So what am I supposed to think???

In the course of many, many debates, I have begun a TON of posts (or arguments) with the words "Women do" or "Women are". In short, I'm quite guilty of generalizing.

But here's the thing. When I say something like "Women only want men for their money", I base it on several areas of my experience. The main one would be the stress placed on boys to become a "good provider", and the importance women place on their man being a "good provider". Now, call me ignorant, but isn't this simply another way of saying "has money / good job"? Isn't the fact that this criteria shows up almost universally in women's list or "requirements" for an ideal husband cause for consternation?

The euphemisms change, of course. Now it's "responsible", "Stable" or somesuch, but the code words all mean the same thing.

Money.

THIS is where I would get the generalization that "Women pick men based on wallet thickness, while castigating men for mating based on attraction to physical attributes", or put another (more entertaining) way "Women want to marry wallets, Men want to fuck hotties". Men have been (largely unjustly in my view) castigated for physical attraction for decades, all while women's identical behaviour is celebrated as "empowered thinking", yet women have never had their own dirty little secret seriously examined, let alone outed and ostracised.

It's been attempted, sure, in such works as Esther Vilar's "The Manipulated Man" (which frankly should be required reading for all men). But larger society was successfully prevented from examining these issues concurrently with those issues promoted by Feminism (ie, body-image, self-image for women/girls ONLY) via misdirection, fabrication, one-upmanship, and ideological control of the Media and Academics.

The generalization the "Women go for bad boys" might offend some feminists (who may even then drone on about how SHE dates only intellectual pussy-men with long hair and Volvos), but it's true, generally. In fact, it's empirically provable, as has been done numerous times in the past, and moreover most women wouldn't dream of denying it (when her "current" isn't around anyway).

But to say something like "Women are gold-diggers who only care about your wallet" offends many women, seemingly especially feminists.

Both of the statements can be shown to be true, empirically. This, again, is seldom argued. What usually stands for "argument" is the degree of importance the amount of income a man has (as in, that's not the ONLY thing women look for in a man).

When have women discouraged this behaviour among themselves? What have they done (as a group, either collectively or through a series of individual choices) to discourage this mindset?

Nothing. In fact, quite the opposite.

Women are more openly mercenary and conniving now than at any point in our history. There are fewer reasons to even associate with women in our current society - let alone genuinely trust them - than ever before.

And far from working to change this path, women have enthusiastically plunged down it, to cries of "You go girl!".

And I can say these "Women" satements, and many others, because not only are they true, but women have done nothing to disabuse men (figuratively speaking) of the notion, and don't seem to think the effort is worth it.