Category: Let's talk
Frankly, I realize my earlier posts may have come off as misogynistic to some, so I'll just tell the truth plain and simple:
The reason women get off Scott-free is not other women. It's us fools, it's men. I know: I was raised in the 70s: I had friends whose divorced mothers made life difficult for them because they looked like the fathers, and female teachers said that was just what we all had to live with since our predecessors had oppressed women.
I knew of Vietnam Vets whose spouses forsook them when they were off to war, and again, female teachers lauding the spouses for acting on their independence.
The first time I ever heard the word mammogram was in a Junior High class by a teacher not of health but some humanities class, and her complaint it was men's fault they had to succumb to such indignities.
I grew up with all the normal stereotyped behavior: you make a woman or a girl cry, or are perceived to have made a girl or a woman cry, you are in trouble.
If there's a boy and a girl who is potentially culpable in a situation, without question the boy gets it.
I grew up with all that, was in part one of the 90s sensitive types, didn't really start opening up my eyes till maybe six or so years ago.
I know there are women who propagate and use this victim status, but it works only because us fools take to it.
I also know real live women who could propagate that status, but don't: not because they're too mousy to, but because they have guts.
I don't blame women, I blame us guys. Sure, we got our share of upbringing on the subject, and it was wrong. But we perpetuate it. I've in my time done every fool thing I can think of a man can do in an office setting.
I've done all the little things a female coworker may ask for: carry stuff, help with stuff, guys you know what I'm talkin' about we both know you do.
By way of example: When a young coworker spilled pop all over her keyboard / CPU, I didn't just do my part as an IT professional, I played janitor while she sat and cried there in the corner. Why? Oooh, she must be having her period, she must have issues, etc. Guys, you know precisely what I'm talkin' about, and from whom it generally comes to us.
Why would we do that? Most women don't cry when they spill a pop? Sure, most people may not know how to manage the situation with their UPS, CPU, etc., most don't know that if managed correctly and in time you won't have a completely destroyed bunch of equipment. But, most don't cry. Did I stop to think about any of that? Nooo! The only thing that did stop me partway through sopping it up was her supervisor coming in and in a rather matronly fashion telling her to get up and clean up the mess in her area. And, asking me, if we computer people usually clean up other people's spilled pop. I gave some mumbled stupid-ass response about preservation of electronic components, and got the hell outa there, feeling rightly embarrassed perhaps but the lesson wasn't yet learned.
Was it women feeling sorry for her? No. There weren't any circles of sisterhood you have read about in books. In fact, the woman who called the help desk sounded disgusted. She gave the location and situation, and rather disgustedly said: "She's just sitting there ... currr-rying!" When I asked if she'd hurt herself somehow, she just answered 'no!' with a sort of disgusted laugh.
That was over fifteen years ago, and I never thought about it again until the last couple months or so: part of me having my eyes opened to this whole thing.
If you're not convinced how stupid we are, and maybe think I would have done this only because I was looking for a favor (common feminist response), consider this.
As a computer guy at an office, I am always typecast as the nerdy sort. Maybe I am somewhat nerdy. But even though I laughed at all the Dungeons and dragons people when I was in college, even though Star Trek is just another show to me and not a cult, even though I don't have the thick glasses or live in a basement, all people in offices - especially the marketing and image-oriented types fully typecast the computer guy with all those prejudices. I have yet to see even one exception to that rule. You know that well-read, rather analytical "accountant" you danced with the other night in the club? Computer guy. The girls at his office know, because he fixes their computers.
Chicks don't hit on computer guys. Just, well, doesn't happen. Not at the office where the first thing they know about the guy is he's the one works on the computers, or is one of the software people. They don't care if it's just a profession for him, or if he's one of those guys that hits the Star Trek convention every year. They don't care: they heard two words: computer guy.
All of that to say, even if I were presumed a complete dog, my profession would have kept me from any coo-ish responses from women.
Nope: I was just one of those guys.
And I'd have lapped up the entire sob story if Casey Anthony had done the deed in the 1990s and I'd been on the jury. All she needed to do to turn men's attention to her is cry. 'Cause you know you're supposed to be sensitive: if you see a woman crying at any time ever, there must be a really good reason.
There were men I knew, when I was in high school, who were swayed by Diana Downs crying when she escaped from prison in the mid 1980s. This woman had shot both her kids. Burned out and exhausted, was at least part of the ever-too-common refrain.
Glad I've raised a daughter and not a son, because looking back, I know I'd've done it wrong making him at least the fool I've been in this area.
Honestly, the feminists have a right to tar and feather us: not for all the fuzzy weird things you hear about, not because they overheard a private conversation between two people and got offended. But for one reason: for us being fools, for us doing what the NFB calls 'Killing with kindness'. That's us, boys, whether you shave down or whiskers, that's you and me ... all of us.
Imagine how some of you would respond if I was sighted and the person crying was blind. Imagine how the NFB might well respond.
I am nonpartisan when it comes to blindness organizations. But even if you are rabidly anti-NFB, aren't they at least right when it comes to their point about responsibility? Or, what they say about people needing to manage their own affairs? One could argue, in fact, they may well be right to some extent, about what they refer to as 'killing with kindness'.
If they're right, they're right: not because of vision or lack thereof, but because the principle in and of itself is right.
Perhaps feminists are right in saying we are the problem. Only they are right precisely because we fools have bought into the entirety of the argument that women need special treatment. Whether old-fashioned and chivalrous or newer and sensitive, we've been killin' 'em with kindness, and we fools have bought the whole loads: I'll be damned!
It's the kinda thing that probably makes women like the one who called help desk sick.
This stuff happens all across America, all the time, in offices everywhere. I know guys in all departments who do it. I know some, who, like I was a couple years ago, would maybe privately admit we were fools for buying into this rig, but publicly still stand by it. There's a growing number of us waking up to it. Bet there's a lot of women looking on sayin' 'It's about damned time!'
I've known men who basically said they didn't want a woman on a work crew. Not because women are less competent, but because they would have to be on eggshells over everything.
Not fair? You bet it's not fair: there are countless women who don't expect any of this eggshells business, who wouldn't sit in a corner and cry when a pop was spilled, who pull their own load like anyone else. In my opinion, we guys may be the fools, but those responsible working women ar the ones who get the bad rap.
Question is, where do we go from here? You really gotta be downright countercultural to go against the grain and not be a fool like that anymore. I don't mean recreational-shrooms-in-college countercultural, where you may party at night but you are all business by day. I mean to stop giving it to 'em would really set any one of us apart in ways we've never even thought about.
Instead of always standing up for the girl in any and every situation, how about give them the benefit of objective analysis the way we may one for another? How about fair is fair?
If equality is what they want, and I do believe it is what most of them actually want, they would ask from us no less. The sensible ones are no doubt gettin' pretty sick of seeing us constantly cow tow to the manipulative woman in the office, go and get the cryee one something, maybe doing as we've been taught by chivalrists and feminists alike, but in reality doing nobody any favors.
Curious to hear from men and women. From men who are self-confessed fools or any of you all who have never succumbed to this. If you're still in school, not in offices yet, you are far from immune: that stuff happens at college just like it does at work. That's where the stuff learned in boyhood gets its on-the-job training.
I see this in action practically every day, and I don't even have to venture out in to that unknown scarey world to see it. When my mother moved up here from Savannah, she was looking for a house close by that she could rent, at a huge discount. She looked around and found out about a house, so she picked up the phone and called. The man answered and she began telling her story. Her son was blind and deaf, and she is moving up here to take care of him. (never mind that I've already lived in Nashville for going on 13 years.) As she tells her story, she begins to sniffle, then to sob. She just needs a little house that's close by, so that she can take her deaf blind son where he needs to go and be close enough to keep his house clean and the likes. By now, she's sobbig so hard that she can barely speak. "Four hundred a month? I don't draw much, and my son can't afford to help mee'ee'ee'ee'ee'ee! Three hundred? Oh, I don't think I could do that. I don't know what I'm gonna doo'oo'oo'oo'oo! Well, I'll call you back later, so you can tell me what you decide. I'm counting on you. This little house is perfect, since it's right in between where my deaf blind son lives and works. I don't have a man behind me, to help me, so I really need this place."
By this time, I can barely understand her. So, she says good bye, presses the button to hang up the phone, then bursts in to laughter, saying, "I'm sure that man will help me. I bet I'll get that house.
She's been shown, countless times, that hesterics work. Sure, it's her fault, but how much of it is her fault? LOL. Okay. This is just the thoughts that your post provoked.
So tell me, if you want to that is, is it any different being gay?
What I mean is, I've heard us hetero types are uniquely vulnerable to women doing that. Not even women they are sexually attracted to, and even if these guys are married and stay faithful.
Is that right? Are you guys less immune to women who do that? I've never brought this up with a gay guy.
Na, we get it too. remember that we might not be out to every single person in the world. I wouldn't throw this in here, but since you asked... what really sickens me is when let's say me and one of those hesterical women have a disagreement. All she's gotta do is turn on the waterworks and some mocho man's gonna come in and save her day, even if they disagree with her and know I'm in the right. That manly, (protect the woman,) thing kicks in, and they don't look for any reason or logic beyond it. This might be getting off the topic, though.
Oh no. I think it's precisely on the topic. See, I've been that guy before: and it's exactly as you said. Manly macho, or modern sensitive, neither one will keep their nose where it belongs, or at least look at the whole situation. Nope: they see a girl crying and they're gonna save her. You're right on track, lots of us fools have done it.
I'm determined not to be said fool anymore, but said changes run pretty deep / may take awhile.
good grief leo. i'm a woman and i can't stand manipulators of a ny gender. men manipulate too. many just do it differently. you all aren't perfect and we are the wining witches from hell.
a girl who pulls out the tears in the office has a serious problem. that is unprofessional and disrespectful.
as for carrying something for someone, get a grip. no pun intended of course. if you are stronger, by all means, carry my stuff. if i'm more able to get your items, i should do it.
this casey trial is a travesty. t that girl isso guilty. what you all are forgetting is that there was a little girl involved. did she ask to die? i don't think so. her sweet spirit and memmory to her grandparents is being tainted by all this nonsense.
As to men manipulating, you're right of course. And while we may have countless posts where both men and women complain about boorish and animal behavior among men without a single statement about a woman being like that, we all knew there was gonna be this sort of response when in part it begins to look the other way.
Unlike modern feminists towards men, though, I don't personally take issue with women: not even the ones who do these things. Better for us fools to wise up, take responsibility, and not be buying it anymore.
Though here is one difference: At least among us men, we've been honest about how men manipulate, maybe not in the 60s but certainly since the 1980s when I started working. We could, in fact, have a whole thousand posts about a pattern of manipulation among men and none of us present how women do it. At least us guys anyway, didn't used to see it, or if we saw it, were too cowardly to acknowledge it. But you get any thread going about women, and you will soon have responses on how men do said behavior.
For us guys anyway, manipulation only works because we are manipulable. We're largely manipulable by women. That is true even though a majority of women don't manipulate.
In part it's because we can't often tell the difference between real problems and drama. We've never done the routine of sorting that business out, that's the truth.
By saying I'm gonna try and not be such a fool anymore, I don't mean I'm going off as indecent / wouldn't lend a hand, etc. Of course, help put things away, carry things, etc. What I'm talking about though, is the guy who'll drop everything he's doing because an acquaintance who happens to be female may be wanting some minor thing done which she is entirely capable of doing for herself.
So, bottom line, I'm not criticizing women: I really don't even think a very big minority of women do the manipulation, let alone a majority. Offices are full of 'em, and you don't hear 'em singin' like cats in carriers on the way to the vet, now, do ya? In fact, they're just there, working their butts off, doing what it takes.
It's just the very small minority who are actually manipulators, if you want to call it that, maybe they're just spastic / get alittle excited and carried away. But among men, there's us fools, the majority, total disregard for the majority of women who don't even think about doing those things, and cow towing to this really small minority. So the majority who never even consider this sort of thing at all, get themselves painted by the minority. Truth be told, the greater part of my education in the past six years opening up my eyes to this has been women, not men.
So while yes, men can be manipulators, women have the brass to admit it. So, while there are women who are manipulators, few men that I know of have the brass to admit it outright, even amongst male company only. The latest round of eye-opening came from a very unlikely place: a couple fundamentalists. That's it: fundamentalists. You thought, or I thought anyway, they didn't like women in positions of power, etc. In fact, these are the types you may have made fun of on occasion for investing stock in a Fortune-500 company with a woman CEO, while bleating on and on about the dangers of a woman as president, clergy, governor, etc. These are the ones. Yet, patriarchy / comically inconsistent behavior aside, they can be every bit the fool the rest of us are. They probably think the way they do on all counts because they are looking at the tiny minority of women who happen to exhibit those behaviors.
My problem isn't with that minority. We're the ones who add that alias to a Unix server so the feminist can type 'woman' or 'womyn' instead of the 'man' command 'cause she asks, or the religious lady wants us to go to the store because there's an unseemly picture of a naked girl in the window (Sports Illustrated / March Madness ) and she just can't stand going there. far be it from us to be so terrible as to not comply, pussy-footing around in a way no member of her own kind would do for her.
We just have to take the personal responsibility and not buy it anymore. Look around and notice: The admins who are women haven't made those aliases and type man (short for manual) all the time. Go to that store and look around: Full of shopping women of all shapes, sizes, persuasions, probably some Iraq War veterans, wives, sisters, mothers of war veterans. Those hard-working women are getting the bad rap because we bought it, man. You and me both. It's a free country: they only try that stuff with us because it works, you know. It's up to us whether it works or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td1PbsV6B80
I watched the video and enjoyed it and agreed with most of the points Tony Porter made. What he spoke about is relative and a different topic as well. He spoke more on the masculine role in society and how it should be redefined, and how this role affects women.
Let me tell you that I have considered being a men's rights activist, and in most arguments concerning the differences and behaviors of men and women, I side with men. I think the feminist view is ignorant, and they are just as stuck in the 1950s as the men who are misogynistic. Women always get the benefit of the doubt because she's crying, she's going through a lot right now, she works three jobs and has three children and is a fulltime student, she's hormonal, she had awful experiences as a child, or whatever. I understand that women being viewed this way is relative to the way they were treated in earlier decades and centuries, but women being viewed as people to pity wasn't caused by the gender specific nonsense of our ancestors. Maybe some women manipulate because they know men will not catch on, others do it because she enjoys having control and power over a man. Is it really a guys fault that he doesn't know he's being lied to? Sometimes, the truth is right there in front of his face, while other times, it's well-hidden.
I will not agree that men are pigs. I will say that some women are just inconsiderate and selfish.
Tony Porter went on about the ways guys mistreat women, but it happens the other way around. Neither is right or justified, but it seems that men are never stoodup for. It's always the man's fault; he's the bad guy. Men are always the ones who are rapists, murderers, deadbeat parents, violent, insensitive, and lazy. No no no no! Men are abused too, some fathers should get custody of the children, men have bad days, men are wronged by women, some men are raped, men are robbed and murdered by women, and some men are the ones who bust their ass working 80 hours a week. I hate the fact that women are almost always seen as the innocent one who has to deal with so much. Men go through it too.
Also, I do not believe in equality of any kind. Women may want equality, but if they were to ever achieve it, they would be superior to men because they would take advantage of their supposed equality to men. I've already seen this in women who are breadwinners in their homes and women of power such as supervisors. It makes me sick to know that anyone can get away with such disgusting behaviors, and those women who are so manipulative do absolutely nothing to change the way men view women.
I don't think anyone forces a person to act a certain way, the way they behave is what they choose unless they have some sort of mental handicap.
I don't think these extreme feminists want equality; they want superiority. either that or their idea of equality is warped. Life is a bitch sometimes. If men are expected to suck it up and deal with it, so should women. In regards to men allowing this, I agree with your points, but I think in some ways, men are told that it's horrible and insensitive to quote on quote "ignore" a woman's feelings, whether they're valid or not. women have valid feelings, sure, but so do men, but they're expected to suppress their's while women are allowed to let it out. this, my friends, is not equality, and I don't know how anyone in their right mind could think it is. I know people on this thread don't, but it's sad to think some people do.
I think for at least some women who get away...literally...with murder, there are probably some men who let 'em. I have a friend whose ex-wife wants more child support even though one is independent of her & no longer speaks to her, so there are only two kids now, yet she has alienated my friend from his children. It's kind of like being asked to pay a merchant and them not allowing you to take any merchandise. My friend took his attorney's advise & did not even try for custody even though the "bipolar" ex on two occasions struck the back of his vehicle with the kids in it, claiming "brake failure". I can see that one time, but twice? I have had this guy practice comedian Dennis Miller's line "F you and the horse you rode in on" since she wants more support while not allowing him to see these kids. My friend is playing a part in this sick tango whether he wants to admit it or no.
I think it should be illegal to get an anonymous sperm donor for those selfish women who are single and not willing to adopt. Women get away with this. But by the same token, who is anonymously donating the sperm and perfectly content with such an arrangement? Who isn't even thinking "Hey I'm giving myself literally to a woman I don't even know, much less have we had intercourse, and I'll have children everywhere but not know 'em or even if they're with a fit mother or how they turned out?" Yes, that's right, men. One of the recipients of one of these donations wrote a book on how this is the most selfish thing any man could do to another human being. Feminists who pushed for this nonsense are probably laughing themselves silly at the men who accepted it, no questions asked.
Now I don't know about keeping feelings inside, even on the job. Sure, it's not professional, but at the same time, maybe stuff like soda pop on a keyboard is just the straw to brake the camel's back and that particular woman needed to let it out. If it's a one time thing, O K, when it's part of a pattern that takes place regularly, not good. But at the same time men need to be allowed the same rant space if they're not having a total meltdown.
I know probably as many men who put stock into the "pink ribbon" campaign against breast cancer, as if no one else was getting sick with cancer and wanting a cure. That's odd, I know one of my daughter's preschool friend's mom has a rare form of leukemia and is doing chemo five days a week, and I have known people who have died from colorectal and even kidney cancer. Probably as many men if not more die from prostate cancer. Why aren't they forming groups or walks or some kind of "awareness" campaign against prostate cancer, or testicular cancer in younger males, in whom it's more prevalent? Because they've bought hook, line, and sinker into the "pink ribbon" nonsense and womens' rights and womens' health causes.
We now have a school system that is more oriented towards teaching female students...teaching methods that work more with girls, like taking notes in class, while boys really need to roam and get 'hands on' learning; books that are more oriented towards girls; gaps that if anything are becoming more common in male students. The one time I saw a father stand up and say what was being taught to his then five year old son, he was slapped with a restraining order by the school system in Lexington, and if I'm not mistaken, the Principal of this public school was male.
I think what Leo was trying to say, and I think he's right, is that for every woman that gets away with something, there's at least one man just sitting down and letting her.
True Squid, and it's been unconscious for us for decades. And, we would get little support from women or men if we stood up to try and change things.
Much as the useless white guilt has been foisted on people, useless male guilt has been foisted on us men. Sorry to sound like a bunker-banger - and no I'm not paranoid, and not sure how deliberate it even is, but it happens: all because we've bought the hook line and sinker of guilty even after proven innocent / this pseuddo collective guilt that allegedly gives more rights to women. Ironically, I've seen real oinksters, real piggies some of you women have never seen: abandoning the child, not even calling his son by his own name, etc.: weird stuff.
No talking him out of it, because he said and I quote: "What difference does it make? They treat guys like you and guys like me all the same."
He's right: if all men this or all men that, and all women are victims, guess sir bacon there had a point. Except, of course, most of us aren't at all like that. Since some women imagine that we all are, they are helping sir bacon get off and leaving the rest of us to carry the load.
Uhm. woh. OK, I was with you in the beginning. Equallity works both ways. I try to explain that concept to people (both males and females) a lot. A lot of people simply don't think about it until it's pointed out. There needs to be a balance, like everything in life. But I think you're going off the rails there with conspiracy theory. Yes, there have been incidents of people doing crazy oddness. But you're starting to make it sound like it's some grand push or conspiracy, and that's where I think you start getting into nuts territory. Do we need to find a better balance, yes. But don't go crazy like some of the fringe crazies on the other side either.
Hmm curious where I went nutty on you. I know: I'm every bit as human as anyone else, and thus susceptible to being a nut job. I'm nobody's fool there. However, I attempted, at least, in an area that doesn't get much coverage, to simply propose that we ourselves take personally responsibility for this and manage it ourselves as guys in our own situations. That was at least my aim, throughout, whether I achieved it or not may be questionable.
But unlike the way it's typically managed by the other side, I don't propose we backlash or play victim, just take responsibility and don't let 'em do it to us anymore. So curious: Whic part of it was I going off the rails?
Almost done reading the book
Fire in the Belly: On Being a Man by Sam Keen
I guess like many men my age, I never was that interested in reading men's books, books about being a man, or women's books eeither for that matter. But this guy talks sense, even though it's 20 years old. Interesting to read a book from 1990 so much has changed worldwide since then, so much in our perceptions.
Anthony I am as guilty as many men for responding in the macho way you describe in Post 5. I didn't think it was macho then: after all, our generation's been raised, bred and fed upon the idea women are victims and all ills that befall them are ours to atone for. That doesn't make us any less responsible, though.
But what you described is out of the guilt and shame presented by "Woman", as described in the book. Note i didn't say any real living human being who is a woman, but the idea of Woman. It's our supposed debt we owe and a lot of other factors causes us to do this stuff.
But, I'm a firm believer that we're responsible for what we know, so now that I'm finding this stuff out, things will be different. Is that so "off the rails" to not go lock-step along the 90s thinking, the way they went lock-step along the 50's thinking in ages past? I don't think so.
What I like most about the book is his assessment that each party take responsibility, and his agreement with the unspoken reality we all live with: this sanctity of victimhood is radically crippling for all parties involved.
This is how I see it:
We shouldn't apologize for beeing men and most women wouldn't want us to do so. As long as you're not raping and generally treating them like garbage you're good in their book. It's been asked:
What do women really want? They want a man, period. Now that beeing said, I was caught red-handed going out of my way to "protect" my girlfriend. In doing so, I went to far and she gave me the whole "if you ever do that again, blah blah blah." The thing to take away from this I guess is be aware of a woman's feelings and boundaries. Women can be just as teritorial as we are.
So I guess as part of the evolution of this process for me, someones, a few people, asked how I had felt about these so-called Mens' Rights Advocates on Youtube and elsewhere. Well, like most people, never heard of them.
Now you'll see women call them Misogynists and a bunch of other words, doing psychological analysis and stuff.
I've got a opinion that is quite a bit simpler: For the most part they make me physically sick! they whine and complain and talk the victim like nobody's business!
what they do is the same things the other side does: They go read some article by some social commentator and then cry about it. Definite stimulus for a good old-fashioned hurl if you really need to puke. I have no idea if the women who complain about them are right or wrong, or how you would even define it, since the words they are using are usually loaded and have all these varying shades of meanings. But the so-called MRA's on youtube are about as useless as shit on a fence post.
Now I've seen a few who talked sense and responsibility, no victim card, no whining, some of them actually were women not just guys.
I guess I'm pretty set on just individual responsibility as the way out. After all, the only one you can possibly really affect or change is you.
Leo, I haven't seen the particular videos you're talking about, but do you know about the manosphere? My impression is, and you may well want to go poke around yourself until you have to either hurl or pound a hole into your computer monitor, seems to be one huge he-man-woman-hater club. I don't know how much they advocate for men's rights though so perhaps I'm barking up a different tree.
Probably give it a miss then I'm no woman-hater, my house is full of women. Though ironically, some who resent us standing up for ourselves a bit will try and lump us into the so-called other category.
Both the modern feminist types and the modern MRA types will do one thing, just a congruent version of it: paint anyone that disagrees with them even a little bit, with a real broad brush of the worst characteristics of the other side. One compelling reason I stick to a rather individualist mentality I guess.
Funnily enough, I tend to feel more relaxed around women than other men. I dunno, I've always seen myself as a human, an individual, and not a member of some special fraternal organization called men. I'm just too much the nerd and square-peg to fit in with the beer-and-sports crowd I guess, and I really don't begrudge women their rights. Women make great friends and allies, I've found.
How does fraternalism or the stereotypical guy even come into this?
I personally believe it is possible to stand up for oneself and that doesn't mean you deny the rights of other people. What first-world western guy really would want to see the rights reversal / inhumane treatment of women you allude to? Except maybe a bunker dweller someplace, or a Rick Santoram.
Anyone who actually read this thread would know what I've proposed is a far cry from those types anyway.
It's actually rather insulting to assert that anyone supporting taking personal ownership is being like those types in any way shape or form. I've said nothing short of we got ourselves into it, we get ourselves out of it. It is entirely possible, and entirely human, to be capable and go get yours, without taking somebody else's.
What bothers me today is the roll reversal. Yes, I'm about to catch hell for this but I think we have all observed women today acting more like men. Then you have the ones who, when a man sticks up for himself, call it confrontation and write that man off as a jerk. It's such a shame.