The Backlash! - What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues - Loving the Lice
  On-line since 1995 - Updated June 22, 2012  | Cowlitz Country News  | 


American Flag
Hot Links
  ‑ A Voice for Men
  ‑ Angry Harry
  ‑ Anti-Feminist Technology
  ‑ Anti-Feminist Theory
  ‑ Anti-Misandry
  ‑ Articles About Men
  ‑ Boycott American Women
  ‑ DadsDivorce
  ‑ DadsNow
  ‑ Debunker's Domain
  ‑ DV Men
  ‑ Equal But Different
  ‑ Exposing Feminism
  ‑ False Rape Society
  ‑ Fathers and Families
  ‑ Feminist Apocalypse
  ‑ Fiebert's Bibliography
  ‑ Good Men Project
  ‑ Heretical Sex
  ‑ Leykis 101
  ‑ Intact America
  ‑ Male Affirmative
  ‑ Man Woman & Myth
  ‑ Men Are Good
  ‑ MensActivism
  ‑ MensENews
  ‑ MensNewsDaily
  ‑ Men's Rights Blog
  ‑ Men's Rights Online
  ‑ National Coalition for Men
  ‑ NoCirc
  ‑ No Ma'am
  ‑ Stephen Baskerville
  ‑ Traitors Of Men
  ‑ Women Against Men
Loving the Lice
By Rod Van Mechelen
Sheer badness attracts them; they are "good girls" attracted to "bad boys." -- Sheila Isenberg, Women Who Love Men Who Kill

Wisely a woman prefers to a lover a man who neglects her. This one may love her some day, some day the lover may not. -- John Hay, Distichs

Rationalizing Love?
1992 Bellevue, Wash. - Why do women love the lice and ignore the nice guys? Why do they consign supportive men to the bottomless pit of "just friends"?

Most women, according to Shere Hite, believe they choose the "wrong men" to serve some hidden masochistic agenda. (Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 247) Others honestly admit nice men turn them off. (Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 248) Why? One reason, according to Tara Roth Madden, is that "it's nerve-racking for the middle-class working woman to realize the portly male caretaker (father) is gone." (Women Vs. Women: The Uncivil Business War, Tara Roth Madden, p 211) So they seek out men who satisfy their "need" to be dependent rather than men whom they can truly love.

Most women say they want sensitivity, a sense of humor, intelligence, etc. But men know that if they are not virile or rich or famous or have status in the community or in some other way make women feel some sense of security, of not having to worry because the man is somehow in control of the environment, then all the sensitivity in the world won't do them any good. Given the choice, women date, mate, and marry professional athletes, rock stars, movie stars, well-to-do businessmen, and the men who are best able to emulate them.

Since relatively few men are virile, rich or famous, the men to whom women are generally most available, and whom they marry and recycle by divorce most, are those who are most adept at manipulating women. Who's to blame for this? Men, for doing what it takes to attract women? Or the women who fall for their endearing quirks? Not surprisingly, pop feminists are not about to blame women. In fact, they assert it's completely legitimate for women to fall in love based on "attributes that are particularly meaningful to a woman at a certain stage in her life." (Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 5)

When men fall in love with women's breasts or legs, that's male chauvinism, but when women fall in love with equally superficial characteristics, it's because they're "particularly meaningful." This is a sexist double standard.


Rod Van Mechelen


Join The Backlash! Forum

Copyright © 1991, 1992, 2012 by Rod Van Mechelen; all rights reserved.

Rod Van Mechelen, Publisher & Editor,

Hosted by: The Zip Connection

Counter Start Date: January 21, 2012: