Recently
Later Love
DEAR SUSAN: My mom was in her late 50s when she found love again after divorcing my dad. She used an online dating site to find it — but this was before the site you mentioned existed. It seems a fine match, and they have been married for …Read more.
A Perfect 10
DEAR SUSAN: I had to laugh at the letter from a man describing himself as a "Richard Gere" looking for a woman who is a professional, intelligent and a perfect 10. The problem might just be in his math! I've noticed that men rate …Read more.
Choose Happiness
DEAR SUSAN: This positive advice is for a fellow blogger, who seems to be having a hard time: It takes work to escape the comfort zone that keeps you making the same mistakes. (It's easier if you have the help of a good therapist, but people have …Read more.
The Uninvited
DEAR SUSAN: Your column on being left out of a couple's world has made me respond to an advice columnist for the first time in my life. The problem is much bigger than you seem to realize. When I was part of a couple, we did a lot of socializing. I …Read more.
more articles
|
Internet Shopping
DEAR SUSAN: Internet dating may work for some people, but my experience is that most of the men are just "shopping." By its very nature, the online scene is like looking in a catalog where one shops according to size, color and so on. Though it can be argued that women are guilty of this, too, I have found that men are more so. At this stage of my life — age 50 and divorced three years — it may be time to either throw in the towel or take a break from dating. I refuse to be played by men who are shopping on these sites. Although I am involved in volunteer work and have a fulfilling job, meeting men has become more and more elusive. I've come to believe that the world of dating is for the younger, prettier set. — From the "Single File" blog
DEAR BLOGGER: Funny you should say that! Open on my desk is the lead article in the Style section of the Oct. 6 edition of The New York Times. In large bold letters, the headline "Second Love at First Click" should convince you that love is not only for the young but also out there, on the vanguard of the single world. One woman was quoted as saying, "This time I was smart. I married my best friend." (Ahem. Sounds familiar, eh?) The subhead says, "With a Rush of Users 55 and Older, Online Dating Expands Beyond the Young." It's about time that headlines recognized the power of the individual to create mass markets, drive them in a particular direction and change buying habits.
But all that is for another column. For the moment, love and all that good stuff is on the menu. America as a society may be aging, but not the unmarried. They are looking forward, in all the right places, for the romance that can bring back the spirit of youth in people of any generation. The older single person brings to his new love the wisdom of experience, plus the appreciation of what is — and isn't — vital to deep affection. Let me know how your catalog shopping goes now that you know the road map. You and your generation will know the value of true love when it comes along. This is your time, my friend — the last of life, for which the first was made. Savor your good fortune.
Websites for seniors: OurTime.com and SeniorPeopleMeet.com.
DEAR SUSAN: If a woman doesn't approve of a man's job, she doesn't give him the time of day. Women would be bitter, too, if they were judged primarily by the size of their wallets. — From the "Single File" blog
DEAR BLOGGER: Oh-ho. The old angry/bitter fellow. (Your age doesn't matter; all generations — male and female — of the embittered are equally misguided and unpleasant.) But for the sake of fairness, here's my retort: Yes, there are women who will only consider freewheeling moneybags for their datebooks. And yes, this columnist has been in the company of some — enough to know that they're not at all in the majority of womenfolk. And hey, you're fighting the fight of long ago — blatant hostility toward an entire gender with enmity deserved by a few. Today, when women are feeling quite good about being female, the workplace is filled with good ones who are earning enough to choose a man for reasons other than his earning power, often freeing a man working solely for dollars to work at a lower wage in a fulfilling position. I've said it before, but here goes a repeat: The misnamed women's lib movement was designed to liberate everyone — both genders — from tyrannies inherited from a quite different past. Boy, are you on the wrong track! You need to change your meeting places or your attitude. Choose one. Choose wisely.
Have a question for Susan? Send it to her in care of this newspaper or online at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
32 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Susan, you've done it again. As soon as a man writes to you with a gripe about deteriorating gender relations, you automatically take his head off and write him off as bitter. How closed minded can you possibly be? What makes YOU so jaded toward men that this is always you Pavlov's dog, knee-jerk reaction? This convinces me all the more that you are not all that tolerant of males, either.
I guess one side effect of your so-called "People's Liberation" movement goes something like this: a bunch of professional women saying something to the effect of "As soon as I graduate from college/law school/medical school, I'm going to marry my sweetheart cab driver/gas station attendant/garbageman, etc." Do you really think that the bra burning feminists of that era really cared about men? Not when they typically saw men as the enemy, a dynamic that continues to this day. This is why your continued babbling about gender reconciliation is a complete FRAUD!!!
As usual, your response is to kill the (male) meessenger. Nice job.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mickey
Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:50 PM
|
|
|
|
Susan, I would like to give you an update on the second LW in your column. This man posted his opinion of women in your column over a year ago, and he has changed greatly since then. In fact, he actually came onto your column about this time last year to apologize to women in general for that statement. Since then, he has posted frequently on Creators.com and adopted an attitude of being kind, sympathetic and supportive of the other posters, most of whom are women. We are all fond of him, and you would hardly recognize the person who posted that sour comment in the person he is now. It just goes to show you that our relationships with others can be a matter of choice, not something that is decided for us. You told him to ‘choose wisely'; well, apparently he did, and I find that admirable.
Mickey, I feel bad for you. You seem so utterly convinced that all women hate men, and that simply isn't true! I've been married to a man for 18 years, and I certainly wouldn't have done that if I hated all men. There are plenty of other women who feel the same, too. Here's a thought: those women who are ‘man-haters' could be that way because they have been burned by men, the same way you appear to have been by women. It's easy to be soured on the opposite sex when you have been hurt by them. I will admit that I went through a stage like that myself. But when you're looking at half the human race, it's just crazy to assume that they are all alike. There are good people and bad people of both genders. Why not try to see women who are emotionally healthy and appreciative of good men, instead of looking at websites where embittered and angry women are busy trashing them. It might help you get a better perspective on the situation. Just a thought.
Comment: #2
Posted by: JMG
Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Ironically, I find that the women that are shallow enough to judge men by their wallets are the hotties that men judge primarily by their looks. So here we have men judging women for their looks (shallow) and then getting upset when the women judge them by their wallet (also shallow). So apparently in their minds they can be shallow but the women can't. Sorry, can't have it both ways. Men that think like this should try expanding their dating pool by actually considering the type of people they're dealing with, but that might mean moving down on the "hotness" scale just a bit to a 7 or 8 and below. But Hollywood and the internet has convinced them that even f-ugly dudes can get 10's so here we are. This is a huge double standard that's got to go. FWIW, I'm a woman that's also happily married to a wonderful man.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Kim
Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:48 AM
|
|
|
|
I find most angry/bitter single people are that way because they are trying to date "UP" vs. someone who has more in common regarding $$, looks, fitness, thinness with themselves. Think about it. And for the guy mad about women caring about his job?? Give me a Fin break. Like a lawyer wants to date a Walmart greeter. Male or female, animal vegetable or mineral.... we tend to go for people who we have things in common with. AMBITION, Hygiene, looks, friends, intellect, etc. etc. etc... WHY is this so hard to get!!!????
Comment: #4
Posted by: julie
Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Mickey, but Susan NAILED that one. It could have just as easily been a female LW complaining that ALL men want only a 20-something hottie; the answer would've remained the same.
What you don't seem to understand: as JMG said, ALL women are not alike. Many of us are rather fond of the men we married. Many of us (like Susan) have raised or are raising sons whom we love. Others have fathers, brothers, brothers in law or male friends of whom we think quite highly.
You are finding comfort in believing that ALL women are [money-grubbers, man-haters, whatever]. I get that it's easier to do this than to open your mind to the possibility that you may be WRONG. But you are wrong; and you are the one with the closed mind here.
Comment: #5
Posted by: hedgehog
Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog Then I guess me and the zillions of guys who've been burned, abused, vilified etc. by the allegedly "fair sex" are perpetually wrong, blind, bitter, stupid, and so on. Oh well...
Comment: #6
Posted by: Mickey
Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Surely not all the hotties are shallow. Reading the newspaper this morning while in the coffee shop 7 women came in, 4 were attartive in my eyes 3 were not. All 4 had rings on their fingers, the other 3 I never bothered to look because I was not interested. You can't build a fire if there is no spark. I'm not seeking a hottie, but someone I find attractive. When I got out of bed this morning I was not unhappy, rather hopeful. By the end of the day I was unhappy. Each one of those 4 took a swing with the axe at the tree (ie me), later the couple walking down the street another swing...by the end of the day the tree fell-became unhappy. Hedgehog says the thought pattern needs changed and i agree, but with anything in life there must be rewards. Why are others rewarded? If everyday is to be the same then what's the use? I agree with julie about having things in common, but where are the ones not already with someone? I thought you were not suppose to covet thy neighbors wife nor the maid servent...and live by the Golden rule am I mistaken? What gives?
Comment: #7
Posted by: J
Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Jack Olds or "J" as you go by these days...
Do us all a favor... get you head out of your ass.
Nothing will change until you do.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Captain Wastey
Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 PM
|
|
|
|
JMG, thank you so much for your kind words! I apologize again for those comments. I hope this is the last time I have to apologize for erroneous beliefs I held in 2010(can we move into 2012 already?) and which I renounced a long time ago. My beliefs about women have changed a great deal-- for the better.
Julie, I am sorry (once again)for those comments. I made them a long time before I got to know and admire women like you,JMG, Hedgehog,and many others here. Speaking of leagues, you strike me as someone who is in her own league,Julie,and will struggle to find someone of the same (high) quality.
Happy New Year,everybody!
Comment: #9
Posted by: Michael
Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Captain Wastey, Why did you put a name with the j? Why did you do that? Did that fuel your ego? Did that make you somebody? What gives you the right to invade anothers privacy? What give you the right to injure someone else, or pssible their family, friends, livelihood? You're a real asshole.
Comment: #10
Posted by: J
Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:11 AM
|
|
|
|
Then I guess me and the zillions of guys who've been burned, abused, vilified etc. by the allegedly "fair sex" are perpetually wrong, blind, bitter, stupid, and so on. Oh well..
***
Mickey -- what about the "zillions" of women who've been burned, abused, vilified by men? Oh, wait -- they don't exist, huh? Only men have been treated poorly? Truly? Look, some women ARE bad -- just as some MEN are date-rapists. It's JUST as foolish to decide that all women are bad as it is to say that all men are date-rapists.
Look, if a woman repeatedly dates alcoholics it doesn't mean that all men are alcoholics, only thatthere's something in HER that needs to be fixed -- she needs to figure out why she is compelled to keep making the same mistake over and over.
If you've been mistreated by one or two women, you can chalk that up to a learning experience. But if every woman you date turns out to cheat on you, to dump you for someone wealthier, to denigrate you to your family, then, my friend, you need to figure out what it is that keeps drawing you to women of low character.
It's a MUCH more sensible approach than stamping your foot and saying "All women are BAD!"
Comment: #11
Posted by: hedgehog
Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Each one of those 4 took a swing with the axe at the tree (ie me), later the couple walking down the street another swing...by the end of the day the tree fell-became unhappy. Hedgehog says the thought pattern needs changed and i agree, but with anything in life there must be rewards. Why are others rewarded?
***
J, changing your thought pattern will make you happier -- and THAT is the reward.
Those rings and the couples are NOT swinging an axe at you. You are CHOOSING to see it that way. They were merely going about their own lives...and you have no idea whether those marriages were happy, or abusive or boring or what. You allowed yourself to be talked into negative thinking without installing some positive thoughts about your life: "I can afford coffee and a newspaper in the coffee shop" "I can get out of my bed and get to a coffee shop" "I am able to read." "I have some time to spend as I please." (etc) and THAT is what brought you down by the end of the day.
Do you remember Scorn from Cheryl Lavin's column the other day? She very easily could choose to say, "Look at all those healthy people driving cars on the freeway! Every one of them is like an arrow to my heart -- they're rubbing my nose in the fact that THEY are healthy and I am not healthy enough to drive a car! Why should they have good health and a driver's license when I cannot?"
She chose NOT to focus on what she cannot do, and focus instead on what she can do, which is have a rich and full, rewarding life. And if I remember right, you read her post and called her inspirational. I agree -- she had a lot to teach us!
Comment: #12
Posted by: hedgehog
Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog Mock if you must, but I firmly believe that one can only take so much rejection, antipathy and failure. Once that happens, one becomes completely demoralized to the point where approaching and trying to date just isn't worth the aggravation. I admit, I came to that point many years ago, and that's what I live with.
By the way, I've seen this happen too many times with too many other guys over too many years as well. We CAN'T be all wrong.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Mickey
Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Why can't you all be wrong? Just because you all agree? The white supremacists all agree with each other, too -- does that make THEM right? How about the Flat Earth Society? How about the women who've been dumped by their husbands for trophy wives -- are they correct in saying all men are shallow jerks?
Bitter attracts bitter, which reinforces and further slants your worldview. It tends not to attract dissent from men who do NOT share your viewpoint, because there's no point in engaging with someone whose mind is closed.
As I've said before, I've been happily married for 30 years and have two sons and a grandson. I also have several nephews and brothers-in-law of whom I'm quite fond. (I also have two ex-brothers-in-law who behaved abysmally toward their long-time wives.)
I am sorry for whatever happened to you to turn you so bitter, Mickey. You're finding comfort in telling yourself you're right, that all women are jerks. If that false comfort is all you want out of life, keep telling yourself that and you will be assured of meeting your expectations. If you (and the rest of the He Man Woman Haters Club) put half as much energy into figuring out how to change yourself as you do into kvetching and moaning about women, you'd be more likely find yourself with women who treat you better.
Comment: #14
Posted by: hedgehog
Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Michael -- I'm not sure if I told you last year how much I admired your willingness to not just change your position on this, but to actually apologize to those you wrongly characterized. I do think it was wrong for Susan to use your old letter without adding a note that you had apologized, because I seem to remember your writing to her to let her know of your change of heart and her publishing that update? (Am I wrong on that?)
My best wishes for a happy new year to you, too!
Comment: #15
Posted by: hedgehog
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks,Hedgehog. I don't remember what you said last year,but you have always been very kind to me,and I admire you a great deal. I agree that Susan was wrong to dredge up my old comments as if I posted them recently and still stand by them. I even sent her a private e-mail asking her not to print my old,negative comments again,as I no longer stand by them. I 'm surprised to see that Susan decided to print them anyway -- right before New Year's Eve.
I hope you have a great 2012,Hedgehog. You're a classy lady who deserves the best from the new year. Happy New Year!
Comment: #16
Posted by: Michael
Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog It's real easy to say "look within" or "don't give up", or words to that effect. Sometimes, bad things happen and people get burned, believe it or not. I've never claimed to be perfect. My only point is that once someone has been burned enough times (for whatever the reason), it's neither unreasonable nor wrong to get outta Dodge and stop the bleeding.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Mickey
Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog One last thing. In this day and age, it is also politically correct to say "all men are" bad, evil, sexist, dogs, etc. If any man was to write a book called "All women are evil", he'd be strung up and shot for it. We all know this. And this is the very reason why a lot of guys walk on eggshells when dealing with the supposedly "fair sex."
Comment: #18
Posted by: Mickey
Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Mickey, I've been burned several times, this last time the worst and got out of Dodge. I want to go back, it's a lot of fun there, but still afraid. I thought everyone played by the same rules-they don't male or female. There are a lot of good people out there, some of them are on this site with experiences and knowledge. Is 2012 the year I don't know but hope so.
Comment: #19
Posted by: J
Sun Jan 1, 2012 8:50 AM
|
|
|
|
No, Mickey -- we DON'T "all know this" any more than people all once "knew" that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth or that Native Americans were "savages".
You are seeing through a dirty lens that distorts your worldview. I know it's easier to say "look within" than it is to actually DO it. Just like it's easy to say, "Eat more fresh fruits and veggies than fast food" -- than it is to actually learn about produce, shop for it, and remember to take it along.
I said that some women are bad, and yes, people do get burned, sometimes through no fault of their own; even cited a couple of examples. But the reason IS important, Mickey, which is why it's so important to take that break from the dating scene and to be brutally honest and to get help if you can't figure it out on your own. I think more people would benefit from doing this.
But you are not doing that. You decided that Dodge needs to be destroyed and so you're lobbing firebombs at the whole city, not seeing any difference whether they hit the brothel or the convent. Or the schoolhouse, for that matter.
Comment: #20
Posted by: hedgehog
Sun Jan 1, 2012 8:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog The firebombs were in the air long before I even got to Dodge, and then felt the need to make a run for it. You have the not so thinly veiled "satire" showing how men are dogs, pigs, oppressors, and so on (which we've debated). In some states, you even have laws that say if a married woman has a child from an extra-marital affair, the husband (who is not the biological father) is still legally obligated to support that child. There are also a zillion horror stories about the divorce from hell where the court rulings are designed to hose the male. Finally, when any guy tries to speak out on the injustice of it all, he's usually shouted down and excoriated for it. When the odds are that stacked against you, you get lost. This is where we are now.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Mickey
Sun Jan 1, 2012 12:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: J Agreed, there are many great people in this forum, including those with whom I've had deep disagreements. I think you nailed the problem when you pointed that not everybody plays by the same rules. Thus, we have the great gender divide, as I see it.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Mickey
Sun Jan 1, 2012 12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Oh, please, Mickey. I remember those links you provided. You don't have to like satire, but it clearly WAS satire, just as Edith Bunker and Lucille Ball and Peg Bundy were satirical characters on TV. And there are JUST as many sites out there where men are kvetching about women as vice versa -- some of them even in the links YOU provided here months ago.
Yes, the husband is required to support children born of marriage, regardless of paternity, in some states. This is because the presumption of paternity is on the father and it is designed not to fleece innocent men, but to protect innocent CHILDREN and, not so incidentally, to keep those kids from dipping into the pocket of John Q. Taxpayer if Mr. Affair Man/BioDad vanishes into thin air, as he is so often wont to do. Unfair? Well, it's not always a piece of cake for an innocent wife and kids born to the marriage when Mistress and Baby Surprise come to claim their share of support (or inheritance, for that matter) from Mr. Cheating Husband, either.
There are skunks in both genders, and it is disingenuous to pretend one gender has a monopoly on bad behavior. For every one of those "zillions" of guys who have been ill-treated by the courts or by women, I can supply you at least as many women who've been either hosed by the courts or by men. Are you aware that until the 1920s or so, women generally could not get custody OR visitation rights in divorce cases? Of course, at that point, kids were presumed to be valued assets. Now that they are generally more costly, there are a fair number of men who just run off and leave the mom to fend as best she can. Of course, there's also the father I know of who dropped his battle for joint custody when his soon-to-be-ex offered him the stereo if he'd do so. True story!
And do not even try to tell me that the "odds are stacked against you." When you cannot vote, own property, get credit in your own name, drive a car, gain admission to college or specialty schools, practice medicine, serve in the military, get decent scholarship offers, have recourse when a boss pressures you sleep with her, or even get prime weekend tee times at the local golf course because they're all reserved for women, THEN you can tell me how bad men have it today.
Comment: #23
Posted by: hedgehog
Sun Jan 1, 2012 1:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog All true. Yet, who is being made to pay for all of yesterday's injustice today?
Comment: #24
Posted by: Mickey
Sun Jan 1, 2012 2:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Mickey -- I don't think anyone's "paying" for the injustice of yesterday. Last time I checked, men still held most seats in the Capitol, on the Supreme Court, in governor's offices and state legislatures, on school boards, on city councils and county boards, and headed most Cabinet posts and more judges are male than female. There are more male than female newspaper publishers and TV execs. More and more men are winning joint custody or even sole custody in divorce cases than was the case 25 years ago; there are women paying child support and men have been freed from the shackles of paying alimony until an ex-wife remarried.
It makes your claims of male persecution pretty implausible.
Comment: #25
Posted by: hedgehog
Sun Jan 1, 2012 8:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Jack Olds or "J" as you like to go by these days....
You are a plus perfect looser.
Middle finger to you too.
Comment: #26
Posted by: Captain Wastey
Mon Jan 2, 2012 11:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Michael, I know there are at least 2 julies on this comment board sometimes, but as far as Im concerned, I dont ever remember being offended at your comments or reading anything less than kind words.... so as far as I go, your tops :) Cheers!
Comment: #27
Posted by: julie
Tue Jan 3, 2012 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
PS. A lot of my comments are written while just reading some highly offensive "all women are gold diggers, shallow, insert other insult _____" argument so I tend to overreact or use much angrier tones than I should, etc. Im not quite the queen of vanity I may sound like sometimes, just a knee jerk reaction to comments regarding men who get rejected by some women some of the time (while likely rejecting other women themselves).
Comment: #28
Posted by: julie
Tue Jan 3, 2012 11:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Thanks,Julie!
Comment: #29
Posted by: Michael
Tue Jan 3, 2012 6:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Julie,you never sound vane,so don't worry about it. Thanks for the compliment. I think the same thing about you. :) Cheers!
Comment: #30
Posted by: Michael
Tue Jan 3, 2012 10:37 PM
|
|
|
|
@Michael
Athbhliain faoi mhaise Daoibh
Comment: #31
Posted by: Kitty O'Shea
Wed Jan 4, 2012 5:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Happy New Year to you too,Kitty! I hope 2012 is a great year for you.
Comment: #32
Posted by: Michael
Wed Jan 4, 2012 6:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
