Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs

Women Cant Have It All

Recommended Posts

At the risk of igniting yet another heated sexes debate did anyone manage to catch this? Was it worth watching? :unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure:

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/T/...es/platell.html

WOMEN CAN'T HAVE IT ALL

Political commentator Amanda Platell challenges the prevailing assumptions about the position of women in today's society: "Women can't have it all... If women are unhappy, it's because they are ruining it for themselves."

Friday 3rd February 7.30pm

Saturday 4th February 4.55am

Amanda embarks on a personal journey to examine the plight of the have-it-all generation of women today and, in doing so, reflects on her own life choices.

She investigates whether feminism has unwittingly damaged a woman's chances of real happiness - with a husband and children - liberating them from the shackles of housewifery, but offering an unrealistic dream of being able to have it all, whenever they want it.

While she acknowledges the great debt women owe to the trailblazing feminists of the 1960s and 1970s, Amanda asks whether it is the independence they granted women that has made it so hard for today's generations to settle down and have a family.

She meets some of the key thinkers on women's issues, among them feminist icon and author Fay Weldon, who was at the heart of the women's movement that transformed society. In her interview with Amanda she confesses her doubts over the achievements of feminism, suggesting it may have gone too far.

Amanda investigates why equality now equates to young women behaving like men - competing with them in the workplace but also matching them drink for drink in today's ladette culture. Amanda, herself a high-profile career-woman, believes it is a myth that women can spend their twenties relentlessly pursuing a career and their own agenda then suddenly switch tracks and try and find a life partner and dad for their kids.

She tackles the taboo subject of the biological blight of delaying motherhood, speaking to the two senior doctors who were pilloried for suggesting women are damaging their chances of having children by waiting until their late 30s or even 40s. And she asks if the blame for the increasing disintegration of marriage can to some degree be laid at the feet of women who are too keen to put themselves ahead of their relationships.

She meets Minister for Women Tessa Jowell who admits that government policies can only go so far to promote the right work/life balance - ultimately women are responsible for their own life choices.

In a visit to a leading girls' school, Amanda meets a class of 17 and 18-year-olds; the next generation of women, who talk about the pressures they will face in the future - juggling careers with an old-fashioned desire to settle down. Like Amanda, they believe women can't have it all and that somewhere along the line they will need to compromise aspects of their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of igniting yet another heated sexes debate did anyone manage to catch this? Was it worth watching? :unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure:

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/T/...es/platell.html

Yes, I saw quite a bit of it. It was really interesting, but she did make the classic mistake of assuming that women pursue a career instead of looking for a life partner when in reality I think some women do this because they haven't met a partner. It's not a question of one or the other. It's like when you hear ridiculous consultants ranting on about women putting off having babies until it's too late when a fair percentage of those simply haven't met the right person. I think she dumbed down what is actually a complex and fascinating debate and it left too many questions unanswered. Still interesting though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ladettes.jpg . old_and_lonely.jpg

THE PRICE these women are going to pay for their rampant selfishness and out-of-control consumerist habit is...

Loneliness.

I would go within a million miles of one of these toxic ladette bitches.

DrBubb - You are very good at making biased, chauvanistic and opinionated statements which you fail to back up with any evidence. I noticed you have not so far responded to any of my posts disputing your claims. Why don't you try and backup some of the rubbish you spout with hard facts.?

I have already posted a link to statistics which point to the fact that itis not women who are the lonely ones outwith a relationship.

Why don't you respond to posts disputing your claims ? Other posters engage in debate. You just assert.. and then run..

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...ndpost&p=286954

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...ndpost&p=287701

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...ndpost&p=290134

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Amanda investigates why equality now equates to young women behaving like men - competing with them in the workplace but also matching them drink for drink in today's ladette culture. Amanda, herself a high-profile career-woman, believes it is a myth that women can spend their twenties relentlessly pursuing a career and their own agenda then suddenly switch tracks and try and find a life partner and dad for their kids"

THIS HITS IT exactly.

ladettes.jpg . old_and_lonely.jpg

THE PRICE these women are going to pay for their rampant selfishness and out-of-control consumerist habit is...

Loneliness.

I would go within a million miles of one of these toxic ladette bitches.

They are dangerous to their own health, and dangerous to the health and wellbeing of everyone around them. Sex with them is unsatisfying, except as an exercise in relieving tension. And marrying one, is an invitation to future divorce and impoverishment. Let them pay the price, while their potential partners discover the more satisfiying joys of partnering with someone who has something to give, perhaps because they grew up in a different culture.

Comes the crash, these monsters will be in debt with their wonderfully overgeared homes.

However: Show me one that repents in her ways, and my sympathy will blossom. But most go on, oblivious to the unhappiness they make for themselves and those around them. Good on Platell for tackling the sad truth of these pampered victims of our consumer society.

Dr Bubb,

You get dumped recently by any chance? That is a truly worrying post you just made.

I always thought you lived in a fantasy land with your posts, but now I am thinking you should perhaps be on the sex offenders register.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DrB's post seemed like a reasonable and balanced to me :lol:

Man or woman reap what you sow.

As a side note a few days back janet street porter done a program on women. Seemed quite sensible what she was saying, it is women who give women a hard time, men just sorta shrug there shoulders at it all.

Never mind ey, beats an outbreak of whooping cough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE PRICE these women are going to pay for their rampant selfishness and out-of-control consumerist habit is...

Loneliness.

I would go within a million miles of one of these toxic ladette bitches.

They are dangerous to their own health, and dangerous to the health and wellbeing of everyone around them. Sex with them is unsatisfying, except as an exercise in relieving tension. And marrying one, is an invitation to future divorce and impoverishment. Let them pay the price, while their potential partners discover the more satisfiying joys of partnering with someone who has something to give, perhaps because they grew up in a different culture.

Comes the crash, these monsters will be in debt with their wonderfully overgeared homes.

However: Show me one that repents in her ways, and my sympathy will blossom. But most go on, oblivious to the unhappiness they make for themselves and those around them. Good on Platell for tackling the sad truth of these pampered victims of our consumer society.

Did you not say you had a degree in psychology? Not one of these internet degrees was it?!

Don't make the classic error of thinking that so-called laddettes are representative of women per se and that they are merrily pursuing high-powered careers by day and vomiting vodka by night.

Dr Bubb,

You get dumped recently by any chance? That is a truly worrying post you just made.

I always thought you lived in a fantasy land with your posts, but now I am thinking you should perhaps be on the sex offenders register.......

Sure is looking that way...

THE PRICE these women are going to pay for their rampant selfishness and out-of-control consumerist habit is...

Loneliness.

If you are psychology graduate, you'll know that you are just as likely to experience loneliness, if not more so, in a relationship as you are as a single person...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know what Shakler, I agree. No one can have it all. That includes men as well.

Neither can I ever remember being told that I could have it all. :unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither can I ever remember being told that I could have it all. :unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure:

Some of the men on this forum seem to think that a woman should stay home with the kids, take care of them (both the kids and hubby). Then should something go wrong, because he is the one who 'worked' he should get everything, it's his money.

I have been a stay at home mom for 12 years. We were married for 5 yeras before we had any kids. I worked all 5 of those years, and for 4 of them, I made more money than he did. However should things go wrong, the only job I could get today would be at Walmart. We made the decision together for me to stay at home, and none of our 3 kids were a um...suprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beauty, Intelligence & Heart ....... You are right - I've never met a women who had them all !! :D

How would you know? Are you worth a women showing those three attributes to you? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the men on this forum seem to think that a woman should stay home with the kids, take care of them (both the kids and hubby). Then should something go wrong, because he is the one who 'worked' he should get everything, it's his money.

As it happens I was given back my copy of Susan Faludi's early 90's book 'Backlash' only a week ago, and re-read the first couple of chapters.

Some of the posts here (including Amanda Platell's lament) could have been lifted from that book word for word. The more things change . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the men on this forum seem to think that a woman should stay home with the kids, take care of them (both the kids and hubby). Then should something go wrong, because he is the one who 'worked' he should get everything, it's his money.

I have been a stay at home mom for 12 years. We were married for 5 yeras before we had any kids. I worked all 5 of those years, and for 4 of them, I made more money than he did. However should things go wrong, the only job I could get today would be at Walmart. We made the decision together for me to stay at home, and none of our 3 kids were a um...suprise.

I see the current situationsomething like this.

Many men are unable/unwilling to accept that 'increased earning power' is a shared marital asset which, since a 'clean break' divorce where partners' finances are severed completely is what most divorcing couples want want, must be valued and the partner who keeps it must either continue to share it (ALIMONY) OR 'buy out' the other partners rightful share (SETTLEMENT). DrBubbs frequent moan of 'she gets to keep the house He gets to keep the debt' is an example of this perceived unfairness. He has never given the whole picture of his divorce and it is likely that in fact his divorce was fair and while she kept the house, he kept his pension. DrBubb is a textbook mysogynist whose paranoia is a result of his

subconscious fear that if women are ever freed from their restrictions, women will become men's master. He is a throwback from Victorian times when women were more or less a 'chattel' in marriage and as such his arguments in the area of gender cannot be taken seriously (although he has sound knowledge and good advice to offer on other subjects which are not gender-related)

While men hold the perception that women are unfairly 'favoured' in divorce (due to the above issue) they will tend to avoid marriage.

This is ok except when it comes to children. Your case is fairly standard - both of you started off with similar earning capacity. You sacrificed yours (present AND future which is a key point) while your husband progressed his career and increased his earning potential. This is fine because divorce laws mean that if you split, you should get half the assets plus EITHER alimony representing your share of his increased earning power (which is an asset built up during the marriage) OR a settlement representing a one off payment to 'buy out' your share of this asset.

The problem is that if a woman like you who began in the situation where her career prospects were similar to her partners as is the case in the majority of young couples had children with her partner without being married to him and lets her career stall or slow down in any way, she is taking an enormous financial risk because her partner can leave her at any time and she will only be entitled to a child support payment. No share of the house unless she can prove she was directly paying a share of the mortgage orher name is on the title. No share of HIS pension which he was able to build up while she looked after THEIR children. No share of HIS increased earning power which was 'invested in' while her earning power was sacrificed, as you say, if you are out of work for some years, except in a few professions you will never be able to catch up, andif you are a single parent - you have no chance.

No intelligent woman with a career will take this risk.

So we have the situation that men won't marry because of their perceived view of the unfairness of divorce.

Intelligent women will only have children with their partner if he either marries them, or they hire full-time nanny care so she can work and progress her career/earning power in the same way he does (extremely expensive and not best for the children but at least the woman keeps her financial autonomy) If they split, she keeps her share of the house, she has her own pension separate from his and whichever parent houses the children gets child-support from the other to cover their share of the costs.

Results:

•Unmarried couples who don't want to have children - fine but be careful - if you are moving in to your partner's house which they own: Don't be cheated into contributing an amount towards the home more than an amount which represents the actual extra expense incurred by your accommodation (eg extra power, council tax) because if your relationship splits you will get nothing while your partner keeps the house you have been paying for. Only pay more if your name is going on the title. It needn't be a 50/50 split. You could workout what share you should be getting taking into account the equity already in the property and this can go on the title eg 30% share.

•Intelligent couples will have fewer children (and this trend is already here) because their male partner is unable or unwilling to recognise and hence won't commit fairly to the joint real financial cost (her lost earning power , her pension deficit, her name on the title deeds) of having children. Intelligent women will only have children unmarried if the couple hire full-time nanny-care (even if this will cost more than she earns) so her career doesn't suffer and even then she will have to suffer our sexist societys condemnation of her for 'farming out' their children (it is always the woman who takes the flack for this).

We have deadlock.

Until it is resolved only intelligent women who are biologically impelled to have a child and are prepared to stand on the edge of a financial precipice (given todays divorce rate) will do so.

And only men who are keen to have children with an intelligent woman will make a proper financial committment to do so. Either because he is intelligent enough to understand the concept of 'increased earning power' being an asset less tangible but just as real as property and pensions. OR because she will refuse to have children on any other terms.

Big problem for our society and probable drop in proportion of taxpayers and national intelligence. We will have to start educating the chavs better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might spice up ye olde debate somewhat.

The lawyer responsible for one of Britain's most influential divorce settlements has told The Independent on Sunday she "would not blame men" for deciding not to marry if a divorce settlement before the House of Lords is not overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the current situationsomething like this.

Many men are unable/unwilling to accept that 'increased earning power' is a shared marital asset which, since a 'clean break' divorce where partners' finances are severed completely is what most divorcing couples want want, must be valued and the partner who keeps it must either continue to share it (ALIMONY) OR 'buy out' the other partners rightful share (SETTLEMENT). DrBubbs frequent moan of 'she gets to keep the house He gets to keep the debt' is an example of this perceived unfairness. He has never given the whole picture of his divorce and it is likely that in fact his divorce was fair and while she kept the house, he kept his pension. DrBubb is a textbook mysogynist whose paranoia is a result of his

subconscious fear that if women are ever freed from their restrictions, women will become men's master. He is a throwback from Victorian times when women were more or less a 'chattel' in marriage and as such his arguments in the area of gender cannot be taken seriously (although he has sound knowledge and good advice to offer on other subjects which are not gender-related)

While men hold the perception that women are unfairly 'favoured' in divorce (due to the above issue) they will tend to avoid marriage.

This is ok except when it comes to children. Your case is fairly standard - both of you started off with similar earning capacity. You sacrificed yours (present AND future which is a key point) while your husband progressed his career and increased his earning potential. This is fine because divorce laws mean that if you split, you should get half the assets plus EITHER alimony representing your share of his increased earning power (which is an asset built up during the marriage) OR a settlement representing a one off payment to 'buy out' your share of this asset.

The problem is that if a woman like you who began in the situation where her career prospects were similar to her partners as is the case in the majority of young couples had children with her partner without being married to him and lets her career stall or slow down in any way, she is taking an enormous financial risk because her partner can leave her at any time and she will only be entitled to a child support payment. No share of the house unless she can prove she was directly paying a share of the mortgage orher name is on the title. No share of HIS pension which he was able to build up while she looked after THEIR children. No share of HIS increased earning power which was 'invested in' while her earning power was sacrificed, as you say, if you are out of work for some years, except in a few professions you will never be able to catch up, andif you are a single parent - you have no chance.

No intelligent woman with a career will take this risk.

So we have the situation that men won't marry because of their perceived view of the unfairness of divorce.

Intelligent women will only have children with their partner if he either marries them, or they hire full-time nanny care so she can work and progress her career/earning power in the same way he does (extremely expensive and not best for the children but at least the woman keeps her financial autonomy) If they split, she keeps her share of the house, she has her own pension separate from his and whichever parent houses the children gets child-support from the other to cover their share of the costs.

Results:

•Unmarried couples who don't want to have children - fine but be careful - if you are moving in to your partner's house which they own: Don't be cheated into contributing an amount towards the home more than an amount which represents the actual extra expense incurred by your accommodation (eg extra power, council tax) because if your relationship splits you will get nothing while your partner keeps the house you have been paying for. Only pay more if your name is going on the title. It needn't be a 50/50 split. You could workout what share you should be getting taking into account the equity already in the property and this can go on the title eg 30% share.

•Intelligent couples will have fewer children (and this trend is already here) because their male partner is unable to recognise and hence won't commit fairly to the joint real financial cost (her lost earning power , her pension deficit, her name on the title deeds) of having children. Intelligent women will only have children unmarried if the couple hire full-time nanny-care so her career doesn't suffer and even then she will have to suffer our sexist societys condemnation of her for 'farming out' their children (it is always the woman who takes the flack for this).

We have deadlock. Until it is resolved only intelligent women who are biologically impelled to have a child and are prepared to stand on the edge of a financial precipice (given todays divorce rate) will do so.

And only men who are keen to have children with an intelligent woman will make a proper financial committment to do so.

Big problem for our society and drop in proportion of taxpayers.

I hope you would include annual inflation into your figures oh and depriciation for physical 'wear and tear'. Maybe a time served pay off too.

We use words like mysogynist and racist too much these days which in itself will take away thier meaning and potency.

I hate the thought of being eaten alive but i dont hate lions. I hate the thought of having everything ive worked for taken away from me but i dont hate women.

If a lion was to bite me i would possibly hate that particular lion but i would hate it because it has bitten me not because it was a lion.

If i had everything i had worked for all my life taken away from me by a woman i would probably hate her, but i would hate her for taking my stuff away not because she was a woman.

Or summin like that.

EDITED:

BTW I do not suffer from Phagophobia (Fear of swallowing or of eating or of being eaten) in any way.

Oh whilst on the subject of phobias Phobophobia still makes me chuckle but how about some of these to...

Phallophobia- Fear of a *****, esp erect. (weird the board blocks out PENlS)

Phronemophobia- Fear of thinking.

Politicophobia- Fear or abnormal dislike of politicians.

Proctophobia- Fear of rectums.

Pteronophobia- Fear of being tickled by feathers.

Sitophobia or Sitiophobia- Fear of food or eating. (Cibophobia)

Xanthophobia- Fear of the color yellow or the word yellow

Oh and of course the fear with loads of letters in it

Sesquipedalophobia- Fear of long words.

If you need a laugh there are hundreds and hundreds of um for your entertainment http://www.phobialist.com/

(just incase phaedrus reads it and kicks my ass )

Oh and one more thing they are not to be laughed at, they are serious issues that some people have and they are an affliction that i can only be grateful not to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the current situationsomething like this.

Many men are unable/unwilling to accept that 'increased earning power' is a shared marital asset which, since a 'clean break' divorce where partners' finances are severed completely is what most divorcing couples want want, must be valued and the partner who keeps it must either continue to share it (ALIMONY) OR 'buy out' the other partners rightful share (SETTLEMENT). DrBubbs frequent moan of 'she gets to keep the house He gets to keep the debt' is an example of this perceived unfairness. He has never given the whole picture of his divorce and it is likely that in fact his divorce was fair and while she kept the house, he kept his pension. DrBubb is a textbook mysogynist whose paranoia is a result of his

subconscious fear that if women are ever freed from their restrictions, women will become men's master. He is a throwback from Victorian times when women were more or less a 'chattel' in marriage and as such his arguments in the area of gender cannot be taken seriously (although he has sound knowledge and good advice to offer on other subjects which are not gender-related)

While men hold the perception that women are unfairly 'favoured' in divorce (due to the above issue) they will tend to avoid marriage.

This is ok except when it comes to children. Your case is fairly standard - both of you started off with similar earning capacity. You sacrificed yours (present AND future which is a key point) while your husband progressed his career and increased his earning potential. This is fine because divorce laws mean that if you split, you should get half the assets plus EITHER alimony representing your share of his increased earning power (which is an asset built up during the marriage) OR a settlement representing a one off payment to 'buy out' your share of this asset.

The problem is that if a woman like you who began in the situation where her career prospects were similar to her partners as is the case in the majority of young couples had children with her partner without being married to him and lets her career stall or slow down in any way, she is taking an enormous financial risk because her partner can leave her at any time and she will only be entitled to a child support payment. No share of the house unless she can prove she was directly paying a share of the mortgage orher name is on the title. No share of HIS pension which he was able to build up while she looked after THEIR children. No share of HIS increased earning power which was 'invested in' while her earning power was sacrificed, as you say, if you are out of work for some years, except in a few professions you will never be able to catch up, andif you are a single parent - you have no chance.

No intelligent woman with a career will take this risk.

So we have the situation that men won't marry because of their perceived view of the unfairness of divorce.

Intelligent women will only have children with their partner if he either marries them, or they hire full-time nanny care so she can work and progress her career/earning power in the same way he does (extremely expensive and not best for the children but at least the woman keeps her financial autonomy) If they split, she keeps her share of the house, she has her own pension separate from his and whichever parent houses the children gets child-support from the other to cover their share of the costs.

Results:

•Unmarried couples who don't want to have children - fine but be careful - if you are moving in to your partner's house which they own: Don't be cheated into contributing an amount towards the home more than an amount which represents the actual extra expense incurred by your accommodation (eg extra power, council tax) because if your relationship splits you will get nothing while your partner keeps the house you have been paying for. Only pay more if your name is going on the title. It needn't be a 50/50 split. You could workout what share you should be getting taking into account the equity already in the property and this can go on the title eg 30% share.

•Intelligent couples will have fewer children (and this trend is already here) because their male partner is unable or unwilling to recognise and hence won't commit fairly to the joint real financial cost (her lost earning power , her pension deficit, her name on the title deeds) of having children. Intelligent women will only have children unmarried if the couple hire full-time nanny-care (even if this will cost more than she earns) so her career doesn't suffer and even then she will have to suffer our sexist societys condemnation of her for 'farming out' their children (it is always the woman who takes the flack for this).

We have deadlock.

Until it is resolved only intelligent women who are biologically impelled to have a child and are prepared to stand on the edge of a financial precipice (given todays divorce rate) will do so.

And only men who are keen to have children with an intelligent woman will make a proper financial committment to do so. Either because he is intelligent enough to understand the concept of 'increased earning power' being an asset less tangible but just as real as property and pensions. OR because she will refuse to have children on any other terms.

Big problem for our society and probable drop in proportion of taxpayers and national intelligence. We will have to start educating the chavs better

Hmmm, let me see. So women are still able to give up all financial and emotional responsibility for a child, yet a man cannot ever do this legally.

The whole divorce settlement thing puzzles me as well. Are we to assume that the cheating wife is entitled to a share of her wronged husband's future earnings and pension, depsite the fact she has now married his boss? How is she losing out financially exactly? This settlement arguement only seems to work if you assume that people will not enter another relationship. Just how realistic is that?

It's a thought provoking post miro2021, but I think still a little simplistic and, dare I say it, man-bashing.

My take on it all is that people in general need to re-evaluate their expectations in life and focus on what is really important. Perhaps a recession will be the answer.

NDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, let me see. So women are still able to give up all financial and emotional responsibility for a child, yet a man cannot ever do this legally.

The whole divorce settlement thing puzzles me as well. Are we to assume that the cheating wife is entitled to a share of her wronged husband's future earnings and pension, depsite the fact she has now married his boss? How is she losing out financially exactly? This settlement arguement only seems to work if you assume that people will not enter another relationship. Just how realistic is that?

It's a thought provoking post miro2021, but I think still a little simplistic and, dare I say it, man-bashing.

My take on it all is that people in general need to re-evaluate their expectations in life and focus on what is really important. Perhaps a recession will be the answer.

NDL

Now your talking mate :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why anyone would want to spice up or stir up the battle of the sexes debate, it is a debate that always gets very heated on HPC anyway.

I would like to ask a question of the men on this forum who don't yet have children.

Quite simply, do you intend to have children and if so at what age (all being well) do you envisage this happening?

Just interested because a colleague at work has expressed concern that their sons and their friends all seem to have decided never to have children because they are 'hassle'.

Both they and I would like to know if this is a growing way of thinking amongst men or whether it is just the talk of young men who are only just starting to enjoy their independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why anyone would want to spice up or stir up the battle of the sexes debate, it is a debate that always gets very heated on HPC anyway.

I would like to ask a question of the men on this forum who don't yet have children.

Quite simply, do you intend to have children and if so at what age (all being well) do you envisage this happening?

Just interested because a colleague at work has expressed concern that their sons and their friends all seem to have decided never to have children because they are 'hassle'.

Both they and I would like to know if this is a growing way of thinking amongst men or whether it is just the talk of young men who are only just starting to enjoy their independence.

Im 27 and dont have any kids.

I dont want children at this point in time and for the forseeable future i dont want them if ever, i have no compulsion to spawn so im indiffernt about it which to me says i shouldn't have kids if i think/feel that way.

At this point in time they are an unneeded hassle, they cost alot and take away your freedom.

BUT

That being said i know that all the things that you have to sacrafice are well worth it when you become a parent. All my close friends have had a few kids and they obviously wouldnt have it any other way. If i met a woman who i loved then my thoughts on it may change, infact i would imagine that my thoughts would change. I think for men the compulsion isnt there because there is (to my knowledge) no biological constraint/timelimit on when they can be a father. If a man was told he couldn't have kids after a certain age then chances are more men would feel compelled to.

I know it must be a bit of a slap in the face for some guys/women who really want children but biologically cant but on the same note i can make no apology for it.

Anyways you really wouldnt want a little version of me running about now would ya :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We use words like mysogynist and racist too much these days which in itself will take away thier meaning and potency.

I hate the thought of being eaten alive but i dont hate lions. I hate the thought of having everything ive worked for taken away from me but i dont hate women.

If a lion was to bite me i would possibly hate that particular lion but i would hate it because it has bitten me not because it was a lion.

If i had everything i had worked for all my life taken away from me by a woman i would probably hate her, but i would hate her for taking my stuff away not because she was a woman.

Or summin like that.

In the post you were replying to I said DrBubb is a textbook mysogynist. He has made numerous derogatory comments about women to support my claim.

Other than that I said men seemed unable or unwilling to accept 'increased earning power' as a marital asset. I did not say they were mysogynists.

Your metaphors show you are no mysogynist, but your implication that a woman would be able to 'take away everything you had worked for all your life' is false. She would be entitled to take only a 50/50 share of equity/assets built up DURING YOUR MARRIAGE plus (and ONLY AFTER A LONG MARRIAGE) a share (and not likely even a half share) of your 'increased earning power' built during the marriage.

You are not a mysogynist but you seem unable/unwilling to understand divorce laws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite simply, do you intend to have children and if so at what age (all being well) do you envisage this happening?

Not unless the mother was someone I totally trusted. I pretty much trust my girlfriend not to run off with the kids and most of my money, but she isn't that worried about having any either.

Just ain't worth the risk otherwise.

No intelligent woman with a career will take this risk.

Then they'd better be happy spending most of their lives living alone in a house full of cats. Because unless the divorce laws are made equitable, they'll be damn lucky to find a husband with any brains or self-respect.

Intelligent couples will have fewer children (and this trend is already here) because their male partner is unable to recognise and hence won't commit fairly to the joint real financial cost (her lost earning power , her pension deficit, her name on the title deeds) of having children.

LOL. If women stopped looking at marriage as a pure business arrangement and started looking at it as a way to have kids and bring them up in a stable environment, they'd have a much easier life.

She would be entitled to take only a 50/50 share of equity/assets built up DURING YOUR MARRIAGE plus (and ONLY AFTER A LONG MARRIAGE) a share (and not likely even a half share) of your 'increased earning power' built during the marriage.

Why would any self-respecting man enter into such an agreement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why anyone would want to spice up or stir up the battle of the sexes debate, it is a debate that always gets very heated on HPC anyway.

I would like to ask a question of the men on this forum who don't yet have children.

Quite simply, do you intend to have children and if so at what age (all being well) do you envisage this happening?

Just interested because a colleague at work has expressed concern that their sons and their friends all seem to have decided never to have children because they are 'hassle'.

Both they and I would like to know if this is a growing way of thinking amongst men or whether it is just the talk of young men who are only just starting to enjoy their independence.

I really don't think this is a growing way of thinking. What may be a growing way of thinking, is young men seeking foreign women.

Through friends, I know of a couple of guys who have married east european women. Just in case you think it, these women haven't married into money, no way!

What I found concerning was that the local girls (for want of a better expression) found it amazing that these girls could make their own clothes and put the hair up for the wedding etc and that it looked really good. I was just standing there thinking "So why do think he is marrying her?"

Back to the question, I suspect these "sons and friends" have been asked why they aren't out there getting married and having kids. The easiest answer which won't cause offence is "Too much hassle", this is then being taken at face value, when it's any number of other reasons.

NDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just standing there thinking "So why do think he is marrying her?"

LOL, exactly. Men don't have to put up with obnoxious women who are more concerned about divorce laws than having a decent marriage: they can find nice women elsewhere. Western women don't have the same choice, because few of them are offering much that men want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with LeChuz on this one, and although I am slightly older at 32 I am free from any sort of biological timebomb to reproduce. How about throwing the question open to the HPC girlies too? How old are they and do they want children? What lengths would you go to have children if you had not met nor married your ideal man? Also do you have any comments with regards to the independent article 'not blaming men if they didnt get married'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the post you were replying to I said DrBubb is a textbook mysogynist. He has made numerous derogatory comments about women to support my claim.

Other than that I said men seemed unable or unwilling to accept 'increased earning power' as a marital asset. I did not say they were mysogynists.

Your metaphors show you are no mysogynist, but your implication that a woman would be able to 'take away everything you had worked for all your life' is false. She would be entitled to take only a 50/50 share of equity/assets built up DURING YOUR MARRIAGE plus (and ONLY AFTER A LONG MARRIAGE) a share (and not likely even a half share) of your 'increased earning power' built during the marriage.

You are not a mysogynist but you seem unable/unwilling to understand divorce laws

was just chuckin in my 2p's worth gov, i personally dont think that a woman could take away everything ive worked for - id have the b*tch shot before then.

pssst im joking :) umm do i click 'Add Reply' or do i change what ive put....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.