|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The question remains, with the "man shortage" bound to get worse, what will women's reaction be?"
Maybe they'll have to re-evalute their feminist bigotry and stop treating males like shit, stop using them as blame-objects, sperm-banks, and ATMs, and may actually--gasp--treat males with respect and as their equals who deserve equal rights to parental custody and equal justice.
As well as equal opportunities to attend universities and to attend school without being discriminated and persecuted, and to go to work without having to walk on eggshells in what they say and do.
Maybe London women and females in the West poisoned by feminist bigotry should really reconsider how they treat males and GET THE FUCK OVER THEMSELVES, RENOUNCE THEIR FEMINIST-DRIVEN BIGOTRY, AND TREAT THEIR FATHERS,GRANDFATHERS, HUSBANDS/BOYFRIENDS, SONS, BROTHERS, UNCLES, NEPHEWS, MALE COUSINS, AND ALL MALES LIKE EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS DESERVING OF EQUAL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN DIGNITY AND RESPECT!!!! I get it, Christina Hoff Summers gets it (I love that woman, see I do like *SOME* members of my sex), why can't other women and girls in the West get that oh so easy concept? It's not that hard, really.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:49 PM November 26th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Thea, you get it. That makes you, in my humble opinion, smarter than about 99% of the professors in the world. Take care of yourself; you're someone special.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it would take a lot less than that. Women will simply have to accept that someone their own age, who went to the same schools, has the same debt load, and has a similar shitty job, really is their peer.
If they do that they can avoid this invented crisis, and go on making the same assumptions about every other male in their lives.
I've been married for a couple of years now. As bad a deal as divorce is for men, the system is still rigged. If a man wants any contact with his children that can't be taken away at a whim, he has to be married to their mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:40 PM November 26th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I think is too late for women in the West, they made their bed and now they have to lie in it. First you have men that have already left the West for other countries where traditional values are more intact such as the Phillipines, Belize, South America (particularly Columbia and Bolivia), etc. Second, you have men leaving currently like me (I am going to Malta myself). Third, there is whole generation of men on a marriage strike in the West and determined to bypass the whole marriage/divorce industry and just sport f_ck women, which I can't blame them if they don't want a family and just want an occasionaly good time, just wear protection considering STD's these days. Forth, there has always been more women than men historically due to war, working hazardous jobs, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:04 PM November 26th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree poster especially about the marriage strike by men in the west. I am handsome, incredibly healthy, own a successful and growing business and a lovely home in the best part of town (and mortgage free). My only baggage is a large and mean dog that does not like anyone but me. So why am I not married? The answer is the legal system has men such as myself running so scared you can't imagine. All it would take is MS. Right to come in here and after a few years put me out, take everything I own and leave me destitute. I would never want to start over again and for what? I see many women on the online dating services who state in their profile do not contact me unless you have your own place to live, own a car and have a job. The pickings must be pretty slim for them and I feel sorry for a lot of them. But as you said they made their bed and now must lie in it. Really to bad I think.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:28 PM November 27th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
Sorry, ladies but it's YOUR problem so, "That's what you get from Burger Chef...!"
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:56 PM November 28th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
""That's what you get from Burger Chef...!""
T.C., What does that mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This "crisis" is not one at all, for either men or women in London. Consider...
But the ONS predicts in just two decades numbers of women of that age in the capital will reach 662,600 as against 624,800 men.
624,800/662,600 = .9429, or more meaningfully, it predicts that the ration of men to women in London will be (not is, *will be*, in 20 years) 92:100, just in 20-29 age group only. Currently there are, according to the article, only 6,000 more women than men in London.
This is no crisis of "gender balance" in any sense of the word. An 8% difference in count? That's no crisis. And I would also like to point out that if we read "sexual relationship" for the word "relationship", it's been my experience that women in general more easily "go without" as it were for much longer periods of time without being really seriously bothered by it, as compared to us men, with our higher testosterone levels, esp. so in the 20-29 YO age range, it's much more frustrating (sexually anyway) for single (ie, uninvolved) men, to not have a romantic partner than it is for women (not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd rather be lonely than horny any day!). But I will agree that it's an inconvenince for a woman seeking a better-situated man as a hu$band, as with such a man she has as others have already pointed out, a legally-anointed, living, breathing 2-legged ATM machine to use and discard (but still use, if she has kids with said ATM machine) almost at will. But as the article says, it isn't clear how many London women will want to "settle down" at all in 20 years (I am guessing rather few, in the same way that here in the Washington, D.C. area, 20-29 YO women seem little interested in marriage and kids. So too do the men, I might add).
As institutions go, marriage is dead. It has died because the will and interest in keeping it alive is not there in sufficient strength for it to remain alive. For men, in general, we are not at all happy with the legal terms foisted on us and as others have accurately pointed out, many of us now just plain avoid it entirely, won't participate in it at all. Moreso I daresay as time goes on, as the awareness of what it means for men to be married continues to be communicated. As for women, well, with the influence of feminism and the lack of a "practical need" for a husband, they have/are having less/lessening interest in it, predictably so, and are no longer the staunch and enthusiastic supporters of marriage they used to be. Between these two phenomenon, marriage is simply a dead horse that is getting beaten all the time, but to no avail of any kind (no offense to animal-lovers, but the analogy is just too apt to walk away from!). It gets beaten by us men's rightists, it gets beaten by fundamentalists, conservatives, traditionalists, religious people, politicians, lawyers, judges, etc., etc. But dead is dead is dead. The marriages in the West people are having today are like momentum, karma from past beliefs and actions, still having some effect. But all momentum loses force as time goes on until the ball stops rolling, as it were. Wait another 100 years, folks. A 5-10% marriage rate for the poulation at large for people of all age groups is the future. And all I can say is: so what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, must correct two things in the first main para. above I missed before posting, one a mis-type, another a substantive value mis-keyed. Corrected parts are in bold:
"624,800/662,600 = .9429, or more meaningfully, it predicts that the ratio of men to women in London will be (not is, *will be*, in 20 years) 94:100, just in 20-29 age group only. Currently there are, according to the article, only 6,000 more women than men in London."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This is no crisis of 'gender balance' in any sense of the word. A 6% difference in count?"
A-duh, write much, Matt? :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps society needs to address why so many males elect suicide, rather than exist in todays world where men are simply - a never out of season partridge shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM November 27th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
A young lady came home from a date, rather sad. She told her mother, "Jeff proposed to me an hour ago."
"Then why are you so sad?" her mother asked.
"Because he also told me he was an atheist. Mom, he doesn't even believe there's a Hell."
Her mother replied, "Marry him anyway. Between the two of us, we'll show him how wrong he is."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:13 AM November 30th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Well , many guys that post a comment here seem to have an opinion that we are having a bad time because women are inflicting it on us.
Now i do accept that women nowadays are too nasty and they deserve a lot of punishment, of such degree that they never even dream again of anything as getting equal rights as men. Yes, not special privileges,but equal rights. By equal rights ,i mean they cannot have a position of authority over men. Quite simply ,they cannot work at any place at any position higher than any man there. This gives them very few options to work . If this is discrimination, i must call upon all those faithful followers of Bible and ask them if anything i said is not mentioned in there. Anyway, it is also mentioned that in a marriage a man is the head not the woman, sorry no mention of equal rights here. In a family ,the man has the authority over woman and she is to submit to his decision, even if it involves suppressing her own feelings. Now , this is not discrimination and simply put women are inferior (for lack of better word) or God is not so unjust that he would subject women to this.
Coming back to my point i strongly disagree for this very reason, that women can inflict any damage on men. It is said men have to protect their wives and not vice-versa. Here protection means not only physical,but every kind of protection. This is simply because we men are much better off than the womenfolk in every way.
Remember creation, God created man from Himself to explore the world He had created. He wanted someone to see His creations and thats why man was created. Remember, all the animals with their separate sexes were indeed already there.
Now , man was not an animal. But he saw that all animals had a male and a female. He longed for some company and got it ,in the form of his own female. He thus became the male. She was created by God from man's ribs . Why ribs ? Well,intriguing as it is i don't have the answer.Probably you people might have some answers. Anyway when woman was created it degenerated man as it made him like other animals.
But God says that a man is to his woman as God is to the man. One way to interpret this is that a woman's husband is her God.Now christianity is not the only religion that embraces this fact,Islam and Hinduism also insist the same.
If giving childbirth gives women some special status as they claim, i wonder why is it that they have to submit to their husbands.
So if God gives man such a position over woman, you have to wonder how can women possibly destroy us.Yes if we men pleased we can effectively destroy them in no time. It is only that we love that stupid sex that they're still there.
If women are living longer lives it is not their fault. It is entirely ours. We shouldn't have made medical help so accessible to them. Knowing women,how they make a mountain out of a mole,it is natural to understand that they will go away in herds at the nearest clinic at the slighest pretext. We men are not so eager .
Yes,the more important fact has been that we were the breadwinners ,they were not. That means a lot more stress on us men compared to women. But had we men been appreciative of our fellow men instead of always trying to please women all the time and demeaning our fellow men in the process,we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.
The problems we face today can only go away if we men stop fighting each other ,demonising women won't help. They are simply incapable to help us out of this. We need to forget our racial differences for all men are created equal by God,each in his own unique god-gifted way has a lot to offer to mankind.How often do we appreciate this. Even now men in the higher offices are the reason other men are living such disastrous lives.All feminist crap is a political tool used by those highest in the offices,almost entirely men ,for their own selfish motives.
We need to stop them and firstly we as men need to treat our fellow men as equals and we also need to pride ourselves for being the bearers of manhood which has had such a glorious history of achievements to this day. Achievements that have shaped our lives in every way.
You will not find any woman among these achievers. Why? Because we men are born with those abilities,not women. God bestows them only to men and thats why women are not our equals.
Yes, after we cultivate brotherhood we do need to punish women. They cannot try to usurp our heritage and then get away from it. They cannot claim equality and unless they realise this they need to be punished.
Anyway,few scinetific facts may help you to understand the inequalities between men and women.
1) Women mature at about 18 years and men at about 22 ,a difference of 4 years. Yes men initially are developmentally slow but they catch with women by 15 . The latter years are important as in that you mature a lot. The fact is men continue to mature almost four years more compared to women shows that men are much more intelligent and mature than women .
2) Men have bigger brains and bigger brains mean more intelligence. New research contradicting this is likely to be feminism infested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:41 PM November 27th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"This could make it increasingly hard for the city's women to settle down with their ideal partner,"
London men thinking this could also make it hard for the city's women to settle down with their ideal partner.
Sincerely, Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:48 AM November 28th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Opps! I dropped the link. Here it is,
"London men thinking this ..."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
