it's retarded

The only thing you can say about it that remotely comes close to being good is that explicit feminists are rare and in between. This is probably because feminism is unattractive to men and is associated with ugly women so women tend to avoid becoming all out explicit feminists, but implicit feminism is everywhere.

Yes, and it's spreading.

If I see one more sports team adopt a pink shirt/ribbon/hat/socks in support of womens health, I'm gonna scream.  

I know they like to put out bogus surveys which claim things like '52% of all AFL/NRL fans are women' but we all know it's not true.
But, it's more about tapping a new demographic, to maximise profits rather than any real feminist ideals...but still, it's annoying.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 10:11am:

it's retarded The only thing you can say about it that remotely comes close to being good is that explicit feminists are rare and in between. This is probably because feminism is unattractive to men and is associated with ugly women so women tend to avoid becoming all out explicit feminists, but implicit feminism is everywhere.

What's implicit feminism? I know when I first started working in the 70's - females were treated as drudges and lackeys in the workplace (and often at home also). Males were paid more (and still are), but by the 80's the results of the feminist movement were starting to infiltrate and females were gaining a more equal footing.

Of course extreme feminism is unattractive to males - it challenges their DNA, but some good things have come out of the movement. Women have a voice now - although it often drowns out that of the male.

Perhaps putting women back in the kitchen would be appealing for the male - but would it be appealing to the female who for centuries led a closeted life?

It's hard to find a compromise. What's good for the gander - should be good enough for the goose but one sex always wants to take the dominant stance.

It's not just females who put up with somebody taking the "dominant stance" mantra.. it happens regardless of sex.

It's easy to say "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", but realistically, that statement is not correct at all.
What's good for the goose is very often not good for the gander.

Putting a woman back in the kitchen might not be so appealing to men as one who likes to be there.
A man cannot dictate what is appealing to a woman, and visa versa (I hope).
So, if you want to demand that powerful successful women will generally appeal to men, then your barking up the wrong tree.
Most times, they're just full of crap anyway.

mantra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 6:07am:

I know when I first started working in the 70's - females were treated as drudges and lackeys in the workplace (and often at home also). Males were paid more (and still are), but by the 80's the results of the feminist movement were starting to infiltrate and females were gaining a more equal footing.

I would like to say that as a male I do support equality - I hope to one day be the equal of a women.

What you say about the 70's is correct and I would agree that it needed to be addressed but feel that to this point the losses to women’s position has greatly outweighed the benefits especially in terms of families.

A lot of the wage parity has come not in terms of a wage catch up but as reduction in male wages to compensate which means that the family total income has remained about the same just a different contribution mix.

(i.e. if women had stayed out of the workforce the result would have been higher male wages which would have been adequate to supported the family).

This change has led to the position where the female who previously had the choice of working or not no longer has that option (the employer basically is getting two employees for the price of one). This we now see in the dropping numbers of stay at home mothers etc.

For many mothers this is not the preferred option it is an economic necessity.

I am not against equality in the workplace it is just that I identify that we have all been ripped off by the strategy to achieve the pretence of change.

Women stomped around and burned bra’s (great decade) and the employer groups have laughed all the way to the bank.

mantra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 6:07am:

Perhaps putting women back in the kitchen would be appealing for the male - but would it be appealing to the female who for centuries led a closeted life?

I have no sympathy for that view but do feel for the Children who need to have their mother in their life in the early years and for the mothers who would prefer to be with their children at that time but have an economic reality to contend with.

A lot of Women have paid a high price to get about 3% in boardrooms often not on merit.

Didn't the actual Feminism Movement pretty much die in the 90's????

Dnarever wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

I would like to say that as a male I do support equality - I hope to one day be the equal of a women.

;D. You were probably born a couple of decades too late.
 

Dnarever wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

I have no sympathy for that view but do feel for the Children who need to have their mother in their life in the early years and for the mothers who would prefer to be with their children at that time but have an economic reality to contend with. A lot of Women have paid a high price to get about 3% in boardrooms often not on merit.

I have sympathy for them as well - I returned to work when my first child was 6 months and my second 3 months. The guilt stays with you - especially when they get sick. I downsized my work to be closer to home - that was preferable to a higher wage. Many women don't get a choice.


gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

Didn't the actual Feminism Movement pretty much die in the 90's????

I think it was over and done with by the end of the 60's - early 70's - at least the bra burning and protests were from memory. I could be wrong.


Amadd wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 7:15am:

So, if you want to demand that powerful successful women will generally appeal to men, then your barking up the wrong tree. Most times, they're just full of crap anyway.

I agree to an extent Amadd, but successful women can be extremely lonely - the same can be said for a beautiful woman. Not all of course, but a good proportion of them remain untouched not through choice, but because males are scared of them.

Perhaps those females who are full of crap just want others to think they're successful. Insecurity can be a turnoff.

Quote:

I think it was over and done with by the end of the 60's - early 70's - at least the bra burning and protests were from memory. I could be wrong.

Oh I wish I were old enough to appreciate that era. There's no better way to judge a good set  ;)
It's a pity that it enhanced gravity and women used the free choice that they didn't think they had to wear them if they so desired. Should've shuffled through some anti-bra legislation there.


Quote:

I agree to an extent Amadd, but successful women can be extremely lonely - the same can be said for a beautiful woman. Not all of course, but a good proportion of them remain untouched not through choice, but because males are scared of them.

Could you point out to me some of those beautiful women who remain untouched?

Successful women may fall into that category I suppose, but the intimidation factor may be more to do with an attitude such as: "Oh my God, get me away from this control freak".
Most men aren't generally attracted to that type of attribute. You'd have to blame God for that.

I agree that women have their careers interrupted through having kids much moreso than men.
Nomatter what laws are in place to not discriminate against women who are likely to be starting a family, employers will always get around them somehow.
So, if it reverts back to the age old reality for women of marrying rich, then they can have their cake and eat it too.
The earning capacity of the husband is automatically assumed of the wife regardless of her actual earning capacity.
You would then assume that this wealth is passed down to the children...the most important part of the equation, and I'd question whether it's such a good thing to be promising kids future wealth without cultivating their own ability to stand on their own two feet.

A case in point:
A friend of mine settled a few years back for $1.4 million. Now he lives like a pleb. His mansion that he built for his wife and two kids tipped the scale of greed when housing prices increased dramatically.
His wife found little requirement for him to be around when her independence was settled.
Although he still had plenty of cash (less than half), he was a man shattered. He talked of suicide because of losing his dream for his family.

He came out the other side with a different attitude. Now he bangs every woman that he can. They come fluttering around with the promise of money.
He cheats, lies, and gets lots of gorgeous women, even though he's only about 5' 4" and not particularly good looking or apparently wealthy.

His monetary lifestyle is controlled by how much maintenance he is obliged to pay. Therefore, he ties up all of his money in future investment and leaves himself very little to live on.
"If $1.4 million isn't enough of a kick start for my kids, then nothing will be. I don't want them to be hand fed", he said.

It's a fair business acumen by him I suppose, but I'd sway towards not even being involved in these bs laws.ii

Quote:

Could you point out to me some of those beautiful women who remain untouched?

You see it all the time and it's even more problematic for them if they're intelligent. Saying they're untouched is an exaggeration, but there are plenty of beautiful women who remain single or just have brief, unsuccessful relationships. Males find them good to look at or have a fling with, but seem to assume that's all they're useful for. Perhaps it's just man's insecurity and they believe that the less attractive woman has more to offer in a long term relationship. She's safe because no-one will look at her.

It's assumed that less attractive women are just grateful to have found someone to love or perhaps they don't expect that much from a relationship.

You rarely see 2 beautiful people together. The beautiful man doesn't have a problem finding someone, but even they generally choose plain partners. Maybe these women cater to their egos more, demand and expect less.


Quote:

His wife found little requirement for him to be around when her independence was settled. Although he still had plenty of cash (less than half), he was a man shattered. He talked of suicide because of losing his dream for his family.

I've seen this scenario repeated many times but the female is the loser - often traded in for a younger model. She can devote years to her family and then suddenly she wakes up finding the home she's so lovingly cared for is on the market and her partner gone.

It's far easier for a man to find solace in the opposite sex than a woman. Fortunately God made women stronger to bear these traumas.  :D

Quote:

You see it all the time and it's even more problematic for them if they're intelligent.

No, I'd like to see some examples of these "beautiful" women who remain untouched. I'm wondering if I can touch them  ;D

Yes, I think you got it right by saying that they have brief meaningless encounters.....because that's what they want, and that's what independence is all about.


Quote:

You rarely see 2 beautiful people together. The beautiful man doesn't have a problem finding someone, but even they generally choose plain partners. Maybe these women cater to their egos more, demand and expect less.

I think you are talking crap there Mantra.
Brad pitt- Angelina Jollie? Tom Cruise- Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruse?
Richard Burton - Liz Taylor?
Etc..etc... the list goes on.

Wtf are you talking about?i

Amadd wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 4:54am:

I think you are talking crap there Mantra. Brad pitt- Angelina Jollie? Tom Cruise- Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruse? Richard Burton - Liz Taylor? Etc..etc... the list goes on. Wtf are you talking about?

I wasn't thinking of the narcissists in Hollywood when I posted that Amadd - just your basic street people.

How many times do you hear comments from both sexes - what's he/she doing with that thing?

That opinion of "what's he/she doing with that thing?" abounds.

Maybe you should ask them.  ;)

Feminism has achieved what it set out to do: voting rights, equality in the workplace, equal right to enter establishments, right to choose what's in their interest.
Because it's achieved what it set out to achieve, it now has to "invent" forms of patriarchy. Just check out the feminist Melinda Tankard Reist who claims every bad decision a woman makes is because of men. Why are women in porn she asks? Because men forced them. According this "logic" women are too weak to make their own decisions.

Check out her rants here:  http://melindatankardreist.com/

A case in point:
A friend of mine settled a few years back for $1.4 million. Now he lives like a pleb. His mansion that he built for his wife and two kids tipped the scale of greed when housing prices increased dramatically.
His wife found little requirement for him to be around when her independence was settled.
Although he still had plenty of cash (less than half), he was a man shattered. He talked of suicide because of losing his dream for his family.

He came out the other side with a different attitude. Now he bangs every woman that he can. They come fluttering around with the promise of money.
He cheats, lies, and gets lots of gorgeous women, even though he's only about 5' 4" and not particularly good looking or apparently wealthy.


- Amadd

You do realise your friend is a dwarf.

Speaking of short men .. why is it that all the short men I've ever known (professionally and personally) appear to be afflicted by deep seated insecurity and poor self image issues?

I doubt that he lacks confidence Lisa. He could talk an Arab into buying a camel turd.
I also doubt that he would consider marriage ever again.
His life's work has amounted to having little or no further input into his children's upbringing. Money has been made, no need for him anymore..so he was told to toodle off.

Not that I condone his behaviour now, but I can understand why he wouldn't want to be involved too heavily with anybody while he makes his next million and while his ex-wife spends what was once family wealth.

Quote:

Why are women in porn she asks? Because men forced them

That's more or less true. There would be no porn industry if not for the exploitation of women by men.

And,

If a person believes that a man and a woman deserve equal rights, then they are a feminist. I'm a feminist. Most of the men in my life are feminists.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 5:32pm:

Quote: Why are women in porn she asks? Because men forced them That's more or less true. There would be no porn industry if not for the exploitation of women by men. And, If a person believes that a man and a woman deserve equal rights, then they are a feminist. I'm a feminist. Most of the men in my life are feminists.

Can you expand on this?

Do you believe that a woman deserves the same social, economic and political rights as men? If so, you're a feminist - whether or not you identify as one.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 5:43pm:

Do you believe that a woman deserves the same social, economic and political rights as men? If so, you're a feminist - whether or not you identify as one.

Doesn't 'feminist' suggest that they put feminine ideals/rights above, not equal to those of men?

To me it does....

Quote:

Doesn't 'feminist' suggest that they put feminine ideals/rights above, not equal to those of men?

That's hardly equality is it?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 5:59pm:

Quote: Doesn't 'feminist' suggest that they put feminine ideals/rights above, not equal to those of men? That's hardly equality is it?

No it isn't...hence why I view these movements for 'equality' with a healthy dose of cynicism...everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 5:32pm:

Quote: Why are women in porn she asks? Because men forced them That's more or less true. There would be no porn industry if not for the exploitation of women by men. .

Absolute rubbish.
Where's the personal responsibility?
There is no gun to their head.
If they don't want to be in it, say no. Simple.
Oh, and is $100,000 or more a year exploitation?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 10:14pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 5:32pm: Quote: Why are women in porn she asks? Because men forced them That's more or less true. There would be no porn industry if not for the exploitation of women by men. . Absolute rubbish. Where's the personal responsibility? There is no gun to their head. If they don't want to be in it, say no. Simple. Oh, and is $100,000 or more a year exploitation?

In the majority of cases, I think you would find that the exploitation of such women started long before they had the presumed power of a woman - and that such early exploitation impacted upon their self esteem and the nature of their relationships and thereby set the subsequent course of their lives...

Equitist wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 10:41pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:14pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 5:32pm: Quote: Why are women in porn she asks? Because men forced them That's more or less true. There would be no porn industry if not for the exploitation of women by men. . Absolute rubbish. Where's the personal responsibility? There is no gun to their head. If they don't want to be in it, say no. Simple. Oh, and is $100,000 or more a year exploitation? In the majority of cases, I think you would find that the exploitation of such women started long before they had the presumed power of a woman - and that such early exploitation impacted upon their self esteem and the nature of their relationships and thereby set the subsequent course of their lives...

Regardless if they've had it tough, it's still their responsibility to make decisions to direct their own lives.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 11:25pm:

Equitist wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:41pm: In the majority of cases, I think you would find that the exploitation of such women started long before they had the presumed power of a woman - and that such early exploitation impacted upon their self esteem and the nature of their relationships and thereby set the subsequent course of their lives... Regardless if they've had it tough, it's still their responsibility to make decisions to direct their own lives.

Yes we all have to take responsibility for our own actions, although it's nice to have someone or something to blame.

I think it's better for those women who now work in the porn industry or similar - there's not such a stigma attached as there was prior to women's liberation.

In fact from some of the comments you hear - some women actually enjoy that sort of work and that's something they couldn't have admitted 30-40 years ago.

Quote:

In fact from some of the comments you hear - some women actually enjoy that sort of work and that's something they couldn't have admitted 30-40 years ago.

Well there's a refreshing comment.
Who' have thunk that they enjoy sex, getting rich, famous (or infamous, take your pick) and being the centre of attention? All the while, there's a penalty that men have to pay for invoking such behavior.

So what of the female brain? Why do some condone such sexual freedom and expression where others do not?

Quote:

Who' have thunk that they enjoy sex, getting rich, famous (or infamous, take your pick) and being the centre of attention? All the while, there's a penalty that men have to pay for invoking such behavior.

Yes - depending on the age of the provoker. Women, who are in their prime can be susceptible to the same provocation, but usually there's a little alarm that goes off in their head telling them to instantly reject that person sexually.  Unfortunately too many males ignore the alarm and that's why they get into trouble.


Quote:

So what of the female brain? Why do some condone such sexual freedom and expression where others do not?

I think it all goes back to how you are brought up - and whether you've been indoctrinated into feeling guilt for enjoying something that only bad girls are supposed to like.  

With teenagers it's a bit different though. Often - the power of their sexuality goes to their head. Most of them eventually learn not to exploit it.

Quote:

Most of them eventually learn not to exploit it.

Yes I agree that they learn not to exploit it when they realise that it won't be around forever.

Wrinkles appearing and gaining weight are an all too common factor in becoming "responsible".
So is it really a factor, or is using what you have got the real factor?

Amadd wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 8:16am:

Quote: Most of them eventually learn not to exploit it. Yes I agree that they learn not to exploit it when they realise that it won't be around forever. Wrinkles appearing and gaining weight are an all too common factor in becoming "responsible". So is it really a factor, or is using what you have got the real factor?

I think by the mid 20's most women have grown out of taunting men and are looking for something more meaningful in their life. At that age they usually don't have to worry about wrinkles and fat and can still be attractive, although they obviously don't hold the same appeal as a nubile young woman.

Of course there are always exceptions, but as a rule I think women generally strive to become decent people.

mantra wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 8:31am:

Amadd wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 8:16am: Quote: Most of them eventually learn not to exploit it. Yes I agree that they learn not to exploit it when they realise that it won't be around forever. Wrinkles appearing and gaining weight are an all too common factor in becoming "responsible". So is it really a factor, or is using what you have got the real factor? I think by the mid 20's most women have grown out of taunting men and are looking for something more meaningful in their life. At that age they usually don't have to worry about wrinkles and fat and can still be attractive, although they obviously don't hold the same appeal as a nubile young woman. Of course there are always exceptions, but as a rule I think women generally strive to become decent people.

I also know women who are into their 40's, who continue to choose men who are condescending, controlling and verbally (and eventually, physically) abusive towards them (and often also their children) - and seem determined to undermine their social and financial independence...

These sorts of guys tend to be overly-intrusive in the woman's life - often not content to talk on the phone and insisting upon daily personal contact (and sex) and assuming an automatic right to discipline the woman's children (and lacking the common sense to not compete with the woman's children and to instead build positive relationships of trust with all members of the family and the woman's support network)...

Oh, and what is it with guys, and their insistence on moving electronic devices and/or furniture into the homes of their latest 'love interest' - is it that they are staking a territorial claim and/or cunningly-creating an excuse to remain in a woman's life for as long as they want to (they tend to delay picking their stuff up for weeks after the women ask them to - and the women are reluctant/scared to provoke the men by either returning or getting rid of the stuff themselves)...

Most of these are working women who are otherwise productive and successful in their lives - but it would seem that the old adage rings true in practice, i.e. "all the good men are taken"...

It would seem as though these women are prepared to repeatedly temporarily settle for 'second best' (or worse) and become embroiled in a series of what to outsiders appear to be similarly-dysfunctional relationships from the outset...

This has to be due to the women having low self-esteem and low expectations of men - both of which are learned and reinforced through experience...

Similarly, the guys seem to have a chip on their own shoulders and low expectations of women but high expectations of their ability to 'control' the women's lives (and a sense of entitlement to do so) - all of which are learned and reinforced through experience...

mantra wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 8:31am:

Amadd wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 8:16am: Quote: Most of them eventually learn not to exploit it. Yes I agree that they learn not to exploit it when they realise that it won't be around forever. Wrinkles appearing and gaining weight are an all too common factor in becoming "responsible". So is it really a factor, or is using what you have got the real factor? I think by the mid 20's most women have grown out of taunting men and are looking for something more meaningful in their life. At that age they usually don't have to worry about wrinkles and fat and can still be attractive, although they obviously don't hold the same appeal as a nubile young woman. Of course there are always exceptions, but as a rule I think women generally strive to become decent people.

Really?  By their Mid 20's?  

mantra
Quote:

..........but as a rule I think women generally strive to become decent people.....

Most women ARE decent folk

... wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:05am:

Really?  By their Mid 20's?

I was being a bit cynical - a female at 25 hasn't even reached her prime, but some males are lured by younger girls and leave themselves vulnerable to all sorts of problems.


Quote:

Most women ARE decent folk

As are most men in my opinion.

Machismo or feminism has very little to do with 'equality". They are at either ends of the scale IMO.

So what is "feminism" trying to achieve?
Is it female dominance? I don't think so.

I think that feminism is trying to earn equal respect, but the method employed is entirely wrong IMO.

I'll show you my model of a female equalist. They've been around for years and years - apparently without even realising that they have something owing to those of their own sex.

Check out Mrs. Ayn Rand, a very intriguing woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

She was a very intelligent woman and about a century ahead of her time - no wonder she caused so much controversy.

I could disagree with nothing she said - although it was highly impractical. Most of us have been indoctrinated since birth to live an altruistic life and perhaps that's why we usually fail in finding personal happiness.

There are still people who are so narcissistic that only their happiness is of prime importance - and stuff everyone else. They're happy - but those of us who have been taught to please others resent them.

They are in the minority though and usually get classified as having a personality disorder - and that's not acceptable in our society. It causes too many hassles to be so selfish.

Can you imagine not having to conform in your work for example - especially if you were a health worker? We have to conform to keep society civilised and as much as it would be lovely to be "free" - it is hard to imagine a world where most people are.

Any rebelliousness or seeking of self satisfaction is eventually pummelled out of us, and if it's not - we're considered dysfunctional.

We're all forced to conform - or we're locked up.

Well said Mantra.
Yes, her philosophy seems a bit impractical to us common folk and we concede that only a select few are granted such selfishness.

But that's not to say that helping one another is not also a selfish or rational choice.
If I passed one beggar each day on the way to work, I might get some personal satisfaction by giving a few bucks now and then.
If I passed by ten beggars, then obviously each beggar would receive less, possibly to the point where I receive no personal satisfaction in giving. In which case, it might be more rational to choose one or two that give something to me personally.
For example, on one of my trips to the U.S., I gave a dollar to a homeless Vietnam vet. He then proceeded to tell me stories of how he fought alongside the aussies and  ..etc .etc.
Maybe his stories were all bs, but it was a memorable experience for the dollar that I wouldn't have given if I needed it to buy a hamburger.

Anyway, I'm rambling off topic. The point was not about what Ayn Rand had to say, it was about how she conducted herself as a free woman.


 

Quote:

The point was not about what Ayn Rand had to say, it was about how she conducted herself as a free woman.

The host (chauvinist) barely let her get a word in initially and the interview wasn't well conducted, but yes - she was a free woman because she didn't detract from her philosophy in the face of adversity and contempt - which many of us do.


Quote:

If I passed one beggar each day on the way to work, I might get some personal satisfaction by giving a few bucks now and then. If I passed by ten beggars, then obviously each beggar would receive less, possibly to the point where I receive no personal satisfaction in giving. In which case, it might be more rational to choose one or two that give something to me personally

Haha - yes selective philanthropy is definitely more rewarding.

Getting back to your statement,
Quote:

I could disagree with nothing she said - although it was highly impractical.

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
What does that mean?

Quote:

Sounds like an oxymoron to me. What does that mean?

It means it would be a nice dream to throw off your shackles - but it isn't possible/practical for Mr/Mrs. Average to be the person who hypothetically they would like to be.

The reasons for this are numerous.

Women find dominant (alpha) males hot

The majority of men aren't alpha, they're beta

Women who fall out of love with their partners destroy the relationship and frequently become vindictive and spiteful

This is why it's necessary for women to be legally, socially, and economically inferior to men

women make useless leaders, engineers, and technicians so the consequences to the economy will be minimal, especially since it will result in a larger workforce in the future (more baby making)

off the top of my head the only manufacturing industries that benefit from women might be jewelry (not talking about design, but small and dextruous fingers) and small-batch electronics production (women are better at manual soldering)

other than that they should just be employed for clerical work, nurturing professions, and decoration

Coral Sea wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 3:23am:

Women find dominant (alpha) males hot The majority of men aren't alpha, they're beta Women who fall out of love with their partners destroy the relationship and frequently become vindictive and spiteful This is why it's necessary for women to be legally, socially, and economically inferior to men women make useless leaders, engineers, and technicians so the consequences to the economy will be minimal, especially since it will result in a larger workforce in the future (more baby making) off the top of my head the only manufacturing industries that benefit from women might be jewelry (not talking about design, but small and dextruous fingers) and small-batch electronics production (women are better at manual soldering) other than that they should just be employed for clerical work, nurturing professions, and decoration

Do you seriously believe the rubbish you post?

Women should seek to enhance and utilise their own abilities and aptitiudes, rather than trying to emulate those of men.

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

Women should seek to enhance and utilise their own abilities and aptitiudes, rather than trying to emulate those of men.

"Aptitiudes" eh?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:59am:

... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:39am: Women should seek to enhance and utilise their own abilities and aptitiudes, rather than trying to emulate those of men. "Aptitiudes" eh?

If you have an aptitude for picking out typos, maybe utilise that and pursue a career as an editor.  Would be a smarter move than trying to prove that 'anything a man can do, a woman can do better' and taking a shot at being a furniture removalist, or other jobs that men have greater aptitudes for.

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

Women should seek to enhance and utilise their own abilities and aptitiudes, rather than trying to emulate those of men.

I agree.  


Coral Sea wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 3:23am:

Women find dominant (alpha) males hot The majority of men aren't alpha, they're beta

Perhaps alpha males are more attractive when females are young and thoughtless. As they mature they get a little sick of the chest beating and prefer males to be dominant in more subtle ways regardless of whether they're considered alpha or beta. Men like a little dominance also.


Quote:

Women who fall out of love with their partners destroy the relationship and frequently become vindictive and spiteful

That's funny. This scenario can apply to both sexes, although perhaps women tend to be a little more devious in planning their revenge.


Quote:

This is why it's necessary for women to be legally, socially, and economically inferior to men women make useless leaders, engineers, and technicians so the consequences to the economy will be minimal, especially since it will result in a larger workforce in the future (more baby making)

Hmmm - those are pretty brash words CS - you're going to get yourself into trouble with the female members here. Are you a Jew, a Muslim or perhaps a staunch Christian - if so, it's easier to understand your point of view.

Perhaps you have problems with women because they aren't legally, socially and economically inferior to men?

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:08pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:59am: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:39am: Women should seek to enhance and utilise their own abilities and aptitiudes, rather than trying to emulate those of men. "Aptitiudes" eh? If you have an aptitude for picking out typos, maybe utilise that and pursue a career as an editor.  Would be a smarter move than trying to prove that 'anything a man can do, a woman can do better' and taking a shot at being a furniture removalist, or other jobs that men have greater aptitudes for.

I was merely making fun of your silly comment .. and YOU made it very easy for ME to do so.

Hmmm - those are pretty brash words CS - you're going to get yourself into trouble with the female members here. Are you a Jew, a Muslim or perhaps a staunch Christian - if so, it's easier to understand your point of view.

- Mantra

Here we go again. Mantra .. you're assuming and generalizing about particular groups of people.

As it so happens .. there are MANY Jews, Muslims and staunch Christians who would view Coral Sea's comments with absolute abhorrence and repudiation.

But you're right .. Coral Sea's words are brash .. in fact they are alarming.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 1:55pm:

... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:08pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:59am: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:39am: Women should seek to enhance and utilise their own abilities and aptitiudes, rather than trying to emulate those of men. "Aptitiudes" eh? If you have an aptitude for picking out typos, maybe utilise that and pursue a career as an editor.  Would be a smarter move than trying to prove that 'anything a man can do, a woman can do better' and taking a shot at being a furniture removalist, or other jobs that men have greater aptitudes for. I was merely making fun of your silly comment .. and YOU made it very easy for ME to do so.

Of course, a more constructive thing to do would be to explain what you find 'silly' about it.  Can I deduce from your response that women should NOT exploit their aptitudes, but instead fight an uphill battle to emulate men in every way?  Do you know why women don't make the best furniture removalists or labourers?

Having followed Coral Sea's questionable comments over the past week .. I would speculate that he is a confused, angry as well as lonely man who lacks any insight into why he isn't able to nurture any fulfilling long term relationships on any level with the opposite sex.

Either that .. or he is purposely baiting us all as part of some attention seeking ploy.

Irrespective .. he has earned my pity and sympathy.

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 2:00pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 1:55pm: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:08pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:59am: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:39am: Women should seek to enhance and utilise their own abilities and aptitiudes, rather than trying to emulate those of men. "Aptitiudes" eh? If you have an aptitude for picking out typos, maybe utilise that and pursue a career as an editor.  Would be a smarter move than trying to prove that 'anything a man can do, a woman can do better' and taking a shot at being a furniture removalist, or other jobs that men have greater aptitudes for. I was merely making fun of your silly comment .. and YOU made it very easy for ME to do so. Of course, a more constructive thing to do would be to explain what you find 'silly' about it.  Can I deduce from your response that women should NOT exploit their aptitudes, but instead fight an uphill battle to emulate men in every way?  Do you know why women don't make the best furniture removalists or labourers?

Again .. your mentality .. and the manner in which you so dreadfully misconstrue women as a group .. well .. it has me in stitches to be brutally honest.

Whenever I see comments such as the anachronistic ones you've offered for us today .. it makes me feel that we may very well have time travellers from 300 yrs ago + .. in our midst.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 2:00pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 1:55pm: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:08pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:59am: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:39am: Women should seek to enhance and utilise their own abilities and aptitiudes, rather than trying to emulate those of men. "Aptitiudes" eh? If you have an aptitude for picking out typos, maybe utilise that and pursue a career as an editor.  Would be a smarter move than trying to prove that 'anything a man can do, a woman can do better' and taking a shot at being a furniture removalist, or other jobs that men have greater aptitudes for. I was merely making fun of your silly comment .. and YOU made it very easy for ME to do so. Of course, a more constructive thing to do would be to explain what you find 'silly' about it.  Can I deduce from your response that women should NOT exploit their aptitudes, but instead fight an uphill battle to emulate men in every way?  Do you know why women don't make the best furniture removalists or labourers? Again .. your mentality .. and the manner in which you so dreadfully misconstrue women as a group .. well .. it has me in stitches to be brutally honest. Whenever I see comments such as the anachronistic ones you've offered for us today .. it makes me feel that we may very well have time travellers from 300 yrs ago + .. in our midst.

So...nothing specific then, you're just picking a fight?

OK.  No worries.

Perhaps we have a severe systemic education, training and awareness issue in Oz.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 2:14pm:

Perhaps we have a severe systemic education, training and awareness issue in Oz.

OK, so educate me, starting with what exactly you find faulty with this statement:


Quote:

Women should seek to enhance and utilise their own abilities and aptitiudes, rather than trying to emulate those of men.

Is it becasue I only said WOMEN should do so?  Because really, EVERYONE should do so.

mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

Perhaps alpha males are more attractive when females are young and thoughtless. As they mature they get a little sick of the chest beating and prefer males to be dominant in more subtle ways regardless of whether they're considered alpha or beta. Men like a little dominance also.

I agree that as women age, gain experience, and mature that they are less interested in the games that alpha males play.  This was a large part of the reason for chivalry in the past.  Rather than leaving the most important decision of a woman's life up to a foolish young thing, her elders who knew better (both men and women) would guide her choice in marriage.  Chivalrous men showed that they did not abuse their social superiority over women and instead showed deference and compassion, which helped impress a fair young maiden's mother, father, and grandparents.

That said, the characteristic alpha traits are universally attractive to women.  I don't necessarily mean silly chest beating (though this works well on trashy girls from lower classes), but indeed the more subtle kind of aloof social dominance.  A big part of the reason older women are less likely to be with alpha males is that the sexual market power of men increases until middle age, whereas the sexual market power of women peaks around age 20.  While some rare beauties remain gorgeous into their 40s and even 50s, rare is the older women who commands the attention of an attractive man with options.


mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

That's funny. This scenario can apply to both sexes, although perhaps women tend to be a little more devious in planning their revenge.

It can and does apply to both sexes, but about two-thirds of divorce petitions are filed by women.  Anecdotal experience on the 20-something dating market is also that most breakups are initiated by women.  I find women to be much crueler than men, and in divorces I'm familiar with I'm often shocked by the hatred women have for their ex-husbands.  I'm not talking about husbands who were cheaters, abusers, or lay abouts either, but good family men whose only crime was to cease to be attractive to her.


mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

Hmmm - those are pretty brash words CS - you're going to get yourself into trouble with the female members here. Are you a Jew, a Muslim or perhaps a staunch Christian - if so, it's easier to understand your point of view.

I am an atheist.  My family background is Lutheran, which is a mainline denomination that ordains female pastors.  My views stem from a combination of evolutionary psychology study, study and practice of seduction, my own parents' divorce, and my generally far right political beliefs.


mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

Perhaps you have problems with women because they aren't legally, socially and economically inferior to men?

I am one of the lucky men who has always been charismatic and funny, so in fact female equality enables a player lifestyle for me.  I'm 25 at the moment and enjoy seeing multiple women.  I desire a family one day, so I'll likely settle down in my 30s.

It is beta males who have problems with women because they aren't legally, socially, and economically inferior to men.  In 90% of marriages today women marry men who are wealthier than them, which is not reflective of male-female wealth disparities anymore.  Food for thought.

What is missing is acknolwdgement that men and women are different.  

Since before there was such a thing as human beings, males have evolved to fulfill a particular role, and women have evolved to fulfill another.  These adaptations can be turned to other tasks than that which they were intially for.  For example, the greater strength of the male of the species evolved to both enable survival, through hunting/warding off/outrunning predators and to compete with other males....but nowadays it has the unintended 'side effect' that men can throw a ball further than women.  All pretty simple stuff.

So the thing is, if you accept the theory of evolution, you cannot reconcile that with 'anything men can do, women can do'.  Men have had millions, perhaps billions of years to evolve into the physically stronger sex...you can't undo that with wishful thinking and a new ideology.

Just remember - EQUAL but OPPOSITE.  Neither sex can exist without the other....so find your role, and fulfil it.

Coral Sea wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 2:51pm:

That said, the characteristic alpha traits are universally attractive to women.  I don't necessarily mean silly chest beating (though this works well on trashy girls from lower classes), but indeed the more subtle kind of aloof social dominance.  A big part of the reason older women are less likely to be with alpha males is that the sexual market power of men increases until middle age, whereas the sexual market power of women peaks around age 20.  While some rare beauties remain gorgeous into their 40s and even 50s, rare is the older women who commands the attention of an attractive man with options.

Don't you think 20 is an unrealistic figure to pull out of the air? When you're 30 and ripe for marriage - will you choose a girl under 20 to bear your children? Will it also be a prerequisite that she's socially, legally and financially your inferior?


Quote:

I am one of the lucky men who has always been charismatic and funny, so in fact female equality enables a player lifestyle for me.  I'm 25 at the moment and enjoy seeing multiple women.  I desire a family one day, so I'll likely settle down in my 30s.

It's nice to see a young man who's very confident with his sexuality - you must be an alpha male - lucky you.  :)


Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 2:06pm:

Having followed Coral Sea's questionable comments over the past week .. I would speculate that he is a confused, angry as well as lonely man who lacks any insight into why he isn't able to nurture any fulfilling long term relationships on any level with the opposite sex.

Lisa you might accuse me of generalising and labelling, but you are being very judgemental - not just to me but anyone who doesn't share your views.

Try and understand why people think the way they do instead of denigrating them. Open your mind a little.

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 3:35pm:

What is missing is acknolwdgement that men and women are different.   Since before there was such a thing as human beings, males have evolved to fulfill a particular role, and women have evolved to fulfill another.  These adaptations can be turned to other tasks than that which they were intially for.  For example, the greater strength of the male of the species evolved to both enable survival, through hunting/warding off/outrunning predators and to compete with other males....but nowadays it has the unintended 'side effect' that men can throw a ball further than women.  All pretty simple stuff. So the thing is, if you accept the theory of evolution, you cannot reconcile that with 'anything men can do, women can do'.  Men have had millions, perhaps billions of years to evolve into the physically stronger sex...you can't undo that with wishful thinking and a new ideology. Just remember - EQUAL but OPPOSITE.  Neither sex can exist without the other....so find your role, and fulfil it.

It's so much easier to say than do. It would be a perfect world if we could just remember that we are equal, but different.

Both sexes are confused today. Although there was a bit of chauvenism around when I was younger - it was a nice chauvenism. Those were the days - when men were men and women knew it.  :D

mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:

... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 3:35pm: What is missing is acknolwdgement that men and women are different.   Since before there was such a thing as human beings, males have evolved to fulfill a particular role, and women have evolved to fulfill another.  These adaptations can be turned to other tasks than that which they were intially for.  For example, the greater strength of the male of the species evolved to both enable survival, through hunting/warding off/outrunning predators and to compete with other males....but nowadays it has the unintended 'side effect' that men can throw a ball further than women.  All pretty simple stuff. So the thing is, if you accept the theory of evolution, you cannot reconcile that with 'anything men can do, women can do'.  Men have had millions, perhaps billions of years to evolve into the physically stronger sex...you can't undo that with wishful thinking and a new ideology. Just remember - EQUAL but OPPOSITE.  Neither sex can exist without the other....so find your role, and fulfil it. It's so much easier to say than do. It would be a perfect world if we could just remember that we are equal, but different. Both sexes are confused today. Although there was a bit of chauvenism around when I was younger - it was a nice chauvenism. They were the days - when men were men and women knew it.

It should be instinctual.  I can't recall ever having a sit down with my wife and discussing what our respective roles should be ...we just fell into them.  I fear the simple issue of just being who you are has been over thought and corrupted.  Quite why the feminist movement seems to be ashamed of 'just' being mothers or housewives escapes me. - they're crucial roles!

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 4:12pm:

It should be instinctual.  I can't recall ever having a sit down with my wife and discussing what our respective roles should be ...we just fell into them.  I fear the simple issue of just being who you are has been over thought and corrupted.  Quite why the feminist movement seems to be ashamed of 'just' being mothers or housewives escapes me. - they're crucial roles!

Those roles aren't so easy to fall into today, although I think they are still instinctual - but there are too many prohibitions.

Feminism has flourished since the late 70's and part of that doctrine was that women were made to feel guilty if they stayed home for too long with their baby. You can't really just call yourself a mother - you have to be something else as well. Feminism taught us that it was all about pursuing your career and/or contributing to the family budget which seems to grow bigger every year.

Most couples have no choice but to work and pay someone else to look after their children.

I would think that most women would prefer to stay at home nurturing their babies for as long as possible.

Feminism has been on the wrong track - they should be seeking to increase appreciation for their special skills, rather than trying to beat men at their own game.

I've never read so much rubbish in my life.

It beggars belief!

Where do I start???

This topic should be renamed: The uninformed leading the misinformed.

Don't be so rude Lisa.

Auzgurl is still keeping an eye on things here - so you don't have to worry about this sub-forum.  

Why is it rubbish?

Huh???

Quote:

Where do I start???

I recommend a retailer where you will be able to purchase a new brain.

Do you offer anything other than useless, shallow moral indignation, Ms. Fruiterer?

Quote:

Feminism has been on the wrong track - they should be seeking to increase appreciation for their special skills, rather than trying to beat men at their own game.

I agree with a lot of your comments W.P., and in fact I've mentioned much the same from time to time.
There are things that men are generally good at and things that women are generally good at.
Sometimes there may seem to be no rhyme or reason why a woman does not compete very well against men in a particular field (snooker for example), but that's the way it is, so it may be better to concentrate on more suitable pursuits instead of constantly trying to outdo men just to uphold some 'feminist' idealism.

mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Don't you think 20 is an unrealistic figure to pull out of the air? When you're 30 and ripe for marriage - will you choose a girl under 20 to bear your children? Will it also be a prerequisite that she's socially, legally and financially your inferior?

Female fertility peaks at age 19-20, and this is when women are at the height of their physical beauty.  Some women appear to be late bloomers, but this is usually because of an improved sense of fashion and style.  A healthy lifestyle can slow the decline of feminine beauty, but unfortunately in both our countries most women do not have a healthy lifestyle.

I would certainly prefer my future wife to be as attractive as possible, and for that matter youth is valuable for maternal reasons.  The longer a woman delays childbirth, the harder it is for her to conceive, carry the child to term, and have a child free of genetic defects.  This is probably the worst effect of feminism--robbing many women of the lovely children they could've had.

Biological facts are however only a guideline, not a suicide pact.  I would probably draw the line at age 28, preferably under 25.

Given that I don't intend to relocate to the Near East, legal and social equality (even female superiority) is a fact that needs to be dealt with, like any other unpleasant truth.  On the other hand, I project social dominance and prefer when women are submissive (but not silent).  I will also take all available precautions to protect my property from the legal system in the unfortunate event of future divorce.  I would probably not marry a woman who earns more than I do, though it's unlikely I'd find one (esp. in that age bracket).


mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

It's nice to see a young man who's very confident with his sexuality - you must be an alpha male - lucky you.  :)

Thanks for the compliment.  It took some work.  Girls always liked me, but as an adolescent I was terrified of rejection and pedestalized women.  A mixture of experience and research helped me become the man I am today.  Interestingly, my father is similar though it took him much longer.  He was very insecure as a young man, but developed into a formidable alpha male by his 40s.  Some men just start off successful with women, for instance my best friend got with many of the most attractive girls in our high school.


mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Lisa you might accuse me of generalising and labelling, but you are being very judgemental - not just to me but anyone who doesn't share your views. Try and understand why people think the way they do instead of denigrating them. Open your mind a little.

In fairness to Lisa, I'm pretty out there.  I self-identify as a racist and sexist (though not a misogynist--I very much enjoy the company and conversation of women).  My views can be jarring and offensive.

Coral Sea wrote on Mar 5^th, 2011 at 1:30am:

I would certainly prefer my future wife to be as attractive as possible, and for that matter youth is valuable for maternal reasons.  The longer a woman delays childbirth, the harder it is for her to conceive, carry the child to term, and have a child free of genetic defects.  This is probably the worst effect of feminism--robbing many women of the lovely children they could've had.

Did you know that it's the woman who chooses the male for his sperm? I'm sure most males believe it's the other way around, but females instinctively seek out the male who's going to give them the most healthy & attractive children.

Of course there are exceptions to this and there are men who reject certain women, but generally this is the norm.


Quote:

Given that I don't intend to relocate to the Near East, legal and social equality (even female superiority) is a fact that needs to be dealt with, like any other unpleasant truth.  On the other hand, I project social dominance and prefer when women are submissive (but not silent).  I will also take all available precautions to protect my property from the legal system in the unfortunate event of future divorce.  I would probably not marry a woman who earns more than I do, though it's unlikely I'd find one (esp. in that age bracket).

Very sensible because mistakes can occur, but why would it bother you if a woman earnt more than you? If she met all your other requirements - would you put pride before prejudice?


Quote:

mantra wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 4:01pm: It's nice to see a young man who's very confident with his sexuality - you must be an alpha male - lucky you.  :) Thanks for the compliment.  It took some work.  Girls always liked me, but as an adolescent I was terrified of rejection and pedestalized women.  A mixture of experience and research helped me become the man I am today.  Interestingly, my father is similar though it took him much longer.  He was very insecure as a young man, but developed into a formidable alpha male by his 40s.  Some men just start off successful with women, for instance my best friend got with many of the most attractive girls in our high school.

I thought you were born either alpha or beta, although I suppose your upbringing could influence the outcome and it would depend a bit on the relationship you had with your mother, sisters etc. as to whether you had confidence with girls.


Quote:

In fairness to Lisa, I'm pretty out there.  I self-identify as a racist and sexist (though not a misogynist--I very much enjoy the company and conversation of women).  My views can be jarring and offensive.

Your views are a little bit out there - but seeing as you're only young - you can get away with it. You may end up learning to modify your words eventually, but for the time being it's refreshing to see the brashness of youth, although be thankful you're a male. If you were a female - you'd be past your prime - going by your standards.  ;D

In fairness to Lisa, I'm pretty out there.  I self-identify as a racist and sexist (though not a misogynist--I very much enjoy the company and conversation of women).  My views can be jarring and offensive.

- Coral Sea

My views can be just as jarring and offensive also .. to racists and sexists that is.

I make no apology for them either.

Quote:

Did you know that it's the woman who chooses the male for his sperm? I'm sure most males believe it's the other way around, but females instinctively seek out the male who's going to give them the most healthy & attractive children.

I don't think that you've uncovered any major secret there Mantra.

Did you know that most men desire a nice ass, a pretty face, and a nice set of boobs?
I don't think that I've stumbled across any major secret there either, so you would have to say that the objectives are quite similar.

These instinctual similarities end however, when a man is required to provide shelter and protection given the possibility of a child entering the equation.
For most men, there an instinctual feeling of responsibility when a child might be expected. The others are just assholes in need of extermination.

'Real equality' states that a woman should provide equal shelter and protection for a man. Would any sane woman go for that one? I think not.

There are different responsibilities concerning the same objective. Each are as important as the other if the desired result is to be achieved.

IMO, the desired result has been achieved when the children can fend for themselves, or are taken care of.
In the modern world, that means financially, and that's when instinctual law and imagined law cross paths.


Quote:

Very sensible because mistakes can occur, but why would it bother you if a woman earnt more than you? If she met all your other requirements - would you put pride before prejudice?

Once again, instinctual law will dictate that a man wants to be the major bread winner. There's usually no getting around that feeling nomatter what "equality laws" will dictate.
Nomatter what psychologists (who have always had the largest incidence of suicide) say, you cannot turn a crocodile into a dove overnight.
Give it a few hundred tens of thousands of years of evolution (or de-evolution), and it may happen.i

Amadd .. wtf are you on about now? You're starting to sound like some time traveller who's turned up from the Dark Ages.

Men AND women should work together as a team in ALL matters and this pertains to business as well as personal relationship contexts.

We all differ in terms of personal characteristics, personal experiences, individual talents, strengths and weaknesses etc etc.

For this very reason we ALL WIN IF we pull our heads in and co operate. That means we POOL/SHARE whatever personal/material resources we have so as to achieve a WIN-WIN OUTCOME.

sighs ...

Amadd wrote on Mar 6^th, 2011 at 12:24am:

I don't think that you've uncovered any major secret there Mantra. Did you know that most men desire a nice ass, a pretty face, and a nice set of boobs? I don't think that I've stumbled across any major secret there either, so you would have to say that the objectives are quite similar. These instinctual similarities end however, when a man is required to provide shelter and protection given the possibility of a child entering the equation. For most men, there an instinctual feeling of responsibility when a child might be expected. The others are just assholes in need of extermination.

Yes there are a lot of irresponsible jerks also, but I think it's become all too easy for them to behave this way. They can sow their seed and move on, in many cases with little financial or emotional responsibility expected.


Quote:

'Real equality' states that a woman should provide equal shelter and protection for a man. Would any sane woman go for that one? I think not.

There are women who do still provide this, but when they have children their hormones and priorities change and some men just can't deal with this. They want a mother and an ardent lover all rolled up into one. Maybe women either can't cope with this, or just don't want to. The same way men can't cope with the lack of sex and her changing appearance.

Before feminism, generally women stayed at home, nurturing not only the children, but the husband as well. It didn't matter whether she liked it - often she had no choice but to accept it.


Quote:

There are different responsibilities concerning the same objective. Each are as important as the other if the desired result is to be achieved.

I think this is where too many couples make mistakes. They should realistically make out a contract before marriage on what they both need and expect. The contract should include regular maintenace of the relationship to ensure the couple continue to work towards the same goal. That's obviously unrealistic - but it should be a condition of the marriage contract.


Quote:

IMO, the desired result has been achieved when the children can fend for themselves, or are taken care of. In the modern world, that means financially, and that's when instinctual law and imagined law cross paths.

Very true, but often by then the rot has set in and it's time to move on. This is the stage where both sexes are moaning about each other.

If we were honest - maybe long term relationships aren't right for many of us, but it's been drummed into us by religion and the media - and looking at our parents' relationship (often long suffering) that this is how it should be.


Quote:

Once again, instinctual law will dictate that a man wants to be the major bread winner. There's usually no getting around that feeling nomatter what "equality laws" will dictate. Nomatter what psychologists (who have always had the largest incidence of suicide) say, you cannot turn a crocodile into a dove overnight. Give it a few hundred tens of thousands of years of evolution (or de-evolution), and it may happen.

Maybe not. There are native clans where the male does very little, while the woman is the hunter & gatherer & prepares the food and raises the children.

We've been taught that the male should always be the hunter gatherer, yet when there is no male - the woman takes on the role of raising her family - perhaps more easily than the male would under similar circumstances.

Quote:

Maybe not. There are native clans where the male does very little, while the woman is the hunter & gatherer & prepares the food and raises the children.

Oh really? You don't have their name and location offhand do you?
I may just drop in for a visit  :)

Haha. I doubt the body shape of the females would appeal to you much Amadd - although a couple of the tribes married the girls off when they were about 10.

There were a series of documentaries on Pay TV - can't remember the name now - but they had 6 western women stay for a month or so with various tribes. These women had been divorced, had bad relationships or were single - but they all loved the lifestyle and the men - some even had offers of marriage.

It was the strong community and family culture which held the most appeal - something western civilisation appears to be short of.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 6^th, 2011 at 1:34pm:

Amadd .. wtf are you on about now? You're starting to sound like some time traveller who's turned up from the Dark Ages. Men AND women should work together as a team in ALL matters and this pertains to business as well as personal relationship contexts. We all differ in terms of personal characteristics, personal experiences, individual talents, strengths and weaknesses etc etc. For this very reason we ALL WIN IF we pull our heads in and co operate. That means we POOL/SHARE whatever personal/material resources we have so as to achieve a WIN-WIN OUTCOME. sighs ...

Agreed....but a team in which everyone only wants to play as full forward isn't much of a team at all.  A good team needs to people to know their roles, and to play them well.  This is why each party needs to learn, enhance and exploit their aptitudes, for the good of the team.   This is what I've been saying all along.

... wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 10:31am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 6th, 2011 at 1:34pm: Amadd .. wtf are you on about now? You're starting to sound like some time traveller who's turned up from the Dark Ages. Men AND women should work together as a team in ALL matters and this pertains to business as well as personal relationship contexts. We all differ in terms of personal characteristics, personal experiences, individual talents, strengths and weaknesses etc etc. For this very reason we ALL WIN IF we pull our heads in and co operate. That means we POOL/SHARE whatever personal/material resources we have so as to achieve a WIN-WIN OUTCOME. sighs ... Agreed....but a team in which everyone only wants to play as full forward isn't much of a team at all.  A good team needs to people to know their roles, and to play them well.  This is why each party needs to learn, enhance and exploit their aptitudes, for the good of the team.   This is what I've been saying all along.

WELL GUESS WHAT? That's what I've been trying to say too!

The only qualification I would add is that I don't appreciate someone who knows SFA about me as a person .. or anything much about my life taking it upon themselves to generalize and make assumptions about who I am, who I should be .. and what role/s THEY think I should be fulfilling.

All that matters is that I know what I am capable of, I know what type of lifestyle I wish to lead, I know where my talents and aptitudes and interests lie.. and I know what works well btwn my husband and myself as a team because we co operate and consult each other about everything.

When someone from outside our domestic sphere thinks they can start telling us what limits they think apply to us .. it kinda gets us a tad upset and defensive. Oh and we consider it to be inappropriate and condescending too.

You following Wesley?

And just in case ANY person feels the sudden urge to rush in here again and brand me a feminist suffering penis envy syndrome .. PLEASE NOTE .. I am a happily married conservative traditional European theist female.

I also live in the real world of today .. where as a Generation X woman .. I have the choice to hold a MODERATE view of the above core values which I hold dearly and identify with .. thus enabling me to lead a happy and fulfilled life.

IMO .. life is too short to be anything but happy and fulfilled.

Your as fulfilled as the next one, no doubt about that.

Yes AG?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 13^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

... wrote on Mar 8th, 2011 at 10:31am: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 6th, 2011 at 1:34pm: Amadd .. wtf are you on about now? You're starting to sound like some time traveller who's turned up from the Dark Ages. Men AND women should work together as a team in ALL matters and this pertains to business as well as personal relationship contexts. We all differ in terms of personal characteristics, personal experiences, individual talents, strengths and weaknesses etc etc. For this very reason we ALL WIN IF we pull our heads in and co operate. That means we POOL/SHARE whatever personal/material resources we have so as to achieve a WIN-WIN OUTCOME. sighs ... Agreed....but a team in which everyone only wants to play as full forward isn't much of a team at all.  A good team needs to people to know their roles, and to play them well.  This is why each party needs to learn, enhance and exploit their aptitudes, for the good of the team.   This is what I've been saying all along. WELL GUESS WHAT? That's what I've been trying to say too! The only qualification I would add is that I don't appreciate someone who knows SFA about me as a person .. or anything much about my life taking it upon themselves to generalize and make assumptions about who I am, who I should be .. and what role/s THEY think I should be fulfilling. All that matters is that I know what I am capable of, I know what type of lifestyle I wish to lead, I know where my talents and aptitudes and interests lie.. and I know what works well btwn my husband and myself as a team because we co operate and consult each other about everything. When someone from outside our domestic sphere thinks they can start telling us what limits they think apply to us .. it kinda gets us a tad upset and defensive. Oh and we consider it to be inappropriate and condescending too. You following Wesley?

OK.

But since we're being all open, I don't appreciate my attempts at discussing the topic being dismissed with little more than 'you're from the dark ages' and 'the ignorance/stupidity of some men is incredible' and then having the nerve to talk down to me like I'm a small child.  
A little more time outlining and discussing your POV, and a little less time insulting others would be nice, thanks.

Hmm .. I think this medium is restrictive  .. and in many ways.

We're not getting the full message. And we respond on parts of messages.

Our comments over the past 24 hrs have made me realize this.

Thanks for being open. I really appreciated it.

Having worked (sorta) 'with' a Private Maternity Ward.
I couldn't help but notice all the 'Career' orientated women desperately going for children at the last moment in regards to 'age'.

If a Feminist is a woman who seeks career/power/wealth/etc
over having children, being a full-time mother
...then why do women like Nicole Kidman get to live in denial about making for the career then having some other woman get the stretch marks for her with these 'surrogate' babies.
Me thinks her 'mind-frame' isn't that of a 'mother' anyway - so why bother?

Personally I think Germaine Greer is a fruitloop.
I've worked for many a female Boss with no problems at all. Sometimes I've enjoyed it.
I just find it difficult to contend with women who can't make up their minds or accept the fact about the Feminist empowerment or Motherhood/HouseWife.

:-/

Yeah well, we live in a capitalistic nation.
This ain't no "please and thankyou" outfit my lovelies. Blood gets spilt, entrails go all over the joint.
So get over it real quick. This ain't no please and thankyou outfit my lovelies. We expect you to have your entrails strawn over the battlefield in the name of equality.

We need you to fight for us my lovelies. We need you to spill your entrails for us. Can you do it? Do you have the heart?

Spill your guts all over the battlefields ladies, that's what you have fought for.
Now ...puhleasse..just do it.

C'monnnnn...you're weak as piss. Just do it ladies. Do  it for us men while we sit and play Xbox.
Spill your guts for us, If you don't do it, then you don't really love us sensitive men   ;D

Grow some balls you weak ladies...puhleaasse  ;D

Shout out like you got a pair!!!

I think you've missed the point of Women being in the Armed Forces,
let alone other Services Amadd.

My wife is a Security Guard: Besides being better at handling 'naughty' kids than Males are, they tend to spot 'faults' in everything, as all women tend to do (don't you agree ;)) so chances are, my Wife would spot a 'hole' in the Prison, if you know what I mean ;)
Its like the case of the little dog shouts the warning for the BIG DOG to lay in the bite.

I worked as a Nurse in a female dominated industry. Thats where I learn't that women can stand around and do nothing while looking beautiful while I had to work double the workload to compensate.
So I now laugh as to why Men don't want Women in the Armed Forces (not that it takes much strength to pull a trigger ::)) - because they now have to "Sound Up" for chivalry and work harder and do "whats right" rather than short-cut to what's cheatingly wrong.

I now work in a Process Plant where some guys don't like how women are 'bludgers'. Who cares what women do and don't do. I think these guys need to 'toughen' up and just get on with it. One of them is ex-military. He's already tried to start a fight with me, but I just 'tripled' my work pace/load as if he too was a woman. So he stands around looking tough while I work (too easy 8-)) my way to a possible $700 a day promotion. ;D

Quote:

I think you've missed the point of Women being in the Armed Forces, let alone other Services Amadd.

Actually, I was highlighting the point that there are different roles to perform. But let's not call it equality, because it's not.

Realistically, we aren't going to accept women's blood on the battlefield as do some other nations who have appalling rights for women.

Amadd .. different can still mean equal.

I'm just talking in a general sense here.

Women and men are different but equal. That is how I see it, that is how I love it .. that is how I live it.

Our gender does not make us superior/inferior .. it makes us different... but we're still equal.

If you like.

I think that women have the greater ability to stop wars from occurring in the first place. I don't think that men are their equal in that department.

Women will never attain a sense of 'greatness' that a man will ever achieve. Maybe its because they have too much on their plate in the name of being 'multi-skilled' to concentrate on the one thing that matters most? ;D
Don't get me wrong, Women will always pip many a man to the 'Dias of Greatness', but they will alway be pipped by another man in the end.
Women are SEXUALLY SUPERIOR to men. They can 'reproduce' physically and in some instances in the animal kingdom - "asexually" or 'virgin births'. They can last longer sexually and are not 'aged' by the act of sex as men are with each ejaculation. They can even have an orgasm while having childbirth.
Sure men can be sexually superior to many a woman, like a Porn star to a virgin frigid barren career orientated woman. But although a man can pip many a woman, on the sex game, there will always be a woman that pips the man in the end.

Fact: Its the male that chooses the sex of the child in the act of procreation. Just like it is the female who chooses the 'dream' for the male who sits around thinking "what can I do with my life?" or "why isn't my great invention working yet?" (most men don't give credit to women, or realise such "divine intervention" and just put it down to "...I discovered the answer to the problem by 'mistake'")

Who knows? With women in the armed forces, maybe the Military will 'wise up' and jilt Politics and save the Animals of the world before its too late? Now thats something worthwhile. ;) Greens helping Greens = true love  :)

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 4:51am:

Women will never attain a sense of 'greatness' that a man will ever achieve. Maybe its because they have too much on their plate in the name of being 'multi-skilled' to concentrate on the one thing that matters most? ;D Don't get me wrong, Women will always pip many a man to the 'Dias of Greatness', but they will alway be pipped by another man in the end. Women are SEXUALLY SUPERIOR to men. They can 'reproduce' physically and in some instances in the animal kingdom - "asexually" or 'virgin births'. They can last longer sexually and are not 'aged' by the act of sex as men are with each ejaculation. They can even have an orgasm while having childbirth. Sure men can be sexually superior to many a woman, like a Porn star to a virgin frigid barren career orientated woman. But although a man can pip many a woman, on the sex game, there will always be a woman that pips the man in the end. Fact: Its the male that chooses the sex of the child in the act of procreation. Just like it is the female who chooses the 'dream' for the male who sits around thinking "what can I do with my life?" or "why isn't my great invention working yet?" (most men don't give credit to women, or realise such "divine intervention" and just put it down to "...I discovered the answer to the problem by 'mistake'") Who knows? With women in the armed forces, maybe the Military will 'wise up' and jilt Politics and save the Animals of the world before its too late? Now thats something worthwhile. ;) Greens helping Greens = true love  :)

No, I don't see the 'sexually superior' angle.  Let's talk about humans here - both sexes are equally important.  No woman can reproduce without a mans sperm, and no man can reproduce without a womans egg and womb to incubate it in.  How can 1 be superior, when it is completely and utterly useless without the other?  In the cases of asexual reproduction, you'll find that there is either only one gender, or that the organism can change genders to suit the conditions at the time.

Women should be back in the kitchen looking after the needs of their children and in the bedrooms looking after the needs of their men instead of prancing around pretending they have dicks.

@Wesley Pipes: I think the record for a male being able to constantly 'screw' as many partners as possible 'continuously' is 111 women via 10 ejaculations. I think he had to have sex with each female for 5-10 minutes to justify.
A female, many a female can smash that record and have multiple male attentions in more orifaces than a male can at the same time.
Now there's a start for "Sexually Superior Females".
There's a lot of guys out there at the moment who think they are big Studs because they get laid "so easy" in this day n' age due to the advent of Contraception. What they don't realise is that these males are nothing more than Vibrators/Dildo's for the female 'pleasure dome' ...and the women get 'free drinks' as well. ;D You know the Guys, they tend to be "Tools" in the workplace. ;D

@Culldav: in a way you're right. Many a family is unsettled because "Mum/Mom" is out working the day away. The upbringing of children is being compromised in this day n' age with Playstations,TV etc as poor Surrogates. Ever see a 3rd generation kid born from a few generations of people who watch TV a lot. The kid just sits and stares (in his/her own little world) in the name of Autism.
But the "HouseWife" is roughly the "Eve" factor,
where its the "Lilith" female  that inspires a man onto much greatness ;),
unless he makes her his mistress and "blows it". ::)

...if there are 8 different races/regions of this world,
then I'm sure there are 8 different types of women
out there to enjoy in 8 different ways.
:)

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 9:58am:

@Wesley Pipes: I think the record for a male being able to constantly 'screw' as many partners as possible 'continuously' is 111 women via 10 ejaculations. I think he had to have sex with each female for 5-10 minutes to justify. A female, many a female can smash that record and have multiple male attentions in more orifaces than a male can at the same time. Now there's a start for "Sexually Superior Females".

Erm...well they could take 1000 dicks, but can still only be impregnated by 1.  I don't really know whats so 'superior' about opening your legs to every thomas richard and harold anyway.

A lot of women believe (although this one hasn't been medically proven yet, although it is agreed that it is "highly likely")
that by having sex with multiple partners in the 'window of ovulation' guarrantees "healthy/better children" as they are inseminated with various sperm that "compete" with one another towards the egg for fertilisation. Thus the female is guarranteed that the sperm within her won't be complacent or comfortable in the fact, etc. Similar to the female finding the best 'suitor' in the first place from something like a jousting competition, dancing or even a bar-room fight.

I tend to agree in a way, as Males are responsible for the 'sex' of the child, although Abraham and King Henry VIII amongst many in the past blamed the female if they weren't given a 'male heir'.
I wanted to give my wife a girl and thus we have a beautiful daughter. I joke that I put lipstick and fishnet stockings on during the act. ;D :D
There is 'some' Medical talk that if you haven't ejaculated for a month or so - there is a higher chance of a boy, compared to 'younger' sperm in the ballsack if you had just ejaculated 3 days previously that results in a 'girl'. Interesting and it might just be the case?

... wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 10:44am:

they.... can still only be impregnated by 1.

It is actually possible for a woman to be impregnated by two men, although it is rather rare.  It's called heteropaternal superfecundation.  And no, I don't know from personal experience.....