Page 7 of 10 [ 158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Is there a War on Men?
Yes, and it is all Men's fault! 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Yes, and it is all Women's fault! 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Yes, but you ain't seen nuthin' yet! 9%  9%  [ 5 ]
No, but there should be 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
No 21%  21%  [ 12 ]
This is all very silly 45%  45%  [ 25 ]
Just show the results 14%  14%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 56

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Dec 2012, 9:03 am

It looks like Miss Lizard is on our side in the war. :wink:

But, I don't do any of the stereotypically male things, either. I never watch football (or other sports). Plus, I play the violin. And, I go to museums and classical concerts.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

10 Dec 2012, 9:14 am

^^^^^^^The violin,impressive! I know how to make you drool.I have a violin made by Anton Schnaedel in Mittenwald Germany,circa early1800's.
I'm teaching myself,I play the flute so I've no problem reading music.I doubt I can ever do this instrument justice.We found it at a junk store for$ 40.00,in the original case with one of the original bows.WOW!! !!
My daughter gets her tonight,Romantic comedies,YUK.Plus she takes over my tablet.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Dec 2012, 10:07 am

Image



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

10 Dec 2012, 10:15 am

piroflip wrote:
The US government wanted women to stop being women and go out to work.

Why?

So that they could rake in double the amount of tax.

So,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the women fell for the con, burned their bras, went out to work, and 40 years later the government is very happy with how their evil plan came to fruition.

Women's lib was NOTHING to do with freeing women and everything to do with making them tax slaves to the super rich.
You fell for it hook, line, and sinker girls.


Wow I cannot believe what I am reading! You do realize that women with jobs frees men as well? What do you think women should do? Sit around hoping Prince Charming will come along and support them? Well, dude, it doesn't happen. Men don't want to support women. That's life.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Dec 2012, 11:10 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
piroflip wrote:
The US government wanted women to stop being women and go out to work.

Why?

So that they could rake in double the amount of tax.

So,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the women fell for the con, burned their bras, went out to work, and 40 years later the government is very happy with how their evil plan came to fruition.

Women's lib was NOTHING to do with freeing women and everything to do with making them tax slaves to the super rich.
You fell for it hook, line, and sinker girls.


Wow I cannot believe what I am reading! You do realize that women with jobs frees men as well? What do you think women should do? Sit around hoping Prince Charming will come along and support them? Well, dude, it doesn't happen. Men don't want to support women. That's life.


It can be argued that doubling the labour force (through increased female participation) contributed to reduced pay.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

10 Dec 2012, 11:41 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
piroflip wrote:
The US government wanted women to stop being women and go out to work.

Why?

So that they could rake in double the amount of tax.

So,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the women fell for the con, burned their bras, went out to work, and 40 years later the government is very happy with how their evil plan came to fruition.

Women's lib was NOTHING to do with freeing women and everything to do with making them tax slaves to the super rich.
You fell for it hook, line, and sinker girls.


Wow I cannot believe what I am reading! You do realize that women with jobs frees men as well? What do you think women should do? Sit around hoping Prince Charming will come along and support them? Well, dude, it doesn't happen. Men don't want to support women. That's life.


It can be argued that doubling the labour force (through increased female participation) contributed to reduced pay.

If you have a better suggestion, let's hear it! :wink:



Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

10 Dec 2012, 11:43 am

You are free to go home and wait for princess charming. According to you, this will contribute to better payment, so what are you waiting for? :)



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Dec 2012, 11:54 am

This would only work if all women suddenly decided to become housewives.

One person making this decision will have zero effect on the overall economy.

Since we don't anticipate the labour supply to halve itself any time soon, no-one can reasonably expect a return to the good old days.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

10 Dec 2012, 12:02 pm

But it wasn't that great. Men resented having to be the sole provider for a ginormous family. Nothing they could do about it though. Now the woman can go out and work like the man and they both provide for the ginormous family. Sounds fairer for the man, no?



Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

10 Dec 2012, 12:14 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
This would only work if all women suddenly decided to become housewives.

One person making this decision will have zero effect on the overall economy.

Since we don't anticipate the labour supply to halve itself any time soon, no-one can reasonably expect a return to the good old days.


WHY would it only be working if women decided to become housewives? Where is the difference for the economy when a secretary decides to go home, just because one got tits and the other got testicles? ^^

And if one persons has zero effect, then 1.000.000 persons alos wouldnt change anything. 1.000.000 x 0 = 0



Last edited by Schneekugel on 10 Dec 2012, 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Dec 2012, 12:14 pm

I think that a better solution is to reduce the workforce through earlier retirement. Instead, they're talking about raising the retirement age to 70. How is an old guy in his sixties going to compete against a younger and more technologically adept younger person? Industries are going under left and right, so simply staying at a job as overpaid dead weight doesn't seem like it is going to be an option for most.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Dec 2012, 12:16 pm

Schneekugel wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
This would only work if all women suddenly decided to become housewives.

One person making this decision will have zero effect on the overall economy.

Since we don't anticipate the labour supply to halve itself any time soon, no-one can reasonably expect a return to the good old days.


WHY would it only be working if women decided to become housewives? Where is the difference for the economy if a male or a female secretary decides to go home?

And if one persons has zero effect, then 1.000.000 persons alos wouldnt change anything. 1.000.000 x 0 = 0


Well, sure. The men could stay home, while the women go out to work, and we would probably have an even better result. The only historic example we have is of an earlier day when women stayed home and men marched off obediently to work.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

10 Dec 2012, 12:17 pm

Actually the best and most obvious solution is for people to limit the amount of children they produce.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

10 Dec 2012, 12:20 pm

^^^^^^Yes!! !! !



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

10 Dec 2012, 1:08 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Schneekugel wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
This would only work if all women suddenly decided to become housewives.

One person making this decision will have zero effect on the overall economy.

Since we don't anticipate the labour supply to halve itself any time soon, no-one can reasonably expect a return to the good old days.


WHY would it only be working if women decided to become housewives? Where is the difference for the economy if a male or a female secretary decides to go home?

And if one persons has zero effect, then 1.000.000 persons alos wouldnt change anything. 1.000.000 x 0 = 0


Well, sure. The men could stay home, while the women go out to work, and we would probably have an even better result. The only historic example we have is of an earlier day when women stayed home and men marched off obediently to work.


Except some classes of women have always worked, and I don't just mean sex work.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

10 Dec 2012, 3:31 pm

What if it was a 1 child policy where females are desired and not males to be born?


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList