This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - SIAM
I'm a big Will Self fan, but this book is not so sympathetic to Dave. He's seen in a bad light, and the joke is that his diary is seen as that of a deity (when Dave is just a misogynistic taxi driver ha ha ha).
now i rarely go out-costs to much
You need to change your name to indoors!
- it's my opinion that many guys date just for regular sex. In which case, legalised prostitution would mean a WHOLE lot less guys dating.
- some guys date out of peer pressure - their friends have girlfriends and it makes them more "acceptable" and a "man" to have a girlfriend even though they may not really want to - it just makes life easier and more comfortable.
Certainly everyone has their reasons for dating - and it's far from always being the wholesome "romantic" reasons that we pretend exist (for both men and women). In fact, I think the notion of romance is a kind of fairy story that greases the wheels of society. It blinds us from the harsher realities of dating: men like sex, women like security - and both sexes want to go on and procreate, and both sexes want social acceptance through dating. This is the essential reality - although of course you will have "outliers" but the generalisations remain true.
So guys on the rebound is no surprise.
So much sexism spouted when talking about domestic violence. It seems feminism is the last refuge of the sexist as are all these DV "support" groups who only talk of women as victims, men as perpetrators.
DV is real, but its been "cartoonified" for political reasons which means many male DV victims are left exasperated while female perpetrators feel they are above the law.
Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women - even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area - are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.
But if I am to use feminist-logic here for a moment, that would mean that men "in their peer group" are discriminated against! What other reason would one sex be paid less than the other?! Where's the equality, Godammit?!
Or could it be other reasons? You know, reasons that the article actually states? Like these young, childless women tend to be better educated than their male peers? Gosh!! I think I have the answer! It seems that employers are hiring the best people they find for the job!
Here's a cryptic one for any feminist who won't be reading this: do you think it's possible that employers just might want to hire the best people for their company? I mean, I can see their thinking.....those who tend to be discriminated as "better" tend to be more of a benefit to a company.
Also, and this is a bit more of a tricky one...but, if one person works longer hours, has more responsibility, does more dangerous work, do you think that person should be paid more than another person working less hours, has less responsibility and safer work?
I felt stressed watching those - but spot-on commentary, nonetheless.
Here we go again - and again - and again.
If woman had as much testosterone as men, they'd be compelled to do such things too. It's all chemical/biological. Men are fuelled by testosterone. This is why we achieve so much, and we have a much higher suicide rate than women. We're "all or nothing" merchants.
I don't think this is sexist. It's just an expression. "Don't have the cojones", "don't have the balls". Whatever. It's not meant to be taken literally of course (big balls would not really help you be brave). Sorry to sound like the boring guy, but I couldn't give a shit (there you go!) about this kind of language. It's easy to slip into the realm of PC policing language. I'm not a Palin fan by the way, but it's actually REFRESHING to see someone not be so mealy-mouthed like most other politicians. Ever heard Obama "say it as it is"? Nope. He's cowardly and guarded with his words.
I never knew that about Las Vegas. In the UK, prostitutes openly walk around looking for business in well known areas. The police hang around waiting for "johns" to arrest them, but not the prostitutes. It just seems strange if prostitution is illegal, why not arrest those supplying the illegal trade? Cut it off at source. It's almost (well not "almost", ACTUALLY) like the police are acting as some kind of moral authority to men only, not women (you just cannot judge women, men are fair game of course).
It's weird when you compare it to drug dealing where dealers get HEAVILY punished, and users much less so. Total opposite when it comes to prostitution.
I understand things are different depending where you live.
Drug dealers don't have a claim on victim status; prostitutes do.
So a prostitute defines herself as a victim by breaking the law. A drug dealer can't make such a case as to why he or she deals drugs. As I say, there seems to be an inconsistency here with the law.
Just wondering why police don't punish prostitutes for breaking the law, but punish drug dealers for breaking the law?
I'm for legalising prostitution by the way, but as it stands it seems only the customers of prostitutes are charged with breaking the law, but prostitutes aren't.
Compare with drugs: drug dealers face heavier punishments than the people they supply.
There seems to be an inconsistency here.
Well one thing I learned working with the Japanese was that white people are hardly the only racist people in the world.
Many Japanese I spoke to believe the Japanese are a distinct race from Koreans, Chinese, Filippinos (surrounding countries). They don't accept that Japanese are basically descendants from mainland Asia and the pacific islands. They're a mongrel race just like all of us are! Nevermind they use Chinese characters (Kanjii). Not sure why they have to believe they are unique. It's weird for me that you have to believe you're born into the best possible race.
Mr X (and Steven) - so true with Japanese anti-conflict measures. But human nature is the same, even if it's expressed differently. What I mean is: when there's a negative emotion, it has to be expressed somehow. So just as you say - if it can't be done directly (aggressively), it's done in a sneaky way (passive-aggressively). This can make for complex and confusing relationships at work. "shou ga nai" (it can't be helped) and "gambatte" (keep going) are typical expressions.
However, to throw a spanner in the works here. I worked for a company in Tokyo for 18 months. All Japanese (half my time there, I was the only gaijin). Very traditionally setup with a ridiculous hierarchy of management - like 5 levels of management and yet only 60 employees - that kind of thing. But actually, people would blow off steam every now and again. Heated exchanges that would come up out of the blue and end 20 seconds later. Even the aggression couldn't contain itself passively at times. I think that shows that there's only so much passive aggression you can deal with / dish out. After a while, there needs to be a reset button.
wow, I guess japanese culture is drastically different than other oriental cultures
the city I live in has a large vietnamese population and they are VERY family oriented, and the couples dont seem to be distant in that sense
Absolutely (from my experiences of Thailand).