That sounds like a direct quotation from Samuel L. Jackson in the movie Pulp Fiction. Good movie.

Some women. I’m not saying all. ^_^

Women DO provoke violence in a relationship. Y’know why?
Because those women are complete idiots for taking advantage of beating up her husband and him just standing there not really doing anything about it.

In my opinion, I say that there should be NO domestic violence WHATSOEVER. I mean, the world would be a better place without it. And the violent women would be more respected if they weren’t so damn violent! lol

If you drowned, that means you died. Obviously you didn’t cause you are still yapping away like a fish out of water.

Kristin said:

That’s how I feel about this site.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…. Pink Panther style.

Women are way more likely to initiate physical violence in a relationship or in the home?

I’ve never seen this personally in my life. I have seen my grandmother strangled half to death by a man ( her husband) a military man, and watched my aunt get murdered by a man. I have almost been murdered by 2 guys. I was drowned by a man once and almost stabbed, for no reason . I have no sympathy for myself honestly because I learned from it and grew up. It’s life, I take what I get and move forward. If that doesn’t make sense then you have no sense. If that isn’t logical, it makes perfect sense to me why.

See this is were you ask the question……..maybe i come from a family of, very unbearable people. Judging by all your posts, i make my case and leave it at that.

How about you ask about every guy that posts here about the subject? ill bet they’ll give you a perfect example of a woman initiating physical violence. I mean its easy to see why, what man would hit a woman in a public setting? or in any setting for that matter? Its waaay more likely for man to not respond physically when a woman hits them then it is for a woman not to hit a man to begin with. Just obvious stuff here, but you have to figure it in when you talk about domestic violence and stupid bitches starting shit at bars. Just because more men are caught beating their wives, does not mean the opposite does not happen muuuch more. “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” -some MAN

Kristin said:

That’s how I feel about this site.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…. Pink Panther style.

Women are way more likely to initiate physical violence in a relationship or in the home?

I’ve never seen this personally in my life. I have seen my grandmother strangled half to death by a man ( her husband) a military man, and watched my aunt get murdered by a man. I have almost been murdered by 2 guys. I was drowned by a man once and almost stabbed, for no reason . I have no sympathy for myself honestly because I learned from it and grew up. It’s life, I take what I get and move forward. If that doesn’t make sense then you have no sense. If that isn’t logical, it makes perfect sense to me why.

Going to go out on a limb here, but maybe you should hang with a different crowd of people…..

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…. Pink Panther style.

Women are way more likely to initiate physical violence in a relationship or in the home?

I’ve never seen this personally in my life. I have seen my grandmother strangled half to death by a man ( her husband) a military man, and watched my aunt get murdered by a man. I have almost been murdered by 2 guys. I was drowned by a man once and almost stabbed, for no reason . I have no sympathy for myself honestly because I learned from it and grew up. It’s life, I take what I get and move forward. If that doesn’t make sense then you have no sense. If that isn’t logical, it makes perfect sense to me why.

W-Hortencia (likes the ladies) said:

The reason that feminism is concerntrated on women is to address the inequalities of the past so that people of both genders can be on a level playing field.

yes Dick, that is bullshit. Women want “special” rights, they dont want a equal playing field.

-the man-space invader-

Until then, fuck off with your rationalizations on why women are, and have had, the majority vote for over 100 years and are still feeding at the trough of entitlements while screaming victim.

son of the suns said:

W-Hortencia (likes the ladies) said:

The reason that feminism is concerntrated on women is to address the inequalities of the past so that people of both genders can be on a level playing field.

Sounds like affirmative action. Hey cunt you obviously are a stupid harpie and don’t know biology so you’ll have to take my manly word for it.

FEMALES ARE NOT A RACE.

That doesn’t sound like affirmative action at all, and he never said females are a race. Sounds like you’re an idiot.

Grow up

dik said:
blacks in this country truly suffered and not in that paris hilton way your so describing

Exactly. In most countries too including England and France. Black people have been worse treated than any women.

W-Hortencia (likes the ladies) said:

The reason that feminism is concerntrated on women is to address the inequalities of the past so that people of both genders can be on a level playing field.

Hey bitch…dont steal the logic of affirmative action..blacks in this country truly suffered and not in that paris hilton way your so describing….bitch…

LOL Wolfe you disappoint me with your lack of belief in market forces.

Ha! Well said. I do believe in market forces, but I’d point out that “men are better than women”. You simply can’t hire a woman to do most ‘male’ jobs. I will grant you this: those jobs you can hire them to do, you have big downward pressure. Anything clerical, some assembly-line work (perhaps more than I realize — see below).

Also, in places like Canada, the government hugely distorts the market — nurse’s wages are a good example, they are artificially low. Surprise, there’s of course a nursing shortage. It’s easier for a dog to get an MRI, and months faster for it to get surgery — than it is for a human being. Gogo socialized medicine! (As a Christian I view the Canadian system as having some definite positives relative to the US system, but it’s pretty dreadful overall).

But women don’t rush out to drive trucks, become plumbers or electricians, engineers, surgeons, or even high-risk litigation lawyers.

But those billion unionized feminist female clerical workers do impact on the averages which are predominantly what we have to work with statistically

That’s an excellent point I’d not adequately considered.

What I notice in my town is that those clerical workers earn a hell of a lot more than the numerous, and also highly unionised, factory workers. Women are well represented in both those areas.

I agree, women are better represented in factory work than I’d given them credit for in my initial thinking (you recalled I said I’d have to ponder it).

The idea that clerical workers are better paid than unionized factory workers? That is odd. Certainly it’s not my experience, but I accept that it is the case in Australia.

Clerical workers which I find rediculous at times.
Nurses and teachers whom I don’t consider professionals.

This is not so much the case in the US and Canada. In fact, I think nurses are probably underpaid relative to the free market in Canada. (in the US they’re fine since it is a free market). Most nurses in the public health care system are 40-something, tired and burned out. Most young nurses go directly into the private sector where they rapidly earn 50-60% more.

retail employees all of whom are really battling.

Yeah, I’d agree retail employees have it bad, probably even worse in socialist Canada than in the US, but bad in both cases. You can’t raise a family on most of the wages paid. (This begs the question: increase minimum wage, thereby decreasing employment, or, say “too bad, get two jobs”, or… look at something like a Negative Income Tax. Increasingly I’m liking this idea despite it’s far left antecedents.)

Our two largest states have 4 and 5 million people. Also our states have full responsibility for the health and education systems. They are quite large operations.

Very similar to Canadian constitution. (US it’s only education). Largest provinces are ~12.5m and 8m (roughly). Largest US state, California, probably around 25m (too lazy to check).

Bear in mind also that Aus average incomes seem to be significantly lower than those in the US.

Yeah. US has a higher general standard of living (though we’re hurt on most PPP — purchasing power parity — essentially nominal currency conversion based upon cost of a representative basic basket of goods between two regions/countries).

Our average incomes have lost significant ground against the cost of living consistantly for thirty years now. The last time income increases outstripped our CPI(Consumer Price Index) was in the early seventies.

I have a degree of skepticism on some of this. CPI is a notorious mess in the US that historically includes all kinds of nonsense like the price of first class airline tickets — which tend to remain stable or increase relative to inflation, vs. economy fares which drop. As such, for measuring the burden on the poor, it’s a mediocre system.

One can also play ridiculous games with statistics — for instance, it seems that under Bush, median household incomes have declined. Oh nos, evil Bush. But… per capita incomes are nicely up. Hmmm… household sizes are smaller, with children of a mini-boom in 80’s moving out. More young people are now living on their own than with their parents. Could this be the discrepancy? Probably.

Note that I’m NOT saying to heck with the poor and that you’re wrong in your implication that it’s tougher to raise a family on one income, and that feminists have put downward pressure on wages. I am saying that, based on past experience, the stats need to be examined exceedingly closely and, as you suggest, apolitically.

I also don’t know enough about Australia to speak with great confidence.

I just reckon you can’t change anything from the outside.

Heh. I nearly wound up being Chairman (Finance) of the local district for a party that doesn’t begin with “D”. I’m glad I said no, because I’ve been drifting somewhat away from the party for a while, and there’s the residency/dual citizenship issue, and I really hate, loath and despise retail politics. So you’re either a better man than I, or a worse one. Or, most probably, both. And to be commended even if you are a crazy socialist j/k. You’re dead right: one has no right to complain about how the sausages are made until one tries to improve it.

I think you’re probably right that the Dems have drifted left, partly in reaction.

As for wedge politics, it’s my honest view that the Dems do that much more in the States than the Reps. The Republicans have a couple of giant constituency: white males (to a lesser degree Asian males) and married/employed people. The Democrats assemble bizarre ramshackle coalitions; they play the race card at every turn; they seem a very divisive force to me. In fairness, a Democrat might see it very differently. Wedge issues like racial preferences, union-backing-bills, feminist abortion grist, these are all good for Dems. (In fairness, the Republicans play some games with the religious right).

Points of disagreement? Well, I like John Howard. Loved how he smacked down the media who tried to claim Bali was caused by intervening in Iraq.

Points of agreement? We both like blaming feminists. And I agree, I was overly dismissive on first pass, on the impact of women in the labor force/feminism on wages. (My error was to grossly underestimate their presence in factories, and somewhat to underestimate the effect of governmental unionized clerical jobs, though I put the latter down to the socialists!).

If there were more leftists like you, you’d win a lot more elections.

-wolfe

Please remember that as I work as a tax consultant I see income details for thousands of people every year. I also get to talk to these people about how difficult they find it to get by. My views are obviously slanted somewhat by this.

wolfe said:

Hmmm… no I don’t buy that business gets its labor pool significantly more cheaply as a result of feminism. Keep in mind these are feminist women you are hiring!

LOL Wolfe you disappoint me with your lack of belief in market forces. The two really significant changes in our workforce over four decades have been the rate of participation by women and the number of part time jobs(which women are also responsible for). This I do ascribe to feminism. At the same time the average income has declined significantly relative to the cost of living. Whether the two are linked is, of course, debatable.

You are correct in noting that the labor pool is hugely larger, and that no doubt there is some downward pressure on wages as a result. But frankly, a billion unionized feminist female clerical workers don’t impact the wages of plumbers much.
Also keep in mind, socialized/public jobs have grown hugely with the advent of feminism, and a great many women are filling those. It’s an interesting perspective though, and I’ll ponder it some more.

But those billion unionized feminist female clerical workers do impact on the averages which are predominantly what we have to work with statistically. What I notice in my town is that those clerical workers earn a hell of a lot more than the numerous, and also highly unionised, factory workers. Women are well represented in both those areas.
For interest’s sake the salary and wage occupational areas that are consistantly above average are:-

Tradies both self employed and employee.
Professionals for obvious reasons.
Clerical workers which I find rediculous at times.
Nurses and teachers whom I don’t consider professionals.

Of these four groups the last two are the ones with the greatest proportion of women. Of the clerical workers the government ones significantly outearn those in private businesses but the gender balance is similar.

There are also large numbers of factory workers and retail employees all of whom are really battling.

My quick answer, though, is that it doesn’t take two incomes to support an average family. It takes two incomes to support a family in the lifestyle to which many have become accustomed: two cars, the fancy mini-mcmansion (even if this is just a rowhouse/townhouse — not sure what the Aussie term is) and all the toys and labor-saving gadgets, including the vacuuming robot.

The remarks I made about the necessary family incomes date from stats I saw in the mid nineties. You’ve identified the obvious problem which is how you define average and lifestyle. One notable thing about those stats at the time was that there wasn’t a political agenda involved and it did seem they had made a genuine effort to take into account the sort of things you mention. Bear in mind also that Aus average incomes seem to be significantly lower than those in the US. Our average incomes have lost significant ground against the cost of living consistantly for thirty years now. The last time income increases outstripped our CPI(Consumer Price Index) was in the early seventies.

Much smaller pop and economy though. Kinda like Canadian Provinces. And that also tends to be the Canadian model — to some degree — A federal government of one stripe, and a provincial government of the other.

Our two largest states have 4 and 5 million people. Also our states have full responsibility for the health and education systems. They are quite large operations.

As for Democrats being far to the right of Labour, perhaps quite true.

Definitely. However I reckon the gap has closed in recent years with a fair move to the right by the ALP in the last twenty years and also a sense(possibly incorrect on my part) that the US Dems have gone a bit more left.

That said, they are largely creatures of the trial lawyers, unionists, government employees, feminists, and assorted other special interest groups.

True here too and in both major parties. The number of lawyers really irritates me. I can’t respect people who make their living from lies, spin and deception. You must find me a bit contradictory with my involvement in politics alongside my hatred of politicians. I just reckon you can’t change anything from the outside.

I’m not sure what the #$)*#$ the Republicans are, nor, it appears are they. (The easy answer is creatures of the Insurance companies, small business, big business, oil… That appears to be an incorrect answer, judging by their performance).

Jeez don’t ask me. As for the Liberals in Australia I just get sick of their tendency to play wedge politics. Divide and conquer is the rule.

So now, having waffled incoherently for far too long at 2am, I should really admit that I just like blaming feminists. Any excuse will do. I feel quite justified too. The only thing feminists haven’t blamed men for is entropy and I’m sure they’d blame us for that too if they could find a woman who knew what physics was.