men, to manipulate men, to use men and then throw them out like soiled gloves and have them figure out the hard way after the fact that they were suckers being used for utility by people who didn't love them one iota -- and it's gone to such extremes, it's off the wall now.

Read the book "Hitlers Furies" and notice how the author claims that women -- and not any sort of woman, Germany's "feminist class" -- were deeply involved in the holocaust, so much so that the men who got involved in killing and exterminating were "showing off" for women -- and you need to understand, I don't think such an efficient regime of extermination could have happened with men working with men alone. Women needed to be there to be far more obedient than men would have been on their own, to enforce far more conformity and following of the rules -- adherence to the dictates of higher authority, which is something men are notorious for not being able to be made to do on their own quite the same way women can be -- and for ensuring the kind of discipline that it took. Not only through moral influence -- but through the threat women posed as potential snitches on those men who didn't follow the rules, potential "falsely accuse men of rape" if they don't conform to the regime's extermination agenda, and the like. Because, that's the thing. Have an all male environment, and the men tend to form a camaraderie with each other that mitigates against the idea of any man involved with them breaking ranks and snitching them out to higher authority. Throw a few women into the mix -- you can guarantee they will ally with 'higher authority' against the peer group, everyone will know they can't trust women not to snitch, and everyone will know how carefully they have to follow the rules, just because women are watching. 

And, in modern society, "the rules" are always evil. "The rules" are always some version of "exterminate and keep quiet about it" at the same time. I don't think any holocaust was ever perpetrated by any regime that did not very carefully and consciously manipulate the gender politics in such a manner so as to ensure the men involved were controlled and watched over by obedient women, who were all snitches. I don't think it could be possible to pull it off otherwise. Those regimes who conducted holocausts first of all did it deliberately, secondly did it on behalf of the west and usually on behalf of the western business world and oil establishment, and they all applied and followed the formula that these business elites knew worked, wanted applied, and had the necessary money out there with which to pay off elites, often after disposing of whatever landed aristocracies these countries originally had which could have potentially resisted such totalitarianism. And, needless to say, no holocaust was ever perpetrated which was not to the benefit of the international western business world, which did not in some way help to thin out a target population in an area rich in natural resources that these businessmen wanted to make a large profit over exploiting. There was a formula which they applied, a governing formula, and once they figured out it worked, they kept applying it again and again.