Hamlet
The feminist Personnel Relations Officer lasted 12 months. She lived a rather lonely life, because no one would go to her for anything. She used to say that her door was always open, but no one wanted anything to do with her. If she walked around a corner, both the men and the women in the factory would walk around another corner.

There ain’t no love in Family Law or in feminism. It’s a loveless world. Its all about money. How much money he has, and how much of his money can be given to her.

The man is no good, but his money is good, so his money has to taken from him and given to her. Also the man is no good, but his children are good, so his children have to be taken from him and given to her.

There is also very little domestic violence in Australia. Even Relationship Australia now acknowledge that.

There is an enormous amount of domestic violence if you read feminist literature, but if you read the finer details, then a feminist will often classify anything as being domestic violence. This even includes a 60 year old man calling a 20 year old woman “luv”, (and he did call men “mate” also).

In the feminist world there is no mateship or love. Its all about money, and Dog Eat Dog.

http://www.musicbabylon.com/artist/Joni_Mitchell/Dog_Eat_Dog/132062-dog_eat_dog-lyrics.htm

JAMES H...yes, you did take the Lords name in vain. I'm curious why ?

It added nothing to the weight of your otherwise strong statement.

I must do a study one day... why is it that our most pronounced 'swearing' is connected to such wonderful things.

-Jesus xxxxxxxxx beep beeep... Christ. "He who gave himself for mankind"

-F*_k this that the other thing..... "The most beautiful expression of human intimacy and love"

-C*&t "The ultimate symbol of womanhood and the means of human reproduction" hmmm maybe we hate our lives, so we hate where we came from ?

It kind of says something about just how lost we are when the most precious, becomes or is used as the strongest means of abuse and obscenity.

There must be some deep dark psychological reasons for this, but as yet I've not unwrapped them. I can only guess that we feel we have never achieved fulfillment in these areas,
-Spiritual
-Sexual
-Love

that we take them and attack them in our speech. Perhaps its some kind of self hating or a hatred for those things we dearly wanted but could never thus far obtain that comes out ? I dunno....

Feminism, in my view is the very same thing, but on the scale of a social movement. You could describe feminists as a social swear word, based on missed opportunity, absense of love, unfulfilled dreams, sense of rejection...and all this has been turned into a rage and hate of the things it desperately wanted.

SOLUTION...... yep..there is one. Humble ourselves (male and female) and seek to offer love toward each other, that we may receive it back.
Seek the best for others and not just ourselves. I could offer a truckload of scripture verses here, but the 'A-Team' would be on my case like a pitt bull on a Chiwahwa :)

JamesH wrote:

"The words 'luv', 'darling' are used as terms of endearments, it is a coruption (sic) to take offense at the use of these words."

Endearments? Then keep those words for those who are dear to you.

Personally I prefer to be respected, and to give respect, from and to the vast majority of people in my life than to receive hollow 'endearments' from them. I will not call the young woman who serves me at the delicatessen 'dear' or 'luv' because she is neither of these to me. I will however respect her, and those other around me who I interact with.

Your attitude brings to mind an incident that I heard about in a public service organisation around 20 years ago. A client came to the counter, and the person serving him asked "Can I help you sir?". The client bristled and spat out the reply: "Don't call me SIR!", the officer, with quick repartee returned: "Well wadda you want, c**t". The client turned red and left without getting what he wanted.

Respect had been offered initially, disrespect returned, then a reply in kind.

As for the HR person who left the organisation fairly quickly, I can understand that. She was obviously not respected, why should she want to work with a group of people whose views of relationships were frozen in the 1950s?

In the article that started this topic it is clear that neither person actually respected each other. The male saw an attractive 'mail order bride' and the woman saw a meal ticket. No respect on either side. Of course this relationship was going to fail miserably.

Boaz_David
James H could have said “bloody hell”, which is perhaps more representative of a family law matter, when any love is disregarded and the claws and knives come out.

Hamlet,
I think the employees at the factory had been around long enough to know who to respect, who they could readily approach, and who to avoid.

That was why they avoided the feminist, because by just having a simple conversation with the feminist and they could find themselves on a charge of abuse.

“It's dog eat dog, ain't it Flim Flam man
Dog eat dog, you can lie, cheat, skim, scam
Beat'em any way you can”

However in our gender neutral feminist world, the lyrics should really be

“It's dog eat dog, ain't it Flim Flam person
Dog eat dog, you can lie, cheat, skim, scam
Beat'em any way you can”

So now either a man or a woman is capable of lying, cheating, skimming and scamming.

I think Frank became aware of that, although rather too late.

But I don’t think such situations are solely with mail order brides (whoever they are). I know quite a few women who brought nothing into the marriage except a wardrobe full of clothes, but when the marriage was dissolved and sold off in little pieces, the man was hardly left with the shirt on his back.

Such is modern life.

Posted by Hamlet

Hamlet my LUV, they are not words that I use at all, DEAREST Darling.

I have no objection to anyone calling me Luv or Dear, etc etc.

Actually I think the use of these words is perhaps cockney in origin, but then I could be wrong.

Like I wrote before they are not words I choose to use, nor have I ever used them, until now. And anyone who chooses to take offense at the use of these words is a BULLY. The type of person who will take offense whenever it is advantageous to them, in order to make another person feel bad.

That is all.

It is not the first time in history where free speech was oppressed. Political correctness has nothing to do with equality or freeing the oppressed group, PC is about creating oppression, just like the rescuers who freed common people and then became oppressers them selves.

Be it religous or political, they are all tarred with the same brush, first they offer freedom, then once they have the people believing in them, they create new rules to oppress. Just like the pigs in George Orwells Animal Farm.

Does not Hamlet see and talk to ghosts?

Perhaps, I might be deemed from the old school, but I do not refer to “dear” when it comes to friends or strangers. Not even in my letter headings. I had once, when I had attended to a woman residence (accompanied-by-a-friend) and was just leaving down the stair-case when the woman suddenly kissed me on the cheek. It was her way of tanking me for assisting her, but it took me by surprise. On the next visit I did explain to her in a friendly manner that it was not the kind of conduct I desired, albeit I understood her good intentions, and also her offering monies was against my principles and I asked her to refrain in future to ever offer money again. As I then explained people who really like to assist do not do so to get some reward from those they help.
Turn out that this woman was so impressed with my conduct that some time later we ended up getting married, and still are!
Regretfully, not just woman but also men are too often looking what they can get out of it and then the Frank & Sri situation is more likely to eventuate.
Perhaps the good old days of mutual respect might just avoid a lot of problems.
Men who go out to look for an overseas bride, generally do so darn well knowing that a younger woman more then likely has her own plans.
Some two decades ago a young university student asked me to marry her. Sure, I was flattered in one way as she was indeed a beautiful woman, but I declined, because as I explained to her that her reasons to get married would be to gain permanent residence, and I do not believe that one should misuse the institution of marriage for that purpose. She subsequently became married to another man and divorced after two years. Prior to the wedding (he-was-more-then-twice-her-age) he made clear he would have a young sexy wife, well he had alright, just she was off limits to him.
He learned his lesson! At-least-she-was-honest-about-it!