How is a man supposed to find a woman in the 21st century

Tell me how wrote: »

It's a pretty safe bet that the cost of children in today's world is the biggest influence in declining birth rates.

Dunno about that...a century ago people had 3 times as many kids and 10 times as less monies.

Mister Vain wrote: »

Someone mentioned parkruns earlier in the thread. Great idea, I will definitely try that. I'd also recommend drifting events. They're great craic.

You lot must be a lot fitter than me - I personally think I'd struggle to pull a woman while sweating like a junkie and gasping for breath

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

All you need is another 4 fingers and you'll never need a partner (assuming your a man, if your a woman your good to go as is)

Ah its only small, the one finger makes me feel better about myself

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

If so, I have a laptop and a finger.

I seen this line first and had a great laugh :pac:

worded wrote: »

The working poor can’t afford cre fees.

Financial castration for the middle classes

The rich and poor can have as many as they like and don’t have child care concerns relatively speaking

Date a person from a low socio economic background then, if you can't hook up with a sugar daddy / mammy

*shrugs

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

The woman generally stayed at home and raised the kids in previous generations. The family could buy a house, eat and pay bills on one salary. Nowadays with women’s liberation and progress, both parents have to work to fund a mortgage and bills. Childminders generally raise kids nowadays.

Capitalism at its finest.

You'll find people who blame women's liberation and progress. Bit off topic but this is what happens when we remove discussion of wealth taxation and only tax income. Wealth is protected so it accumulates. Income is taxed so if you don't have wealth you find it very difficult to get any wealth because your income is fair game for tax, but wealth isn't.

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

The woman generally stayed at home and raised the kids in previous generations. The family could buy a house, eat and pay bills on one salary. Nowadays with women’s liberation and progress, both parents have to work to fund a mortgage and bills. Childminders generally raise kids nowadays.

Damn them darn women for wanting a career in this generation. How dare they!

Sell drugs, any lads I know that sold drugs had women hanging out of them ....����

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

Not saying that but it just means you need two salaries now to pay a mortgage and both parents in full time employment. Just saying that it’s two steps forward one step back. What have women really gained from working full time? Now they can’t be with their kids, they work full time and have to pay a child-minder on top of it.

You're working to pay someonw else to rear your children and often to be in rhe house you never see during daylight and to enjoy it with them. Makes you wonder . Those who don't or wont work get to select the house Nd number of rooms where they want to live and the working poor pay for their rent as well as their own mortgages and childcare. It's a total farce. Two households living side by side one working and never seeing their children and the other dossing off their labour and effort and having as many xhildren they want without bothering to wonder how or who they will ge supported by. Thus country is gone mad. Why bother meeting someone when you can spawn your way through the masses and never have any responsibilities or accountabilities.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

They're making a mistake.

When they're older they'll realise their career meant almost nothing.

No, they are not. They are making a choice for themselves.

Different strokes for different folks.

Not everyone can have kids.

Not everyone wants kids.

What would be a mistake to me, is to sit at home minding kids, going slowly out of my mind, while relying on someone else to give me my pocket money. If others want to do it, so be it, but its not me.

There is not one solution to fit all and its not really your place to tell others that they are making a mistake because it's not what you would like or agree with.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

They're making a mistake.

When they're older they'll realise their career meant almost nothing.

And you speak for all women who choose careers over family, is that correct?

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

Not saying that but it just means you need two salaries now to pay a mortgage and both parents in full time employment. Just saying that it’s two steps forward one step back. What have women really gained from working full time? Now they can’t be with their kids, they work full time and have to pay a child-minder on top of it.

Nikki if you are the kind of person who is happy to be at home full time good for you. Not everyone wants to do that.

What have women gained from working? I get a huge amount from my job. Financial security and independence, a sense of achievement that I'm making a difference to people's lives, a sense of satisfaction and good mental health. I didn't work my arse off to sit at home and stagnate.

Funny how the pressure to be at home only ever seems to be put on the mother.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

What do you think boards.ie is?

It's a place people give their opinion on things. It's an entertainment website.

You're also welcome to give your opinion on things.

I'm not going to assume you're speaking for an entire race or gender.

That would be mental of me, right?

Absolutely it is a forum where opinions can be shared, but I see no sense of thought put into your last two posts. Enormous sweeping generalisations that women would be happy coming home to a house at 60 to their kid saying hello. This may shock you but not every woman wants kids, not every woman wants a full house to come home to and not every home full of kids is a happy one. You saying that women will regret picking career over family is nothing short of an ill-informed and extremely nonsensical point.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Absolutely it is a forum where opinions can be shared, but I see no sense of thought put into your last two posts. Enormous sweeping generalisations that women would be happy coming home to a house at 60 to their kid saying hello. This may shock you but not every woman wants kids, not every woman wants a full house to come home to and not every home full of kids is a happy one. You saying that women will regret picking career over family is nothing short of an ill-informed and extremely nonsensical point.

Think things through before posting.

Almost all women want children. That's a fact. How do we know this? Because almost all women have children.

Therefore it's not an "enormous sweeping generalisation" to say "women would be happy coming home to a house at 60 to their kid saying hello".

Do you really believe what you're saying, or do you just come here to argue with people?

You're not making sense.