Equality between genders
-
Originally posted by walesa:
'Cause you must show you are a "gentleman" so you must pay for me. you must show you are a "gentleman" by taking the drinks for me. Everything I ask you to do you must obey because that's what a gentleman is supposed to be. ...somehow the meaning of gentleman has been twisted for those who benefit them.
I'm not saying every woman in Singapore doesn't know how to exhibit responsible social etiquette, but just a substantial number (at least, compared with those from other countries I've been resided in) who do not know how to conduct themselves like a lady. The irony in this is they expect their beaus(or those courting them) to exhibit chivalry of the highest order(some are ridiculous to the point that even if you asked them out as colleagues after work, they'd actually expect you to pay). I'd liken this example to someone who can't pass his PSLE but [b]expects to get admitted to Harvard. It's got something to do with the culture as much as anything...[/b]
I get your point. Some girls are nice and reasonable though but it's the above you will be avoiding...lol..
doko -
You are thinking too far out. Right now, TS is only a student, that makes his gf a student too. Do you seriously think that a student plan things so far out for example, marriage? If a student are materialistic now, chances are not because of the marriage part but some other reasons.Originally posted by jojobeach:Have you wondered why some girls are materialistic ?
Do you think perhaps it is part of survival that women wants to be materialistic ?
Women prefers men who can provide for the family if they have a choice.
Think about this, you are pit poor. You married a wife.
Both of you have to work to pay for expenses and mortage etc.
Your wife gets pregnant.
You cannot afford to keep the child if she don't work and help bring home the dough.
Now, what would you do ?? Abort the child ? Keep the child?
Keep the child but wife have to work.
Your child becomes another latch key baby.
Don't you think it's sad ???
Male and females have specific roles in the society purely because of their physical abilities.
Unless you decides not to have children, then become DINKS.
So good lor, in the end maybe year 3000 what will become of human??
That's why if a man can provide material needs to the woman, it would meet one of the essential needs to start a family.
Even in the animal world, the females mates with males who had to win the fight with other competing males. Why ???
Human are still animals in every sense.
You mentioned 'Women prefers men who can provide for the family if they have a choice.' So are you u telling me that those who married to man that are poor is because they do not have any choices left and not because they love their man? Now I think that's bullsh!t, would you still stay close to that man if you do not like that man? What's more, a poor man? Are the sentence you mentioned earlier refering to yourself?
You also mentioned 'Unless you decides not to have children, then become DINKS.
So good lor, in the end maybe year 3000 what will become of human??'.
If you are seriously worried about that, I say forget it. Let me give you something even better to worry about - global warming. Why not get your ass away from the computer now and start helping out the communities regarding global warming because I doubt human will survive that long with the current issues happening around the world.
You said 'That's why if a man can provide material needs to the woman, it would meet one of the essential needs to start a family.' Let me remind you something, not all people who are married wants to start a family. Look at Singapore as an example, low birth rate because people don't want to have kids.
'Even in the animal world, the females mates with males who had to win the fight with other competing males.'
Yes yes, and the females mates with the males, who had won the fight, is not because of the money.
'Human are still animals in every sense.'
And we, humans, have brain to think.
Lastly, quit sounding like woman is superior and are always right and man are pathetic or something along the line. -
this gender debate will never end
one thing is for sure, women, especially the pretty ones have the advantage of choosing who she wants to be with and she will not make the initial approach.
This is something all guys have to accept because guys by default make the first move. And we run the risk of being rejected. In this game of courtship, women have the advantage in this sense.
doko -
Would you tell your daughter to go marry a loser ?Originally posted by furb:You are thinking too far out. Right now, TS is only a student, that makes his gf a student too. Do you seriously think that a student plan things so far out for example, marriage? If a student are materialistic now, chances are not because of the marriage part but some other reasons.
You mentioned 'Women prefers men who can provide for the family if they have a choice.' So are you u telling me that those who married to man that are poor is because they do not have any choices left and not because they love their man? Now I think that's bullsh!t, would you still stay close to that man if you do not like that man? What's more, a poor man? Are the sentence you mentioned earlier refering to yourself?
You also mentioned 'Unless you decides not to have children, then become DINKS.
So good lor, in the end maybe year 3000 what will become of human??'.
If you are seriously worried about that, I say forget it. Let me give you something even better to worry about - global warming. Why not get your ass away from the computer now and start helping out the communities regarding global warming because I doubt human will survive that long with the current issues happening around the world.
You said 'That's why if a man can provide material needs to the woman, it would meet one of the essential needs to start a family.' Let me remind you something, not all people who are married wants to start a family. Look at Singapore as an example, low birth rate because people don't want to have kids.
'Even in the animal world, the females mates with males who had to win the fight with other competing males.'
Yes yes, and the females mates with the males, who had won the fight, is not because of the money.
'Human are still animals in every sense.'
And we, humans, have brain to think.
Lastly, quit sounding like woman is superior and are always right and man are pathetic or something along the line.
Students , true. she may be young, but her parents may have already instilled in her head that she should avoid losers so she will not suffer.
Which parent will not want their daughters to avoid losers ?
Which parent will happily let a loser date their daughter ?
On top of parental influence, there is also peer pressure.
All woman are vain, to a certain extent.
If given a choice, which woman don't want to have a bf or spouse they can be proud of ???
Yes we have brains to think, but we still behave like animals. -
So am I rite to say that we should tell our kids to find someone rich and handsome to marry instead of a loser?Originally posted by jojobeach:Would you tell your daughter to go marry a loser ?
Students , true. she may be young, but her parents may have already instilled in her head that she should avoid losers so she will not suffer.
Which parent will not want their daughters to avoid losers ?
Which parent will happily let a loser date their daughter ?
On top of parental influence, there is also peer pressure.
All woman are vain, to a certain extent.
If given a choice, which woman don't want to have a bf or spouse they can be proud of ???
Yes we have brains to think, but we still behave like animals. -
strangely, in today's dog eat dog rat race world, someone who differs and allows another to gain an unfair advantage because he doesn't want to be unethical would be deemed a loser...
a person who lives his life simply, without pandering to material wealth.. is also called a loser by many...
while a plunderer who will not hesitate to destroy the planet for personal monetary gain will be called "rich"
so.. what is your definition?Originally posted by zeny:So am I rite to say that we should tell our kids to find someone rich and handsome to marry instead of a loser? -
So a woman should find someone who can provide material needs to the woman, it would meet one of the essential needs to start a family.Originally posted by jojobeach:Have you wondered why some girls are materialistic ?
Do you think perhaps it is part of survival that women wants to be materialistic ?
Women prefers men who can provide for the family if they have a choice.
Think about this, you are pit poor. You married a wife.
Both of you have to work to pay for expenses and mortage etc.
Your wife gets pregnant.
You cannot afford to keep the child if she don't work and help bring home the dough.
Now, what would you do ?? Abort the child ? Keep the child?
Keep the child but wife have to work.
Your child becomes another latch key baby.
Don't you think it's sad ???
Male and females have specific roles in the society purely because of their physical abilities.
Unless you decides not to have children, then become DINKS.
So good lor, in the end maybe year 3000 what will become of human??
That's why if a man can provide material needs to the woman, it would meet one of the essential needs to start a family.
Even in the animal world, the females mates with males who had to win the fight with other competing males. Why ???
Human are still animals in every sense.
Thats what the above statement is trying to say rite?
I totally agree with it.
I am not contesting it in anyway.
So my next question is should the woman married a guy becos he is rich enough to support her but she does not love him? -
yeah thats the question I am asking out to jojobeach.. How do you define a loser?Originally posted by the Bear:strangely, in today's dog eat dog rat race world, someone who differs and allows another to gain an unfair advantage because he doesn't want to be unethical would be deemed a loser...
a person who lives his life simply, without pandering to material wealth.. is also called a loser by many...
while a plunderer who will not hesitate to destroy the planet for personal monetary gain will be called "rich"
so.. what is your definition? -
Zeny,Originally posted by zeny:So am I rite to say that we should tell our kids to find someone rich and handsome to marry instead of a loser?
I do not know if you are a guy or a gal.
But me, a gal.
At first ,my parents has always disapprove/approve of guys which they deem unsuitable, mostly based on their educational qualifications. Or commonly known as CEP in our civil service.
Then they disapprove of guys who comes from poor family, especially the only sons. Because they believe I will suffer since this guy will need to support not only his own wife/children he also needs to support his age old parents.
Soon as I grow older, they dissapprove/approve guys based on his income level. Because they want to make sure the guy is financially able to ensure I will live a comfortable life.
I used to date a poor guy, nice and honest. But my parents refused to accept this , the question they ask is. What is he gonna feed you ? Grass ?? Love can survive on wind and air. But marriage cannot.
I know my parents love me and wants the best for me.
What do you think ? If you have a daughter, would you prefer she marries her handsome prince charming ? or a Rich baron ?
Personally. I would prefer a combination of both.
-
i pity you..
and people like you -
So in the end you married a rich guy ?Originally posted by jojobeach:Zeny,
I do not know if you are a guy or a gal.
But me, a gal.
At first ,my parents has always disapprove/approve of guys which they deem unsuitable, mostly based on their educational qualifications. Or commonly known as CEP in our civil service.
Then they disapprove of guys who comes from poor family, especially the only sons. Because they believe I will suffer since this guy will need to support not only his own wife/children he also needs to support his age old parents.
Soon as I grow older, they dissapprove/approve guys based on his income level. Because they want to make sure the guy is financially able to ensure I will live a comfortable life.
I used to date a poor guy, nice and honest. But my parents refused to accept this , the question they ask is. What is he gonna feed you ? Grass ?? Love can survive on wind and air. But marriage cannot.
I know my parents love me and wants the best for me.
What do you think ? If you have a daughter, would you prefer she marries her handsome prince charming ? or a Rich baron ?
Personally. I would prefer a combination of both.
Not sure just asking.
Will you prefer to marry someone you love? -
Originally posted by the Bear:i pity you..
and people like you
wow
is deep. -
why?
think about it..
marriage for material wealth rather than love..
it's just trade.. and you know those who trade themselves in for material things...
they are to be pitied..Originally posted by zeny:
wow
is deep. -
agreeOriginally posted by the Bear:why?
think about it..
marriage for material wealth rather than love..
it's just trade.. and you know those who trade themselves in for material things...
they are to be pitied..
they should sign on a trade agreement instead of a marriage cert. -
At first I was afraid this topic might be either senseless male-bashing or senseless female-bashing. Then I realise, it's more of money issue. Now it has become a topic about choice of life partner. Anyway, no comments about the life partner issue or the money issue.
-
It is a realistic world. We are bound by the rules of the world. Status, fame, wealth, power, etc, etc. The very things that make others envious, but in the end they can be taken away and lost in a split second.Originally posted by the Bear:why?
think about it..
marriage for material wealth rather than love..
it's just trade.. and you know those who trade themselves in for material things...
they are to be pitied..
Fleeting 'accessories'.
Who wants to marry a poor guy who can't make the ends meet? Who wants to be with someone who is not financially sound? Won't you have to worry about 3 meals a day and a roof over your head? Let alone have spare change for luxury items?
When our internal survival mindset is based on the rules of the world, we will find someone who can provide well and ensure stability, materialistically. We will focus more on all these stuffs and observe less of other things BECAUSE nothing of this world is for certain. We fear instability, we lack faith, we do not even know our own footing on 'the ground'.
So for guys/gals/others who know and would like to be with such people who is so obsessed with material 'security', I have a cruel comment for you: You are better off without them. Emptiness in their hearts, fears, insecurities, obsessions, etc, etc.
In the end when we are all old and about to leave this world, WHAT can we take with us on the way? Money? Power? Status? Fame? What we can take is ourselves only. Our personality, behaviour, manner of speech and thoughts and some others.
Ya sure, without financial security, how to survive? Its something we are bound and trapped in. Can't be helped. Have to make a living, make ends meet.
What we can do with our lives, however, is something that is up to us. We may not be able to control the results, but at least we can control our actions.
(Paiseh abit off track, but I do NOT wanna comment on gender issues. Neverending story...)
-
well saidOriginally posted by walesa:This doesn't really address couples in a relationship, but those who are still in the courting process.
The challenge is really to seperate the worthy ones from those who are just out for a free lunch. In many parts of the world, women wouldn't even accept - much less expect - freebies on a regular basis from men with whom they do not envisage a romantic future. In such cultures, if a man offered to buy a woman dinner and she accepts the offer, it's a cue in itself for the man to proceed further. Ironically, in Singapore, I've seen quite a number of cases whereby women would have no qualms accepting freebies repeatedly (on the pretext of claiming the offers are made to them) from men whom they themselves do not fancy, sending out the wrong signals to such men, only to lament about the overzealousness of such men who interpret such acts as a cue to proceed further. Talk about social etiquette.
It's hard justifying a case to shower excessive chivalry on people who do not exercise social etiquette responsibly... -
i wish to say that the word "realistic" is wrong..
the word that should be used is "cynical" -
I guess we should all strike a balance here ba..
oh anyway i won't be a student in say 10 days time haha last semester in uni le..
dunno to be happy or sad.. oh well aniwae back to the point
i doon't know abt u guys.. but then i see materialistic, i would see it as the person trying to have things tat are not neceesary. such as, branded clothes. $200 for a tee shirt? along tat line.
we cannot deny, because we liev in a world tat's runs on $$ .. having a substantial amount of $$ is essential to our survival in society..
but i dun think any of use just wan to survive rite? so perhaps well to do would be good.
I think that perhaps this should eb a point when looking for alife long partner.. a partner who loves u yes definitely, but if he can't even support himself.. being together might be a disasater..
it shouldn't be too extreme on either end... ie to say, a very rich fella but character CMI and doesn't love you, or he loves u so badly but can't even support himself.
my bottom line is .. i guess how he's going to and how well he's going to support both parties should also be an aspect to consider when considering marriage ba..
yea i noe sounds a bit like contract terms.. cannot believe even choosing lifelong partner have to do until like a cost benefit analysis.. but i guess can't be avoided..
i just noticed i said how he's gg to support.. oh well guess the mindset of the guy being the provider for the family is also quite deeply instill in me.
but like many you guys have said. females nowadays are mostly earning an income. thus i believe supporting the family should be a duty both parties shoudl fulfil and not just the husband. -
Yeah exactly...now that women have their own ability to earn, it's actually very disappointing (and sad, to add) to hear a local woman say marrying a rich man is associated with winning (with hopes of leeching him) under the pretext of getting a good provider. So the honest, hardworking guys are always the losers huh?Originally posted by ahhaoz:I guess we should all strike a balance here ba..
oh anyway i won't be a student in say 10 days time haha last semester in uni le..
dunno to be happy or sad.. oh well aniwae back to the point
i doon't know abt u guys.. but then i see materialistic, i would see it as the person trying to have things tat are not neceesary. such as, branded clothes. $200 for a tee shirt? along tat line.
we cannot deny, because we liev in a world tat's runs on $$ .. having a substantial amount of $$ is essential to our survival in society..
but i dun think any of use just wan to survive rite? so perhaps well to do would be good.
I think that perhaps this should eb a point when looking for alife long partner.. a partner who loves u yes definitely, but if he can't even support himself.. being together might be a disasater..
it shouldn't be too extreme on either end... ie to say, a very rich fella but character CMI and doesn't love you, or he loves u so badly but can't even support himself.
my bottom line is .. i guess how he's going to and how well he's going to support both parties should also be an aspect to consider when considering marriage ba..
yea i noe sounds a bit like contract terms.. cannot believe even choosing lifelong partner have to do until like a cost benefit analysis.. but i guess can't be avoided..
i just noticed i said how he's gg to support.. oh well guess the mindset of the guy being the provider for the family is also quite deeply instill in me.
but like many you guys have said. females nowadays are mostly earning an income. thus i believe supporting the family should be a duty both parties shoudl fulfil and not just the husband.
Shouldn't marriage be the result of love/attraction between men and women and they come and work as a team for the family? Sure, it's not easy building a family so women like jojobeach likes to take the easy way out. I have to thank jojobeach for confirming my belief that women like her are looking for the easy way out, ie, there are women who marry rich men but they don't love their husband. (maybe they have a secret lover outside?) Such women should not even be dated by any guy.
Then maybe when the marriage crumbles, such women stand to gain (you know the law here protect women more than men). That is, if the guy has a lot of loose change and can afford divorce after divorce, marrying a woman whose heart is not with him.
A friend of mine commented that a woman's purpose in the workplace is to gain the opportunity to hook up with the boss, apart from earning income for herself. To be fair, maybe not all are like that. I certainly hope so. This is not bashing the fairer sex but to let guys be aware of materialistic/mercenary women so you know you don't marry the wrong one.
doko -
Ok to tell you the truth, If I ever had children, of course I would want them to be happy and if possible, I want them to be worry-free when comes to money issue. However, I would only tell them this when they grow up to be a adult.Originally posted by jojobeach:Would you tell your daughter to go marry a loser ?
Students , true. she may be young, but her parents may have already instilled in her head that she should avoid losers so she will not suffer.
Which parent will not want their daughters to avoid losers ?
Which parent will happily let a loser date their daughter ?
On top of parental influence, there is also peer pressure.
All woman are vain, to a certain extent.
If given a choice, which woman don't want to have a bf or spouse they can be proud of ???
Yes we have brains to think, but we still behave like animals.
No parents, in the right mind, will want their kids, who is still schooling, to date. Do your parents support you having boyfriend during sec sch or during your poly life? Ok during poly, some parents might be fine with their kids dating but during sec sch? I bet majority of the parents would want their kids steer clear from bgr.
If the above is true, do you seriously think parents will instilled in their head that they should avoid losers so she will not suffer? Even if the parents do tell their kids to avoid losers, I doubt they are referring to having a loser as a boyfriend/girlfriend but referring to having losers to be their friends, afraiding it might affect their kids' performance in sch and daily life.
Peer pressure for boyfriend/girlfriend? How about peer pressure for branded items and smoking and stuffs related which is more likely?
Yes yes, all woman want to have a bf or spouse they can be proud of but when a women chosen a guy as their spouse, aren't they proud of them already, regardless is it status or personality. If not, why do they even choose them in the first place? If you are going to say they don't have a choice, I say that's bull. Why? Like I mentioned earlier, if a women and a guy are not attracted to each other in some ways, do you seriously think they would be together? Even if they are together, they would fall out before they would even think of getting married.
Yup some humans do behave like animals, but sadly, they are locked up in Changi zoo (for Singapore) and are allowed to be visited by those with humanly soul. -
Hmm, may I ask you?Originally posted by jojobeach:Zeny,
I do not know if you are a guy or a gal.
But me, a gal.
At first ,my parents has always disapprove/approve of guys which they deem unsuitable, mostly based on their educational qualifications. Or commonly known as CEP in our civil service.
Then they disapprove of guys who comes from poor family, especially the only sons. Because they believe I will suffer since this guy will need to support not only his own wife/children he also needs to support his age old parents.
Soon as I grow older, they dissapprove/approve guys based on his income level. Because they want to make sure the guy is financially able to ensure I will live a comfortable life.
I used to date a poor guy, nice and honest. But my parents refused to accept this , the question they ask is. What is he gonna feed you ? Grass ?? Love can survive on wind and air. But marriage cannot.
I know my parents love me and wants the best for me.
What do you think ? If you have a daughter, would you prefer she marries her handsome prince charming ? or a Rich baron ?
Personally. I would prefer a combination of both.
Ok so you insisted in saying that all women will choose some rich guys if they have a choice. My question is is your father rich? If not, why did your mother choose your dad? Is it because of love or because of no choice left for her? I may sound rude but this is the most direct way of showing you some things.
You do not really have to answer my questions but just think it in your heart. Would you rather think it is because of love or because your mother do not have a choice left.
About you wanting a combination of both, I say happy waiting but just don't go marry someone you don't love because you are getting old and have no choice left, life ain't that smooth my girl.
-
hi
-
Which dad ?Originally posted by furb:Hmm, may I ask you?
Ok so you insisted in saying that all women will choose some rich guys if they have a choice. My question is is your father rich? If not, why did your mother choose your dad? Is it because of love or because of no choice left for her? I may sound rude but this is the most direct way of showing you some things.
You do not really have to answer my questions but just think it in your heart. Would you rather think it is because of love or because your mother do not have a choice left.
About you wanting a combination of both, I say happy waiting but just don't go marry someone you don't love because you are getting old and have no choice left, life ain't that smooth my girl.
I have two dads.
The poor dad my mother married out of love , who eventually left us and disspeard before I was born ?
Or the richer dad my mom is married to now, who is younger than she is. -
wahah serious.. ya i agree w u doko. people like this do exist..Originally posted by dokono:Yeah exactly...now that women have their own ability to earn, it's actually very disappointing (and sad, to add) to hear a local woman say marrying a rich man is associated with winning (with hopes of leeching him) under the pretext of getting a good provider. So the honest, hardworking guys are always the losers huh?
Shouldn't marriage be the result of love/attraction between men and women and they come and work as a team for the family? Sure, it's not easy building a family so women like jojobeach likes to take the easy way out. I have to thank jojobeach for confirming my belief that women like her are looking for the easy way out, ie, there are women who marry rich men but they don't love their husband. (maybe they have a secret lover outside?) Such women should not even be dated by any guy.
Then maybe when the marriage crumbles, such women stand to gain (you know the law here protect women more than men). That is, if the guy has a lot of loose change and can afford divorce after divorce, marrying a woman whose heart is not with him.
A friend of mine commented that a woman's purpose in the workplace is to gain the opportunity to hook up with the boss, apart from earning income for herself. To be fair, maybe not all are like that. I certainly hope so. This is not bashing the fairer sex but to let guys be aware of materialistic/mercenary women so you know you don't marry the wrong one.
doko