No. We should not be a piggy bank. Rather we should be valued as providers and protectors. That's how it worked from the time the Austropithicus descended from the trees until the mid 1960s. And we need to get back to that, as it is the natural order of male/female relationships. A male seeking or expecting a two income household is a losing proposition for him right from the start.
How do you propose people survive on one income? Neoliberal policies meant manufacturing was exported to the developing world. Encouraging women into the workforce further pushed down wages. Then investment firms and boomers bought up all the houses.
Yeah, see, I can take care of myself. I don't expect anyone else to do it for me. Now, I wouldn't pay HIS way, he'd be responsible for his own bills and if we share a house, bills will also be shared, but all in all, I pay my own way.
Yes I am a conservative libertarian.
That is fine. I didn't say that women couldn't or shouldn't work. I said that men shouldn't seek out or rely upon a 2nd household income.
My issue is domestic violence is too common. But to use the fact that a large portion of women have been victimised by men as some sort of “should have picked me” just disturbs me. Makes me think what would you do to me then? Tie me up? You obviously think its some sort of reward for women to be in relationships without domestic abuse (not you but the nice guys who spout that crap)
That interesting. I'm going to slightly derail this thread (because it's a more interesting subject to me). What's your view of social democratic policies?
I dont agree with it either way, but the fact remains they are trying to extort and exploit women that have been victimised because they are too weak to do it themselves not because any man was “worse” than they are.
My experience has shown me that one income isn't the answer either. The sole income person likes to think they have all the control. It's THEIR money. You can handle the money but in the end it's still theirs.
I wouldn't call myself rich, but I suppose I am "upper middle class" and would have no need for a second income. Hasn't been an issue though because I've been alone my whole life and most likely will be until I'm in the ground or reduced to ashes. Leaning more towards the ashes. Just seems more efficient to me.
Yeah let's not derail, but to answer your question, my political philosophy is pretty much the polar opposite of the social democrats, at least the ones here in the US. From what I know of him, I most certainly would NOT have voted for Trudeau if I were Canadian. Or Macron if I were French.That interesting. I'm going to slightly derail this thread (because it's a more interesting subject to me). What's your view of social democratic policies?
We've been rehashing nice guys bad boys for 5 pages, I could do with a little light discussion. Like...politics
Canada is no longer a real social democracy, not like it used to be. Technically speaking it's always been a constitutional monarchy based in Federalism. Quebec used to be very different in the 80's and 90's but neo-liberal policies aligned it more with the rest of Canada.
So only upper-middle class professionals should have the opportunity to buy a house and raise a family. Social Darwinism, the 'lower classes' don't have kids etc.
Erm...never been married, no children, never had a girlfriend, never been on a free date.
