Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Starmer is opposed and will block it apparently
To be fair his house is probably worth more than £2m
And so is his pension fund and it has a law to protect it from any tax rises.
I understand your point but isn’t that standard for former heads of the CPS? I assume it’s a trade off for a lower salary for the day to day but I don’t know.
Well no. Indeed if you go look at the legislation it is specifically called:
"The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013"
He is literally named in the title of the legislation. Not exactly what I would regard as 'standard'.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
Looking and acting like a slob is going to be a real turn-off to women, however good a father you might potentially be.
Some women have unrealistic expectations, but no more than men have.
I met my girlfriend on Hinge and I am certainly not a Love Island adonis.
Yep, both my boys too met their partners on Hinge, together 8 and 2 years now.
Though dating Apps have a conflict of interest. 1 successful match loses 2 customers!
The thing about dating Apps is that actually, they are like the village that HYuFD harks back too - people don’t set their search to global if they actually want to meet someone, they set it to within a sensible radius of where it’s easy, if they like each other, to meet in person, go on dates, make a life together.
All it really does is speed up the searching process.
What happened to traditional ways of meeting a mate, I met the first girl I lived with by landing on her after falling off an upright piano
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
There is no longer just an age divide between conservative and liberal left parties, there is also a gender divide between populist right and 'progressive' parties now amongst younger voters
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
I’m right about everything. The only way we stop this is with actual physical punishment
Arrest, convict, taser them every day for a week. They won’t do it again
Is that why the pain of childbirth deters women from sex? That would explain the population crisis discussed earlier.
The long view of historical geography suggests it’s all to do with the balance between the economic and social costs of having children, and the economic and social benefits therein. In a world where you no longer need children for family labour and they’re unlikely to be the ones looking after you in old age, choosing to have fewer, or none, is a rational choice, given the very significant unit cost. With the earlier declines simply being a delayed adjustment to the ‘insurance children’ mothers had when they couldn’t guarantee survival of the first few into teenage, which led to the population surges Africa has currently, Asia had not so long ago, and Europe had during the agricultural and industrial revolutions.
I met my girlfriend on Hinge and I am certainly not a Love Island adonis.
Yep, both my boys too met their partners on Hinge, together 8 and 2 years now.
Though dating Apps have a conflict of interest. 1 successful match loses 2 customers!
The thing about dating Apps is that actually, they are like the village that HYuFD harks back too - people don’t set their search to global if they actually want to meet someone, they set it to within a sensible radius of where it’s easy, if they like each other, to meet in person, go on dates, make a life together.
All it really does is speed up the searching process.
There's always Speed-Dating in the Australian outback.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Starmer is opposed and will block it apparently
To be fair his house is probably worth more than £2m
And so is his pension fund and it has a law to protect it from any tax rises.
I understand your point but isn’t that standard for former heads of the CPS? I assume it’s a trade off for a lower salary for the day to day but I don’t know.
Well no. Indeed if you go look at the legislation it is specifically called:
"The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013"
He is literally named in the title of the legislation. Not exactly what I would regard as 'standard'.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
It's absolutely infuriating, every single year. They prefer to give tickets to corportate guests, many of whom aren't interested in tennis and spend most of the day in the champagne tent.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
You still haven’t explained what you meant by your words “not entitled to reject”.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Because they would lose loads of seats in London and the south.
Because it’s geographically “unfair”.
Because it would affect loads of Labour politicians and advisors.
Because a lot of people who own a legacy home that valued at £2m don’t have a lot of liquidity for paying extra taxes so they have to sell which could crash the market.
Why £2million and not £1million, is your house conveniently worth under £2million?
All the women are queuing outside the men’s Locker room with their expectations too high of marrying Carlos Alcaraz and all the men are pissed in the bar slurring to each other about why those slags don’t want a piece of them, after all they’re a catch, wearing the latest trainers and a seriously nice car on lease.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
You still haven’t explained what you meant by your words “not entitled to reject”.
I think he has explained his view well....women are allowed lives only as much as it doesn't interfere with them being baby incubators. I think that view should inform you exactly what is meant. I suspect an HYUFD administration would probably introduce a law that all women must be married by 25 or the state would arrange a marriage for them in their first term....has anyone seen HYUFD and Andrew Tate in the same room?
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
You still haven’t explained what you meant by your words “not entitled to reject”.
I think he has explained his view well....women are allowed lives only as much as it doesn't interfere with them being baby incubators. I think that view should inform you exactly what is meant. I suspect an HYUFD administration would probably introduce a law that all women must be married by 25 or the state would arrange a marriage for them in their first term....has anyone seen HYUFD and Andrew Tate in the same room?
A bit unfair - HYUFD isn’t an Andrew Tate type, Tate’s a whole different world of twisted. I think HYUFD is just a very old school traditionalist where his priorities - population increase - comes before human’s free will. Society over the individual, which is weirdly socialist but he’s not a nasty misogynist like Tate.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
A lot here tell me how bad reform are....just pointing out HYUFD is a tory politician and wants to be a tory mp. Not sure reform are actually any worse
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
Yes but thats just your bible, thankfully a lot of people don't go by your idea of what is true and moral.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
A lot here tell me how bad reform are....just pointing out HYUFD is a tory politician and wants to be a tory mp. Not sure reform are actually any worse
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
What a load of utter rubbish and frankly it you are happy to demean women for religion then your God is not the God He should be
He's certainly not mine and I do have a faith but not twisted and pathetic
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?'.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
You still haven’t explained what you meant by your words “not entitled to reject”.
I think he has explained his view well....women are allowed lives only as much as it doesn't interfere with them being baby incubators. I think that view should inform you exactly what is meant. I suspect an HYUFD administration would probably introduce a law that all women must be married by 25 or the state would arrange a marriage for them in their first term....has anyone seen HYUFD and Andrew Tate in the same room?
A bit unfair - HYUFD isn’t an Andrew Tate type, Tate’s a whole different world of twisted. I think HYUFD is just a very old school traditionalist where his priorities - population increase - comes before human’s free will. Society over the individual, which is weirdly socialist but he’s not a nasty misogynist like Tate.
I am not a Tate nor a free market libertarian either yes, just a traditional conservative
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
A lot here tell me how bad reform are....just pointing out HYUFD is a tory politician and wants to be a tory mp. Not sure reform are actually any worse
HYUFD hasn't embezzled £70,000.
HYUFD hasn't been found to have embezzled 70k....that doesn't mean he hasnt just means they havent found out yet if he has.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
What a load of utter rubbish and frankly it you are happy to demean women for religion then your God is not the God He should be
He's certainly not mine and I do have a faith but not twisted and pathetic
The goddess is still there, she doesn't do that sort of shit
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?'.
Well if young women want to get back to the kitchen and raising their children they should equally be free to do so. I also support more child benefit
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
What a load of utter rubbish and frankly it you are happy to demean women for religion then your God is not the God He should be
He's certainly not mine and I do have a faith but not twisted and pathetic
Fine BigG but if your lovely house in North Wales is hit by a lightning bolt tonight don't blame me!
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
Women can stop the far right by marrying them?
Perhaps
Ah, the old 'I can save him' gambit.
Look, people can be too picky sometimes, looking for perfection sure, but those seeking to be picked should also consider trying not to actively repulse others and blaming an entire gender if they do.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus.
And in religion, often run by old men, turns out the 'traditional' view quite likes Paulian approaches, remarkable coincidence.
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?'.
The brilliant thing is that if they can find a man (or woman, or a family member) who is willing to maintain them, then they don’t have to work!
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
The Vatican would suggest Paul's opinion is the word of God too.
The Koran quote also clearly suggests it is the men who should be the main bread winners and have the main careers
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
My wife promised to love, honour, and obey when we said our vows in the Church of Scotland in May 1964
She tells me she had a quiet word with the Lord after the ceremony and he exempted her from the obey bit
61 years later we have a wonderful marriage as equals
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?'.
The brilliant thing is that if they can find a man (or woman, or a family member) who is willing to maintain them, then they don’t have to work!
True, which is what they wanted, but I feel their (amusing) resentment was that this 'life of leisure' was no longer the social norm.
As most in the corporate and expensive boxes are quaffing champagne in the back
Seems to be the case with most sporting events. I don't really get it, being a lower middle class yobbo - if they just want to hobnob at an event with other rich people aren't there loads of non-sporting ones to go to so you don't miss the ostensible reason for going?
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?'.
The brilliant thing is that if they can find a man (or woman, or a family member) who is willing to maintain them, then they don’t have to work!
I suspect from 20 year old girls I know not going out to work doesn't mean they will be barefoot in the kitchen, pregnant and doing household chores as much as sitting on the sofa watching tiktok while doing their nails
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Even worse in Grenada. West Indies are playing Australia in a proper cricket match, but most of the stands are empty. Really sad.
Test Cricket is a zombie sport at this point, dead but shambling on with occasional bursts of what looks like life, even in the nations which play it you rarely get big crowds. Wish it were not so, but it seems pretty clear to me.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and the rambling drivel of the ancients, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
Even worse in Grenada. West Indies are playing Australia in a proper cricket match, but most of the stands are empty. Really sad.
Test Cricket is a zombie sport at this point, dead but shambling on with occasional bursts of what looks like life, even in the nations which play it you rarely get big crowds. Wish it were not so, but it seems pretty clear to me.
Test cricket in England has never been more popular. The stands are full most of the time, whereas if you look at footage from the 1970s they're often quite empty.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
What a load of utter rubbish and frankly it you are happy to demean women for religion then your God is not the God He should be
He's certainly not mine and I do have a faith but not twisted and pathetic
Fine BigG but if your lovely house in North Wales is hit by a lightning bolt tonight don't blame me!
I doubt you would feature in my thoughts at all
However, all are equal in the eyes of the Lord though more likely where is my insurance policy ?
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
My wife promised to love, honour, and obey when we said our vows in the Church of Scotland in May 1964
She tells me she had a quiet word with the Lord after the ceremony and he exempted her from the obey bit
61 years later we have a wonderful marriage as equals
I told my step-son, that he would find life so much easier if he just did what his mother told him to do, as I do.
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?'.
The brilliant thing is that if they can find a man (or woman, or a family member) who is willing to maintain them, then they don’t have to work!
Sweden has a global reputation for championing gender equality, so why are young women embracing a social media trend that celebrates quitting work?
Vilma Larsson, 25, previously had jobs in a grocery store, a care home and a factory. But she quit work a year ago to become a stay-at-home-girlfriend, and says she’s never been happier.
“My life is softer. I am not struggling. I am not very stressed.”
Her boyfriend works remotely in finance, and while he spends his days on his laptop, she’s at the gym, out for coffee, or cooking. The couple grew up in small towns in central Sweden, but now travel a lot, and are spending the winter in Cyprus.
“Every month he gives me a salary from his money that he made. But if I need more, I'll ask him. Or if I need less, I don't - I just save the rest,” explains Ms Larsson.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
We managed for most of the last century with only 1 full time income per household needed to buy a house with average house prices much cheaper than now
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
Needing two incomes per household is the opposite of advantageous. Elizabeth Warren did some good work on how it actually renders the family unit more financially percarious, not to mention the effect of bidding up house prices. It's only good for capital owners and rentiers.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
My wife promised to love, honour, and obey when we said our vows in the Church of Scotland in May 1964
She tells me she had a quiet word with the Lord after the ceremony and he exempted her from the obey bit
61 years later we have a wonderful marriage as equals
I told my step-son, that he would find life so much easier if he just did what his mother told him to do, as I do.
Back before we got cursed with christianity you wouldn't get men saying to women no you can't go hit people with axes....just saying
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Even worse in Grenada. West Indies are playing Australia in a proper cricket match, but most of the stands are empty. Really sad.
Test Cricket is a zombie sport at this point, dead but shambling on with occasional bursts of what looks like life, even in the nations which play it you rarely get big crowds. Wish it were not so, but it seems pretty clear to me.
Test cricket in England has never been more popular. The stands are full most of the time, whereas if you look at footage from the 1970s they're often quite empty.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
We managed for most of the last century with only 1 full time income per household needed to buy a house with average house prices much cheaper than now
Have you not noticed that that world has gone, and the new one is rather different? Most of the changes brought about under, and often by, conservative governments.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
It's fine by me but would eradicate Labour in London and the south
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
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?'.
The brilliant thing is that if they can find a man (or woman, or a family member) who is willing to maintain them, then they don’t have to work!
True, which is what they wanted, but I feel their (amusing) resentment was that this 'life of leisure' was no longer the social norm.
Two working household now more of a necessity I assume, even if both partners would like one to stay at home it's a smaller pool who can actually do it and maintain the lifestyle each wants.
So there's still the choice of doing it, but it's a harder one.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
It's fine by me but would eradicate Labour in London and the south
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Most nations don't have a massive mansion tax
The tax should be on all mansions, not just massive ones.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Most nations don't have a massive mansion tax
Most nations do have land taxes. Even America does.
I so hope India regret that last 40 minutes. Very, very unlikely but what were they doing? Are they that scared of England's batting?
They wanted to engineer in the England team what we have here on PB - a sense of utter hopelessness.
It's a fair point. And they will be stiff and sore after that long in the field as well. But I think that they needed 100 less and more time. This pitch is a road. Only idiots like Crawley will surely play any balls not on the stumps.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
I am laughing now at you, you are claiming to be fairly moderate on this?
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
Maybe the men are unsuitable?
If they think women should be subservient to them, the women are wise to deem them unsuitable.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
We managed for most of the last century with only 1 full time income per household needed to buy a house with average house prices much cheaper than now
Have you not noticed that that world has gone, and the new one is rather different? Most of the changes brought about under, and often by, conservative governments.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
We managed for most of the last century with only 1 full time income per household needed to buy a house with average house prices much cheaper than now
Have you not noticed that that world has gone, and the new one is rather different? Most of the changes brought about under, and often by, conservative governments.
Gone for now, who knows what will happen if 10 or 20 years if most western nations have far right governments with a traditional view of gender roles?
Most of the legislation giving women equal pay in work etc were of course brought in by Labour governments
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Most of the housing market is made up of trade in the existing stock. You are too fixated on new builds which are a only small component of the market.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
We managed for most of the last century with only 1 full time income per household needed to buy a house with average house prices much cheaper than now
Have you not noticed that that world has gone, and the new one is rather different? Most of the changes brought about under, and often by, conservative governments.
I always picture HYUFD as Mr. Cholmondley-Warner.
I think Mr cholmendly warner would be going "I say hang on old chap" at a lot of HYUFD's attitudes
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A question to which many would say yes but not take action to support? Too risky.
I've noticed a few people in the UK occasionally use the term uniparty, which is such obvious american cringe, like using BIPOC.
BIPOC is cringe. Uniparty certainly isn’t: it successfully describes the UK government from 1997-2024 which, Brexit aside, pursued exactly the same liberal leftish woke multicultural pro migration policies, just with different tweaks to tax and spend - no matter which party was in power
This has led us to our current disaster
I'm not convinced by uniparty, I think 'establishment' parties would work better without aping americanisms for that purpose, but I do support 'omnicause' or 'everythingism' - the trend of tying together all manner of disparate causes and as if they are inherently connected, like trans rights and support for palestine and socialist economics, even though you could support one or a mixture of those without the other.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
It's fine by me but would eradicate Labour in London and the south
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Most nations don't have a massive mansion tax
Most nations do have land taxes. Even America does.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
Comments
"The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013"
He is literally named in the title of the legislation. Not exactly what I would regard as 'standard'.
Some women have unrealistic expectations, but no more than men have.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0
Or Germany where young men are surging to the AfD
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy082dn7rkqo.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
https://www.cityam.com/why-are-so-many-young-men-like-me-turning-to-reform/.
There is no longer just an age divide between conservative and liberal left parties, there is also a gender divide between populist right and 'progressive' parties now amongst younger voters
https://external-preview.redd.it/Sa7Pf1uRDYQfHhWQIOdaeSgH6rec4iDOSxNYvoVhLeo.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=dba0a8a5d16d4fe7b46dc20c335a50ea86ec8883
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/802/contents/made
And the one before him.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2623/contents/made
And so on. So I think it was standard so less of the sarcasm please. Seems to stop after Starmer though so maybe the practice was stopped.
Why should women be subservient to men ?
'Ephesians 5:22-24:
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
He's certainly not mine and I do have a faith but not twisted and pathetic
Look, people can be too picky sometimes, looking for perfection sure, but those seeking to be picked should also consider trying not to actively repulse others and blaming an entire gender if they do.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
The Koran quote also clearly suggests it is the men who should be the main bread winners and have the main careers
She tells me she had a quiet word with the Lord after the ceremony and he exempted her from the obey bit
61 years later we have a wonderful marriage as equals
Apparently, it's women's fault that men are so fucking useless.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and the rambling drivel of the ancients, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
However, all are equal in the eyes of the Lord though more likely where is my insurance policy ?
Vilma Larsson, 25, previously had jobs in a grocery store, a care home and a factory. But she quit work a year ago to become a stay-at-home-girlfriend, and says she’s never been happier.
“My life is softer. I am not struggling. I am not very stressed.”
Her boyfriend works remotely in finance, and while he spends his days on his laptop, she’s at the gym, out for coffee, or cooking. The couple grew up in small towns in central Sweden, but now travel a lot, and are spending the winter in Cyprus.
“Every month he gives me a salary from his money that he made. But if I need more, I'll ask him. Or if I need less, I don't - I just save the rest,” explains Ms Larsson.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j1wwypygxo
A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building.
Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
So there's still the choice of doing it, but it's a harder one.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/5360-majority-support-mansion-tax
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
What are the odds that will be an outright record by the end of the game, not a joint on? Must be heavily odds-on.
If they think women should be subservient to them, the women are wise to deem them unsuitable.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
Most of the legislation giving women equal pay in work etc were of course brought in by Labour governments
https://www.gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-introduction