Best Of

It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.

There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.

However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.

If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?

The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school

Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.

In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.

And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.

It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles

Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue

Or they could cull the likes of you

I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have

Yes having a committed relationship with a woman and the prospect of fatherhood as every generation of men before them has had is something they are no longer entitled to in your view.

Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right

Nobody is "entitled" to a relationship.

If you want a relationship, work on pleasing the other person more than you try to please yourself.

That also requires women to play ball
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11878629/Why-time-ditch-alpha-male-addiction-bag-beta.html

Sorry why should they play ball, they know what they want if men cant meet that then the fault is on the men

So apparently the 90% of men who are not rich and good looking Alpha males have to be lifelong single and celibate because most women are chasing an unattainable for most 10% of men!

That statistic is clearly bollocks. The vast majority of non-alpha* males have long term successful relationships, including both you** and me.

*I don't accept the entire classification. We are not baboons and are social relationships are much more complicated.

** this is a compliment. I have never encountered anyone who self describes as "alpha male" who wasn't an arrogant arsehole.

This is clearly wrong because I’m a self-confessed alpha male, to the extent I am known in my neighbourhood as “THE FALCON”, and the idea I’m arrogant is obvious nonsense

An alpha male by some accounts previously identifying as LadyG.?

I'm not commenting on Ladyboy G .

More generally on alpha males, I think an important point is that "Alpha Males" are not alpha males. They are sad pricks in constant need of reassurance, including from themselves by affected dominance, and behave badly towards others (bullying, deprecation, abuse, sometimes violence) because they are insecure in their own skins.

They have a need to grow up and look in the mirror at what they really are, then they can relax a little and be amenable human beings.

I'll give you my regular spiel on the matter. It goes like this:

* Free speech does not exist, and never has existed
* There is merely things it is fashionable to say, and things which will get you arrested for saying, and the boundary is ever shifting.
* The only task of the statistician is to track it and note the moving boundary.
* As technology has expanded, the opportunity to note speech and arrest people for it has expanded.
* Consequently, free speech has contracted in the UK, and I don't see this stopping.
* I hate this.

If free speech has never existed, then how can it be contracting ?

It's zero. But it's a smaller zero than before. It's a much smaller amount of nothing than the absolutely ginormous nothing it was before.

"The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris, 2003

And he would know better than most.

Projection... the people who talk such twaddle have developed a reflexive contempt. Meanwhile the Lib Dems are getting more done, and expressing more if what the majority of the country believes... the result is a steady increase in poll ratings and a broad range of by election victories across the whole country.
The Lib Dem derangement syndrome, especially from the right is increasingly fun to watch. They simply cannot accept that Ed Davey is not only a serious guy, he also knows what he is doing and where he is going. That is a pretty rare situation in British politics at the moment.