Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Yes, I'm British. Is that relevant?


Yes, because reading your post was like reading a Daily Mail column. And yes, because you falsely assume that the male-female situation in other countries is anywhere near of what "Nu-Labour" has done to Britain.

And you didn't get my "frankly, my dear I don't give a damn" hint, so you are obviously not from Texas, lol.
As a socia1ist (who despises New Labour as much as Thatcherism) that Daily Mail jibe was so far below the belt, it made my eyes water. Well done, my dear. You are a fine adversary.

I have no trouble about unmarried mothers choosing to live off state benefits rather than be supported by a transient man - after all, they are just doing what natural selection equipped them to do: choose the most reliable provider for them and their offspring. Were I in that position, I'd choose the State over most men (myself included ... I've been unemployed and partly supported by my wife). Any man I chose in preference to the state would have to be quite special.

You're right that I didn't get the Gone with the Wind reference: I still don't.

SCARLETT: But if you go what'll I do?"
RHETT: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"


Scarlett was fickle, not feminist, and Rhett was not chauvinist except in a gentlemanly way.


And you misrepresent me to say I think men and women are enemies. Feminists probably regard men as enemies, not the other way round. I am irritated by feminism, but I am not about to crush it. Most men and women just get on with their lives, and rub along together nicely.

Take away the ability to be a provider, then men have no useful function in society, apart from sex. Charles Kane says sex, as a woman, isn't much fun anyway (I confess that surprised me - perhaps he wasn't a "proper" woman down there). And you have pointed out that sex is possible without men. So, eventually, will be reproduction.

You say men are good cooks. I don't know that for a fact. At least, not that they are better cooks than women are. And ...cooking??? So what? that's just burning food to a greater or lesser degree. Even I can burn toast. Cooking doesn't signify.

If men can't provide, the "Great Sexual Bargain" struck in prehistoric times is finished. Over. Men and women will have to inter-relate in quite different ways. Men will have no right to sex with any woman and must take it where they can. Women will have no right to be supported during pregnancy and motherhood, and must survive on their own, with their children, come what may.

How people choose to negotiate their relationship between their four walls - I couldn't care less
The point I thought you were making was that all men sidelined their women when it came to making decisions.

Men and women are entitled to the same (job) opportunities and may the best candidate win.
Society, on the other hand will be the loser, with disaffected men living on the margins, perhaps in some kind of lawless subculture, or perhaps, just drawing state benefits paid for by working women.