TS is right, look at it another way

If there are 2 girls courting you, one earn 3k/month, one earn 300k a month, which one will you choose...duh~

If the girl can't even take care of her own family..then she's the incompetent one.

After 35 pages into this thread, I still have not seen a single argument for why men MUST support his wife AND her family. Wife do what? goyang kaki? If she's a housewife, ok, understandable, but seriously women nowadays not only want a successful career and equal opportunity (unequal in their favor also can), yet still expect the man to handle all the family finances, and they get to go around spending money on themselves. Is this fair? Is this the equal opportunity and rights that feminists have been fighting for? I'm predicting a 'masculinist' movement to start up in the next 50 years if conditions get worse.

If you're only saying that girls will prefer men who has more money in the case of a 'tie' eg. both guys have same traits, then who won't? Isn't that stating the obvious? If that's the definition of money minded, then I'm not against it, only against gold diggers who disregard everything else in a relationship and call less well to do couples immature.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? If you are in a situation where you feel obliged to 'give' sex, then i advise you to leave that relationship immediately. I wonder why men are always labeled as the only ones who enjoy sex. IMO this situation usually arises in an unfulfilling relationship (to gold diggers, this means no money), and thus feel bitter about 'offering my body' to the man. Is the man not offering you sex as well? Sex doesn't just benefit one party you know...

About the pregnancy thing, you're not pregnant now are you? So I'm supposed to give you special treatment for something that may or may not occur in a few year's time? Using your logic, since men are going to become sick and die at an earlier age (on average) than their female partners, they should be given special treatment as well.


Let me put it this way, say, 200 years ago, all jobs are held by men, women usually stay at home and manage the home and have no opportunity to earn their own money. THEREFORE it is fair for the man to be expected to shoulder the burden of supporting the family as women have an inherent disadvantage in the society. Is this the same situation now? Maybe work opportunities are still not exactly equal, but you can't deny that women now are a lot more independant financially. Yet, men are still expected (ideally) to be the ONLY one to bear the financial burden.

If you see someone on the bus with a broken leg, then it is expected for you to give him special treatment and give him your seat. A few months later, if the same person is on the bus but his leg is healed, you are no longer obliged to do anything. Agree?

Yes, and all I'm saying is that women HAVE the ABILITY and CAPABILITY to earn/make their own money and be expected to support the family as well. I'm not saying that men should shirk from their responsibilities, but that women should also expected to contribute towards the financial stability of the family. Which, by the way many women do and I admire them.

And the very basic you can do is..?

Wait, I need to clear something up before I respond in avoid to go off-topic. Are we debating about:

1.) Whether girls are money minded or not
2.) Whether girls SHOULD be money minded or not
3.) Whether guys should be money minded or not
4.) Whether everyone should behave like in the animal kingdom

Of course, you think it's a coincidence that so many lowyat male members feel obliged to give women their money for no good reason at all?

Summary of thread: girls should exploit men's lust and drain their resources. You can then be proud that you are not immature and congratulate yourself. Nothing wrong with it because it's been that way for thousands of years. Oh wait, for thousands of years women were treated like cattle.

Next thread, please.