Everyone likes to be with, or around winners. Having money is merely an indicator, possibly the most obvious one because it is tangible. Therefore, people who go after rich people are deemed to be superficial.

...which is actually the basis for this debate.

Darn such a heated debate and I missed most of it.

Forget about what's right and wrong for awhile. We all have different agendas in life and different levels of ambition. Some want money and thus do sales. Some would rather climb the corporate ladder to gain recognition. Some want to work to earn their own money while others don't mind waiting around for money to fall into their laps. Right? Wrong? Who is to judge?

In the end, I ask myself how I want to be remembered by my family, friends and acquaintances when I'm gone. Was I caring? Was I hard working? Was I honest? Was I responsible? How do I want to be remembered? I have answered these questions and I live my life in a manner which will allow me to be remembered the way I want to be.

If someone doesn't mind being remembered as a bum who leeched off his parents his whole life for example, who are we to judge? We decide if we want to respect the said person or not, then we move on. We don't tell them that they should be better for it's for them to decide. I personally have little respect for people who advocate "money" instead of "success". What is the difference? The former is purely material. The latter while also material, also comprises of intangible items like attitude, character, etc.

Comparing extremes is silly. The choices you presented are obvious.

Equating security to just money is just absurd if you ask me. Before you quesion my credentials, I'm comfortable enough but it doesn't mean I advocate that money is of the utmost importance. If a person inherits money, and loses it for whatever reason (market crashes, bad investments, etc), he won't know how to get it back. If a person who worked for it loses it, he knows how to get it back. This is why I say one is more permanent than the other, plus the latter also gets more respect of the two.

Well it's like I said, to each his own. I personally think that getting the respect of others is more important than getting them to like you. You don't have to like someone to respect them. Oh well, we all have different priorities.

Think you're barking up the wrong tree mate. You cannot say you deserve a chance. If someone feels you do, they'll give it to you but you can't shove it down someone's face. She doesn't speak on behalf of the entire female population fortunately. If she wants to marry a guy because he's rich, then that's her perogative. There is no need to tell her she is wrong, because I'm not so sure she is. It's just a choice she's made.

I'd approach it from another angle.

Agreed but it's a personal choice. If she can live with the fact that no one respects her for the way she thinks, then it's her perogative.

LOL! now now kids.

When I say you are "barking up the wrong tree", I'm indicating that you are using the wrong approach to tell her she is wrong i.e. by trying to convince her that guys who aren't rich deserves a chance. It's like hitting a wall over and over again. She doesn't think they do so why go there?

Funny isn't it? How someone so young can be so much more insightful.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Oct 9 2009, 12:10 PM

Given a choice I would want my wife to stay home after giving birth but I know she'll go mad doing nothing. Just because I want her to be close to the kids, doesn't mean I want her to thing that it's an entitlement.

Finally we agree, I don't understand.

Who's debating? You debate when you want to win an argument. I've already decided that this isn't an argument I care to win because like I said, everyone is entitled to make their own choices. Yes, there are heaps of possibilities but unless I missed the plot completely, we are talking about MONEY hence my hypothetical quesion in relation to MONEY, capishe?

I agree that all men should work towards fulfilling their potential whether it be in their professional or personal lives. I also agree that money is a component of security. The issue I have is when women like yourself think you are entitled to all of this. It is a privilege, not a right. Spunkberry brought up a very good point which you conveniently dodge, that women today demand for equality... but only when it's convenient. Do you agree that men need not chip in when it comes to carrying out chores? I mean, men bring home the meat, women clean and cook right? Men can have affairs so long as they don't bring them home? If you agree with the examples given then well, good on ya but if you don't, why does equality not come into play when you talk about security? Why should a women not be expected to chip in?

I personally don't think it's easy being a full time mom. It's tiring and taxing. I get tired spending just 30 mins with more than 1 kid. Having said that, I'm surprised you are reinforcing the stereotype that a woman's place is at home making babies. To me, it's a very traditional way of thinking. I actually admire career women but that's just me. They are sell sufficient and need not rely on men to survive. Some might say they're stupid but at least they will be respected. Like I said earlier, I care about how I'm remembered when I'm gone.

PS: I'm not 'young'/.

I have to ask. What if you weren't a mom? Would that change your opinion?



Hmm my girlfriend makes my bed, cooks for me occasionally (since we don't live together), irons my clothes and gives me a massage when I'm sore. I don't expect her to do those things but she knows I appreciate them. In return, I cook for her even though I'm crap at it (hmm maybe it's a bad thing then), I help her clean her room, etc. My point is that I like to contribute even if it's chores traditionally performed by women. Of course I still do all the more physically demanding chores e.g. changing the car tyre, lifting heavy objects etc but I believe in sharing our duties.

Although she does perform there chores, she likes having a career and she always offers to pay, even if I decline. My point? that just because you do the traditional stuff like cooking, sewing, etc, it doesn't mean you can't still be modern.



While it's morally wrong to have affairs, certain men believe that while they can fool around, they won't be able to tolerate it when their women do. I know of certain women who have said that they accept that their husbands may have affairs outside but ignorance is bliss. What if the roles were reversed? Can men accept it? Most likely not. I see it as a form of inequality, not just adultery.



Everyone likes to be pampered, who doesn't? Guys do as well. I just don't believe in demanding or expecting to be.



I think you're making an assumption here. I personally respect full time mothers, like I said earlier, it isn't easy. What I don't agree with is your train of thought. I mentioned earlier that I when I get married, I would like nothing more than to have my wife take care of the kids with no work distractions. Having said that I don't agree that it should be expected. The end result may be the same, but the intentions are different. If you are offered, then fairplay but I don't agree to demanding for that to happen.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Oct 9 2009, 03:37 PM

Wow, that's a big claim. Is it because you agree with his opinions, or you that you didn't give other points of views much thought? Just as you want people to accept that your philosophy of "life" is correct, you have to accept that it doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. It's a matter of CHOICE.

The thing is I do see logic in your argument. However you tend to use the word, "rich" a lot but then go on to say that you aren't expecting a BMW. Rather, you have found someone that can provide for the family with shelter, food, and an education for your kid. The thing is I don't think a person needs to be rich to provide the items I listed. The thing is your posts seem to indicate that in order to provide the necessities, a person has to be rich, which I don't get.



Cool, I'm a willing learner.

debbiey (spelling?), you say this...



... and then you claim you didn't say that you were right. Care to translate? What I understand from the statement above is that since tp is the only man that understands what "life" means, the rest of us don't. Hence you are right since you agree that tp is right. What am I missing here?

---

Added on October 9, 2009, 6:38 pm

Afraid? I don't think that's an accurate description at all. At most, you are making a very big assumption. Just as you think it's fine for a women to live off a man, why can't you accept that some men don't appreciate that some women set out from day 1 to look for a rich man to support her?

Once again, a major assumption. So everyone who doesn't subscribe to your philosophy, is a loser with no ambition? Your arguments need to hold a little more water. So only poor sods don't want to be taken advantaged of, or leeched off? All rich guys on the other hand, don't mind? Think I need to repeat myself. Noob picked up on it but it seems some missed out. Guys don't mind taking care of their wives, heck I aim to. What we don't appreciate is someone expecting to be totally dependant on us. It's different if we offer.

Moorish, I'd appreciate it if you could address this so I can better understand, thanks.



This post has been edited by Duke Red: Oct 9 2009, 06:40 PM

I'm just wondering why you have an extra "y".



It's human instinct for a woman to stay home and not want a career? Erm... have you looked around you lately? How many women do you know with no career? If anything, it's human instinct to survive, even if it means relying on someone other than ourselves. Survival instinct is something that's in our DNA. It's why you can't kill yourself by holding your breath. It isn't however natural for all women to want to be housewives and not have a career. Again, I'm not knocking housewives. I'm knocking women who expect to be taken care of.

I've to bring this up once again. You and moorish talk about finding a rich guy, or being with a guy with the potential to be rich. Then you go on to say that it's about a man providing for his family. So which is it? A rich guy, or a guy who can provide for his family? You don't need to be rich to provide for your family. If you did, middle to lower income families would all be living in cardboard boxes.

Oh yeah, and who said I called all homemakers gold diggers? Again, it's different if you take it up when offered, than when you set out expecting it. Do you see the difference or is it the same to you?

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Oct 9 2009, 08:12 PM

Don't like the place incidentally

Like I said to you on MSN, Sunset Bistro.

Did I say you were wrong? I'm just disagreeing with you.

You reckon women who work want to be taken care of? Of course they do. You are choosing however to focus purely on the financial aspect of being taken care of. Unless I'm reading it wrong, you are saying men should be expected to take care of their spouses financially. If this is true, I disagree with the mindset. I'm not saying it's wrong for a guy to take care of a girl. I'm saying I don't care for women who go looking for it. Yes I appreciate the difficulties of being a housewife, but at the same time I have deep admiration for career women who can balance their time between work and family. I doubt you're going to say that women who work make worse mothers are you?

One more time then. I'm not saying you or Moorish are wrong, I'm saying I don't agree.



I beg you to try to understand sentences after you read them. I said that there is nothing wrong in a man wanting to provide for his family, heck that's what I'm working towards. Once again, I'm saying I don't agree that women should expect men to do so. I'm sure I'll feel great being able to provide for my family, but more so that I'm working to realise my potential. That isn't the point. How can I make this clearer? Need me to draw illustrations?

Why are you assigning a value? It isn't the point. Before that, what is the point of your question again? Ok I'll play along. I don't know what the answer is. Give it to me and let me know what you're trying to say.

You seem to like jumping from point to point without addressing questions that were posed to you. You'll note that I'm not the only one to have said this.

I couldn't help but interject. This has to be one of the lamest answers I've ever seen on LYN.

Women have to work because more and more men are losers?

Firstly, that's an insult to women who actually WANT to have careers. Has it ever occured to you that more and more women are working because they have goals other than being a housewife? Now that the playing field is even and women are not discriminated against anymore, options are opening up and it's not uncommon for men to have women bosses. Why did these women work to hard to get there? So that they could support their lame ass husbands? Can't be because they want recognition, respect, and a sense of self-worth? Then again you probably haven't met any because of the whole "birds of a feather" syndrome.

Secondly, a lot of men I know are doing just fine but it seems that although you say, men should be able to provide for their families, you keep also using the word, "rich".

Lastly, has it ever occured to you that cost of living in KL has risen so dramatically, it's really hard for a single income family to live comfortably these days? Look at property prices in the Klang Valley. Look at the escalating petrol prices. Are you aware of what's happening around you? Do you realise the world is facing an economic recession right now? People are getting laid off and not all of them because they suck are their jobs.

Seriously Debbie, that was a very shallow answer.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Oct 9 2009, 08:42 PM

Rest assured, I don't have any intention of changing the way you think. What I'm trying to do is to get you to understand my points. You don't have to agree with them.



That's your perogative and I respect that. I just don't agree with it is all.

Honestly, I've tried to be patient but we all have our limits. In reference to my post asking the question of whether or not a guy that can provide for his family needs to be "rich"?, what was your response again? I only saw the one with the RM 5,000 and RM 10,000 examples. I don't follow. Please copy and paste.

Some thing isn't it? It's one thing is a man chooses to have his wife stay home and not have to work. It's another thing if she asks for it and expects her husband to accept her decision, no questions asked.



I see. Seems we difference definitions of the word "rich" then.

Again, you are saying that as time goes by, more and more men are becoming losers, moving away from suggestions that economic factors have made it harder for men to support a family on his own. Therefore you are suggesting that the problem lies with men. Ok then I'm going to play along. Since men are expected to work even harder now, what more should women contribute to the marriage?


This post has been edited by Duke Red: Oct 9 2009, 09:13 PM

I don't define it by a quantifiable figure. You should know by now that in my arguments I never use tangible figures because I don't believe in looking at a bunch of numbers when you pick someone. "Rich" can be misleading because it's obvious from these discussions that people have different definitions. The most common indicating that one is upper class.

---

Added on October 10, 2009, 11:57 amWell we don't live in an ideal world. Unlike "fortunate" women like you, many other women work to help provide the best for their kids. Nurturing a kid is one thing, but then you have to consider education. Which parent would not want to send their kids to the best schools.

You say it's proven. Well I'm not going to ask for facts because all I know is a lot of people I know, myself included were raised by working parents and I turned out alright. In fact, we all turned out alright. Some of our mothers are single and stay with us. We have good jobs, and are comfortable. How much better could we turn out? I don't know but I'm happy with the way I was brought up.

---

Added on October 10, 2009, 12:00 pm

God do you realise how shallow you sound? You have to work because men are defective?

Well then women only have themselves to blame for not being able to fend for themselves isn't it? Geeze I actually took some of your viewpoints seriously until you said this. Good luck living in your medieval world. I hope for your sake, you never have to fend for yourself.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Oct 10 2009, 12:00 PM