I thought some of you maybe interested in the attached link;

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/03/harmless-habit-that-turns-men-off-to.html

[The "Harmless" Habit that Turns Men off to You
What is this harmless habit that Cosmo magazine is dishing about this month? Male bashing. Imagine my surprise when I saw that a cover story in Cosmo was very much pro-male. The tagline reads "Verbally bashing the male species is now a reflex for a lot of chicks. Problem is, the real thing getting trashed could be your relationship." Okay, so they phrase the problem with male bashing as one that is detrimental to females, but hey, at least there is a realization that it is wrong. The article has several good sections in it entitled, "How We Beat Up on Boys," "Why it Weakens Love," "Break your Bashing Habit," and "Start Male Boasting."]Dr Helen

[Woozles in the Name of Protecting Women?

By Carey Roberts
The Gender Warriors have discovered the perfect wedge issue, one that carries raw, visceral appeal with liberals and conservatives alike, and to a large swath of the American electorate.

But there’s a catch: For this issue to work, the truth must purged from general awareness. Researchers have to be re-educated, or if need be, cowed into silence. And the media must be goaded to cooperate.

The issue is domestic violence.

This area has become so strewn with Urban Legends that researchers have dubbed them the “woozle effect.” Remember when Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet went hunting and almost caught a woozle?]

{“The Centers for Disease Control reports that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44.” Interesting, but the CDC never said anything like that.}

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/03/13/woozles-in-the-name-of-protecting-women/

Please note Romany I do not claim to be the author of the above!

However the Access Economics report is highly questionable, for the following reason.

Access Economics did not exclude from their calculations on the impact on businesses the number of women who are not employed. for example if 40% of women who experience DV are on welfare and not employed and Access Economics assumed the all DV victims were employed then the impact on the cost to business would been much less.

There was an interesting piece in the Courier Mail yesterday which I've not been able to locate on their website.

I think it is based on a book.

It started off with a discussion of the dangers of overuse of messaging for women and how the ease of messaging can impact negatively on relationships. Some really good points about sending a message then letting the imagination kick into overdrive while you wonder why your love interest has not responded immediately or with the appropriate words. A suggestion that the first use of the "L" word might be better said in person rather than via SMS and of the dangers of expecting a particulr response, etc.

The latter part of the article touched on some advice to women seeking relationships which I found bothersome. It suggested use of playing hard to get, not showing interest, letting him make the moves etc. The old tactics.

Is it that a lot of guys are still intimidated by women who are up front and honest or a preference by the authors for deceptive behaviour?

Playing hard to get seems like training to ignore anothers wishes, teaching that "No" means "Yes" you just have not pushed hard enough. Insisting that guys be the ones who take all the risks starts things off on an unequal footing. The guys most likely to meet the criteria would seem to be those with the least respect for the womans wishes.

What do other male posters think, do you prefer game players and tacticians or would you prefer women to be honest about their interest (or lack thereof)? Are we moving forward with equality or trying to cling to the stuff that holds us back? Are the kind of views in the article a result of men not coping with honest women or nostalga for the romance of pursuit?

Is it the experience of female posters that men don't cope with honest expressions of interest?

R0bert

Some people complain about a laissez faire approach to everything from the economy to advertising standards, but the problem is that once you move away from a laissez faire approach, then you have to define (and enforce) morality, and that's going to get someone's (maybe even a lot of people's) hackles up.

One of the ironies of a liberal society is that freedom may have unintended consequences and may not actually make people happier. I'm not not knocking freedom, but I think the Sexual Revolution and Feminism were seen by many as a societal panacea, when in reality, they were often driven by an ideology and power battle (and I'm not taking a side here) that didn't sit well with broader human biology.

Call me what you like, but I don't believe there's much more than biology. Biology says women will be regarded for their ability to reproduce and men will be regarded for their ability to provide for a mate and offspring. Personality, interests, etc. are just window dressing. Women get called sluts. Men get called deadbeats. Two sides of the same coin.

JamesH: There does seem to be an irony in the fact that to many men, Feminism has made women less desirable as anything other than sex objects (because it's actually worsened a lot of gender relations and made people more hostile to one another) whilst making sex from them a lot easier.

Good question R0bert. Initially I played along but different women = different expectations. Sometimes yes meant 'yes', or 'not yet', or simply 'no'.

So I don't play the game like that. I love a bit of flirting, double entendre & wordplay but when the serious stuff gets asked and answered, the only option now is to take it literally.

Very interesting reading, and that's all I'm going to say.
I'm off outa here.