CJMorgan:"How successful are you at such relationships? "

Actually, I've been in 3 long-term monogamous relationships and about a dozen or so short-term ones. I've never been much for one-night stands. I'd be in such a relationship now if the situation allowed, but it doesn't. I'm glad that cheers you up. Small things, small minds, as they say.

Yabby:"Sadly the
courts, with the encouragement and lobbying of the
feminist movement, have turned marriage and relationships
into a lucrative business, rather then what it was
supposed to be.

I think that is a real shame."

I agree.

Years of gender biased educational systems and social engineering have meant that young men are being pushed into trades or services work or onto benefits, while young women are being groomed to be the professional class of the future (until they decide they want kids, of course).
--

In that respect Greer did win [and of course 2.3 billion pa to "secret wimmins business" and zip for blokes has helped].

The bias went through the whole education system and then to the workplace, hence the situation of American Beauty is exactly the same as I remember when married and living on "the Upper North Shore".

A reality check is to compare American Beauty to Death of a Salesman, 50 years before, ie same generation war but in 2000 a GENDER war dominates

Who earns more pays more taxes. Plus die earlier, retire later and draw down less social welfare. The other lot feed on that. Animal farm.

It more than evens out in the end. Females likely come out ahead in the long run. They'll never admit it, that's their game. Cant blame them either. Men just have too many natural advantages.

The whole topic is irrelevant. It's not who earns the money that counts, it's who spends it.

Houellebecq:"It's not who earns the money that counts, it's who spends it."

Bingo!

Of the family law courts yes indeed. I have seen
three generations of farmers build up an asset, only
to lose it at the whim of a judge.

--

agreed, and why I put the whole truth down in my book http://www.ablokesguide.com

Yes indeed the farmer situation made law re "asset rich income poor" [In the Marriage of Lee Steere (1985) 10 Fam LR 421] case where lawyers found a way to "take shirt off back of whole family" just as Di did to the Royal family.

But nothing like the law made on "superannuation tricks" with a whole string of cases re Qantas pilots, then Howard changed the legislation to give the wives even more in a "doing an Oliver" 3 card trick that continues to this day.