This is most unfair to Oprah Winfrey. She hasn't done anything.
No - this would only be true if women were as good (at manipulating men) as YOU claim they are.
And that's not the case is it? Every company in the land is not owned and operated by women. So what does that tell you?
It tells me that the consumers (mainly women) have chosen men, and chosen freely, to deliver the goods and that all the rest is blather. And in choosing Asian goods their choice is for men exclusively.
I doubt David Letterman or anyone else in his position would agree that they're under the cosh.
Well--they wouldn't would they. Henpecked husbands rarely do agree that they are under the thumb.
Sounds to me like David's been having his cake and eating it too for a very long time.
There speaks a member of the sisterhood.
Which woman is it that you think engineered that? Or would even want to engineer that?
His Mom maybe.
But I thought that's why women had men by the short and curlies- this amazing ability to think clearly and strategize while in the grips of a passionate sexual attraction that men just do not seem to possess in the same situation.
It is women's physical attributes that have us mesmerised. I understood you were trying to deny that women cynically scheme and plot whilst in the grip of passion. Actually, women in the grip of passion do not think at all but that doesn't mean they don't think when in the grip of an asserted passion. It is difficult for a man, especially an inexperienced man, to distinguish between an asserted and acted out passion and the real thing. But it is easy for a woman to know such a difference in men.
"Standing on the waters, casting your bread,
While the eyes of the idol in the iron head are glowin'.
Distant ships sailing into the mist you were born with a snake in both of your fists.
A hurricane blowin'.
Bob sang that into Letterman's teeth. And then when David came up to shake Bob's hand he was flashed that dirty grin which Americans have a name for but which has slipped my mind for the moment.
You're made the way you are and we're made the way we are - who can you blame that on?
I have no wish to blame it on anything. But you undermine the feminist case with the remark. Demolish it even.
So you've never felt that a woman was attracted to you for yourself - who you were - instead of what you could give her?
I'm sorry to hear that. That really is sad.
Sad or not it is the case. And it is to do with what a man can bring to the rearing of her children so she is not selfish at all. She is Darwinian.
I've been in the melee a few times Rebecca. I know how it works. It's managed by the government. The licensing of meeting places as an alternative to arranged marriages. It's not an accident you know. The Popes thought it up. Suppose I had never been born. Your theoretical woman would then have had to be satisfied with being attracted to some other bloke for himself and who he was. Yes?
I think it's more about my own sense of decorum.
Which you have been conditioned to by other women in magazines and other media sources which women have infiltrated in the usual manner. Which is the main point at issue here. Despite all your diversions and filibustering.
I can honestly say that I feel no more or less allegiance to women than I do to men.
Take her out and shoot her an honest feminist would say to that. My position is based on my allegiance to men. You women have enough going for you as it is. One can't discuss women on the basis of those who seek wellness education. They are a small minority.
I think it's a wonderful arrangement - these two complimenting genders.
So do I. Absolutely fantastic actually.
You should try viewing it as an opportunity for enrichment and cooperation instead of some sort of set up or fixed competition in which you always see yourself as the loser.
Oh yeah! Spoken by a woman. That's how the National Lottery sells tickets. You might get lucky. I hope you know that the National Lottery is a feminist organisation and brought into being by pressure from feminist media.