I do not think that this has anything to do with welfare, that is just silly. It has more to do with social grooming, and what people find as acceptable. I have met swedish men, and though most appear to be shy, there are still outgoing rowdy pesronalities among them, just as with any group of people. The awkwardness in relations is normal, and has been going on centuries, in every country and culture on the planet, and it is not reserved for any particular culture. Though most view Americans as rowdy, rude, and outgoing, there are many shy among them as well, and men here often still do not know what to say to females on their first date regardless of where they are from, this is nothing new. Even American guys are confused as to what is appropriate for their first date, and it varies by person. Some women like to pay, others want the "old time romance". That varies by the indiviual. I am still a southern girl, and enjoy the courtesies, and find them very attractive and considerate. Just as when boys carried my books for me in school, I appreciate having doors opened for me, chairs pulled out, and men offering to carry my groceries. I have never asked a man out, and yes, I expect them to make the first move. Though it is not hard to give them the right hints and signals to let them know, because they are not mind readers. Women can initiate conversation, but it is up to the man to do the formal asking, that is just my culture though, and I understand everyone works different depending on what they are accustomed to. I think alot of the fumbling between men and women is they make too many assumptions rather than just be direct and openly communicate. Communication can be romantic too. IF she had felt this way on her date, she should have asked him about it, been direct, and addressed any annoyances or problems directly to his face, rather than call him a bore later, and write articles about him behind his back. That was very rude and inconciderate on her part, never giving him the chance to explain and give his views on things himself instead of writing articles speculatiing on his actions.
So you're just throwing out the window any idea of the government getting so big that it can change people's behaviors? Are you sure about that?
Considering this happens in every culture and country in the world, with very different welfare systems, yes I do not see this behavior as related at all. I am sure that it is possible to implement some Clockwork Orange behavior modifications if given the chance, but I do not see that as the case in this particular situation.
So the government imposing itself on cultures with laws such as "sexual discrimination" and promising "equal rights in the workplace" is not an attempt to change culture by the use of federal power?
If the government had not been involved, women would still be treated as property, with no rights to land ownership, voting rights, rights to their own body, or even the right to register an invention they created. I do see the necessity to protect all human rights through law and this includes women having equal treatment at work. Now , I strongly disagree that equal should mean better treatment, and in this day and age I see more sexual discrimination against males than I do against women. I think that is an issue that should be resolved as well. I do not think that women having equal pay in the workforce should affect their relationships with men, because women are still the lifebringers. Women are to be treated with care in a relationship because they carry more responsibility and burden in the relationship due to the natural order of things. If a man is expecting a woman to run off with them, make sacrifices in her life to be with him, to take care of him, and to bear his children one day, the least he can do is treat her like a delicate flower and with love and respect regardless of how much she earns.
Do moar research.
Equality in the workforce changes everything, including marriage rates.
Sweden for example has one of the lowest marriage rates in the world. But very high equality for the sexes.
"Sweden also offers advantages in child rearing. There is more leisure time, and generous welfare benefits make it possible for parents to spend greater time with their children. Almost all mothers are able to stay at home with their infants for the first year, at 80 per cent or more of their salary. And it is easy to work flexible hours in order to meet family responsibilities. In Sweden child poverty is almost nonexistent, and all children are covered by health insurance."
No need for a marriage to raise babies because of equality equals fewer marriages.
It will obviously change dating habits as well.
So basically you are saying that because women and children are better taken care of in Sweden, men feel no obligation or desire to have a real relationship with the women or their children to help raise the child? I think that has to do with their mindset and resentment rather than their social benefits. Sounds like it is the same mindset of many men in the US, that it is the " all about me" syndrome that appears to be afflicting men all over the world, not just in Sweden. Many many seem to be afflicted with the mindset that it is all about personal gain," what is in it for them?" rather than looking at the bigger pictures in life. This I think has more to do with selfishness and self centeredness rather than their social welfare system. We have this as well, and it has nothing to do with welfare, it has to do with children being raised today with the, " it's all about me" mindset.
I do not think that this has anything to do with welfare, that is just silly. It has more to do with social grooming, and what people find as acceptable. I have met swedish men, and though most appear to be shy, there are still outgoing rowdy pesronalities among them, just as with any group of people. The awkwardness in relations is normal, and has been going on centuries, in every country and culture on the planet, and it is not reserved for any particular culture. Though most view Americans as rowdy, rude, and outgoing, there are many shy among them as well, and men here often still do not know what to say to females on their first date regardless of where they are from, this is nothing new. Even American guys are confused as to what is appropriate for their first date, and it varies by person. Some women like to pay, others want the "old time romance". That varies by the indiviual. I am still a southern girl, and enjoy the courtesies, and find them very attractive and considerate. Just as when boys carried my books for me in school, I appreciate having doors opened for me, chairs pulled out, and men offering to carry my groceries. I have never asked a man out, and yes, I expect them to make the first move. Though it is not hard to give them the right hints and signals to let them know, because they are not mind readers. Women can initiate conversation, but it is up to the man to do the formal asking, that is just my culture though, and I understand everyone works different depending on what they are accustomed to. I think alot of the fumbling between men and women is they make too many assumptions rather than just be direct and openly communicate. Communication can be romantic too. IF she had felt this way on her date, she should have asked him about it, been direct, and addressed any annoyances or problems directly to his face, rather than call him a bore later, and write articles about him behind his back. That was very rude and inconciderate on her part, never giving him the chance to explain and give his views on things himself instead of writing articles speculatiing on his actions.
So you're just throwing out the window any idea of the government getting so big that it can change people's behaviors? Are you sure about that?
Considering this happens in every culture and country in the world, with very different welfare systems, yes I do not see this behavior as related at all. I am sure that it is possible to implement some Clockwork Orange behavior modifications if given the chance, but I do not see that as the case in this particular situation.
So the government imposing itself on cultures with laws such as "sexual discrimination" and promising "equal rights in the workplace" is not an attempt to change culture by the use of federal power?
If the government had not been involved, women would still be treated as property, with no rights to land ownership, voting rights, rights to their own body, or even the right to register an invention they created. I do see the necessity to protect all human rights through law and this includes women having equal treatment at work. Now , I strongly disagree that equal should mean better treatment, and in this day and age I see more sexual discrimination against males than I do against women. I think that is an issue that should be resolved as well. I do not think that women having equal pay in the workforce should affect their relationships with men, because women are still the lifebringers. Women are to be treated with care in a relationship because they carry more responsibility and burden in the relationship due to the natural order of things. If a man is expecting a woman to run off with them, make sacrifices in her life to be with him, to take care of him, and to bear his children one day, the least he can do is treat her like a delicate flower and with love and respect regardless of how much she earns.
Do moar research.
Equality in the workforce changes everything, including marriage rates.
Sweden for example has one of the lowest marriage rates in the world. But very high equality for the sexes.
"Sweden also offers advantages in child rearing. There is more leisure time, and generous welfare benefits make it possible for parents to spend greater time with their children. Almost all mothers are able to stay at home with their infants for the first year, at 80 per cent or more of their salary. And it is easy to work flexible hours in order to meet family responsibilities. In Sweden child poverty is almost nonexistent, and all children are covered by health insurance."
No need for a marriage to raise babies because of equality equals fewer marriages.
It will obviously change dating habits as well.
So basically you are saying that because women and children are better taken care of in Sweden, men feel no obligation or desire to have a real relationship with the women or their children to help raise the child? I think that has to do with their mindset and resentment rather than their social benefits. Sounds like it is the same mindset of many men in the US, that it is the " all about me" syndrome that appears to be afflicting men all over the world, not just in Sweden. Many many seem to be afflicted with the mindset that it is all about personal gain," what is in it for them?" rather than looking at the bigger pictures in life. This I think has more to do with selfishness and self centeredness rather than their social welfare system. We have this as well, and it has nothing to do with welfare, it has to do with children being raised today with the, " it's all about me" mindset.
I didn't say anything of the sort, but it's rather telling you would think this system would only change the men, and not the women as well.
Did you notice in the original article the women in Sweden did not think anything was abnormal about the date the foreigner was complaining about?
So basically you are saying that because women and children are better taken care of in Sweden, men feel no obligation or desire to have a real relationship with the women or their children to help raise the child? I think that has to do with their mindset and resentment rather than their social benefits. Sounds like it is the same mindset of many men in the US, that it is the " all about me" syndrome that appears to be afflicting men all over the world, not just in Sweden. Many many seem to be afflicted with the mindset that it is all about personal gain," what is in it for them?" rather than looking at the bigger pictures in life. This I think has more to do with selfishness and self centeredness rather than their social welfare system. We have this as well, and it has nothing to do with welfare, it has to do with children being raised today with the, " it's all about me" mindset.
I didn't say anything of the sort, but it's rather telling you would think this system would only change the men, and not the women as well.
Did you notice in the original article the women in Sweden did not think anything was abnormal about the date the foreigner was complaining about?
Actually I think that would be an improvement, not a "problem". Changing the women, to only be with a man that wants to be with them for no other reason than because they enjoy being together, enjoy each others company seems like an improvement over say men being with women because they feel obligated to take care of them or their children. I see this as a step forward, not backwards. If women can take care of themselves why would they want to have the burden of then having to take care of a man as well if they didn;t have to?
I for one, think people should not be " guilted" into relationships, they should only be together because both parties want to be with each other. For a woman not to " need" a man to take care of her, or her children, I think that is wonderful progress. That way couples will only be together because they enjoy each other and for no other reason. Much better than men trying to trap women into relationships by knocking them up, or making them dependent on them. I see no point in 2 people living together for the rest of their lives because of guilt or obligations or even what is expected of them socially, no they should only be together because they both enjoy it, and that is what they want to do.
Originally posted by outfctrl Well, women want to be treated equal, right? There you go, equality. Now if the guy offered to pick up the tab, would he be called a Male Chauvinist? You cant win either way. ;-)
I believe this is the first time for me too agree with you. Essentially the whole article is just dumb since it seems to be a woman complaining that the man, from another culture, didn't act as men should act according to her culture. Sweden and America are pretty far apart, Sweden being a socialistic country and America being a country that's very conservative and liberal. This obviously affects the way people are and the what norms are created in that country. But saying socialism "strips away an individuals identity" is just narrow mindedness. Is it then liberalism's fault that she is greedy unable to understand other country's cultures?
Well, women want to be treated equal, right? There you go, equality. Now if the guy offered to pick up the tab, would he be called a Male Chauvinist? You cant win either way.
;-)
I believe this is the first time for me too agree with you. Essentially the whole article is just dumb since it seems to be a woman complaining that the man, from another culture, didn't act as men should act according to her culture. Sweden and America are pretty far apart, Sweden being a socialistic country and America being a country that's very conservative and liberal. This obviously affects the way people are and the what norms are created in that country. But saying socialism "strips away an individuals identity" is just narrow mindedness. Is it then liberalism's fault that she is greedy unable to understand other country's cultures?
That is just the thing, He didn;t act any different than some American men do. Yes, there are American men that act just as he did, and for this to be made out to be a cultural differnce or blame it on welfare I find amusing. It has NOTHING to do with either.
Well, women want to be treated equal, right? There you go, equality. Now if the guy offered to pick up the tab, would he be called a Male Chauvinist? You cant win either way.
;-)
I believe this is the first time for me too agree with you. Essentially the whole article is just dumb since it seems to be a woman complaining that the man, from another culture, didn't act as men should act according to her culture. Sweden and America are pretty far apart, Sweden being a socialistic country and America being a country that's very conservative and liberal. This obviously affects the way people are and the what norms are created in that country. But saying socialism "strips away an individuals identity" is just narrow mindedness. Is it then liberalism's fault that she is greedy unable to understand other country's cultures?
That is just the thing, He didn;t act any different than some American men do. Yes, there are American men that act just as he did, and for this to be made out to be a cultural differnce or blame it on welfare I find amusing. It has NOTHING to do with either.
I've been on dates where women insist on paying, and won't let me buy them dinner. I don't ask them out again.
Well, women want to be treated equal, right? There you go, equality. Now if the guy offered to pick up the tab, would he be called a Male Chauvinist? You cant win either way.
;-)
I believe this is the first time for me too agree with you. Essentially the whole article is just dumb since it seems to be a woman complaining that the man, from another culture, didn't act as men should act according to her culture. Sweden and America are pretty far apart, Sweden being a socialistic country and America being a country that's very conservative and liberal. This obviously affects the way people are and the what norms are created in that country. But saying socialism "strips away an individuals identity" is just narrow mindedness. Is it then liberalism's fault that she is greedy unable to understand other country's cultures?
That is just the thing, He didn;t act any different than some American men do. Yes, there are American men that act just as he did, and for this to be made out to be a cultural differnce or blame it on welfare I find amusing. It has NOTHING to do with either.
I've been on dates where women insist on paying, and won't let me buy them dinner. I don't ask them out again.
So if you had been dating a woman, and yes she let you pay for all the dates you invited her on, then she invites you for an all expense paid weekend in the bahamas with her, you would decline? LOL!
I think the rule that whoever does the inviting plays the host, makes the plans, and pays the tab should apply.
Comments
So you're just throwing out the window any idea of the government getting so big that it can change people's behaviors? Are you sure about that?
Considering this happens in every culture and country in the world, with very different welfare systems, yes I do not see this behavior as related at all. I am sure that it is possible to implement some Clockwork Orange behavior modifications if given the chance, but I do not see that as the case in this particular situation.
So the government imposing itself on cultures with laws such as "sexual discrimination" and promising "equal rights in the workplace" is not an attempt to change culture by the use of federal power?
If the government had not been involved, women would still be treated as property, with no rights to land ownership, voting rights, rights to their own body, or even the right to register an invention they created. I do see the necessity to protect all human rights through law and this includes women having equal treatment at work. Now , I strongly disagree that equal should mean better treatment, and in this day and age I see more sexual discrimination against males than I do against women. I think that is an issue that should be resolved as well. I do not think that women having equal pay in the workforce should affect their relationships with men, because women are still the lifebringers. Women are to be treated with care in a relationship because they carry more responsibility and burden in the relationship due to the natural order of things. If a man is expecting a woman to run off with them, make sacrifices in her life to be with him, to take care of him, and to bear his children one day, the least he can do is treat her like a delicate flower and with love and respect regardless of how much she earns.
Do moar research.
Equality in the workforce changes everything, including marriage rates.
Sweden for example has one of the lowest marriage rates in the world. But very high equality for the sexes.
"Sweden also offers advantages in child rearing. There is more leisure time, and generous welfare benefits make it possible for parents to spend greater time with their children. Almost all mothers are able to stay at home with their infants for the first year, at 80 per cent or more of their salary. And it is easy to work flexible hours in order to meet family responsibilities. In Sweden child poverty is almost nonexistent, and all children are covered by health insurance."
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/oct2005p8_2076.html
No need for a marriage to raise babies because of equality equals fewer marriages.
It will obviously change dating habits as well.
So basically you are saying that because women and children are better taken care of in Sweden, men feel no obligation or desire to have a real relationship with the women or their children to help raise the child? I think that has to do with their mindset and resentment rather than their social benefits. Sounds like it is the same mindset of many men in the US, that it is the " all about me" syndrome that appears to be afflicting men all over the world, not just in Sweden. Many many seem to be afflicted with the mindset that it is all about personal gain," what is in it for them?" rather than looking at the bigger pictures in life. This I think has more to do with selfishness and self centeredness rather than their social welfare system. We have this as well, and it has nothing to do with welfare, it has to do with children being raised today with the, " it's all about me" mindset.
So you're just throwing out the window any idea of the government getting so big that it can change people's behaviors? Are you sure about that?
Considering this happens in every culture and country in the world, with very different welfare systems, yes I do not see this behavior as related at all. I am sure that it is possible to implement some Clockwork Orange behavior modifications if given the chance, but I do not see that as the case in this particular situation.
So the government imposing itself on cultures with laws such as "sexual discrimination" and promising "equal rights in the workplace" is not an attempt to change culture by the use of federal power?
If the government had not been involved, women would still be treated as property, with no rights to land ownership, voting rights, rights to their own body, or even the right to register an invention they created. I do see the necessity to protect all human rights through law and this includes women having equal treatment at work. Now , I strongly disagree that equal should mean better treatment, and in this day and age I see more sexual discrimination against males than I do against women. I think that is an issue that should be resolved as well. I do not think that women having equal pay in the workforce should affect their relationships with men, because women are still the lifebringers. Women are to be treated with care in a relationship because they carry more responsibility and burden in the relationship due to the natural order of things. If a man is expecting a woman to run off with them, make sacrifices in her life to be with him, to take care of him, and to bear his children one day, the least he can do is treat her like a delicate flower and with love and respect regardless of how much she earns.
Do moar research.
Equality in the workforce changes everything, including marriage rates.
Sweden for example has one of the lowest marriage rates in the world. But very high equality for the sexes.
"Sweden also offers advantages in child rearing. There is more leisure time, and generous welfare benefits make it possible for parents to spend greater time with their children. Almost all mothers are able to stay at home with their infants for the first year, at 80 per cent or more of their salary. And it is easy to work flexible hours in order to meet family responsibilities. In Sweden child poverty is almost nonexistent, and all children are covered by health insurance."
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/oct2005p8_2076.html
No need for a marriage to raise babies because of equality equals fewer marriages.
It will obviously change dating habits as well.
So basically you are saying that because women and children are better taken care of in Sweden, men feel no obligation or desire to have a real relationship with the women or their children to help raise the child? I think that has to do with their mindset and resentment rather than their social benefits. Sounds like it is the same mindset of many men in the US, that it is the " all about me" syndrome that appears to be afflicting men all over the world, not just in Sweden. Many many seem to be afflicted with the mindset that it is all about personal gain," what is in it for them?" rather than looking at the bigger pictures in life. This I think has more to do with selfishness and self centeredness rather than their social welfare system. We have this as well, and it has nothing to do with welfare, it has to do with children being raised today with the, " it's all about me" mindset.
I didn't say anything of the sort, but it's rather telling you would think this system would only change the men, and not the women as well.
Did you notice in the original article the women in Sweden did not think anything was abnormal about the date the foreigner was complaining about?
I didn't say anything of the sort, but it's rather telling you would think this system would only change the men, and not the women as well.
Did you notice in the original article the women in Sweden did not think anything was abnormal about the date the foreigner was complaining about?
Actually I think that would be an improvement, not a "problem". Changing the women, to only be with a man that wants to be with them for no other reason than because they enjoy being together, enjoy each others company seems like an improvement over say men being with women because they feel obligated to take care of them or their children. I see this as a step forward, not backwards. If women can take care of themselves why would they want to have the burden of then having to take care of a man as well if they didn;t have to?
I for one, think people should not be " guilted" into relationships, they should only be together because both parties want to be with each other. For a woman not to " need" a man to take care of her, or her children, I think that is wonderful progress. That way couples will only be together because they enjoy each other and for no other reason. Much better than men trying to trap women into relationships by knocking them up, or making them dependent on them. I see no point in 2 people living together for the rest of their lives because of guilt or obligations or even what is expected of them socially, no they should only be together because they both enjoy it, and that is what they want to do.
I believe this is the first time for me too agree with you. Essentially the whole article is just dumb since it seems to be a woman complaining that the man, from another culture, didn't act as men should act according to her culture. Sweden and America are pretty far apart, Sweden being a socialistic country and America being a country that's very conservative and liberal. This obviously affects the way people are and the what norms are created in that country. But saying socialism "strips away an individuals identity" is just narrow mindedness. Is it then liberalism's fault that she is greedy unable to understand other country's cultures?
I believe this is the first time for me too agree with you. Essentially the whole article is just dumb since it seems to be a woman complaining that the man, from another culture, didn't act as men should act according to her culture. Sweden and America are pretty far apart, Sweden being a socialistic country and America being a country that's very conservative and liberal. This obviously affects the way people are and the what norms are created in that country. But saying socialism "strips away an individuals identity" is just narrow mindedness. Is it then liberalism's fault that she is greedy unable to understand other country's cultures?
That is just the thing, He didn;t act any different than some American men do. Yes, there are American men that act just as he did, and for this to be made out to be a cultural differnce or blame it on welfare I find amusing. It has NOTHING to do with either.
I believe this is the first time for me too agree with you. Essentially the whole article is just dumb since it seems to be a woman complaining that the man, from another culture, didn't act as men should act according to her culture. Sweden and America are pretty far apart, Sweden being a socialistic country and America being a country that's very conservative and liberal. This obviously affects the way people are and the what norms are created in that country. But saying socialism "strips away an individuals identity" is just narrow mindedness. Is it then liberalism's fault that she is greedy unable to understand other country's cultures?
That is just the thing, He didn;t act any different than some American men do. Yes, there are American men that act just as he did, and for this to be made out to be a cultural differnce or blame it on welfare I find amusing. It has NOTHING to do with either.
I've been on dates where women insist on paying, and won't let me buy them dinner. I don't ask them out again.
I believe this is the first time for me too agree with you. Essentially the whole article is just dumb since it seems to be a woman complaining that the man, from another culture, didn't act as men should act according to her culture. Sweden and America are pretty far apart, Sweden being a socialistic country and America being a country that's very conservative and liberal. This obviously affects the way people are and the what norms are created in that country. But saying socialism "strips away an individuals identity" is just narrow mindedness. Is it then liberalism's fault that she is greedy unable to understand other country's cultures?
That is just the thing, He didn;t act any different than some American men do. Yes, there are American men that act just as he did, and for this to be made out to be a cultural differnce or blame it on welfare I find amusing. It has NOTHING to do with either.
I've been on dates where women insist on paying, and won't let me buy them dinner. I don't ask them out again.
So if you had been dating a woman, and yes she let you pay for all the dates you invited her on, then she invites you for an all expense paid weekend in the bahamas with her, you would decline? LOL!
I think the rule that whoever does the inviting plays the host, makes the plans, and pays the tab should apply.