tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post4470868932285384222..comments2024-03-02T12:39:23.745+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Why don't powerful men support men's rights?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-62434106912156703402010-12-19T08:00:55.232+11:002010-12-19T08:00:55.232+11:00The last two anonymous posts demonstrate how much ...The last two anonymous posts demonstrate how much liberalism has infiltrated society. They talk about relativism (one core ideal of leftists) and how ''Conservatives and Left/Femi'' are one and the same. About the ''rich'' sending people to war. About the ''oppressive 1950's'' and so forth. Both of them need to seriously read all of Lawrence Auster's archives and be desensitized from indoctrination. They think that the enemy (the left) is their friend and that we are somehow the true enemy. This is the madness of liberalism with it's ideals of relativism, non-discrimination, multiculturalism, tolerance, open-mindness, human rights, individualism and equality. Newsflash the establishment is liberal.Elizabeth Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63021122857448943632010-07-27T05:14:28.516+10:002010-07-27T05:14:28.516+10:00@ Alt
women cheat on men and leave men... it is i...@ Alt<br /><br />women cheat on men and leave men... it is in their biology just like men. But why are you blaming men for it when women divorce?!?<br /><br />why didn't you say men need to stop living is the dilutions of female virtue in order to protect their family and THEMSELVES. Men need to be prepared, like women are, and look for the signs, during and before marriage.<br /><br />After reading a lot of these comments I see the parallels between conservatives and fems/liberals. The whole focus is about the woman's decision... "does she choose to be a stay at home mom or work, or something in between". What about the mans choice? I never hear anything about what he wants even though he is half the equation. There are plenty of men I know who do not want to be the sole providers because they want to spend actual time with their kids. Again I see conservatives going along with the feminist motto that men have to put up and shut up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-57821633633942969462010-07-27T03:03:30.148+10:002010-07-27T03:03:30.148+10:00Your first paragraphs described me quite well.
I...Your first paragraphs described me quite well. <br /><br />I do hate Feminism, PC, and the current liberal agenda. However the conservatives have not done crap for me. Where is the open fight for me? Why are they going along with liberal "women are more important" crap? Have they done anything proactive to stop discrimination of boys in education? When do they do anything specifically for men???? Conservative men seem be totally without self awareness when it comes to politics. They talk about economy, healthcare, and family... yet women vote in blocks and vote on women's issues. You think its balanced girl men to care about society when women care about themselves?<br /><br />Just about all men ARE still living in the 50's, please wake the F up and start caring about yourselves. That is one of the biggest problems I see with traditional masculinity is the inability to self advocate, that us way men are left behind with no support. I am too well aware of the fact that feminist are in actuality very conservative on their views of men and women. They say men are powerful, aggressive, uninhibited, and emotionless while asserting that the opposite for women. That idealized dichotomy, started by traditional gender roles and used by liberals, is what I want to destroy!<br /><br />Men have not been powerful or proud for a long time. All this homophobia has ruined straight men. Were is the male bonding? Where is the male space? Men have the bars and sports... are you kidding me?!? Men are far too dependant on women for their identify, emotions, and any closeness; men are dominated by women because of such.<br /><br />http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=10877651<br /><br />(the above link shows that men are more hurt by breakups because they lack the social support women do. So much for the idea men aren't the committed ones) <br /><br />lastly tell conservatives to stop sending men to war. why should men alone pay the price for what benefits women just as muchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15471258730192050462010-04-07T09:46:09.959+10:002010-04-07T09:46:09.959+10:00She was ragged by the Feminists for her book, no c...<i>She was ragged by the Feminists for her book, no conservatives backed her up as far as I was aware.</i><br /><br />Well I <a href="http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2009/09/so-this-justifies-feminism.html" rel="nofollow">did</a>. Miranda Devine (more of a right liberal perhaps) did too.<br /><br />There could have been more support, but then how many genuinely conservative commentators in the media are there?<br /><br /><i>When is the last time you heard the minister/pastor/priest talk about the sinfulness of denying ones partner? A lot of prudery gets unofficial religious sanction. Interestingly it was not always the case, it was grounds for complaint in medieval times.</i><br /><br />I agree that the mainstream churches are at fault for not addressing the issue. I'm just not sure if they are held back by prudery or by something else (Not wanting to offend politically correct sensibilities? Wanting to play things safe?)<br /><br />Jesse wrote:<br /><br /><i>But isn't that something for the couple to work out themselves? Do we really need a minister telling us what to do in such circumstances?</i><br /><br />Couples often work out this issue by getting divorced. <br /><br />Women don't always get men, just as we don't always get women. Arndt's book was a revelation to some women. Supposedly, the response was that some women started to say yes a bit more to their husbands.<br /><br />There are plenty of women who slip into the habit of thinking that sex is a take it or leave it affair and that other things are more important. There are plenty of women who slip into the habit of punishing their husbands for unhappinesses that they have in their own lives by withholding sex.<br /><br />And there are plenty of husbands who react to the withholding of sex by quietly withdrawing their own affections until their level of frustration reaches a point of no return.<br /><br />Remember, too, that even if a husband is willing to stand up and confront his wife on this issue, unless he is in a strong enough position in the marriage, it isn't likely to get him far.<br /><br />The churches ought to be a voice of reason in all this, pointing out that monogamy is best in the long run for all concerned but that it can't work without a generous and loving attitude to the sexual relationship.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50495161662942478182010-04-06T23:47:35.385+10:002010-04-06T23:47:35.385+10:00Social Pathologist said:
"Modesty has been m...Social Pathologist said:<br /><br />"Modesty has been morphed into asexuality. When is the last time you heard the minister/pastor/priest talk about the sinfulness of denying ones partner? A lot of prudery gets unofficial religious sanction. Interestingly it was not always the case, it was grounds for complaint in medieval times."<br /><br />But isn't that something for the couple to work out themselves? Do we really need a minister telling us what to do in such circumstances?<br /><br />In a lot of the "younger" churches sex seems to be front and centre. All that hugging, dancing and emphaisis on looking good. You know what's going on in the background. It makes me ill when I hear about all the "Christian pick up sites", which in practise are focused on sex. Not because I'm a prude but becuase that this should be Christianity? An incredibly profound moral force down to the level of looking good and getting some. If I wanted to score I'd do it the "traditional" way, pick up a drunk girl. <br /><br />On the point about frigid women in the church and wives denying their husbands sex. I think the church has often deliberetly pitched themsevles to the married women. A married women may like the moral authority of not having too much sex and doing so on her terms, ie for childbirth. The couples with their hands all over each other are probably the ones where the guy is not a junior partner.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-12779592147289081882010-04-06T22:54:24.266+10:002010-04-06T22:54:24.266+10:00"And yet sometimes both parties just simply w..."<i>And yet sometimes both parties just simply want a good rogering. Sex is not always meant to be a wonderful romantic experience. Sometimes it's got to be animal. (In a marital context that is)</i>"<br /><br />Which exactly explains why that man, when what he wants is "a good rogering," heads right on down to the corner ... or even just "takes matter in hand" ... and is wholly satisfied with the result.<br /><br />Wait! That *not* what happens.<br /><br />It seems that even when a man just "wants a good rogering," it's really something else that he's after.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21929965920409552122010-04-06T21:56:21.525+10:002010-04-06T21:56:21.525+10:00I get to make comment 100. :)
Firstly Alte, thank...I get to make comment 100. :)<br /><br />Firstly Alte, thanks for all the heavy lifting, but I do have some points which I disagree with you--about the PND-- but I hope to write about that in the near future and then we can thrash it out.<br /><br />Secondly, an Australian Sex Reasearcher, Bettina Arndt, recently published a book called the Sex Diaries which was basically about about how a lot of married couples aren't having sex. Most of the time it is because of the wife's lack of sexual desire combined with her disregard of her husbands predicament. He is meant to put up and shut up. She was ragged by the Feminists for her book, no conservatives backed her up as far as I was aware.<br /><br /><i>It's not that the churches I've belonged to have given the wrong message, such as that women aren't interested in sex. It's that they've given no message.</i><br /><br />Modesty has been morphed into asexuality. When is the last time you heard the minister/pastor/priest talk about the sinfulness of denying ones partner? A lot of prudery gets unofficial religious sanction. Interestingly it was not always the case, it was grounds for complaint in medieval times.<br /><br />Illion:<br /><i>And the reason I said "intimacy" -- which was *not* used as a euphemism -- rather than “sex” or “a good rogering,” is because I realize that what both women and men want is not mere sex, not merely an orgasm, but communion with another soul.</i><br /><br />And yet sometimes both parties just simply want a good rogering. Sex is not always meant to be a wonderful romantic experience. Sometimes it's got to be animal. (In a marital context that is)<br /><br />Jack Strocci<br /><i>You need to get out more or at least obtain some living memories. Life in a 20th C suburb right up until the end of the Baby Boom in 1970, mimicked village life.</i><br /><br />A profound and very true observation.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-81113371872572470982010-04-05T18:05:50.005+10:002010-04-05T18:05:50.005+10:00A recent poster mentioned someone walking down the...A recent poster mentioned someone walking down the street wearing a t shirt that said "F you". Why? Because they could. Becuase its cool to show your willingness to be transgressive. Because morality is some sort of quaint old fashioned concept that shouldn't be allowed to limit us or get in our way. Because the legal situation and our cultural expection is ideologically supposed to exist for the full satisfaction of individual rights. Others can only get in our way or disadvantage us so f them. Also because everyone out there must in reality be a bastard. <br /><br />Women, who "aren't well brought up" by their parents are far more likely in my opinion to act immorally (stating the obvious here) because there is not that cultural/legal expectation that they will act morally within the current broader society. You have to have a longer or more old fashioned focus to have that. Currently its, he let me down/ didn't give me what I wanted, so f him. Not just that its also my JOB to fully express or advantage myself, therefore its immoral to be too nice. And somewhere in the background is the notion that I have to assert myselves against the oppressive other so everything I do is justified. Its amusing seeing people's confusion when trying to make their decisions based on the current morality. They still generally very much want to be seen as moral actors but the "morality" seems to push them in obviously questionable directions which are recognised by them. <br /><br />There are substantial other types of morality out there. Racism, sexism, excessive greediness, environmental lack of concern etc all immoral. For that you don't go to hell though you just don't get invited to parties and more. <br /><br />Ok so back to the legal situation. I guess there is a clear symbiosis between law and morality. It would seem that one isolated from the other is on somewhat weak ground.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-12353260853788970652010-04-05T17:34:05.754+10:002010-04-05T17:34:05.754+10:00Expatriot said:
"Imagined authority based on...Expatriot said:<br /><br />"Imagined authority based on personal charisma or force of will is ultimately of little value unless backed up collective male authority codified in law."<br /><br />Interesting.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47994679174215635612010-04-05T17:33:35.890+10:002010-04-05T17:33:35.890+10:00Expatriot, you make a very good point that it'...Expatriot, you make a very good point that it's not enough to base masculine authority on personal charisma or force of will.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-51536632668144152092010-04-05T15:16:00.693+10:002010-04-05T15:16:00.693+10:00Why don’t powerful men support men’s rights? Deep ...Why don’t powerful men support men’s rights? Deep down inside, every man wants to believe that women find him attractive for who he “really is”, not just for externals like his status. High-status men, with loads of evidence to the contrary staring them in the face, have an even greater psychological need to cling to this romantic fantasy—the same romantic fantasy that has traditionally driven attractive young women to seek men to love them for something other than their faces and bodies. Successful men want to believe that they deserve the attention they get from women, and also that the converse (or is it contrapositive?) is true: men who are unsuccessful with women have no one but themselves to blame; they’re just a bunch of losers. Add to this is the fact that any man expressing sympathy for his less well-off brethren automatically risks being perceived as one of them, and you have a big part of the explanation for why powerful men don’t support men’s rights. <br />Unfortunately, a similar psychology seems to infect a lot of traditionalist men, with whom I otherwise agree politically. They imagine that their position as successful patriarchs is due to their own personal manliness, rather than the patriarchal social order and the legal regime on which it is (was) founded. The subtext of their commentary on the plight of today’s young men is roughly, “Well, if you were a real man (like me), instead of just a boy, you’d be able to handle this. Suck it up, wimp!” It is this attitude that turns off young men. (By the way, I’m not a young man; I’m probably older than most of the posters here.) The fact is that they too are living on borrowed time. Under current laws, they could be dumped by their women just as easily as the men they deride as insufficiently masculine. The only thing preventing it is the virtue of their women—a thin reed if ever there was one. Over time, this will become more common, as the temptation for even “good” women will become too great. Our he-men’s vaunted masculine authority will be revealed for the bluster that it is. Imagined authority based on personal charisma or force of will is ultimately of little value unless backed up collective male authority codified in law.Expatriotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-69631460298461109882010-04-05T12:53:24.855+10:002010-04-05T12:53:24.855+10:00Alte,
I agree strongly with one point that you ma...Alte,<br /><br />I agree strongly with one point that you make.<br /><br />If you want monogamous marriage to work then you have to get the sexual aspect of marriage right. It's critical.<br /><br />So those institutions which ought to be supporting monogamous marriage, such as the Christian churches, need to be encouraging a healthy and successful sex life within marriage.<br /><br />And yet they are mostly silent on the whole issue. <br /><br />It's not that the churches I've belonged to have given the wrong message, such as that women aren't interested in sex. It's that they've given no message. <br /><br />I don't think that silence is appropriate when there is such a high divorce rate and when a commitment to marriage itself is faltering.<br /><br />(BTW, Alte, congratulations on your own blog, I find it very interesting to get an independent female point of view on these issues.)Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-57200063641013912612010-04-05T10:21:07.201+10:002010-04-05T10:21:07.201+10:00And the reason I said "intimacy" -- whic...And the reason I said "intimacy" -- which was *not* used as a euphemism -- rather than “sex” or “a good rogering,” is because I realize that what both women and men want is not mere sex, not merely an orgasm, but communion with another soul.<br /><br />Besides the gross immorality of it, Roissyism or “Sex and the City” are just plain stupid, given what human being are really looking for.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72330174496069008132010-04-05T10:13:30.504+10:002010-04-05T10:13:30.504+10:00"And men who have had their wives leave them ..."<i>And men who have had their wives leave them because "I'm just not in love with you anymore" are getting enraged that nobody shared such a simple fact with them before.</i>"<br /><br />Including that their wives never told them ... because, "<i>If you loved me, you'd just know!</i>"<br /><br />On the other hand, we "down market" Christians never get the message that women don't like sex. Shoot, even before I knew what sex is I know that my mother liked it.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50640548752570735242010-04-05T10:01:08.319+10:002010-04-05T10:01:08.319+10:00"... You seem pretty ignorant about life as i..."<i>... You seem pretty ignorant about life as it was before "Sex and the City" came along like a cargo for your fashion victim cult.</i>"<br /><br />And you're obviously quite ignorant, perhaps dangerously so, or simply a fool.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-5114314333844467672010-04-05T09:52:44.404+10:002010-04-05T09:52:44.404+10:00As Social Pathologist said:
The pretty damsel does...As Social Pathologist said:<br /><em>The pretty damsel does occasionally want a good hard rogering. No pretty, but TRUE.<br /></em><br /><br />Exactly. This is what many Christian men are finding out (via the PUAs), and they are getting really angry at the knowledge that they have been blatantly lied to about female sexuality their whole lives, by people they trust and admire. They are confused and think that this is a sign of female depravity, rather than a simple biological truth.<br /><br />And men who have had their wives leave them because "I'm just not in love with you anymore" are getting <em>enraged</em> that nobody shared such a simple fact with them before. Something that could have saved their marriage, protected their children, and helped them to keep the attentions of their wives. I agree that their wives shouldn't leave regardless, but let's live in the present. Women have the sexual attention span of a gnat, and they regularly require a "good hard rogering" in order to stay focused on one man. As a woman, I can assure you that this is true, and I have yet to have a woman -- even a very prudish woman -- deny this when it has been so blatantly stated.<br /><br />Look at the books they read. The sex scenes border on rape, and would horrify many men. So much for the gentle sex.Altehttp://butterflysquash.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-67568167642850359682010-04-05T09:24:31.663+10:002010-04-05T09:24:31.663+10:00Some of my earliest recollections... involve the i...<em>Some of my earliest recollections... involve the importance of intimacy to a marriage, and that the marriage must be about the man and woman, not about their kids.</em><br /><br />Alright. I will elaborate for you. First off, I must say that I was born and raised in Germany. I can only speak about Americans (where I live now) because I have never lived in Oz.<br /><br />First off, I'm Catholic, and I have to say that the couples at my Church (at non-Mass functions) are probably among the least asexual I've seen here. Generally, the more traditional they are, the more sexual their behavior (which doesn't surprise me).<br /><br />The men are often clearly in physical possession of their wives, holding them about the waist, touching their hair, putting a hand on the small of their back to steer them when walking, kissing them on the cheek, etc. In return, the women are often watching their husbands, gazing at them admiringly, and occasionally even blushing and giggling. Such interplay is a clear sign to anyone around that <em>they're getting it on</em>.<br /><br />But many other Christian couples seem to be carved from a block of ice, and are apparently trying to enforce some sort of ban on public displays of affection. This is very unfortunate, because they are often the most stand-offish and -- yes -- asexual-appearing couples at any gathering. I don't know if that coldness transposes to their marital bed, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. How many men will jump at the chance to marry a woman because she is pleasant and good at crochet? Sex is very important to men, not just euphemistic references to "intimacy", which many women interpret as smiling at each other over dinner, and sharing a couch while watching Home and Garden TV.<br /><br />I suppose such behavior wasn't a problem when everyone around them was similar, but now that we are living in such a sex-obsessed and divorce-crazy culture, I've had many unmarried Christians tell me that they are afraid of marrying because they think it will be the end of sex. They see these couples and are completely turned off. Sex is now something associated more with the wild single-set than with marriage. And certainly not with Christian marriage. This is very unfortunate but true.<br /><br />If Laura Wood had a post about female sexual submission in marriage, or the importance of regular and frequent sex in maintaining a healthy marriage, I think half of her audience would fall over in a dead faint. If she has already written such a post, please reference it here, as I'm sure we would all be interested to see it. The closest thing I could find was this <a href="http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/09/female-sexuality-and-the-fall-of-civilization/" rel="nofollow">post</a>, which falls far short of such a message. (I don't mean to rag on Laura, who writes many excellent posts.)<br /><br />The emphasis in discussions on chastity and sexual morality seems to be more about not fornicating, but there is little frank discussion about married sex. Lots of romantic drivel and talk about birds and the bees, but little plain-spoken discussion of what a healthy, married sex life looks like. This is incredibly important because there are many Christians receiving confusing and contradictory information on this, and they are searching for answers. But they are met with affected horror when they broach such subjects to their Christians leaders.<br /><br />So they are turning to people like Roissy for advice, instead.Altehttp://butterflysquash.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-54181141029160989682010-04-05T09:24:08.210+10:002010-04-05T09:24:08.210+10:00It would be interesting to compare 1970 with 2010 ...<i>It would be interesting to compare 1970 with 2010 on the cost in average pay working hours needed to pay off a typical house say 15km from city centre. My guess is that it would be nearly three times as much.</i><br /><br />I would think that in major US cities it's much more than three times higher. This U.S. census document is interesting: http://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf<br /><br />It suggests that over that period from 1970 to pre-bubble highs, the average price went up by ten times. Mind you this is *new* homes only, but still -- it's quite indicative of a larger trend. <br /><br />Over the same period average household incomes went, in 2007 USD terms, from ~47k to ~67k, a 30% increase in 2007 dollar terms, but which is substantially dwarfed by the increase in housing prices over the same period. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h05.htmlknightblasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03042581488365314771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-79624897378002788242010-04-05T07:38:25.172+10:002010-04-05T07:38:25.172+10:00Mark you ask why dont powerful men support men'...Mark you ask why dont powerful men support men's rights?<br /><br />Number one: powerful men can afford good lawyers or trusts or off-shore investment vehicles. So divorce courts hold less terror for them.<br /><br />Number two: powerful men mainly want to make easy fast money these days. Feminism and multiculturalism and hedonism are an easy fast source of cash. <br /><br />Today's example: California wants to legalise marijhuana to solve its fiscal crisis. Never mind that this would turn the current generation of teenagers into lard-assed couch potatoes. It would help the budgets bottom-line.<br /><br />So post-modern capitalism is the ultimate perversion of use value from exchange value. "Powerful men" dig it, because its easy money.<br /><br />Todays brand of "powerful men" disgust me. They arent fit to lick the boots of our ancestors.jack strocchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534084770633227131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-69369685983012694642010-04-05T06:47:11.204+10:002010-04-05T06:47:11.204+10:00Post-modern liberalism embraces identity politics ...Post-modern liberalism embraces identity politics in political culture and identity economics in professional culture.<br /><br />That goes for feminism and multiculturalism. Both are applauded by post-modern businesses who love the fact that they provide a cheap and pliant source of labour. Ideally suited to a "service economy".<br /><br />Certainly a lot easier to deal with than ham-fisted Jock shop stewards.jack strocchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534084770633227131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-58178014954896288742010-04-05T06:41:19.826+10:002010-04-05T06:41:19.826+10:00Alte said:
The house prices rose as a result of d...Alte said:<br /><br /><i>The house prices rose as a result of dual-income families, not the other way around.</i><br /><br />Yes, thats true. Home Affordability is measured off household, not primary earner or average male, income.<br /><br />I remember the first big wave of yuppies were Dual Income households straight out of uni doing up inner-city terrace houses in the seventies. Thats when prices started to rise.<br /><br />It would be interesting to compare 1970 with 2010 on the cost in average pay <b>working hours</b> needed to pay off a typical house say 15km from city centre. My guess is that it would be nearly three times as much.<br /><br />Still, that does not really weaken my point that post-modern capitalism and feminism go hand in glove. Developers love feminism because its the Single White Female plus cat who are buying up all these condominiums.jack strocchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534084770633227131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-51679641803744719862010-04-05T06:33:41.692+10:002010-04-05T06:33:41.692+10:00IIiom said:
How, exactly, did this myth of "...IIiom said:<br /><br /><i>How, exactly, did this myth of "the extended family" work? After all, all those aunties -- who might well be on a farm or in a village several miles away -- also had their own brood of children to be looked after. <br /><br />Perhaps mothers-in-law used literally to be witches?</i><br /><br />You need to get out more or at least obtain some living memories. Life in a 20th C suburb right up until the end of the Baby Boom in 1970, mimicked village life.<br /><br />When I was a small child, about 40 years ago, it was common enough to go to someones place and see three generations living under one roof.<br /><br />Also, families tended to cluster in one suburb. Richmond was famous for its Irish family culture. So the aunties would do baby sitting duties while mum went to work at the boot factory or whatever.<br /><br />Or an extended family would staff a shop, much as the NESBs do nowadays.<br /><br />You seem pretty ignorant about life as it was before "Sex and the City" came along like a cargo for your fashion victim cult.jack strocchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534084770633227131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-89280723753595103942010-04-05T01:11:11.374+10:002010-04-05T01:11:11.374+10:00I'm pretty sure that groups of male chimpanzee...I'm pretty sure that groups of male chimpanzees don't take over other troups; rather that troups fight, and sometimes extinguish, other troups.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-64514662118839761762010-04-05T00:53:05.054+10:002010-04-05T00:53:05.054+10:00"Male sexual competition is deadly serious ev..."Male sexual competition is deadly serious evolutionary business, when one group of male chimpanzees takes over a troop they kill are the existing cubs of the former male members. They do this because of male sexual competition, a very practical reason."<br /><br />chimps and Practicality lol.<br />They know so much about passing their own genes by having their own children by having sex.<br />Why humans didn't know that sex = kids for so many ages yet monkeys do in their small lifespans and with their simpler brains.<br /><br /><b>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120309,00.html</b><br /><br /><b>http://www.jstor.org/pss/681818</b><br /><br />Wonder where we lost it.namae nankanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-31484207323479587112010-04-04T22:54:48.687+10:002010-04-04T22:54:48.687+10:00Alte, I've been a Christian my whole life (I&#...Alte, I've been a Christian my whole life (I'm 52) ... and I think you must know some really strange Christians if you think "<i>that Christian marriages appear to be completely sexless, and the Christian establishment reinforces that with their teachings.</i>"<br /><br />Some of my earliest recollections of Christian preaching and teaching (even as a child, I much preferred staying with the adults rather than being shuffled off with the kids) involve the importance of intimacy to a marriage, and that the marriage must be about the man and woman, not about their kids.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com