Why do feminists accuse house duties as "being domesticated" , but conveniently think of men as ATM ?

[jkvlondon]

4 minutes ago, learningkaur said:

First night of what?

really do you need a diagram ?He's referring to suhaag raat , yeah ewwww TMI TMI

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

really do you need a diagram ?He's referring to suhaag raat , yeah ewwww TMI TMI

you're intelligent  syaane nu ishara kafi 

[Sat1]

On 7/4/2020 at 10:52 PM, MisterrSingh said:

I'm not putting anybody into categories. I'm acknowledging a reality in certain cases. You're arguing those exceptions DON'T exist at all. You're denying truths because they make you uncomfortable, and shine a light on certain issues you don't want to see illuminated. Again, where's Bibi Nanaki come from in this scenario? And Mai Bhago? Were they the norm or the exception to the rule? Am I, as a normal guy without divine heritage, making my way in the world, supposed to believe every woman is a latent Bibi Nanaki or Mai Bhago, and therefore worthy of the same treatment? Would I treat every male as if they were Bhai Gurdas or Baba Bidhi Chand? You're hilarious.

In our seemingly humble little community, a young woman (with her best years ahead of her) earning £45,000 would never deign to lower herself by agreeing to marry a male making "only" £35,000. Women on £100k would only ever marry a partner with a lower salary out of absolute desperation for obvious ticking-clock related reasons. And those aren't even the types who are content to embrace the spinster life. 

 

^^^ Your earlier post. You’re speaking about the majority of women in the Sikh community Or Punjabi’s I’m assuming. That’s not just certain cases, you’re stereotyping a whole group of people. 
 

I never argued those exceptions don’t exist, read my earlier post. I said not all women care about what you assume they care about with regards to the above. I’m telling you that there Are women out there who don’t care about those things. 

[MisterrSingh]

5 hours ago, Sat1 said:

In our seemingly humble little community, a young woman (with her best years ahead of her) earning £45,000 would never deign to lower herself by agreeing to marry a male making "only" £35,000. Women on £100k would only ever marry a partner with a lower salary out of absolute desperation for obvious ticking-clock related reasons. And those aren't even the types who are content to embrace the spinster life. 

 

^^^ Your earlier post. You’re speaking about the majority of women in the Sikh community Or Punjabi’s I’m assuming. That’s not just certain cases, you’re stereotyping a whole group of people. 
 

I never argued those exceptions don’t exist, read my earlier post. I said not all women care about what you assume they care about with regards to the above. I’m telling you that there Are women out there who don’t care about those things. 

And I'm telling you that there are women out there who certainly DO care about those things. The noble minority you refer to have arrived at their magnanimous state of mind because they have NO choice in the matter. Their hand has been forced through circumstances of their own making. Accordingly, they must either accept a lower status male in order to stave off loneliness, or start buying cats. 

[Ranjeet01]

59 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

And I'm telling you that there are women out there who certainly DO care about those things. The noble minority you refer to have arrived at their magnanimous state of mind because they have NO choice in the matter. Their hand has been forced through circumstances of their own making. Accordingly, they must either accept a lower status male in order to stave off loneliness, or start buying cats. 

I can think of perhaps one situation where a woman marries a man who makes less than her.

That is if she marries for potential. If he has drive and ambition and can surpass her.

A man with drive and ambition is very attractive to a woman.

A woman does not want to win, she wants a winner. 

Generally speaking, the more a woman makes her pool of suitors decreases. The more a man makes, the more options he has.

Here is pause for thought for the reality of the marriage game for everyone to ponder, just an example:

if I am a wealthy successful man (aged 40) earning 200k a year and I had a choice between a go getter ball busting career driven women earning 80k a year (aged 35) or a sweeter younger more attractive lady (aged 28) that has job that earns 30k a year.

Who will I go for?

What makes a man attractive for a woman is not what makes a woman attractive for a man.

 

[MisterrSingh]

39 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I can think of perhaps one situation where a woman marries a man who makes less than her.

That is if she marries for potential. If he has drive and ambition and can surpass her.

Of course. Our friend Sat seems to be suggesting the majority of women are chomping at the bit to marry under their pay bracket, and that's so untrue.

Even in the lower echelons of our white-collar educated demographic, a female business & marketing graduate earning £26,000 would turn her nose up at a guy who's gone to trade school and bringing in £25,000 doing carpentry or similar work. It's not just the money, which in the example I've given is just a grand, but the fact that she thinks, "I've gone to university; he's "just" a manual worker without a degree." 

However, the same guy grafts hard and starts his own business. After a few years, he's clearing £50,000+ while office girl has gained a stone or two () but hasn't managed to break through the £30,000 barrier. Now she thinks, "That guy was actually okay." He could've become a total scumbag during that time, lmao, but that £25,000+ leap in earnings has suddenly made him more desirable. 

In reality that's how the world spins on its axis. The Hollywood-ised fantasy being promoted by Sat is partially true but it skips and ignores a few essential and unavoidable truths that some ladies would rather not have illuminated about their fellow woman.

[Ranjeet01]

36 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Of course. Our friend Sat seems to be suggesting the majority of women are chomping at the bit to marry under their pay bracket, and that's so untrue.

Even in the lower echelons of our white-collar educated demographic, a female business & marketing graduate earning £26,000 would turn her nose up at a guy who's gone to trade school and bringing in £25,000 doing carpentry or similar work. It's not just the money, which in the example I've given is just a grand, but the fact that she thinks, "I've gone to university; he's "just" a manual worker without a degree." 

However, the same guy grafts hard and starts his own business. After a few years, he's clearing £50,000+ while office girl has gained a stone or two () but hasn't managed to break through the £30,000 barrier. Now she thinks, "That guy was actually okay." He could've become a total scumbag during that time, lmao, but that £25,000+ leap in earnings has suddenly made him more desirable. 

In reality that's how the world spins on its axis. The Hollywood-ised fantasy being promoted by Sat is partially true but it skips and ignores a few essential and unavoidable truths that some ladies would rather not have illuminated about their fellow woman.

It is fact that a successful blue collar worker is seen as lower status than a lowly white collar worker.

I knew of a guy who dropped out of university but started his own business and built up a rental portfolio (he bought several houses on rent ) but girls would decline him because he did not have a degree.

I think society needs a serious re-think actually regarding university. 

It gives someone undeserved status boost without actually adding any value. It also breeds a sense of entitlement. 

The real truth regarding women entering university was not about gaining an education but to have access to high value men.

However what has happened is that whilst the number of women in universities has grown is that more women have higher expectations of the type of men they think they deserve. 

My mum used to tell me that perhaps it is better for a guy to find a girl that is not particularly educated  (left school at 16 or 18) and worked in a bank. 

[MisterrSingh]

36 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I think society needs a serious re-think actually regarding university. 

It's another one of those western institutions that the culture loves to fetishize as an essential part of life that mustn't be avoided. You know why they do that, don't you? So young, impressionable minds don't dare miss out on the indoctrination and the years of debt, lol. 

[Ranjeet01]

41 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

It's another one of those western institutions that the culture loves to fetishize as an essential part of life that mustn't be avoided. You know why they do that, don't you? So young, impressionable minds don't dare miss out on the indoctrination and the years of debt, lol. 

It is also promoted to defer employment.

There aren't enough jobs so you place all these kids into university for 3 years. It keeps the unemployment rates down.

Most jobs can be learnt by actually doing them and you don't really need a qualification. 

That is because your degree is largely useless that you don't actually use most of it.

The accreditation is largely a barrier to entry. 

You realise that unless you are entering something like law or medicine, Universities are useless.

[MisterrSingh]

9 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

It is also promoted to defer employment.

There aren't enough jobs so you place all these kids into university for 3 years. It keeps the unemployment rates down.

Most jobs can be learnt by actually doing them and you don't really need a qualification. 

That is because your degree is largely useless that you don't actually use most of it.

The accreditation is largely a barrier to entry. 

You realise that unless you are entering something like law or medicine, Universities are useless.

I agree. Unless someone's studying STEM subjects (Science, Tech, Engineering, Maths), Law, and Medicine, university is a red herring.

The vast majority of the university educated in the West would've been better served going to vocational school. Elevating higher education was designed to be a progressive, "emancipatory" act for bettering society and levelling the field (as these things tend to be lauded when they're foisted upon the population), but it's created a strange yet influential subset of people who know very little but regard themselves very highly because of the framed certificate hanging on their wall, yet these same people are paid 'enough' to lend them the belief that they're doing better in life than most.