Report from the UN Refugee Agency, 23 June 2009

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,QUERYRESPONSE,CHN,,4a7040b626,0.html

>>The United States (US) Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2008 indicates that it is illegal in almost every province for single women to have a child and that people who have children out of wedlock must pay "social compensation fees" (29 Feb. 2009, Sec.1.f). The US Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) reports that those who give birth to a child outside of marriage can face fines six to eight times the amount of their income from the previous year (US 31 Oct. 2008, 97). According to a 2005 article in Reproductive Health, very few children are born out of wedlock in China (11 Aug. 2005, 3).>>

Stevenlmeyer <"The US Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) reports that those who give birth to a child outside of marriage can face fines six to eight times the amount of their income from the previous year (US 31 Oct. 2008, 97)"

I would hope, in the interest of fairness, that the men who impregnate these 'naughty' women also face fines six to eight times the amount of their income?

If so, it is no wonder there are few unmarried mothers in China, because that large fine would be enough to put any man off having sex with an unmarried woman, surely.

Hi suzeonline

Or perhaps they get married as soon as they discover the woman is pregnant.

its hardly worth notice
but i noted this..[learnt this]..yesterday
so it might be relivant if its a real topic

""in the west
love is between two people
in china
a marrage is between two families''

its worth noting that we regester marrages with govts
this puts us in a subserviant legal position

see in apllying[apply means beg]..
govt obtains the required legal standing to take the child

its for the same reasons
we need regester birth's
and deaths..

but dont bother reply
im too busy on other topics
let alone about letting govts know
a way to get yet more tax out of us

yes i agree
what about the genetic sperm provider
it takes two to make a living being..be a live birth

[but the isue of live birth
is yet another destraction]

Perhaps the Chinese are simply a bit more pragmatic about having
abortions, as are the Japanese.

Fact is that women have around 400 chances to have another cute
baby and they can't keep them all. So having them when they choose
to have them, makes perfect sense.

Suze, perhaps women who have a problem with abortion, should
simply keep their legs together until they are married.
Problem solved.

Don't they have contraception in China?

Yabby <"Suze, perhaps women who have a problem with abortion, should
simply keep their legs together until they are married.
Problem solved."

What 'problem' would that be then Yabby?

I imagine they wouldn't have to keep their legs together if they used contraception correctly though.

On the other hand, we could have all the unmarried men keeping it in their pants as well, with the same result as the cross-legged women!

Not so Suze. For of course having sex is normal and natural.

Its not illegal either. Just because a bloke has sex with a
woman, does not mean that he agrees to have a child.

Abortion is available, legal and a practical solution.

"What 'problem' would that be then Yabby?"

Having children that they aren't willing or able to support?

If there's no problem then we can just abolish the single mothers pension, right suzieonline?

There's no use blaming men. Rape is already illegal. The sexes are not equal, precisely because women bear offspring and men don't. If a woman can't keep her legs shut, it's her problem, not the man's. In any event, if she's unmarried, there's no saying he's going to be on the scene 9 months later, or even that she knows who it is. He may not even know a child exists. A man has no more "obligation" to support a woman to support her child unless he agrees to, than a woman has an obligation to have sex if she doesn't want to. Nature has supplied women with everything they need to get child support, and it's right between their legs. Since the woman can always provide for them if she wants to, these are not laws of child support, but of sexual morality. Their function is to subsidise other people's reproductive irresponsibility; and they propagate a belief that being a romance victim confers an entitlement to live at others expense. They implicitly regard it is a enforceable right for women to treat men as money objects, even non-consensually, at the same time as they regard it an abuse of human rights for men to treat women as sex objects, even consensually.

There is less reason a the father should be compelled to pay than that there is for you to be.

Yabby <"Just because a bloke has sex with a
woman, does not mean that he agrees to have a child."

Just because a woman has sex with a man that doesn't mean she agrees to have a child.
So yes, abortion is available to her.
However, if BOTH use contraception if neither want a child/pregnancy, then wouldn't that be even better?

Peter Hume <"Having children that they aren't willing or able to support? "
I assume you mean men as well there Peter?

Surely we wouldn't have any unmarried mothers or single mothers (with the exception of the death of the father of course), if BOTH men and women took the responsibility of contraception EVERY time they had sex unless they want children?

If men used contraception, then we wouldn't have the problem of women supposedly snaring men with their sexual magic, leading to daring to expect the father to contribute financially to the upbringing of his offspring.

Why should contraception be the domain of women only? Women can lie about their fertility of course. So I say again, if you don't want children, don't have sex. Or use contraception.

So stop whining about the poor innocent fathers.
End of story.

*However, if BOTH use contraception if neither want a child/pregnancy, then wouldn't that be even better?*

Ah but of course contraception commonly fails, so my point
is, abortion is available. Those who don't agree with it,
keep your legs together.

As to male contraception, its limited and commonly wrecks
good sex, so is often not used. Women have all the choices
there, not men.

Suze, perhaps you should head for the kitchen and do the gladwrap
test.

Run your finger over your tongue and see what you feel. Now get
a piece of gladwrap and put it over your tongue and do the same.

Tell me if you notice any difference :)

There's no reason for men to use contraception, because if the woman gets pregnant, the man doesn't have a child, the woman does. Durr.

If you want someone to pay the woman, pay her yourself.

End of story.

Oh, good comeback Hume...

Yabby, better to cover it with a condom than pay a woman for your baby for the rest of it's childhood surely?

If the condom is so awful, why hasn't a bright male scientist come up with a good oral medicine alternative for men?

I think I can tell you why.

What woman in her right mind would believe a man when he says she won't get pregnant by him because he has had a contraceptive pill?

None.

Obviously, the woman has more to lose if he is lying, or if any contraception fails.
So why all the moaning about poor fathers?

Women... damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Suze, male scientists did come up with a great solution, its
called the pill. If it fails, theres is always the alternative
of an abortion. No woman is forced to have a child.

Like I pointed out, women who have a problem with that, should
keep their legs together until marriage, to be on the safe side.

"There's no reason for men to use contraception, because if the woman gets pregnant, the man doesn't have a child"

One reason for men to use contraception is when women refuse to have sex with them unless they do. Durr.

Is there any information available as to the usage of condoms in China? Perhaps Chinese women have taken up the 'if it's not on, it's not on' campaign, which might explain the relative scarcity of unmarried mothers in that country. I'd be surprised if abortion was the first choice in avoiding unwanted babies in China.

I agree Morganzola.
Obviously the women in China seem brighter than the average.

Or could it be that the Chinese men have worked out that if they wear a condom, there is much less likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy?

Maybe those men would prefer a bit of plastic between them and an unplanned pregnancy?
Maybe they are further along the evolutionary pathway than other men?

*Maybe they are further along the evolutionary pathway than other men?*

ROFL Suze :)

I actually read an article about all this, not so long ago, its
just a shame that I can't remember where, so that I could give you
the link.

What it came down to is basically this: There is a shortage of
many millions of brides in China, due to the 1 child policy and
parents preferring sons, commonly aborting potential daughters.

So young Chinese brides can afford to be choosy and men have to
work much harder, in order to impress them.

Money remains the no 1 vaginal lubricant in China so in evolutionary
terms, they are not much different to our women.

BTW most rich men in China have a mistress or two.

Condoms have nothing to do with it.

Morganzola
"One reason for men to use contraception is when women refuse to have sex with them unless they do."

In that case there is no issue - literally.

However if they do agree then there is no issue that, in suzieonline's words, they have more to lose which is only stating the obvious. In fact they have *much* more to lose - in proportion as a baby is more than a sperm.

By agreeing to unprotected sex, a woman agrees to the risk of pregnancy. She doesn't have to carry the child to term if she doesn't want, and if she does, she doesn't have to care for it herself, and if she does, she doesn't have hold the child to ransom for her unwillingness to obtain support by providing services that she doesn't feel like providing, but if she does, she doesn't have to rely on help from the father, and if she does, she doesn't have to refuse to provide adequate consideration for his support.

If having passed through all those decision gates she decides to keep the child, but cannot provide adequate care for it, then the ordinary law of child protection from neglect applies.

By agreeing to unprotected sex, and therefore to the risk of the *the woman* getting pregnant, a man does not thereby agree to pay anyone for anything - any more than you agree to pay anyone for anything if he has unprotected sex!

Women are not "damned if they do, damned if they don't". I'm all in favour of women spreading their legs. Their reward is in the pleasure they receive; it does not convert into a general meal ticket o risible notion!

Legitimacy of children is a necessary device to protect the human rights of men by requiring their consent, just as the law against rape is necessary to protect the human rights of women by requiring their consent.

The feminists are just arguing for a double standard, as usual, by which women have the advantages of patriarchy and the advantages of feminism, and men have the disadvantages of both.

Surely when two people have sex both parties are aware of the risk of pregnancy? The fact women get pregnant has nothing to do with the pregnancy awareness level of the two parties going into a consensual arrangement.

For the man's part the risk might be exacerbated if the woman lies about contraception and he goes ahead believing it is safe. Also if the contraception fails who is responsible?

I can see why men might feel trapped by accidental pregnancy but so do women but they just get on and do what has to be done. Having a child is afterall a joyous moment but hard work. Some women don't see abortion or adoption as an option and the fact is there is a child to be raised in the best possible surrounds as is achievable under the circumstances.

Personally I would rather raise a child alone than have a deadbeat dad around or one that has no interest in the welfare of their progeny, but that is not the popular view. And what about the rights of the child to know about their heritage and their father?

Yabby your argument about women and money is wearing a bit thin (like some of those cheaply made condoms). Women and men both seek security in their relationships both monetarily and psychologically.

Women who marry just for money and those men who desire a trophy wife get what they deserve for the most part, and maybe for some it works.

That is not for the majority of women I am acquainted with who prefer substance over feathers and flummery anyday.

All the money in the world could not induce me to sleep with Donald Trump and his like. Give me a solid man with principles anyday. Principles and substance are the greatest lubricant around.

*That is not for the majority of women I am acquainted with*

Ah Pelican, you make that crucial mistake of perception, which so
many do. Has it ever occured to you that your friends are your
friends, because they think much as you do? Suddenly you want
to extrapolate that onto billions of women. Sorry, it won't wash,
look at the reality around the globe.

Especially in countries where poverty is an issue, money remains
the number 1 driver, when it comes to marriage.

An interesting comment that I heard about this royal wedding.
When the palace decided on which university that William would
attend, apparently the intake of female students increased by
40%.

You Pelican, speak for Pelican, not for women in general.

The evidence from around the globe is clear

WHY ARE THERE SO FEW UNMARRIED MOTHERS IN JAPAN?

>>Yoshiko found she was pregnant and talked to her live-in lover about what they should do. His attitude was not exactly out of the PC book of ‘The Right Things To Say When Your Girlfriend Says She Is Pregnant’.

He said he was prepared to marry her as long as she accepted that she would have to carry on with her full-time job; she must also care for the child and, for good measure, do all the housework. Just to make it crystal clear, he added, ‘I won’t help’ and ‘I like my life as it is.’ It is worth mentioning, too, that the man only had a part-time job and they lived on the higher earnings of Yoshiko.

In Britain, you can imagine this chap would get a rocket-fuelled response. Yoshiko would have found it easier to manage on her own than to marry this bum. But what was her reaction? She jumped at the chance of marrying him. Why?

Because, like most young Japanese women, she really and truly wanted to avoid becoming an unmarried mother. It is a complete no-no. All around the ‘advanced’ world, births outside marriage have grown astonishingly in the past 40 years. But not in Japan. Here in Britain, 46 per cent of all births are outside marriage. In America it is 41 per cent and in France 54 per cent. In Japan, the figure barely scrapes above 2 per cent.>>

See: Legitimate question:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/6827388/legitimate-question.thtml

AN UNMARRIED MOTHER IN BRITAIN

This case is not comparable with the situation in China and Japan. Essma Marjam was married at the time she conceived her children. Still the piece does raise some interesting question:

>>A single mother-of-six is getting more than £80,000 a year from the taxpayer to live in a £2million mansion in an exclusive London suburb.

Essma Marjam, 34, is given almost £7,000 a month in housing benefits to pay the rent on the five-bedroom villa just yards from Sir Paul McCartney's house and Lord's cricket ground.

She also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, such as child benefit, to help look after her children, aged from five months to 14.

[…]

Miss Marjam said: 'I moved here at the beginning of the month as I'm ENTITLED to a five-bedroom house.

[…]

'I'm separated from my husband. He's a solicitor in Derby, but I don't know if he's working at the moment. HE DOESN'T PAY ANYTHING TOWARDS THE KIDS. Things are quite difficult between us>>

(capitalisations added)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250993/Single-mum-finds-mansion-net-gets-YOU-pay-7-000-month-rent.html#ixzz0fd7d7B54

For me two points stand out:

--ENTITLED to a five-bedroom house?

--HE DOESN'T PAY ANYTHING TOWARDS THE KIDS? (Remember, they were married. This was presumably no "accident")

Would Essma Marjam be able to afford this lifestyle if she was not separated from her husband?

An interesting article in the Spectator, Steven. It highlights
that Asians are far more pragmatic when it comes to abortion,
then is the case in our society.

What it also shows is that evolution theory is alive and well.
Females need resources to provide for their offspring and if
marriage won't provide it, then being married to the Govt is
an acceptable option in our society, so people take it.

I once saw a documentary about the world's largest familes. One
was a Catholic family living in Spain, with 17 kids. The Govt
was largely picking up the tab. Another was an old bloke with one
leg in Bahrain, IIRC, who claimed fathership to 86 children, spread
amongst many women. Petrodollars were paying the bill.

This all goes back to why pairbonding evolved in the first place.

Gee, it's sounding like all you guys should move to China or Japan, where you won't have all those nasty feminist women chasing you to force you to have unprotected sex in order to fall pregnant and then chase you for the money!

Apparently it is very expensive to live in Japan though, and there are far more earthquakes and tsunamis, and women are a bit light on in numbers in China, but do go ahead and try anyway :)

This rubbish about most Australian women seeking only money (and pregnancy?) from a relationship is a mute point nowadays anyway.
As in my own marriage, and in that of many others, the woman makes more money than the man does in any case.

And what about all the men who chase rich women? I would suggest it is at least on a par with the women who may be shallow enough to look for money before love in a relationship.

*And what about all the men who chase rich women?*

Err which rich women Suze? Oh you mean those ones whose husbands
died, or they got millions from the divorce? Yes indeed, they are
free to hire a toyboy.

Suze, you make the some mistake as Pelican, judging the world by
the limited perspective of you and your friends. The world is a bigger
place then that and even in Australia, many women seek a male who can
provide the resources to feed the offspring. But only so many are
good looking enough to be fussy with their choice, the rest have to
take what they can get. There are plenty of women in their mid thirties
who can't find anyone, with the biological clock ticking.

Fact is that if William was an out of work bricklayer, the girls
would likely not be flocking after him as they have been and Kate
might likely not be in his bed. With her looks, she could be choosy.

As to condoms, luckily most women don't share your condom fetish
and luckily for men, there is plenty of female competition and none
of you own the vaginal patent :)

Steven et al,

You might find this interesting.

Japan: Treatment of single mothers and discrimination of women who have children out of wedlock.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22544,4565c25f545,3ae6ad6484,0.html

Chinese men (a generality) are great users of aphrodisiacs. The most sought ones are rhino horn and tiger penis. In a country with a population problem, aprodisiacs are the last thing they need. However, this does suggest that male sexual satisfaction is a premium, and possibly unfettered sex is considered acceptable. What about women ...?

As with many societies, it appears that responsible sexual activity is dependent upon women. This rather belies the communist manifesto of sexual equality.

Regarding the appalling attitude to other species, especially those endangered, surely someone could "find" a comparable aphrodisiac in mice claws or locust feelers - albeit only the 'mightiest' would be suitable ... Perhaps a safe product from atomic waste could be developed.

Some years ago an anthropolgist predicted that with the 'one child policy' in China, social unrest would be inevitable, due to too many young males and not enough females. As we know, abortion of female embryos is not uncommon.

Yabby <"As to condoms, luckily most women don't share your condom fetish and luckily for men, there is plenty of female competition and none of you own the vaginal patent :)"

Oh, I beg to differ there Yabby... the legal ability to say 'no!' to any man wishing to access the 'vaginal patent' gives women 100% ownership!

Do you know all women then Yabby? How on earth would you know 'most' women won't insist on casual partners or new partners wearing condoms?
If you do know, you must be a very busy boy indeed :)

Condoms are essential if you don't want possible STD's from a new partner. I would suggest 'most' women would prefer the use of a condom unless they feel very sure of where the man has been in the previous six months.

You may not use condoms, but how can you speak for all other men?
I am sure any really smart man will use a condom if he wants to make sure (98%) he doesn't impregnate his partner if he definitely doesn't want a baby, or an STD for that matter.

As far as I am concerned (and the Centrelink system agrees of course), if you want to have unprotected sex with a woman, and a baby results from that sex, then you ARE accountable...whether you like that fact or not!

Have you thought much about that single-mother-free utopia China as a new abode for you yet? :)

*the legal ability to say 'no!' to any man wishing to access the 'vaginal patent' gives women 100% ownership!*

Ah Suze, but it does not give any single woman ownership and there
is a bit of competition in the marketplace. The sensible male
approach is that if 9 say no, never mind, number 10 or 11 will do.
Its purely a numbers game really.

As to condom use, there are quite a few statistics which have been
published about how commonly they are used. Not that commonly
actually, for they tend to spoil good sex, so people avoid them
if they can help it.

Most women are on the pill or have had a knot put in the line,
if they have had enough kids.

At my age, women are generally past trying to get pregnant,
as they head for the change of life. Some are grateful to get
any attention at all :)

Yabby <"The sensible male approach is that if 9 say no, never mind, number 10 or 11 will do.Its purely a numbers game really."

Ok Yabby, this is my last word on the subject because we seem to have gotten bogged down (with plastic!) with the condom issue, when the real issue is why there are so few unmarried mothers in China!

I have no problem with this very persistent male having unprotected sex with the 10th or 11th woman he asks, as long as he is happy to take the consequences of a pregnancy because of his actions.

Thank goodness I am (almost)too long in the tooth to worry about unplanned pregnancies as well.

Lol, and good night :)

Yabby: I suggest you 'zoom' through most public service departmental websites and take note of all the women earning $100,000 as the minimum salary, most of whom are working in senior roles with the thousands of women career climbing right behind them. Take a peek in the employment section of any newspaper today and the minimum salary for any public service position is around $55,000+, with millions of these positions filled by women earning between $71K-$200K+ pa.

WA, with the exception of DPIE, may only employ a handful of female public servants as opposed to most other states.

Suze

I admire your persistence but facts are not Yabby's strong suit he lives in some kind of time warp out there in the WA wastelands, somewhere between the middle '50's and early 60's when women did not have equal pay and were expected to quit their jobs when they married. Yabby probably thinks that the TV series "Mad Men" is a doco.

Is prostitution legal in WA? In Victoria it is, and condoms are mandatory along with monthly health check of the sex-worker (shame the same cannot be said for the clients - but at least they are required to wear condoms) and business is doing well apparently - I haven't heard of brothels closing for lack of customers.

Among the interesting facts Yabby deliberately misses is that you Suze are a professional working woman, as I would posit that most women who write here are also paid employees. I don't suppose the news has reached his part of WA that the PM and the GG are both female - probably not for long, however things have changed quite a bit since the 50's.

On, topic, one of the reasons I imagine that there are fewer unmarried mothers in China has more to do with a rigidly controlled society - particularly the poorer people. Remember how many women are forced to have abortions if they exceeded the limit or they were found to be pregnant with a female baby?

i have avoided excess comment on the topic
but feel yabby is only trying to take a poke[taking the mickey]

i have never tried the numbers game
but 9 out of 10 sounds like many do

i have also heard of those going after
so called fatties..oldies...uglies and even deadies
im more for qualities..but that ups the number ratio a bit

in the end some like to own just one good car
others collect dinkies or photo's of cars
but as i recall that wernt the topic

why are so few unmarried mothers
look at the numbers..[ratio of man/woman]
woman can afford to be more picky..can chose quality

its as simple as that
how we got onto gladwraped condiments who knows
thing is its a numbers game..so yabby was right..
but got it wrong way about

so what scewed the numbers arround
too many 'married'..woman..not being out of the 'game'

[clearly there aint no shortage
of short fat ugly ill temperred horny men]
either here or in china..

but woman..thats a..*lower number
meaning higher standards can be held

even so a good woman..is as hard to find..as a good man
trouble being the good..dont play 'games'

Suze, I think we have already come up with the answer about China.
The Spectator article made some valid points. Asians are far more
pragmatic when it comes to abortion, they also don't get to marry
the Govt with huge payments, as happens in the West.

But even in Australia we have around 80'000 abortions a year and it
remains a practical choice for any sensible woman.

Unique, if you earn 70-100K$ a year, take out tax and you are not
rich, simply middle class.

Ammonite, wow, so many ad hominems and bitterness in one single post!
You sound just like CJs mate, the one thrown out of OLO some months
ago, can't even remember her nick right now. She was from Victoria
too. Same writing style too.

Yabby
I did not claim to speak for all women stating clearly 'women I am acquainted with'. However you seem quite happy to speak on behalf of all women based on your perceptions. My friends and I are also women.

Your perceptions are no less valid than any other observation however what basis do you use it to make widesweeping generalisations.

I think Yabby is talking on a global level. It is almost undeniable that when poverty is a factor, and men have more access to resources, marriage and prostitution are seen as a greater source of security for women, relegating our western romanticised version to insignificance.

Do the numbers man. Non-western countries have much more people.

As to condoms, well, I don't really remember losing my virginity, I only remember the first time without a condom. No doubt if women's sexual enjoyment was so hindered by a form of contraception it would be bandied about by feminists as a violation of women's human rights.

There are infinite other activities in sex preferable to penetration with a condom.

*I think Yabby is talking on a global level*

Ah, at last a poster who is thinking! The rest seem to live in
their own little limited world. Of course I am talking globally,
there is actually heaps of published stuff on this, I just can't be
fagged to dig it all out. I'm just surprised that so many of you
are so poorly informed.

In China the groom has to actually pay the brides family a bride
price and the family get a big say, when the offers come in.
In India marriages are generally pre arranged, the bride hardly
knows the groom. In Africa the groom pays lobola or x cows to
"purchase" the wife.

But even in the West, plenty of girls seek a rich husband. A survey
was once done regarding newspaper adverts. Husbands of " adequate
means" were commonly sought, wheras men focussed on looks.

But this stuff is in fact the very basis of evolution theory and
nothing has changed. Females need resources to raise the offspring,
so they find a partner. Men OTOH hope to get a bit of regular sex,
or they might as well just be friends.

Diamonds did not become a girls best friend for no reason, there
are sound evolutionary reasons for it. Buy your girl a nice necklace
and I'll bet you get laid that night.

Yabby
Yes of course and how absurd is the intellectual method of the western feminists who react to any discussion of sex by transposing the positions of the sexes. It only makes them look like complete idiots as you explain the basics of biology to them.

It appears that the average answer to avoiding a pregnancy is to have a costly medical abortion. which endangers the health of the mother.

There are measures to be taken to avoid a pregnancy in the first place that some here have suggested, but that the familiar answer is abortion is a sad reflection to the attitude to healthy human life.

The Chinese performd enforced abortion of mothers having more than one child. This made young women more responsible for making sure the child they had was planned and wanted.

In countries where there is poverty the need for a man to look after you is part of survival. Women in heavily patriarchial societies are not legally able or culturally able to access work that might enable them to provide an income or security for themselves. That is just the way it is. Nothing to do with biology only cultural practice.

Some of you men want it all your way. Give women access to education and jobs once only held by men and we are now at risk of being labelled feminazis. Don't allow access and we are money-grubbing mindless opportunists.

I am glad I don't live the world some of you inhabit.

*In countries where there is poverty the need for a man to look after you is part of survival*

Once again Pelican, you take this personally and see it through your
limited worldview, rather then look at the facts.

If this was only where there was poverty, attractive women would
be going for the unemployed. Surveys have been done all all this.
Ask the dating agencies why high status and rich men are snapped
up and unemployed ones are not.

Just because you don't carry the compulsive shopping gene, does not
mean that millions of other women do not.

Money and sex are the two most argued about topics in marriage.
He wants more sex and she wants more money. That is the big
picture out there, but Pelican will of course take it personally,
as if any of us have called her that.

Not so. That does not mean that these things should not be
discussed.

Unique, if you earn 70-100K$ a year, take out tax and you are not
rich, simply middle class.

"you" Yabby, refer to "me" as if I were describing myself when noting 'facts' regarding incomes of the female gender. My income falls below $71K for the record and do not label myself or any other person.

BTW - one of my philosophies in life is that no-one is 'rich' other than in spirit Yabby.

Nevertheless, the point I made is relevant to your previous comments
most women are earning excellent incomes and do not have time nor the inclination to be chasing blokes for security or marriage in order to gain their assets. Within most cities at any rate.

When you are not behaving archaically or chauvanistically I learn a great deal from you Yabby.

"Diamonds did not become a girls best friend for no reason, there
are sound evolutionary reasons for it. Buy your girl a nice necklace
and I'll bet you get laid that night".

Some other countries yes.

In the 21st century in Australia a definite desperado approach.

Ala old man desperation to me Yabby.

You poor old ######

Unique, I refer to "you" as anyone who fits the criteria, nothing
to do with Unique.

You are of course free to shoot the messenger here, but I am used
to that on OLO. For the benefit of this exercise, I actually
dragged out some of my evolutionary psychology books. When David
Buss did his studies on US females looking for males, they were
11 times more likely to mention money, then when males were looking
for females. US females earn similar incomes to Australian females.

Fact is that the dating agencies will tell you, that unemployed,
unskilled males arn't really wanted, but high achieving, high
income, high status males are snapped up right away. Similarly
when it comes to male choice, young goodlooking females with
a good figure are snapped up right away, middle aged, overweight,
ugly females are more likely to be ignored.

This is basic evolution theory stuff, ignore it if you choose to.

Plenty of Australian females might earn great incomes, but if they
were home minding the kids, where many would like to be, they would
not be earning it. Working a 5 day week plus raising toddlers, is
not so easy on your own. Most women are aware of that.

You and Pelican seem unable to examine things from other perspectives,
but think its all personal and go on the defensive.

Its not personal, but the data cannot be denied. If your were
typical, you would not be on OLO debating these issues, you'd
probably be off reading your New Idea or something similar.

You win Yabby (about the U.S. women studied at the time) though my view still holds about the majority of Australian women working in cities; there would not be 50% of Aussie women participating on dating sites let alone pre-selecting higher income earners.

For what its worth...been there done that for 20 years (not dating sites)married to a high income earner. Personally, I would choose a man who (a) gives to other people and is genuine and kind in nature to many people, mostly non-judgemental, sharing his stories with me about people in a positive fun way and his (hopefully part-time) work and life, (b)a man who wishes to travel and camp around Australia and is winding down with his work and time spent working. Money/income does not have any type of bearing or relevancy in respect to any future partner.

If people genuinely wish to share their lives and create loving memories, why be concerned about money, greed and assets.

Every partner contributes in relationships, it is not all based upon money and assets Yabby ie "partnership" (joint contributors)

emotionally and spiritually supporting partners, (love, caring, compassion, learning and growing from one another and through each others friends and family, sharing laughs, fun times, physical unions). Money and assets apart from meeting basic needs should not factor or play any crucial part/issue in relationships unless there are problems with a person not sharing or having an addiction that interferes with an overall relationship that is loving.

why..the generalisations yabby?

""When David
Buss did his studies on US females looking for males,""

he picked a representative type of females
to wit those ADMITTING TO BE LOOKING
not addmitting to be married
or admitting to be single

but ones looking for a rich sukker
to get them out of russia[or wherever]

""they were
11 times more likely to mention money,""

yes they would
isnt that what hookers allways do?

""then when males were looking
for females.""

dont the john allways prefer to spend money
than work on a relationship?

""US females earn similar incomes to Australian females.""
yes housework is valued the same
for free..ibn usa or here

but what about hookers?

wages...thats what you need to present..
to validify your..lol..case

funny how yankie have minimum wages
and grossly elitist bonus rates

to say the aussie manager
get the same
as some yank new york stock broker
your in...lala land bro

ps im ok with the rest

but as usual
the lie starts
is at the very beginning

then gets the deluge of irrebutable fact
indicating you got private education..and have studied poli-tricks

prefering gross/over-simplifications..
over thought out reasoned objectivity

Yabby
You can hardly claim to look at things from another perspective given you rarely steer from the same course, unwilling to consider that your observations of people within the narrow confines of celebritydom do not reflect ordinary people.

If it were so, no men on a average to low income would ever find himself a wife.

Not everyone thinks the same so generalisations about men or women don't add anything to these debates. Particularly when comparing one very different culture to another where economic imperatives will dictate the behaviour of men and women.

It is only personal because when one reads something that is so wrong about your own sex (as a general rule) one tends to adopt a Pavlovian response to such allegations.

*For what its worth...been there done that for 20 years (not dating sites)married to a high income earner*

Well there you go Unique. The father of your children was a high
income earner. The offpsring needed feeding. In evolutionary terms
that is all that matters. What you do as grandma does not.

Pelican, you of all people, who claim to be informed, make judgements
based on what you and your friends think. Why don't you read what
Buss actually wrote? One of the studies he refers to, compares
37 different cultures, including Australia. There is a huge
amount of information there, you only have to bother to read it.

Sorry, I'll go by the data presented by Buss and many others, rather
then you and your friends. I could easily start to quote what my friends
say, but I'm purposefully not doing that. I try to look at the bigger
global picture.

I quote celebrity names because everybody knows them. Society
commonly tries to emulate their celebrities btw.

The Pavlovian response is more of an emotional reaction. Black and
white, for me or against me. So all reason flies out the window.

Actually, Yabby, your words to weareunique - "what you do as grandma does not." - has specific relevance to the situation in China.

As you are probably aware, many of the parents of village children are now absent from their lives for the most part. They have migrated to the cities to earn the bickies, often leaving whole villages containing only children and grandparents...so in that case, what grandma does is of vital importance - even though she is not the one providing the income.

One can't help but think that to skew the natural basis of child rearing to such an extent is something that China will regret in the future. Children need to learn their skills from a spectrum provided by living amongst people of all ages - not just the elderly.

China is turning itself inside out to cope with it's vast population while simultaneously taking on the mantle of out capitalising the capitalists....be interesting to see how it all pans out.

I dunno you lot I reckon I'm much younger and more recently in the dating scene. What I did notice was when in Sydney the chicks are more into what you earn and what job you do. I reckon it's to do with real estate prices.

If you're a woman, no matter what you earn, you KNOW you're more likely to be primary carer when you have kids, and you want a nice house to bring the kids up in. So if you earn more than hubby, that's a massive struggle without your wage.

So, whether consciously or not, a man that will earn enough to allow you to have your dream home and earns enough to survive on one wage while the kids are little is much more appealing than a guy who lives out in the western suburbs earning $35k a year.

I did notice this was not such the case when living in cities overseas where renting was more the norm. Renting houses not women that is.

You one-income-mortgage-boomer lot see the single chicks working and earning big bucks and forget about the cost of houses and that they still need a man if they want to play with their babies down the track and live in the area they have been brought up close to mum and friends. Sure it's slowly slowly changing, but still not many are progressive enough to truly WANT their hubby at home getting to play with 'their' kids while they're wearing power suits.

Poirot is right though there is a lot of grannies looking after kids during the week. Child care is that expensive even when you're only paying half. SO if granny is alive and not working... it's not only china where the grannys bring up the kids. The Grandpa's are probably loving it on the golf course!

'If it were so, no men on a average to low income would ever find himself a wife.'

Haven't you heard of the man shortage pelican? There's a shortage of men. Well, men from a good suburb earning 6 figures.

Houlley
What about the men who are seeking a wife who would like to stay at home and raise the kids. It is up to the people involved to work out their own arrangements. There are different forms of security other than financial that can include like-minds, shared moral values, principles, sexual attraction, loyalty and other factors. Men make these decisions too in their choice of mate. Many also consider the woman's professional status and education and money-making potential.

In just about every survey done about the sort of men women want - it is nearly always the tradie that comes out tops. Not the CEOs or members of the aristocracy.

If a balding 59 year old man wants a young trophy wife and is willing to spoil her to win her hand that is his and her business. We all make our own choices but instead of holding up this sort of relationship as the usual I would prefer to deal in reality.

These days women can find security for themselves especially after marriage breakdown and particularly if they find they are raising the kids on their own if the man has done a runner. You know how fickle some of these men are. :p

But this thread is not about modern Western women but Chinese women who's economic choices are limited.

I know you think women are more emotive in these discussions (as per your comment on the prostitute thread) but I disagree. Most of the illogical conclusions and sweeping generalisations are coming from the male posters. Maybe your own rose coloured gender glasses prevent you from seeing this, we all wear them from time to time, but I can't see how you can miss the overly-emotional responses from the male posters? We must be reading a different site.

It seems 'biology' is trotted out in these arguments when it suits until it works against another argument in a different analogy.

Poirot, indeed the grandmommy effect can matter, especially in
some species of birds. In Unique's case it won't matter, if you
read her posts, she is going camping.

But I'm trying to keep things simple here, we are not even at
Evolution 101 yet, perhaps just the introduction, as some posters
seemingly rely on their friends to understand the world, never mind
the data.

Pelican, love is in fact biological. When that brain chemistry
started affecting your thinking, it was not magic, but the
effects of your brain chemicals, which are grounded in your dna,
interacting with their environment. There really is no reason
not to analyse it, as pair bonding is not limited to humans and no
magic is involved, just complex chemistry.

Yabby
Of course it is complex chemistry. Everything about the human animal is of the natural world. That does not diminish the fact 'magic' might be experienced regardless of the origin.

One is cause the other is effect.

'What about the men who are seeking a wife who would like to stay at home and raise the kids. '

Yeah pelican that's standard fare. Ask any feminist why women are enslaved in the kitchen and it's all the nasty men and their societal expectations. I like to throw the other side of the coin out there.

It's a very little known or acknowledged fact that women make half the decisions that make up societal expectations. I like to balance out the zeitgeist by reminding everyone of that. I don't feel I need to reinforce the feminist side of things where all women are victims of 'men's attitude to women'.

PS: That man shortage complaint is real. There are many women in their early 30s and beyond, looking for a man who earns more than them. But those guys are having fun dating hot mid 20s old chicks.

Houellie,

"Zeitgeist" would have to be one of my all time favourite words - and all the characteristics of our time and society would suggest that we've complicated the gender specifics for ourselves to a great extent.

This is the result of a mechanised and digitised society where we have the luxury of blurring the lines of expectation.

All that time saved from doing menial work is now spent squabbling over which gender has the "right" to do what....great fun!

That reminds me of antiseptic Poirot. He always reckoned that we are a world depression or a global natural catastrophe away from traditional gender roles; All the office jobs and gender politics would be rejected for the pragmatism of muscles and wombs.

"so in that case, what grandma does is of vital importance"

Yes that's right in fact in one theory of what grandma does explains the evolution of menopause in women. As a woman ages, the chances increase that she or her child will not survive childbirth; and the chance increases that her own daughter will have reached child-bearing age.

Once it gets to the stage where the risk to a woman's reproductive success from "investing" in her own child is twice that of investing the same amount of energy in her daughter's child, natural selection will tend to favour the evolution of menopause, or so the theory goes.

The sheer ridiculosity of women romance victims denying that women in general are attracted to men on the basis of wealth, status, and power just defies belief. "What about the men attracted to women on the basis of the women's wealth, status and power?" is their reflexive idiotic response. If you would just actually think about the topic for a minute, and stop spouting your meaningless ideology, you might learn something about the real world.

"That man shortage complaint is real. There are many women in their early 30s and beyond, looking for a man who earns more than them. But those guys are having fun dating hot mid 20s old chicks."

Well I don't envy those rich guys Houlley, if they are limiting their relationship purely within the pool of materialism for their sexual encounters. They might not find too many mentally stimulating or loving relationships, but they might. It is possible that money is attractive to some women but it does not hold that rich men just by virtue of their money are not lovable. I reckon most men and women are smart enough to know money does not buy happiness even if it gives you a good time along the way.

But maybe they don't want mentally stimulating relationships or love, and are happy with the trophy wife or trophy husband. If that works for them there is no reason to diminish it compared to any other relationship. It is not for everyone, most people legitimately want more from a relationship.

Peter Hume
You interpret relationships within the same narrow confines as your economics. Love and romance is natural, and if it exists it must sit somewhere within that cold hearted analysis you continually spout. Writing in aggressive, red-faced and accusatory tones (you can almost see the spit) adds nothing to your argument.

SOME men and women (there are two genders) might marry for money but it is not the norm. You paint it as the only impetus for two people coming together. It is stuff and nonsense and denies the existence of human chemistry, love and the emphasis on values and principles.

Security in relationships/marriage is not just about financial security within which to raise children but includes values around fidelity, loyalty and shared principles/interests/moral values etc.

To define marraige purely within the confines of limited RW economic theory is to deny the nature of man in all its complexities and variations.

PS Houlley
Regarding the male shortage, the opposite is true in some of those mining towns. Very few women and apparently the brothels make a lot of money. Maybe some old ducks might be in with a chance given the pickings are slim hey... ;)

Pelican
The fact that people *are* motivated by material consideration doesn’t mean they’re *not* motivated by love, romance and all that.

You didn’t marry a homeless beggar did you? Guess what? Other women don't want to either.

But when people point out the obvious you fly into a personal attack. Everything you allege against me is a misrepresentation.

I only ever argue that people’s relations should be voluntary. You are the one who advocates threatening to shoot, taser or handcuff people and lock them in a cage to get money to pay for other people’s sexual choices, so it’s not that my economic theories are narrow or my manner aggressive; it’s that your anti-factual romantic theories are all that, and self-contradictory as well.

Nobody, man or woman wants to marry a homeless beggar. Using extremes really means your missing the point.

You are the one advocating only women are handcuffed by the State and sent to prison for selling sex while the user gets off scot free. I am actually arguing it has to be both or none. (Where did tasers come from?) Making stuff up means your drowning in your own narrow worshipping of free market coroprate libertarianism without much else to support your argument.

If society deems something illegal clearly a double standard should not apply even if it does not suit your hypocritical views on life. You really need a reality check.

It's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man!

'Well I don't envy those rich guys Houlley, if they are limiting their relationship purely within the pool of materialism for their sexual encounters. '

What's the alternative. A chick who has been too picky or man hating to find a man by mid 30s and reckons all men are 'intimidated' by her intelligence and 'success'. Riiiiiight! If I was single I know which ones I'd be after, and it wouldn't be the bitter desperado spinsters looking for a sperm doner before her eggs dry up. Danger! Will Robinson!

Sorry, I've just started channelling antiseptic.

But the fact remains pelican, there are lots of guys out west and single that the chicks wouldn't look sideways at because they live in the wrong suburb and don't earn enough. I go out with some of these guys on weekends and those chicks really aren't interested. They're nice blokes man. I try to be a good wing man, but the chicks aren't interested. Maybe I'm a rubbish match maker. They're all tall too (I'm the short-ass at 6 foot 2). Not especially good looking but they're not being picky that's for sure.

I cant believe you haven't heard the lament of the dating columns that there are no nice men around and all the good guys are married or gay. The man drought! Man where have you been. Not Sydney obviously.

"Nobody, man or woman wants to marry a homeless beggar. Using extremes really means..."

So, looks like marrying for material considerations *is* the norm, after all? The fact you dismiss the alternative out of hand shows it's your theory that's extreme and unrealistic, not mine.

"Where did tasers come from?"

Guns, taser, handcuffs and cages are what police use to enforce all the policies you are in favour of, remember? That's why you prefer policy instead of voluntary solutions, remember?

You claim money is not important in normal women's choice of marriage partners, but at the same time insist that the non-negotiable foundation of women's sexual relationships must be the use of deadly force to get money from men to pay for women's choice - and then have the gall to accuse me of being narrowly focused on the economic, of being aggressive, and having a cold-hearted analysis!

Houlley
No, I don't live in Sydney and have been married for 25 years so maybe am out of the loop. I know a wide variety of married and single people and many of the married people are not rich. Strangely they still have wives.

Women work nowadays, it has become the norm and can take care of themselves. I have heard as many of my men friends 'joke' about finding a rich sugar-mummy as women. None of them are serious and I don't expect they place as much value on materialism over SOH,love and shared values.

Just because Peter Hume cannot accept people can marry for love and believes without exception that all government policy involves tasers (clearly an OTT response without substance). Rational analogy has gone out the window. The reason people do not marry beggars is there is usually an indication of some other problem usually mental illness and most women have a sense of smell.

Houlley, I don't know why your male friends cannot find partners. There are many women who are in the same boat. Perhaps they are doing something else that is putting off the opposite sex, however it is unlike you to jump automatically to the conclusion that it must be because of the materialistic nature of woman.

You don't know women very well if you think women (or men for that matter) are purely motivated by wealth, particularly given many people even on OLO lament the growth of mindless consumerism

Pelican
Spare me your dishonest misrepresentations (I supposedly can't accept one can marry for love). Talk about desperate.

Let me ask you this. You're in favour of policy to enforce child support, right? Even against someone who never explicitly agreed to pay it, right?

If the police go to arrest someone for not paying child support he never consented to pay, and that person refuses to go, do you think there is any limit to the violence they should be able to visit on him?

They ask him. He refuses because he disagrees with your assumption that he is a kind of chattel to be exploited as a money object to pay for women's sexual and reproductive choices; or for whatever reason.

They physically seize him but he doesn't accept your slave philosophy remember, so he pulls away. Is it okay for them to use more force? Or do you accept that violence is immoral, even for you? It's okay for him to go free at this stage, right?

No? They go to handcuff him. He defends himself against their initiation of aggression which if done by anyone else would be a serious crime. Should they be able to tazer him? Or let him go free? "No way!", right? You think they should tazer him, don't you? Or just shoot him? Or let him go free?

If he defends against their aggression with a like amount of force? Suppose he answers their gunpoint with his gunpoint? Should they shoot him dead? Or let him go free?

How much violence is too much for you before you renounce it as a means to making people obey you?

BTW, what policy are you in favour of that is NOT enforced?

Perhaps you honestly haven’t thought about the ethics of using aggressive violence which is the basis of all the policies you advocate. Please think about it now.

If he continues to insist on his freedom, isn't it true that you think he should be shot dead, rather than be free?

Pelican
You're in favour of policy to enforce child support, right? Even against someone who never explicitly agreed to pay it, right?