Whyfore Plankton? Whyfore Wives?

December 29, 2011 § 148 Comments

The definition of plankton, as we all know, is a woman over thirty-five in want of a man. I am wondering if perhaps I have always been one, or was destined to become one ever since my conception.  I think this because so many of the fears and hopes I feel now are so familiar to those I felt before I became a wife. I feel I am back in a bleak box with my name on it and which always remained there awaiting me, even when I was married.  A rightful box.  Perhaps I am just one of life’s plankton.

There again, I am not so sure.  So much of it is down to luck or, rather, bad luck.  There are so many different types of women who are plankton, for an infinite number of reasons.  Of course, some bring it on themselves; others – the majority, I like to think – don’t, it just happens to them, out of their control.

I can come up with examples of plenty of seriously beautiful women who made some bad choices, and who have ended up unmarried despite their unleashed wish to find a husband.  I know of several in their late thirties or early forties who had hundreds of men in love with them, hitting on them all over the shop, and they always held off from accepting any proposal because they kept thinking that something “better” might come along.  And their moment  passes.  Their “erotic capital”, if one insists, fades, and no longer holds quite the sway it once did.  I observe women who want money and status, hit thirty and become panic-striken, and by forty are frantic.  There is an element of choice in this type of planktonhood and it is one for which few people have much sympathy, except me.  I feel a lot of sympathy for all types of plankton because it is never as black and white as it may appear.  But, having said that, there is often a great deal less choice about divorce, and none about widowhood.  And there are many, many more grey areas in between.

I can think of any number of women who were either attracted to (or were targeted by) the wrong kind of men, or for whom timing did not work in their favour (that’s a very common one), or whose lovers let them down or disappointed them in a myriad of different ways and / or were procrastinators or commitment-phobes; of women who were “too” fussy, “too” demanding, “too” co-dependent, “too” needy, “too” spoilt , “too” sweet, “too” hard-working, “too” lazy, “too” fat, “too” thin, “too” door-matty or just plain “too”.  This list of reasons why women end up alone for years or for ever is infinite.  Their fault, only partly their fault, or not their fault at all.  But the fact of planktonhood remains…

But the fact also remains that many of the women in relationships are all or some of these things too.  Of course they are.  But timing and luck or indolence or fear or any other number of factors mean that their particular coin manages to fall at heads instead of tails.  They are not better than us plankton, or worse.  They are just in the right place at the right time, or with a man who loves them despite everything or because everything, or he is a man who can’t be arsed to do anything about calling time.  There are many “good” people who are alone; many “bad” who aren’t.  And vice versa. (I can think of many examples of both).  In fact, quite often, it is the stalker and the bitch who win out.  Many a plankton has said to me, as indeed I have said myself, “Perhaps I’d have had better luck had I been a bitch!”  (Wew!  This is a controversial theme I could run with for a very long time.  I’ll leave it for another day, though).

So, back to the main theme: I do often think it is pure chance.  Depressed times, I wonder, what is the matter with me?  What’s so great about her?  More positive days, I suppose that the truth is we all perchance come into luck and/or bad luck; we all make our luck and/or bad luck, and it’s just a question of who has what at any given time.  There is nothing superior about the woman in an ongoing relationship (even if the occasional she may think so) and nothing for her to feel complacent about (though there will always be some who do, though they’d better watch out because luck is a supremely fickle commodity).  Conversely, there is nothing inferior about the woman not in a relationship, even if she feels it much of the time.

Now, there is something you may have thought the Original Plankton would never say!  Boy, Love, you’ve changed your tune, you might well tell me.  And you’d be right.  I change my mind about this all the time.  Can never quite decide.

Tomorrow, silly old cow that I am, I may argue completely the opposite.  There again, it is my party and I’ll be contrary if I want to.

 

About these ads

§ 148 Responses to Whyfore Plankton? Whyfore Wives?

  • Jonathan says:

    You have such sympathy for fellow plankton, yet stigmatise men you label as Single for a Reason….

    • Lydia says:

      The key is in positive mental attitude. The empire was built on it, not by moaners and pessimist but by women and men who just got on with it.

      There was a Radio 4 programme about “luck”. Optimists can make their own luck. They expect the good things to happen. My oldest child picked up lots of leaflets for a competitoin from an air port floor years ago, must have entered 50 times so sure was she she would win (and she’s still the optimist today in all aspects of her life including her £60k first job not that money is the most important thing…) Guess what ..she won.

      I apply for all kinds of things, work things, boards etc etc on and on because I know they would all be so lucky to have me and sometimes I succeed. The pessmist would say no chance for me there. I won’t even bother to apply. I’ll cry into my pillow.

      It’s the same with getting a partner. If you think you;ll never find one you;ll give up trying and thus fail. YOu only win competitions which you enter and in fact in the dating stakes you are probably the top prize… well I like to think I am.

    • paolo says:

      I think, in general, Ms. Plankton has been balanced in her treatment of both sexes. I have not sensed a hostility toward men. I think she actually does like and value men, as evidenced, for example, by her affection toward the husbands of some of her married female friends

      However, it occurs to me that there are probably as many female SFARs out there as male SFARs. You know, overweight women who refuse to exercise or maintain a healthy diet, women who live for their careers, women who are promiscuous, women who “want to be spoiled’ (the worst kind of women of all), women who believe in all the shallow cliches of romance but are incapable of love, women who insist on a man whose income is three times greater than theirs, women who are addicted to TV or the other banalities of popular culture, women who hate men, women who are still fastened to all the patriarchal crap that has been handed down over the centuries (i.e., a man must be more competent and smarter and wealthier than a women), a woman whose parents were abusive or alcoholic and will never get over that trauma (the saddest women of all), women who don’t like sex or physical affection, women who cannot handle stress in appropriate ways, women who find spiritual fulfillment in shopping and consumerism, and so on. I’ve seen or personally experienced all of these. Of course, you could probably take these same characteristics and point them back toward my own sex. And maybe that’s the point.

      • Elle says:

        Paolo, I don’t think you like women very much.

      • MissM says:

        Agreed Paolo, though have you noticed that there are people who have the traits that you list above, which one would think should be reason to leave them single, and despite that they managed to be part of the happily married? It is not true that all the married people are perfect, intelligent, balanced and happy with themselves and have no issues at all. Any characteristic one can throw at a plankton to justify her being alone can be found in any number of the smug marrieds. I see no difference and am certain it is pure blind luck that left them in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      • Lydia says:

        We all have our own list of what puts us off. Some men want a virtual virgin and others might be happy a woman h ad had sex before they met him. Some people want open marriages and others (I would hope most whether male or female) want to be faithful.

        If someone doesn’t like women who “live for their careeers” but also doesn’t want a woman who wants a man to support them doesn’t that rule out all women except those who have ripped off a man in divorce or inherited wealth? If you haven’t got money from men then you need a career in order to ensure you aren’t then looking for a man to keep you. I suppose I could accept there is a problem if a man or woman has no time for their partner but someone who loves their work, family, hobbies etc those are good people. If you want a consumeristic leech then avoid women with careers but you cannot have it both ways.

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        Paolo, haven’t you realized it yet? Those women who are SFOA? It’s Not Their Fault. It’s ours, as men.

        Just ask them.

  • Elle says:

    Did you mention women who spent their nubile years in an abusive relationship? When these women got out they were either of plankton age or it took them years to recover. The worst cases I know hark back to their abusive relationship with nostalgia. Eeeek!

    • The Plankton says:

      I didn’t, but should have! Thank you, Elle, for doing so on my behalf. Px

    • Joe says:

      Did you overlook the men who spent their nubile years in an abusive relationship?

      • Elle says:

        Joe, I think everybody deserves a chance. Life throws unpleasant surprises at most of us, sometimes we’re not to blame, sometimes there’s a lesson in it for us. I believe in treating others as I would like to be treated myself.

        This blog isn’t a man bashing forum, instead it’s a place where a woman of a certain age (Plankton in Chief) tells us her experiences of day to day life. Many of us share her sentiments and this blog is a place where we can compare experiences safely. Most of us put on a brave face for the real world and this is the only place where we can drop the mask and express our fear and despair.

      • MissBates says:

        Elle: Well said — I’m not sure our fearless Plankton leader had it in mind to create a forum for us all, but that’s what she’s got! There really are very few places/situations where it’s acceptable to talk about these things and, as you say, I put on a brave face most of the time. As noted before somewhere in these pages, one could confess to having a sexually-transmitted disease and create less social discomfort than one does when talking about being alone in middle-age.

    • paolo says:

      Elle,

      With respect to your reply to my previous post, I don’t think you read it in its entirety. If you had, you would have noticed two things: A defense of Ms. Plankton’s treatment of men in this wonderful blog (which i considered completely “fair and balanced”), and an acknowledgment (as though one is needed) that there are both male and female SFARs out there. These points are hardly controversial, or at least shouldn’t be.

      How you made the jump from these points to a belief that I do not like women seems obscure to me. In fact, I like women immensely. The way a man SHOULD like a woman – that is, for their attributes that matter, such as their intelligence, character, kindness, and wit. Virtually every important non-romantic relationship I’ve had in the past twenty years has been with a woman. So, forgive me, if your post got under my skin.

      • Elle says:

        Paolo, you made a list of shortcomings in a woman which would put you off dating them. It was longer than the Great Wall of China!

      • MissM says:

        I am going to defend Paolo here. I have to say Paolo’s list would put me off dating women also since none of those traits were attractive, but that was his point. I don’t see it as not liking women, just that it is an example of how some women might be SFAR, in the same way as some men are. I can come up with a list of the shortcomings of some men that could put Paolo’s list to shame. Doesn’t mean that either of us hates the opposite sex entirely, just that we think some members of the opposite sex are not necessarily as wonderful as they might think they are.

      • Lydia says:

        It’s a pyramid. At the top are those who are so great on all fronts everyone wants them. At the very bottom male and female are the real plankton, the low klfe, the drug addicts without jobs who are chronically ill and look awful etc etc. We are all somewhere on that pyramid and it’s not that hard to move yourself up it if you can be bothered – lose the 4 stone, wear better clothes, get a better job etc.

  • Lydia says:

    I hate hate the sexism of all this. Real women make their own status and money. It talks of women wanting status and money as if women get that from men. There is nothing to stop anyone in the UK getting that on their own. I wrote a load of books, I am at the peak of my profession, one of the best at what I do, I work very very hard.

    We need to drum out of England women who think by lying on their backs they can become rich., These are Victorian values which have no place in the UK in 2011. Men like women who have their own money and status.

    If these dull brainless clothes horses instead concentrated on rounded lives and forging their own career paths they might they get and keep men a lot better.

    Perhaps these women who trade only on looks and have no status or money or career of their own are therefore “single for a reason”. They have little but looks and sex to bring to the party and you can buy that by the hour.

    There endeth your feminist lesson for today.

    • Elle says:

      Lydia I know lots of women who worked hard and now have money and status. In most cases the men they met weren’t prepared to come second place to a woman’s career and now they are plankton, albeit very rich, beautiful plankton.

    • Erin says:

      Lydia, I have found that the more success, money and status a woman has, the more threatened men seem to be. It’s a primal thing that goes back to the caveman and most probably even previous to that. Men are the hunters. They want to provide. It makes them feel important, wanted, needed. It feeds their ego. No man wants his balls in a woman’s purse.

    • MissM says:

      I agree here with Elle and Erin. I have heard many a comment from men that women who are still single late in life deserve to be so since they put their careers ahead of finding a partner while they were young. (Also known as not “pursuing an aggressive breeding strategy” as Ian Ironwood so eloquently put it.) Also men by and large do not like a woman who is smarter than them, and most definitely do not like a woman who earns more than them at all, for some reason that really is threatening. On the other hand if a woman is young and falls into the category of being ‘hot’ she can have every personality fault under the sun and still be desired by men. I know not all men are like this, and apologies to those who truly want a relationship with a compatible human being as opposed to just acquiring an asset to impress their male friends. If only there were more of you decent men, my love and respect to you all, and less of the other sort.

      • maria says:

        MissM, spot on.

      • Lydia says:

        My breeding strategy started in my teens. I’d rush down to read my mother’s NCT leaflets about birth positions and the like (whilst also going to the library to get books on careers and what people earn). I wanted more than most things to have a lot of children and I was lucky enough to do that but you can do that and have a career.

        All I can say that in my experience dating in my 40s the men I’ve known have found it a massive relief that they aren’t up against an impoverished woman about to fleece them with a second divorce settlement. I certainly only date clever men which hugely reduces the pool but that’s fine. The mind is the sexiest organ of all. I don’t need am an’s money. if he really wants a housewife instead there are endless low earning divorcess out there indeed plenty who don’t do a stroke of work and just move from man to man getting richer each time. It’s quite an art form and the best use of your erotic capital in some senses particularly for those without much chance otherwise to earn their own money,.

        There are 6 billion people on the planet or whatever so plenty of all types for all of us.

    • Ian Ironwood says:

      “Men like women who have their own money and status.”

      No. No they don’t. I don’t know who has been telling you such devious lies, but I’m guessing it was another woman or a man who was mad at you. Men see money and status as threats to their own, and not something attractive in a woman.

      Show me these hard-working, well-rounded women with career paths who just can’t keep the men off of them. I know a lot of feminists — a whole lot — but I can count the ones who have both successful careers and successful marriages on one hand.

      This is the Big Lie you’ve been told, Ladies: “Men like women who have their own money and status.” Men don’t. Not most men. Not the men you want. Certainly not men you are going to be able to keep. Obsequious, Blue Pill Manginas? Sure, they like to be kept as much as the “dull brainless clothes horses”, and they’ll be very supportive of their meal ticket. But if you want that commanding, studly Alpha (or Alpha-enriched Beta) then promoting your resume as a positive factor in the mating game is the last thing you should do.

      This is one of the many, many incredibly damaging things Feminism has been telling you for thirty years, that men like women who compete with them in traditionally male fields. The fact of the matter is that men see women who perform that well in the workplace as a) professional competition and b) usually not good wife material. We can work with them and work for them just fine . . . but to marry one? Why would a man marry a competitor? A woman who is willing to put her career ahead of her husband is also going to put her career ahead of her children, and to any sensible male that means that both career and kids will come before him.

      And there just aren’t that many stupid men out there.

      There endeth your Red Pill lesson for today.

  • Liz says:

    This one really hit home with me. Having never been one of those women who had lots of boyfriends, it is difficult for me not to feel like I was doomed to be a plankton, and now here I am, 41 and never married with no kids. On the other hand, I do know women who were never without boyfriends in their youth but somehow ended up in my same situation.

    Despite my feelings of doom, I never would have guessed in my youth that I would end up unmarried and childless yet surrounded by gay and interracial married couples. The doors to marriage seem to have (finally) opened up for others and yet they have remained so much more difficult than I could have anticipated for myself.

    I confess that I was much more concerned when I was younger about a suitor’s finances because I wanted to have kids. Now I care far, far less, but that doesn’t seem to help at this age, there still seem to be no prospects.

    • Steve H says:

      P -I think this column was one of your very best -thoughtful,balanced and well argued.

      It IS pure chance and anyone that argues differently is deluded!

      • The Plankton says:

        Dear Steve H, Thank you very much. Much appreciated, especially after having gained some rather less gallant commentators from an American blog in the past twenty-four hours or so. Very best wishes, Px

      • fi says:

        I agree. Its all down to luck whether 2 people who are attracted to each other, and compatible, bump into each other and want the same things at the same time and then more luck that nothing crops up to throw a spanner in the works.

      • MissM says:

        I agree 100% with Steve H’s comment.

        I don’t even want to see what the less gallant commentators have been saying, since I can well imagine. Sometimes it is like feeding time at the shark pool. At the end of the day the feeding frenzy will transfer to another victim, but you are still going to have your avid fans on here who enjoy reading your posts and find them thoughtful and I hope also thought provoking.

        Unfortunately the internet is not populated entirely by educated people with minds capable of thoughtful reasoning, all sorts are able to access it. Anyone who doubts there is an unsavoury side need only remember that child porn is available on the net for those who know how to find it.

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        “Less gallant”? I’ve been a perfect gentleman!

      • The Plankton says:

        Well, am not sure about that, Elle, but thanks. Alas, this was the blog that brought me a whole load of trolls! Px

      • AJ says:

        My God, I’ve just clicked that link to see the vile posts about you P. Please do not go there any more to post replies, it just gives them fodder to try and crucify you. Horrible, horrible people. I am no shrinking violet but I found it quite shocking actually. The power of the internet sometimes has its drawbacks and that blog is most definitely one of them.

        Mr Ironwood, thank God you are married, I’d hate for a man like you to be in the dating scene, what an absolute turn-off you and your fellow bloggers are.

      • The Plankton says:

        Thank you, AJ, for your support and advice. I appreciate both and am definitely going to take the advice and not bother with any more replies. I rather came to that conclusion myself yesterday. Thank goodness all of you lot are kinder than many of those across the pond. Otherwise I’d have given up long ago. Thank you again. Px

      • zoe says:

        Just looked at this. Good for you, P, for maintaining such a dignified, reasoned and (particularly impressive this) collaborative presence in the midst of such a swamp of schadenfreude and spite.

      • The Plankton says:

        Thank you, Zoe. I really appreciate your supportive words. Px

      • ToneDeafSinger says:

        I had a look and I am not going to visit The Private Man again. Very bitter, twisted, hypocritical comments. The Plankton here is much more balanced. My ex stopped having sex with me when I put on weight because he did not fancy me any more; why are the men on The Private Man complaining that Plankton cannot see herself having sex with a man she does not fancy? As far as I know (as a male friend explained to me once) a man has to fancy a woman before wanting to go out with her… Yes these men seem to think that a woman has no right to decide for herself whether she fancies a man or not.

      • Erin says:

        (Shakes head.) Those people can’t even begin to understand how it feels to be a plankton. They’ve missed the whole bloody point.

      • RS says:

        Bloggers and commentors of that type, men who believe in and practice something called “The Game” and men from something called the “True Forced Loneliness” movement hate women. They are all about blaming women and feminism for their relationship woes yet the whole problem seems to be their inability to relate to women as human beings instead of some alien creatures whose only purpose is for sex and ego boosting. They hate themselves too but would never admit it.

        Scary, scary stuff. But there is no point in arguing with them as they have identified the root of all their problems (independent women) and there is no swaying them that a look in the mirror might be in order.

      • zoe says:

        Scary stuff indeed RS. Though I also worry for those getting sucked in to this toxic mindset. My heart went out to one confused young man who has been following theprivateman’s dating advice urging him to take the red pill (hard truth) rather than the blue pill (comforting illusion). He says:
        “In some ways, taking the red pill has made me more human, made me realise what I am, and what the people around me are. And yet in others ways it’s dehumanising me. I can’t trust anymore, I can’t show emotion, or vulnerability, I know not to get married. Is ignorance bliss? Sometimes I think so”.

      • Christ on a crutch ….just read it , and left a little British message .

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        Hateful? No. Realistic? Yes. The Manosphere does have men who hate women (with good reason) but for the most part it’s filled with men who love women, but have decided not to kiss the arse of collective femininity any more because after three decades of failed marriages and hypergamy, we’ve had enough. That’s what “Red Pill” means.

        Fair and balanced the Plankton might be (if you scrunch your eyes up just right), but the fact is that the Manosphere leads to the kind of men you ladies say you want. Feminism most decidedly has NOT.

        Of course, a lot of people would rather cloak themselves in delusions and pretend it’s All Someone Else’s Fault (we call that “the Rationalization Hamster”), but the men who find the Red Pill cannot help but indulge in intense self-examination and self-improvement.

        And far from being a collection of bitter men who don’t know how to have relationships, it’s mostly made up by Old Married Guys and Young Studs. While the latter may still have a lot to learn about women, the former are merely passing our collective wisdom on to the next generation.

        The fact is that when a man comes to the Manosphere, he usually is a plankton, or a married guy in crisis. But by the time he leaves, if he puts the Red Pill into action he’s got a better-than-average shot of finding, seducing, and marrying the girl of his dreams and having a family. Whereas when a woman comes to Feminism, she usually leaves with a job and a divorce and a lifetime of regrets. Who do YOU think is happier?

    • Lydia says:

      Now let’s analsyse Liz. Why on earth did you think you needed solvency in a amn in order to have children? Why couldn’t you work full time and have babies and keep a family that way like loads of women do? Were you brought up in a sexist home where you expect only men to provide?

    • Jo says:

      Liz. You never would have guessed in your youth that you would end up unmarried and childless yet surrounded by gay and ‘interracial married couples’?
      WTF does that phrase mean?!!!

  • MissBates says:

    Yes, I think luck and timing have a lot to do with it. I devoted myself to pursuing a career in my 20s and 30s (fair enough; I never wanted children and still don’t, so I never felt the pressure of the ticking biological clock) and am currently at the top of my profession, can take care of myself financially, and don’t “need” a man to support me in that way. When I was young, most of the men I dated wanted families, and I had no interest, so we parted ways — I’m proud to say always amicably, and I still count some of these men among my friends today. (None of whom, by the way, evince any of the attitudes displayed by Ian in his comments on yesterday’s post.) Do I regret not having compromised and having had a child or children? God, no.

    I would *like* a man for sexual and emotional companionship, but I completely accept that I made choices in my life that have led me to Planktonville, just as I have made the choice to stop looking looking for a life partner because it’s gotten to the point of diminishing returns. The simple and brutal reality is that I don’t fancy the men who fancy me, period. I have zero interest in sleeping with someone 15-20 years older than I am just so that I can say, “oh, yes, I have a man.” (“That geezer over there…”) This decision has led to a kind of peace. An uneasy one, and not always supremely happy, but I have a very active life quite aside from my career that still brings me a good deal of satisfaction (friends, committees, charitable boards, arts, travel), and that’s just the way it’s going to be.

    • MissM says:

      It is horrible to think that by opting to not ‘breed’ I also made a choice to be forever alone, I never saw it as those being my only two options. I have met many men who also are quite happy to not add children to their relationships, who were actually thrilled to find a woman who was not mad on producing babies herself, so I considered it perfectly reasonable to think I could pair up with a man who was like that. I admit there are less of those men than there are of the ones who want children, so it does reduce my chances somewhat. I still am convinced it is down to luck and chance though that I have not found one of those men to permanently call my own.

      • MissBates says:

        Hi Miss M: I, too, thought that being in my 40s and not wanting children, I would have some limited appeal to men in my own age range who are divorced and have children with their first wives and don’t really want to start another family, thus eliminating at least some of my competition from younger women who DO want to have children. Not a bad theory, but in practice no such luck — apparently the thought of sex with a middle-aged woman is so appalling that they would rather compromise and have another child in order to marry a younger woman second time around. I see this a lot in my practice — middle-aged divorced men who (as I draft their prenuptial agreement) confess that they have grudgingly agreed to have “one more” child with their younger fiancee. One guy groaned and said, “how many more times am I going to have to read ‘Goodnight Moon’ to this one?” I just gritted my teeth and said, “sign here, please.” LOL! (I have to laugh or I’d cry.)

      • Lydia says:

        That’s the price they pay (and indeed women pay if the sexes are reversed) for marrying the younger person. You get it too with women who had children in their early 20s and then meet someone in their late 30s and he wants a child.

        On choices no one has to have a man to have a child. You can easily have them alone. I know many who have done so. You just hvae IVF. If you want babies but no man have the babies. It’s very doable. If you want the man without children well some men just don’t want children at all. My daughters were talking about babies recently. One when seeing someone changed her stance (that she didn’t want them – I always thought she’d change her stance anyway although it’s up to her) because he did ultimately want them. People negotiate over this every day. She is now with someone else anyway but it was interesting.

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        It’s interesting, even among men who state declarativly that they do NOT want children, the characteristics and qualities that they seek in a mate are still the same ones men who DO want children associate with a good mom.

        So you may not want kids, but if you’re emotionally incapable or unwilling to have them, you still aren’t going to have much appeal to your male counterpart.

        Just sayin’.

  • Erin says:

    Dear P, this was in my email inbox today from a plankton friend who went through the wringer a couple of years ago with her ex, revelations about her ex, divorce, etc.

    “Erin, remember about a year and a half ago at dinner you told me to try Match.com?? Well, this is where we found each other. I am one lucky woman! Truly a gentleman and I am just smitten…”

    Please, please, please (down on knees here, pleading with the P) give it a go….pretty please?

    • The Plankton says:

      Thank you, Erin, point very much taken. Px

    • ToneDeafSinger says:

      I went to a private party in a pub tonight and got talking to someone who used to work for a dating agency that used to organise speed dating evenings. He confirmed what I suspected – there are so many more women than men at these events that he and other men who worked in admin jobs for the agency were regularly asked to mix with the guests and pretend to be looking for women. I am still a paid up member of three dating websites – one “traditional style”, two more where they do online personality testing and match you up to supposedly compatible people. I still e-mail right left and centre. No replies. On the plus side I did have a good evening.

    • Jo says:

      Erin. Thank you. YES YES YES. Try it. DON’T dismiss it. It CAN work.
      Maybe less than the successes. (Thank you June. No more blanket, general -based on your own experiences – doom doom doom doom doom please…).
      Give it a go…..PLEASE. Thank you again. Erin.

  • june says:

    Yes plankton i agree a very thought provoking blog today, and one with which i have to say i agee. As i have said before i think your blog and the many fellow planktons i have met on here have made me come to terms more with mine, im still not happy about it. I said to a friend today i dont talk about it like i did, i keep it to myself and this blog plankton, but its still there, why me,why can others find someone and not me, but of course from here i know others cant always find someone.

    My observations from this blog and from few fellow planktons i know, are that all you say applies dear P regarding why people dont meet anyone, but i also feel we planktons are a discriminating bunch, we wont accept what others might,its not wrong, its just how we are, we are basically just not that desperate, we obviously have high self esteem and we feel we are worth more what many men can offer us, and i dont mean materially, although being solvent is a good start.

    Guess end of year approaching brings on these kind of thoughts..

    • Jo says:

      June. The plankton on here that you mention and all the plankton that I know also – who have met their (great ) partners over time, on internet dating sites – are ‘a discriminating bunch. Not accepting what others might’. Basically not ‘that desperate’, obviously have ‘high self esteem’ and feel ‘they are worth what many men can offer. Not just materially.’ It is 2012. A New Year. The fact that you continue to label such women who eventually have found success on the internet ( some, people I know – over 40 to mid- 60’s- REALLY.) as of the above description,over and over and over again is hugely insulting. Now, plain bloody rude. I’m sorry that you have had bad experiences, but your CONSTANT insistence that those who have had success must be some kind of desperate, non- discriminating low- life. Willing to settle for anything or anyone and clearly not quite as superior in their choices as you and all of us on here, is BLOODY INSULTING, RUDE, RIDICULOUS and just plain WRONG WRONG WRONG.
      Clearly your endless descriptions of these people makes you feel better. I can think of no other reason why you continually peddle this definition of those who do eventually meet someone (great) on the internet.
      But it is revolting and supremely INSULTING to them. As well as constantly, astonishingly NARROWMINDED. I have said this before and can only conclude that you enjoy continually slating these wonderful (lucky- yes) plankton in order to feel better and feel some strange, misguided sense of your own ‘discriminating, superiority’. You say the same thing(s) relentlessly and it stinks.

  • So now it’s Ageism …… Planktons of the world ….Have a ~Happy New Year , and may you all realise your dreams of something for nothing .
    I do hope you all fall in Love, and end 2012 in the Paradise imagined .

    The Original Plankton is to Congratulated on an insightful and exhilarating Blog in 2011

    • The Plankton says:

      Thank you, Barry. Much appreciated. Px

    • Dawn says:

      I don’t want something for nothing. I ‘d like loving support and kindness in exchange for the same. Not too much to ask for, isit?

    • MissM says:

      Thank you Barry for your good wishes, and a Happy New Year to you too.

      I confess I am also rather confused by the want something for nothing comment. I offer the same physical and emotional intimacy, love, affection, companionship, loyalty, respect, care and support to a partner, as I seek from a partner. I can financially support myself and am not looking for that from a man. So how am I wanting something for nothing? Is all my physical and emotional intimacy, love, affection, companionship, loyalty, respect, care and support actually worth nothing at all to a man, and if so what on earth is it that they really want?

      • I’m sorry to offend anyone ,I was angry at the “Ageism” remark ….I was in the throes of planning to leave my Wife of 40 years , the reasons do not concern anyone …I was not involved with anyone else , I just had to escape my awful existance . I fell in Love at an airport , saying “Goodbye” to a woman whose Daughter had stayed with us . I did nothing …I was married , she a Widow of 11 years with a 15 year old Daughter, living 800 miles away from me . She told me she had to stop talking to me via the net as she was in Love with me …… we have been together 7 years , it’s what I always wanted and we work hard to keep it alive and fun . She is 15 Years younger than me …you already know about my physical apperance ..beard , short sleeves etc, I’m also hadicapped and a wreck …but it works ..Sorry to rant on , but I do feel I know a little of what’s going on “out there” . So next time a plump, lost, man looks at you and can’t turn away …talk to him …I’ll bet you will be surprised …I hope; so , as my Heroes sang “Everybody needs somebody to Love” I love the analogy with the lottery …you have to buy a ticket to win ….

      • MissM says:

        No offense taken, just curious that I might have missed something that was obvious to you but not to me.

        Congratulations on finding love in your life and may you continue to be happy together for along time to come.

        Personally I like beards and plumpness, and short sleeves I care not a bit about one way or the other, so I’d not turn away from any man for those reasons. But 15 years older than me, no, I just can’t do it. A few more years and he could be old enough to be my father. He’d be in his sixties while I am in my forties.

        If you want to look at it from my point of view, consider how attracted you are to the average woman who is fifteen years older than you. (No you cannot bring up such rarities as Helen Mirren or Sophia Loren.) Men invariably say something like “I’d not turn down an older woman” but it always includes the caveat of “if I found her attractive”. But that is the catch, attractiveness in a man nearing sixty when I am forty three, no I just can’t find it. And that is my one criteria, that I must be able to fancy him.

  • MissMalbec says:

    My planktonhood was one that you mentioned which happened out of my control. My husband of more than a decade died when we were in our mid-30’s, and I was thrust into widowhood a good 35 years earlier than I ever realized was possible.

    I chose to focus my attention on raising our child until she was into middle school before venturing into the dating arena. By that time I was in my early 40’s and learned most of the good ones were already married or were attainable only if I were five years younger and no child was in tow.

  • rosie says:

    Ah yes, the bitch. Suppose it’s too late to become one now. Would look a bit silly on a plankton. Another kind of bitch, and an unsisterly thing to say perhaps but I’ve known more than one, is the woman who turns on her friends when she can’t find a man. Glad I was never one of those.

  • Margaux says:

    I’ve just clicked on the link Elle provided to the insane ramblings of the mysogynist nutters.. Laughing at all the ‘blue pill red pill’ playground bollocks . Very brave, P, for wading in and responding but the sad bastards won’t change I fear …

    Eg – this little gem from Iron Hardwood or whatever his name is :
    “Doesn’t she realize that while to women marriage is a romance novel, to men it’s a porn movie? If we have false expectations of them then their expectations of us are no less based on crap. “Out of control fantasies” . . . like having sex more or less when you want it, as opposed to working and begging for it.”

    I thought it was a parody of Tom Cruise’s role in the movie ‘Magnolia’ !

    Enjoying the off piste post today – and in support of Paolo – I think he speaks some truths there.

    • The Plankton says:

      Thank you, too, Margaux. I appreciate the support. Px

      • fi says:

        Dear P, if you’re getting comments from the trolls, please print them. We could all laugh at the loopers!:D

    • Ian Ironwood says:

      It’s no parody, Margie. It’s utterly true. Sadly.

      You’ve been lied to about “what men like”. Feminism tries to stack the deck to tell you that men like a successful career woman (and if he doesn’t, you can always divorce him and take half of his money). They tried to make you think that if you went into the workforce and competed against men, that you would somehow gain our respect and be utterly irresistible. Feminism lied.

      But feminism lied to men, too. It told us that women were attracted to more sensitive, caring men and less attracted to macho, dominant men. Which is, empirically speaking, the real load of bollocks. Women in aggregate indeed DO like macho dominant men. They divorce sensitive caring men, or reject them out of hand.

      And the fact that you dismiss this entire school of thought proves the point that women — and particularly plankton — don’t really give a damn what men think or how they work at all. They just want their needs serviced, their lawns mowed, etc. etc. They don’t really want men . . . they want the use of men, without any of the “drawbacks”.

      That ain’t happening. Not anymore.

      And the even funnier thing? You can tell when someone has no counter-argument by how quickly they turn to ad hominem attacks. Classic. Because if you had an actual, reasonable response, you wouldn’t call names.

      • Mezzanine says:

        Mr Ironwood: I would like a sensitive, caring and loving man in my life. I had one but I lost him to a hit and run accident. He was the love of my life and he was more than happy for me to pursue my career in law because I would have shared my last shilling (old English money) with him. When I was very young I married a woman hater (didn’t know any better at the time, learnt quickly) but I had to leave him and divorce him for the sake of my sanity.

      • Margaux says:

        Hardy –
        Lets clear a few things up here.
        Feminism has not told me what men like and dislike.You seem to intent on doing that.
        Feminism told me that I could make the same choices as you.I don’t see it as competing. You do. Why such a threat?

        I do not dismiss your school of thought – I actually find it interesting.But,
        while I appreciate that you have tried to adopt a more considered tone while ‘guesting’ on this blog, the tone of your own blog and that of many of your commentators does nothing to add weight to your arguments.

        You take exception to name calling ?- look to your own writing and commentators. ‘Pot’ and ‘kettle black’ spring to mind.

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        Feminism has no clue what men like and dislike. Indeed, that’s contra to the feminist philosophy.

        Men can tell you what men like and dislike. But you have to ask them and be open to the answer.

        Feminism did far more than just tell you that you could make the same choices as me. It told me that I was less of a human being because I didn’t possess a vagina, and that by virtue of my gender (and my race) I was responsible for 99% of all the world’s suffering. Feminism told me that every woman is a victim and every man is a criminal. Feminism told me that my only value in society was what I could provide for a woman.

        And of course you don’t see it as competition. You’re not a man. Men and women go to work with drastically different perspectives on the subject. Men go to work to compete, and view every co-worker as a competitor. Women also go to work to compete, but their agendas and goals are very different. A man can compete with another man, beat his ass into the dirt, and then have a beer with him afterwards. A woman competes with another woman by befriending her, maintaining a social fiction of friendship, and then undermining her and sabotaging her work until she’s in a higher social position.

        But when men and women compete against each other at work, things get . . . complicated.

        And if you can find an example of where I descended to name calling, I’d love for you to point it out to me.

        PS: If you detect a strident tone on the Manosphere blogs, there’s a simple explanation: we’re pissed off.

  • Chris says:

    This is such a thoughtful and thought provoking piece of writing. I love your admission of inconsistency. As a completely inconsistent person myself I can empathise. As you say, the reasons for Planktonhood are many and myriad. One of the problems with modern life I guess is just too much freedom of choice. In previous times people were far more bound by social convention, much as, say, Indians are now. Parents and families used to be far more involved in the process of choosing a partner. All the Indians I know are married off by the time they are 30, but their choice is very restricted and their parents wishes are highly influential in that choice.. In the west we have chosen to follow the path of individuation and self fulfillment, answerable only to ourselves and our own happiness. But at the same time we are but mortal and only have a limited lifespan within which to find the ‘ one ‘. As you imply, Planktonhood is such a conundrum. such a grey area and I do not have the answer to it. Neither, I suspect, does any one else within the context of our progressive liberal social mores. I suppose we all have our wish list but nobody ever said we could actually have it. We brings me back to ‘ settling ‘……….

  • Brigitte says:

    P., this was a very thought provoking post on your part. So much to talk about…

    Although I had seven boyfriends over the years (all short-term, less than 1 year), we eventually always parted ways probably because I had no interest in married life and having children. Some men will not admit or even realise in their twenties or thirties that what they really seek is to settle down and have a family. It may never be expressed in words, but that is what they seek for whatever reason, be it a genuine wish or simply what is expected by society. Some (women as well as men) don’t give it much thought, just go ahead and marry, have children, and most will be happy. In marriages that are not so wonderful, the children are treasured, if nothing else, and the marriage goes on.

    As I look back at my choices for men, I would not have married very many. Maybe my first serious one at 20 and the one last year (who left when his wife called him back). They would have made good husbands and fathers. I have no regrets because this is not what I wanted. However, the problem now is that the men my age or older that I have met do not interest me. I regularly chastise myself over this, thinking how conceited of me to be like this, but we can’t control attraction. I don’t remember being this difficult; none of my boyfriends were terribly attractive. I found my last one very attractive (8/10), but my mother couldn’t see what I saw in him.

    Sometimes I look at myself and find myself adorable and, honestly, quite fuckable (as they say), but maybe I’m biased. I’ll put on lingerie that has never been worn for a man and I find it hard to believe that it may NEVER be seen by one. And then sometimes I see a lovely woman, younger, girlish, “innocent”, fun loving, carefree, and I understand the preference. Like many plankton who have lived on their own, I have no need for a man, just an intense desire. I am self-sufficient, confident and I can see how some men may not see much appeal in a woman that can take care of almost everything. We all want to feel needed and appreciated.

    So, in my case, it looks like I am a plankton of my own device (devise?). But I never, ever thought I would have a problem finding a boyfriend or being attracted to men. Call it shortsightedness or feeling immortal in my younger days, I am now paying the price. What I do regret is taking a 10-year sabatical from relationships when I was still in my thirties. It didn’t start out that way, but when I wasn’t meeting any men (due to circumstances at work and play) after a couple of years, I gave up and just remained single for 10 years. Now I see how I always took my ability to attract men for granted.

    I may have to accept being single forever. I’m not ready to give up yet, as long as I still feel attractive (to myself if not to men). I’ll have fun with my friends in the meantime, but it’s not enough.

  • j24601 says:

    At the risk of repeating ground covered elsewhere on your blog P; surely ‘Plankton’ is a misnomer here, as in the food chain plankton has only ever held the place at the bottom? The harsh reality is that a ‘mutton and lamb’ analogy would be more fitting for all of us as we pass through our reproductive years – both men and women. Men reflect this reality by absenting themselves from the dating scene far sooner than women; they have never had the same choices vis-a-vis career or family. Some of the female commentators above are clueless as to important dating dynamics from a male perspective. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for a large proportion of the male population who are invisible to women to get to be seen by them?

    Also:

    ThePrivateMan is certainly not a ‘misogynist’ blog; It expressly deals with, and advocates for, relationships between men and women, but in a realistic way which reflects the extraordinary changes in western society, for both men and women, in the last thirty or so years. The use of the word ‘misogynist has been hugely debased in this same period; it has morphed from the hatred of women, to an ill considered insult reflecting little more than the ire of the accuser.

    There are other useful blogs looking at relationships and they do offer, amongst other things, what is going to be harsh and unpalatable insights for your readers. Anyone desiring of a relationship with a man would be well advised to explorer these with an open mind.

  • Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) says:

    If you women want to know why you are becoming plankton try http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com. You women have condoned and supported the crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse in your millions. Why would any man want such women? There are MILLIONS of eligible women in eastern europe.

    Ladies. You have competition. And you are losing because of your HATEFUL attitude and your support of women criminals.

  • Margaux says:

    J24601 – a look around ThePrivateMan’s blog reveals, among numerous other pearls of wisdom: –

    ‘Boobs-Weekend Weirdness’ : an appreciation of a man feeling the boobs of 100 women
    Reign Her In -a charming post advocating the ‘muzzling’ of that “ball busting bitch” Michele Obama
    Awful Profiles – an exhortation to his readers to contribute any ‘awful’ profiles they find – so that he can ‘tear into them like a hungry weasel’. ( The resulting feeding frenzy is not pleasant)
    Identifying Female Archetypes with the R ( trademark) symbol :These include Catherder, Deservebitch and Pussypass

    I think my dictionary must have a different definition of mysogynist to yours…

    • j24601 says:

      I am a regular reader of TPM blog and the content you cite is not typical, but can be instructive on contemporary mores. The sun is setting on the ‘pedestalising’ of women in the western world; this is, in part, due to the breakdown of the compact between men and women as a result of the naked ambition of feminists to remodel society to conform to their twisted world view. If you don’t understand this dynamic of men’s growing insights and understanding, then there is very little we can say to each other.

      Btw: The Chambers Dictionary, 10th Edition : misogynist. n. a woman-hater.

      What dictionary do you consult?

      • Margaux says:

        The Oxford English – is there any other?

        If you can’t see that the content which I have cited above does not fall into this definition than there is, as you say, little we can say to each other. The examples appeared to be typical when I looked.

        As for twisted views …perhaps you should read your post here again…

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        Ah, but hardcore feminist blogs are all sweetness and light. Right? No misandry there?

        We love women in the Manosphere. But we’re done fearing them. And we’re really, really hoping they earn our respect again some day.

  • Great Sodini's Ghost says:

    What do you offer a man?

    • fi says:

      I think these blokes, who have come across from the American blog, actively dislike women. Their resentment towards us for the wrongs they perceive us as having perpetrated on their sex has resulted in them disliking us, simply because we’re women. That’s where they differ from women’s posts here as we are still looking for a relationship with a man (as opposed to pump and dump which is admired on the other blog). While we may dislike individual men, or specific traits they may have, we don’t dislike all men simply because they’re men. So, in short, women are much much nicer than men. You have to feel sorry for them as they obviously have mental health issues and probably can’t even get an erection or maybe they’re gay but in denial? :)

      • fi says:

        Although really they remind me of women in women’s groups when I was at uni in the early 80s – Greenham Common, Reclaim the Night marches, hearing lesbians debate (seriously) on whether penetrative lesbian sex is patriarchal and should they do it. I was friends with a woman (a Seperatist, who previously heterosexual decided to become a lesbian for political reasons and went off to live in a women’s commune with a ‘bleeding hut’) who wouldn’t get on a bus unless it had a female bus driver and she seemed to spend a lot of her time having to walk. Maybe it’s all part of the great circular pattern of life and its their turn now to go a bit extreme and mental now? And we shouldn’t take them too seriously. And definitely not as seriously as they’d like us to.

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        Go ahead, don’t take us seriously.

        I mean, you haven’t taken men seriously as men in thirty years, why should you start now?

        Not taking men seriously has been the hallmark of feminism since its inception. Indeed, according to feminism men can be safely ignored. Y’all don’t have to have ANYTHING to do with us, do you?

        And after thirty years of that feminist bliss, how’s that working out for you?

        But considering the Manosphere is growing exponentially, and the Red Pill philosophy is becoming more well-known, ignoring us is probably not a bright idea.

        And you don’t have to feel sorry for us. We woke up. Most of us found our mates, and we didn’t do it by capitulating to the Blue Pill. Hell, many of us are happily married with no problems with homosexuality or erectile dysfunction. I could name specifics, but you’d think I was bragging.

    • T Lover says:

      Greetings Mr Sodini, greetings from me, T Lover.

      “What do you offer a man?” You talking to me Mr Sodini one?

      You frighten me. You are a sinister loon. Evil, barking. An embittered loser.

      The UK Telegraph (5th August 2009) reports:

      “Sodini, 48, fired as many as 52 shots into a “Latin impact” dance class at the LA Fitness gym outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania before committing suicide. He walked in, placed a duffel bag on the ground and paused for a few moments before pulling two guns out.

      A web page he apparently created contained a diary chronicling years of rejection by women and an earlier plan for an outrage at the gym which he said he “chickened out” of. Neighbours described him as strange and anti-social.

      His web page listed his date of death – August 4th 2009 – and his status of “never married”, ending with the words “Death Lives!”

      So you aspire to be the great man’s ghost Sodini lover? Women don’t like you? Surprised?

      Here you are in June adding your towering intellect to the subject of children’s dancing classes in the UK:

      “Great Sodini’s Ghost June 23, 2011 at 14:37

      Looks like Carly needs to spend more time on that pole. She’s pretty damned fat for a stripper.”

      And again:

      “While I’m an omega i.e. a winner who can’t get none, look at all the aggravation I avoided! And as men age, they see such omega and get jealous at what they once called a loser! Ah, nothing like sour grapes. Too bad George Sodini failed to realize that those “who can’t get none” are actually the winners. He had a decent job, a house, a decent stash of money in the 401K, and immunity from becoming some woman’s house… well… you know what I mean… What a waste of a life.”

      And adding wisdom to the Puahate blog:

      “Sodini died for all the ugly guys around the world. Sodini is a hero. Everytime i get rejected or get blocked/ignored for sending my photo i think of Sodinis heroic actions on August 4th 2009. Sodini was fighting was for me and every other ugly guy to walk the face of this earth.

      When i get rejected or blocked for showing my photo i think of the way Sodini handled the situation and it brings peace and tranquility to my rage filled heart. Sodini gives me hope. Sodini did what he did for ugly guys like myself. Sodini, i hope you are reading this and realize you are an inspiration to me and your heroic acts bring joy into my life. Sodini, you died for all of us bro and i can’t thank you enough. My God rest your soul and may the ghost of Sodini LIVE ON…..

      I hope i can one day visit Sodinis grave and pay my respects to the fallen soldier. R.I.P Sodini.. The bravest man to ever walk the face of the earth!

      George Sodini was a hero and will forever be remembered.”

      I see you are a fan of another blog: “Omegavirginrevolt”. That you commenting on the post “Hookers Provide Something Tangible Unlike Gamers”? So it is, yes it’s you alright.

      More pearls on “Inmalafide”

      “Great Sodini’s Ghost June 9, 2011 at 1:24 pm

      Sterilization and euthanasia would be cheaper.”

      “Euthanasia?” Bit extreme that Sodini old boy.

      You, sad Sodini, are pure distilled evil. A disgusting creep. You ought to be ashamed of yourself – ashamed with every breath.

      • fi says:

        I think they’re probably unattractive men lacking in social skills who have always been overlooked by women and consequently, with the anonymity of the internet, are able to vent their anger. They are bound to suffer from some kind of sexual dysfunction, and some will be known to their doctors as having mental health problems. Maybe if they have jobs (and not all will) they work to better qualified and more capable women. What they want more than anything is to be taken seriously, by someone, anyone, because nobody does take them seriously. We shouldn’t either as they’re losers.

      • Mezzanine says:

        Hurrah to T Lover :0)

      • T Lover says:

        Fi,

        This is an evil person.

        Do not try and analyse this man’s personality. He is a slimeball.

        Euthanasia. Scum. Pure scum.

      • zoe says:

        Yay, T Lover! Good cyber-sleuthing. Puts it into perspective, doesn’t it?

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        Well. it wouldn’t be the first time y’all have deluded yourselves. If it makes your pretty little heads feel better to think of us that way, go ahead. It doesn’t bother us. If anything, it proves our point.

        I mean, that’s as bad as thinking that all feminists are unshaven, unmarried career women embittered about their place in the Sexual Market Place who are trying to make virtue out of necessity by inventing things to try to force men to like them because that’s their last option. If that’s an unfair assessment . . . yours is too.

      • T Lover says:

        Mr Ironwood,

        I feel we are getting to know one another. Can I call you “II”? Not too familiar?

        Well II, I have an idea that the response you have received does bother you. It has got under your skin but you like the last word. You are so macho.

        II, I have no idea what you are talking about. The jargon, the dogma, the aggression it’s all too much for me.

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        Tlover:

        Don’t let it worry you, cupcake. A lot of women have that reaction to me. It’s just part of my natural charisma, like my gorgeous eyes and my deep booming voice. It takes a special kind of powerful woman to handle that — luckily Mrs. Ironwood is exceptional. Just try not to swoon. It’s undignified.

        And it’s not that your response has “bothered” me. I find your responses instructive, and have used it as a teaching moment to help encourage the Blue Pill men who are reading this to consider the Red Pill path. The things you’ve said and the flippant and disrespectful way you have treated me have helped this tremendously — I’ve gotten four emails of support from dudes so far, thanks to you.

  • rosie says:

    When I read TPM blog (and I won’t be going there again) the phrase ‘…. before turning the gun on himself’ sprang to mind.

  • Margaux says:

    Good post Fi . I was getting quite depressed at the rising tide of hatred from across the pond. ( Is it an American thing ? )
    Anyway, you’ve helped me put it in perspective.
    You are quite right. They don’t deserve being taken seriously.

    • MissBates says:

      No, it’s not “an American thing.” It’s an bitter mentally-disturbed misogynistic thing.

    • Ian Ironwood says:

      It’s not exclusively an American thing, we’re just closer to our machismo than the average British man. Y’all have the average male Brit cowed to the point of domestication.

      And I’d like for Miss Bates — or anyone, for that matter — to explain the reasoning behind classifying the Manosphere blogs as “mentally ill”.

      Do you classify all people who don’t agree with you and your philosophy mentally ill? Just curious.

  • Great Sodini's Ghost says:

    You must be one of those good decent men who doesn’t do anything for her.

    • T Lover says:

      Who are you talking to? What are you talking about?

      George Sodini was great was he? You think you are his ghost do you?

      You are rambling, deluded and potentially dangerous.

      Can I make a friendly suggestion? You might need professional medical help.

      Is there anyone you can talk to?

  • EmGee says:

    Wow. I missed this post. Back on topic, I believe it has everything to do with luck, and false expectations; ‘spinning’ until one begins to believe in the fantasy, that is.

    I agree with Lydia(!), a positive outlook increases chances, and an attitude to match the facts helps too.

  • EmGee says:

    Just read the Private Man blog post (at this point I don’t need to wade through the responses). The Florida Tag surrenders.

  • Anonymous age 69 says:

    I am married 36 years, currently living in Mexico. Why? Simply because of the hatred men encounter from women in the USA.

    Actually, TPM isn’t that bad. The problem is for 45 years, men have not been allowed to participate in the debate on such things as marriage laws, insane child support laws, the discrimination against men of affirmative action, in fact pretty much the entire society. To state an opinion against “current wisdom” as held by most women means financial ruin for men. Thus, men for that 45 years have not been allowed to state openly their views.

    So, over the 45 years, men and women have drifted farther apart, and most women have no idea whatsoever what most men are thinking. And, increasingly, marriage is simply a bad idea for men, at any age. Marriage laws have been changed to some sort of female fantasy as to what they want it to be, assuming men will just naturally go along with the program. When men don’t go along, then women assume men are sick and twisted.

    In very recent years, the Internet has allowed men to communicate with each other in private. They find their views, so long isolated, are not that unusual.

    Yet, being a new phenomenon to you women, you are horrified and shocked to find out what many men think of you. Those men must be twisted psychos, right?

    I could elaborate on this, I write a lot on it. But, once again, you simply dismiss the views of men, blaming them for their views, and dismissing them as some sort of woman-haters. Trolls. Etc. Every name you can think of.

    And, it doesn’t matter. Turns out this same thing happened in the last days of the Roman Empire, the probable cause of its collapse. So, if one of you, or even all of you, figured out the problem is not with these men, it would make no measurable difference in the future of our society.

    • T Lover says:

      I expect you have been busy, have not heard from you, so I had a bit of a look round for Mr Ironwood – a pseudonym used in connection with activities within the American sex industry.

      A multi-talented individual. Blogs include The PrivateMan and the SexNerd. He has a degree in religious studies and a certificate in creative writing.

      A sort of Rector of Siffkey character. Whilst of saintly personal character his callings include professional reviewer of pornographic film. Perhaps the connection is an expertise in the missionary position?

      Mr Ironwood does not draw the line at pornography. He gives fashion advice. Ian, how do you impress these porno chicks?

      Here is an Ironwood tip on dressing to impress the girls: “Good shoes.” How on a budget? “Make friends with a lawyer or cardiologist with the same size feet.” Brilliant. How true Ian, lawyers all have good taste in expensive shoes which they give away. Want to impress that porn star? Here, have my shoes.

      I am sorry to be rude but I really don’t want Mr Ironwood’s advice.

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        TLover: A few corrections.

        I am multi talented — thanks. I’m not an author over at ThePrivateMan, but I am an avid contributor. The Sex Nerd and the Red Pill Room are two of my blogs (I have others under other pseudonyms — see “multi-talented”, above). I actually have a degree in Religious Studies and one in Women’s Studies from a prestigious Southern university. But I have no certificate for Creative Writing — I have to get by on pure talent.

        It’s clear that you’re trying — desperately — to impugn my character because you don’t have reasonable counters for my arguments. I can understand your frustration. When faced with the truth for the first time, my kids often sputter and call names before they integrate the data into their consciousness. I try to gently correct their behavior a few times, and usually they see the truth for what it is and can keep going.

        Yes, I work in porn, and am quite happy to do so. I happen to work for one of the top 5 Big Porn companies and I love my job. I make people happy. In my tenure here I’ve had maybe two days when I wasn’t absolutely thrilled to come to work. I don’t see it as immoral, or unethical. Indeed, it’s a calling. Porn is an important part of male sexuality, and I am proud to be a part of it.

        I would have done great with the “porno chicks”. I’ve been propositioned by several performers, and I’ve felt very flattered by that, but the fact is I’m happily married and utterly satisfied, so there’s really no temptation there.

        And, actually, in some pretty extensive marketing studies we’ve successfully shown that the one item of male clothing that women use the most to accept or reject a man on is his shoes. Laugh if you want, but it is true. We even did a few experiments, sending single dudes into bars with different types of shoes and recording the progress. Basically, if the pair you’re wearing is over $100 new, then your chances of getting laid go up by about 20%. If they’re over $500 a pair, it peaks at 30%. If a guy wants to up his game in the quickest way possible, apart from winning the lottery scoring a used pair of high-end Italian loafers is the best bet.

        Next you’re going to try to tell me how men don’t focus on a woman’s bust size when first meeting her, in favor of exploring her personality? Please.

        Yes, you are rude. And I’m glad that you’re sorry. And the fact is, you couldn’t take the advice I have to give anyway. I’m speaking to all the other people who are reading this.

  • T Lover says:

    I may be naïve, but are there cultural differences afoot here which separate America and the UK? Pressure/interest groups are perhaps more strident in America and more combative between themselves? Perhaps we are not used to this assertive stridency and methodology?

    Unfortunately, there seems to have been a joined up attack in the past few days, both here and on the American blog, by a tribe of American macho men fronted by Big Chief Ironwood.

    Whilst it was all genuinely thought provoking, well for this bloke it was and perhaps even for one or two of the female correspondents who said they found it interesting, the Big Chief made three or four tactical errors. His message was missed.

    First, he (and his tribe) gave the impression of a rather aggressive bunch of fundamentalists. Not far from the types who persuade naïve, not too bright Muslims to put on a suicide waistcoat. Zealots.

    Second. He confused the lady blogger with the views of some of her rather more strident correspondents. I have the impression that the lady leader is just that, a lady, despite some of her coarser for effect language. The theme is not women’s rights rather it has a romantic wistful thread. So to try to beat her up (she was a mug to try and take them on in the States) made them look like bullies.

    Third. The assault was co-ordinated.

    Fourth. One or two of his tribe are not wired up correctly.

    Finally, this porn business. Chief Ironwood assumes the name “Ironwood”? Or is that his real name? He admits he writes (?) porn. He takes himself very seriously. The “English language is my bitch”. Really? If someone said that to me with a straight face I would die laughing. I nearly did die laughing. The Ironwood is right up the Chief’s back passage.

    So, in my worthless view, Ironwood got his tactics wrong

    Anyway, you obviously have an insight into all this stuff. I am an innocent abroad. Tell me in simple language what is a blue pill dude? A red pill dude? A black pill dude?

    And Ironwood: I don’t think I am the only one who took this as a reference to his todger. It’s just not British to brag about your todger. And if he is a blue pill dude now what was he before? Big Chief Softwood?

    For the record: I don’t like being lectured by a pornographer. Nor to have to read the unhinged comments of someone who thinks a deranged (woman) killer is “Great”. Nor do I like my tribe to be attacked by an organised bunch of American men.

    So, despite the fact that I could see the logical thrust of the American argument it was lost in the offensive, aggressive way in which it was put.

    Finally, can I ask a favour? You are obviously in the know.

    Is Big Chief Ironwood a performer or just a behind the scenes man? It would be an honour to be permitted to see him in action with that Ironwood of his. “Ironwood”? Is it really that good? No problem with splinters? Does he polish it himself? What’s his speciality? Bi? Anal?

    Can you get me an invite? An internet link?

    Thank you, thank you.

    • Ian Ironwood says:

      More corrections for our errant TLover:

      First: We’re not fundamentalists, we actually have a widely varied and sophisticated set of interrelated philosophies that coalesce around a few key points — and we hold our views passionately. It could be that it has been so long that you’ve seen passion from a British male that you mistook it for fundamentalism — I can see your perspective in that light — but the fact is we’re just really, really sure of ourselves on this. I guess you have a hard time discriminating between passion and zeal, but again, I understand. It’s OK.

      Second: I didn’t confuse anyone with anyone else. I’ve taken pains to be a respectful guest with opposing points of view, and while I have refrained from insults or name calling of specific individuals, that’s not something that can be said for . . . everyone.

      Thirdly: No one coordinated anything. We’re really not that well organized. Indeed, we take pains not to be. The last thing we want to do is go down the road Feminism blazed. If more than one commentor came here from TPM, it’s because we were all equally amazed and intrigued.

      Fourth: There might be a few crazies in the Manosphere. As a matter of fact, I’m sure of it. There are also crazies in every other large group. Like feminists. Oh, sure, they appear to be a beacon of rational thought, but you mention that they might be prettier if they just learned how to use makeup, and they go batshit.

      Finally, my name and profession: Yes, Ian Ironwood is a pseudonym which I have adopted for both professional and personal reasons. I have a wife and kids, and I like to keep them as insulated from my work as I can. Not because I’m not proud of what I do, but because most people in the adult industry are very aware of how sexualized our culture is and they try to protect their kids from it as long as possible. And my wife enjoys high professional standing and I don’t want to step on her professional toes by flaunting my own career. That would be in poor taste and unfair to her.

      But as to the porn . . . I do “write porn”. Both fiction and non-fiction. I’m the author of over 15 books (only a few of which are pornographic), a New York Times Best-Seller, and a highly successful advertising copywriter. I can say “The English Language Is My Bitch” with a straight face because, in fact, it is my bitch. Anyone who knows me professionally knows better than to scoff at that. I once wrote an entire lesbian package entirely in haiku. What the hell have you done?

      I’ll cover the two Pills in a moment, because this comment is already pushing the limits.

    • Ian Ironwood says:

      (Con’t) OF course it isn’t British to brag about your todger. You have to a) want to brag and b) have something to brag about, and with a few valiant exceptions British men have been institutionally emasculated for generations. It’s quite common in my industry to use a nome de plume, and it isn’t even unusual to use a suggestive name.

      For the record: I am not merely a pornographer, nor am I mentally deranged. I am a passionate, strong-willed, well-educated family man who also happens to be highly articulate, congenial, and intensely charming. Perhaps you find that threatening because you’ve never met one before — I don’t know. I also have a generous sized . . .ego. Heck, Mrs. Ironwood isn’t complaining. I’m pretty fond of it myself.

      You try to make a lot of fun at my expense, but you’re mostly failing. Yes, my name references my junk. That IS funny . . . or it was a decade ago when I came up with it. Now it’s just trite to point it out. And trying to shame me with my sexuality? Poorly played. While I’m straight, married, and reasonably heterosexual, I’d have no problems with being gay or bi. My sexuality is not an issue of shame for me, as it is, obviously, for you. Instead, you have outed yourself as a trifle homophobic in attempting to use that characterization to demean me.

      No, I’m not a performer. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have a public profile within my industry, nor does it mean I care to have my real name bandied about in a country famed for both its religious conservatives and its liberal gun ownership laws. Perhaps that IS crazy by Brit standards, but here it’s just good thinking.

      And one last thing: calling me “Big Chief Ironwood” is a disgusting piece of racist crap, at least here in the States. Perhaps y’all have different cultural standards with how you treat your ethnic minorities, but I find your characterization an insult to me, my Native American heritage (Blackfoot and Cherokee) and to my fellow Americans of First Nations descent. Maybe you can cow the Welsh and the Irish with that kind of attitude, but we take racism seriously here in the States. Especially in the South. You talk about “attacking your tribe” . . . and then you play on a racial stereotype? And you think MY tactics were wrong?

      • T Lover says:

        My, for such an immodest chap who likes to dish it out you do have a thin skin.

        Do you have a problem with this proposition: I don’t like being lectured by a pornographer. Very simple. Get it?

      • AJ says:

        Mr Ironwood, you just don’t get it. Please do us all a favour – FUCK OFF

        Do not come back. You and your kind are not wanted here.

        T Lover, I am very proud of you.

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        “My kind”? Men? On a blog about how hard it is to meet men?

        You gals slay me. I mean, that’s literally the funniest thing I’ve read today. The irony is delicious.

  • Jo says:

    Blimey. I’ve been away for the latter days of Christmas and New Year.
    Just returned. WTF is all this stuff?
    Come back our beloved Plankton and regular commentators…
    Who are these people? What’s going on? It was all so simple, clear, straightforward and understandable. It feels like a hijack. Plankton. Where are you? And the familiar others? HELP. PLEASE….
    I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON…………Aaaaargh……………………..

    • Jo says:

      TLover..I think you have covered it all. Plus your sleuthing skills are thorough and fantastic. Thank you.
      Do not take these people seriously. Adds fuel to their fire and allows it to blaze on. There is no logic.Cannot be reasoned with and best left to howl into the wind…..

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        Soon as I see some “reason” here — or even an attempt — I’ll let you know. So far it’s been a bunch of catty women name-calling because they don’t like what I have to say, and they don’t seem to be able to offer a counter-argument.

      • The Plankton says:

        Goodness, Ian, I thought you had gone! But you are still very much here. You must like us a lot. You and me, it seems, are almost co-writing this blog. Now there’s a thing. Although we diverge somewhat in opinion, we appear to be almost level-pegging in terms of length! You must feel very at home. Plankton

    • The Plankton says:

      Don’t worry. I am here and have very much survived the onslaught from across the pond! A US blogger picked up on this blog and sent some traffic our way, but we were more than up to the challenge, I like to think, thanks to so many familiar others! Px

  • Jo says:

    Actually I went back and read through it all. What utter tossers. (Some seemingly unhinged..).
    Yes you were all more than up to the challenge.
    Felt rather proud of you all….
    Bravo. x

  • leftatforty says:

    It seems to me that Mr. Ironwood forgot (or never learnt in his Southern (!) Uni course) what feminism is about. Wasn’t it about equality, respect and politeness? Porn, hate and the use of denigrating hypocorisms are not part of an equal society.

    Anyway, why do I bother…

    • P Ray says:

      Feminism is also about women choosing their own path.
      Some women choose porn. Some women choose abortion.
      Would you say they’re not allowed those choices? “My body my choice” seems to have turned into “My body my choice except where my decisions can be used against me therefore I am going to claim the privileges of femininity (think of the children!) while believing in my decisions alone and nobody is allowed to say I’m responsible”.

    • Ian Ironwood says:

      “Equality, respect and politeness”? REALLY? What feminists authors are you reading?

      Oh, I learned what feminism was ACTUALLY about, not the dogma. The dogma says “equality”. The actuality is that its about extending feminine interests, i.e. hypergamy and state support. The only “equality” feminism expounds in practice is “The genders are equal, but women are more equal than men”. Other than that, its stated purpose is to meticulously destroy masculinity to the benefit of women. Feminist don’t want to be truly equal, they want to be superior.

      Fair enough.

      But the Manosphere is quickly growing to a maturity to offer a masculine response. Feminists don’t respect men and never will. They aren’t particularly polite, especially to men, and as a rule they reject such niceties as relics of the patriarchy.

      Now men are beginning to reclaim and redefine masculinity for a post-industrial world, and guess what? Feminism isn’t a core concept. As a matter of fact, its an obstacle. Not that I mind — opposition builds strength and character, two powerful masculine values.

      But what happens when you give a feminist TRUE equality? Suddenly they start making “But I’m a girl!” excuses and muttering about chivalry.

      Face it: feminism can’t work without the cooperation of men in our society, and y’all’s grace period is over. We’re done with it and are pursuing our own way, now.

  • Margaux says:

    Nicely summed up T Lover.

    Hardy, this isn’t some separatist feminist rights blog of the type you so hate so I am at a loss why you and your cohorts have arrived here in your legion with your hectoring,strident ways.

    Oh yes, I remember. Unprovoked, unprompted and uncalled for, you started copying posts from this blog and mocking and jeering. What fun you all had.

    Do you honestly think we are all going to sit here and be impressed by your macho posturing? be cowed into submission by your bullying?

    And, before you throw around any accusations of racism – please don’t lecture us on British men, British ways and our history. And do try and understand the difference between English and British. Thank you.
    Now run along and swallow one of your little pills. There’s a good chap.

    • Ian Ironwood says:

      Actually, I love feminists rights blogs. They give me some of my best material.

      And of course you’re at a loss at why we’re here: you haven’t the faintest idea about how men really think on their own terms. If you did, then you wouldn’t have to even ask.

      I’m not here to impress you. I’m here to impress the men who read this. And judging from my email inbox, I seem to be pretty impressive. Mission accomplished.

      • Jo says:

        Hey. I thought you had ‘important things to do’ and ‘places to be’? Therefore you said you were going.
        But no, ( yawn..) you’re still rattling on here. Stick to your word and sling your hook…
        Oh. ‘We’re at a loss at why you’re here’ are we? ‘We haven’t the faintest idea about how men really think on their own terms’?
        Well, I’ve got news for you. WE DON’T CARE WHAT MORE YOU HAVE TO SAY. That’s it. Bottom line. You’ve banged on here relentlessly. At great (utterly tedious) length. You are a bore of the first order and the greatest dullard I’ve ever had the misfortune to read. Doubtless you’ll spin this into yet another justification of your tedious theories and mind numbing riposts………
        You said you were going. Can’t seem to break away for some reason.
        You say you’re a man of your word. Then adhere to it and off you go.
        You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

      • T Lover says:

        Oh dear, oh dear Mr II,

        One of us is being dim. Is it me?

        Pay attention.

        I am a bloke, you know – the sort with a totem.

        I am an anti. No, not your Father’s sister, I mean anti-feminist, anti-politically correct clap trap.

        Taken those simple facts on board?

        Ok. Well, I have read some of your stuff and agree with some (I stress some) of the things you say.

        But. This is the but. You love yourself. You come with hangers on. Horrible hangers on in some cases. You are brash and opinionated. Your opinions are every bit as bad as those of the worst feminist sisters. And you seem to think I should lie prostrate whilst simultaneously holding my forelock just because you are proud of being a pornographer.

        Still with me?

        Well you are ‘effing well wrong. You, my little ray of southern sunshine, are fair game for a good old lampooning.

        PS. There is a question I haven’t answered. This. You asked me: “I once wrote an entire lesbian package entirely in haiku. What the hell have you done?” I gave up my seat on the train this week for a lady with children. I spent time wondering how I could raise more money for injured servicemen. I don’t crow about it though. I wouldn’t would I? Not as impressive as being a top pornographer.

        By the way, what would be the Haiku translation for “strap-on ironwood”?

      • Ian Ironwood says:

        I swear from your writing style and literary mannerisms, not to mention your penchant for name-calling, I surmised you were female. Perhaps its a British thing, though my English relatives don’t seem to have that kind of ambiguity in their writing. My apologies for the mistake.

        Did my important things and went to my important places.

        I do love myself. You are absolutely correct. There’s a lot to love about me. I’ve very lovable. I’m not ashamed of that, because self-loathing is incredibly omega and an utter waste of my time. I’m here to do things and make a difference. And I am.

        This is the thing, though: when women air their grievances or opinions — and gods, you just can’t stop them — then they aren’t labeled “brash and opinionated”. They’re “speaking their mind”. If men start to get passionate and actually emote about their thoughts and feelings, then they get condemned by the very same people who were screaming that we needed to be “more in touch with our feelings”.

        Behold the feminist double-standard: they want men to share their feelings . . . but only the ones they like. You start sharing your real feelings and thoughts and you get judged and condemned.

        And you don’t have to like me because I’m proud of being a pornographer — I get that. There are a lot of guys out there who struggle with their sexuality and turn to loathing their own gender and masculinity. The Manosphere has a lot of terminology to cover this sort of thing. Keep reading, you’ll get there.

        Oh, and this week — alone — let’s look at everything else I did besides write:

        Got three kids up, fed, bathed, dressed, and taken to school every day, managed their homework and had two teacher’s conferences.

        Volunteered at my company’s Red Cross blood drive (Tuesday) and helped cook for a battered women’s shelter benefit my evil ol’ Big Porn company throws every three months (Wednesday).

        Celebrated my wedding anniversary in high style, complete with romantic presents and a framed poem about my wife.

        Attended my son’s Scout meeting (I’m an assistant leader) and taught the boys proper fire-building technique in preparation for the upcoming freeze-out (while we were there we did a post-holiday canned food drive, too.)

        Rescued a family on the side of the road — a simple flat, but the two ladies in the car had no idea how to change the tire (tyre). Only took about ten minutes, though, so I’m not sure how you count that.

        Had lunch with an old friend going through a divorce and offered my moral support and advice.

        Attended the orientation for my older son’s first middle-school play, in which I volunteered for both the construction committee and the wardrobe committee.

        Helped my aging parents get their trash to the dump (they live in a rural area without trash service, and my father is a paraplegic veteran).

        Cooked dinner the last two nights. Tuesday was spinach-stuffed ravioli with homemade bread (I love to bake) and last night was a pork roast cooked with white truffle oil and fresh rosemary, with vegetables, salad (mixed greens with a lovely Wensleydale-with-blueberries and a homemade vinaigrette) plus a mixed-fruit reduction sauce for the pork. Tonight I’m teaching my 7 year old how to make Sloppy Joes.

        And that’s on top of finishing a 250,000 word book, the February catalog, and writing two short stories. Oh, and I helped my wife with a research paper she’s presenting.

        Since haiku is a verse form and not a language, “translating” would be difficult, but I’ll give it a shot:

        Strap-on ironwood:
        Faux phallus to fool yourself
        Get one Tlover

        And that’s just this week. I wouldn’t have “crowed” about it, but then again I’m an American and tend to feel proud of my accomplishments.
        Bragging is an essential element of masculinity, and an art that should be mastered by any gentleman.

        Oh, and the

      • The Plankton says:

        Gosh, Ian, what a hero you are. Truly wonderful and I am so glad you yourself know it so well. Perhaps, just a thought, you know it more than anyone else? That’s lovely for you.

      • T Lover says:

        II,

        Hooray, we have something in common – I’m Yorkshire.

        You like Wensleydale? So do I. The place and, yum, the cheese.

        You have Wensleydale with Blueberries? That’s not Wensleydale, not real Wensleydale.

        Try it plain with apple pie. Wonderful. The contrast – the sweet and sour. Deeeelish.

        Mrs T Lover sends her regards. She was a bit miffed that you thought I was a woman but got over it when I gave her a black eye.

        And you mentioned your relatives. Which side of the family? I assume Mrs I. I say Mrs I because if she has Yorkshire relatives she must be the one with the sense of humour.

        Alan Bennett is a Yorkshire boy you know. Have you read his mucky short stories? Bloody good. Smut? I’ve got his address somewhere – you ought to exchange notes with him.

    • Jo says:

      Margaux. I salute you! Bravo and hear hear.

  • Jo says:

    Attempted to read Ironwood’s ramblings. Fell asleep early on. Truly…..
    What a BORE. Keeps saying he’s going. Ta ta then.

  • James says:

    “What do you offer a man/woman?”

    Isn’t this what anyone must ask themselves before they attempt dating?

    The response above is rather interesting. The first replies were along the lines of “these guys hate women and they’re American”; then someone picked up on the name chosen by the commenter. No one attempted to answer the original question.

    Granted, it is not helpful that the question was posed by “The Great Sodini’s Ghost”, in other words by someone glorifying, or pretending to glorify, a spree killer of women.

    I have read the US page that linked here, and I have to agree that some of the comments were hostile. However, the rudeness is no worse than the typical page in the US blogosphere (and is a lot less than on US blogs that discuss racial issues). Screen out the hostility, and what are you left with: quite a lot of comments trying to explain to Plankton *why* she finds herself in the situation she does, and how this is partly a product of her own attitudes and expectations.

    The replies to the US commenters on this page were, if anything, even more hostile. Screen out that hostility, and what are you left with: “go away, you rude men, you hate us and we don’t want you here”.

    Which do you think is more constructive?

    • deti says:

      James:

      Excellent comment. I came here from the US blog that referenced here.

      The question was asked:

      “What do you offer a man?”

      Not a single commenter has answered the question. Ms. Plankton hasn’t. None of the female commenters have, either.

      Why can’t any woman commenting here answer that? And if you don’t have a ready answer, why should any man consider such a woman worthy of any kind of investment required for a date?

      A better question is: Why do the women commenting here take such offense when asked “What do you offer a man”?”

      It is as if those who comment here believe a woman deserves to be dated, courted and invested in simply because she is, simply because she exists. How is it that anyone can think this way?

      Any woman who wants to date or who wants to be in the dating market should be ready to answer:

      “What do you bring to the table? What can you offer me besides your body? Why are you worth my time, my money, my investment and ultimately my commitment?”

      • The Plankton says:

        I have answered this question in a particular blog ages ago – I forget which – and here and there all along the way. Crucially, you forget that British women are not like Americans. We don’t tend to sing our own praises and shout our better qualities/talents and attractions from the roof tops. Modesty is more our bag. Herein lies the answer, perhaps, to your question.

      • Jo says:

        If you read through the history of this blog, you will see that practically all of us have answered that question in detail. Time and time again.
        Do get your facts right deti.

      • deti says:

        Plankton wrote:

        “British women are not like Americans. We don’t tend to sing our own praises and shout our better qualities/talents and attractions from the roof tops. Modesty is more our bag.”

        Really? I’ve read some of the Daily Mail articles on British women on the prowl in your cities. They wear next to nothing. They look like prostitutes. They openly talk of wanting sex from the beautiful men.

        That looks to me like “sing[ing their] own praises and shout[ing their better qualities *** from the rooftops].” If this is “modesty”, the Kardashians over here have nothing on the Brits.

      • Jo says:

        Oh I see. You’ve read ‘some Daily Mail articles on British women’ have you?
        Says it all then.

      • MoP James says:

        Deti, these women certainly exist – I’ve read those articles too, and you can see scenes like the ones they describe in any British town centre on a Saturday night.

        However, such women are nearly all under 25, and are probably not the majority even in that age group.

        Some time in the last 30 years there has been a generational change. In the “older generation” (yes, that’s us now), typical behaviour is to avoid town centres on a Saturday night, not to tell people if you are a high achiever, and to keep your medals locked away somewhere and not even think of them as something special.

  • Jo says:

    If you want to experience real hostility, re-read ian Ironwood’s comments in their entirety.

  • James says:

    There’s something interesting going on here, and it doesn’t reflect well on us Brits.

    I have just re-read Ian Ironwood’s posts, and I found that, apart from one post in which he responded to a rant with sarcasm (“your pretty little heads”), he has been quite civil. He is not being hostile, not stooping to personal attack. However, the opinions that he is offering are decidedly unwelcome here. More than that, the shock expressed by some of the other participants suggests that they are hearing such opinions for the first time in their lives. In fact, that does not surprise me at all, because men’s opinions are anathema to the mainstream media in the UK.

    The response that others have made to Mr Ironwood is not to provide counterarguments, but to attack him personally; for example:

    “Mr Ironwood, thank God you are married, I’d hate for a man like you to be in the dating scene, what an absolute turn-off you and your fellow bloggers are.”

    “Mr Ironwood, you just don’t get it. Please do us all a favour – FUCK OFF”

    And on the new visitors in general:

    “No, it’s not “an American thing.” It’s an bitter mentally-disturbed misogynistic thing.”

    “I think these blokes, who have come across from the American blog, actively dislike women … So, in short, women are much much nicer than men. You have to feel sorry for them as they obviously have mental health issues and probably can’t even get an erection or maybe they’re gay but in denial? ”

    “I think they’re probably unattractive men lacking in social skills who have always been overlooked by women … They are bound to suffer from some kind of sexual dysfunction, and some will be known to their doctors as having mental health problems.”

    Although Plankton has been very restrained, and indeed brave enough to post comments on the American blog, her friends are really not showing themselves in a very good light.

    The biggest difference between the US men’s blogs and this one is not the opinions that are expressed, but the nature of the discussion. I have read a few American blogs, and sometimes I am surprised at the hostility and discourtesy, but behind that there often a real attempt at debate, and a meeting of minds. Some British blogs, including the present one, are different. Although the premise of this blog is “I’m plankton and I want to find a man”, this is not so much an invitation to debate, as a call for like-minded people to come and hang out here and reinforce each other’s opinions. If that’s what you want, then fine. It isn’t my thing: it reminds me too much of a gang in a British school playground.

    Give me American free speech any day.

  • James says:

    Jo, I agree with you that Plankton should try internet dating. She will get introductions to a lot of men. Of course, 90% of them will be unsuitable, but one can screen them out, in the same way as if meeting them by any other means. The other 10% are really worth the effort. I know a couple of women who met their partners that way.

    There’s some useful information in a comment by “NMH” on one of the US blogs:

    http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/awful-profiles-by-women/#comment-180

    Someone created fake profiles, male and female with different levels of attractiveness, to measure the responses. All women, and 6’0″ men who look like George Clooney, get a lot of responses; average and below-average men get little interest (which is why I do not recommend internet dating to men).

  • James says:

    Sadly I must write to corroborate Ian Ironwood’s research on shoes. I was talking to a woman friend in a bar, and she remarked that a man who had just walked in “looked wealthy”. I laughed and asked how she could tell, and she told me. The first thing you look at is the shoes.

    The rest of the process is interesting too. After examining the shoes, you move your eyes upwards, and inspect each item of clothing, pausing only to inspect an important organ: the hands. Signs of manual labour are a turn-off because they do not indicate wealth.

    Guys, we are utterly clueless about women’s thoughts and feelings unless we have close friends, or bloggers, who are kind enough to share them with us.

  • Jo says:

    James. That’s just your woman friend…
    Important distinction. That’s not the whole of womankind. Generalisations and/or pasting every woman with the same brush as a few examples? Totally misleading.

  • James says:

    Fair comments, ladies. I gave an anecdote; Ian Ironwood gave a fuller study. Even he found that shoes improve a man’s chances by “only” 30%. I agree totally that decent women will not judge a man by his wealth, still less by his shoes; and if 70% are decent, that is a healthy proportion.

    It’s probably similar to the proportion of men who do not assess a woman only by her cup size. But I will wager that both of you have encountered men who have done exactly that. And I bet you find it revolting – I would if I were in your place.

    It all leaves me a bit confused. I’m looking for a lifetime partner, not to “get laid” as Ian puts it, and the sooner I can screen out women who think like my erstwhile friend, the better. What is a guy to do? Dress down so he doesn’t impress too much?

    Clearly a long period of mutual assessment helps, but no one, male or female, is as candid to a potential partner as my close but platonic friend was to me.

  • So there I was, googling my own user handle “The Great Sodini” and this blog is on the first page of hits!

    Ian Ironwood and James make some really good points. Most women here, when confronted with a difficult argument to counter, just start name-calling. “Argumentum ad hominem” I believe it is called.

    So this blog is about “why can’t I find a good man” or something of the sort? Well, the answer is painfully obvious to all of the :good men” out there. It’s that your idea of a “good man” is overly influenced by the media. The media instructs women to only be attracted to men who literally look like underwear models. If a guy doesn’t look like an underwear model, he is considered trash in most Western women’s eyes.

    Basically, lower your astronomical standards and you will find a suitable partner. Or, you can keep being delusional and settle for a fling once in a while with an underwear model looking type guy, but never really be loved. It’s your choice. You know what is said by many here in the States though: “Five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.”

  • Gia says:

    In ref to beautiful women becoming this ‘plankton’ you speak of… Yeah, no. Not so much. Sure at 40 they don’t turn the young heads they used to (though you’d be surprised…), but the key word here truly is ‘young’. If they maintain themselves well, the age bracket of interested men simply moves upward. Of course there are the 50+ men in the throes of midlife crisis who won’t so much as look at a 40 yr old woman, however attractive… But there are also those who understand the concept of age-appropriateness, and the fact that a 25 yr old hanging off their arm is a) not magically making them younger, and b) likely gone the instant his $$$ is gone.

    Matter of fact, one of the most attractive women I know is past 50. Impeccably cut silver hair, slim figure, great style, always ‘plugged’ into the latest – just an incredible joie de vivre about her. People are drawn to her, crave her company b/c of all that, b/c she’s so interesting.

  • They wanted an accessible search engine that could be searched by people all over the world
    for free. Maps and a number of animals along with her school
    bag. Tic Tac Toe is not fun, but Play – Mesh’s Tic Tac Toe Online is still as good
    as it is going to get for i – Phone players.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Whyfore Plankton? Whyfore Wives? at The Plankton.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 738 other followers

%d bloggers like this: