Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:No, it is ignorant because the best ratio is obviously about 5 or 6 broads per fella. 50/50 just gives you a bunch of feckless, surplus males hanging around and getting rowdy.MilSpecs wrote:And you are ignorant of your own history. Jamestown (male) collapsed. Plymouth (families) was so successful that it gave us a country.Okeefenokee wrote:
This post reveals a good bit of ignorance.
MilSpecs wrote:And you are ignorant of your own history. Jamestown (male) collapsed. Plymouth (families) was so successful that it gave us a country.Okeefenokee wrote:This post reveals a good bit of ignorance.Kath wrote:How would men have been able to build "society," without the support of women?
Let's throw 1,000 men on a brand new parcel of land. No women. How long does that society thrive?
Let's throw 500 men and 500 women on a parcel of land. How long does that society thrive?
C'mon - women have no value to society? Da fuck? Some of you need some biology lessons!
How many of you manly men would be the man you are without your mother?
Men are very high maintenance, I have to say.Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:
No, it is ignorant because the best ratio is obviously about 5 or 6 broads per fella. 50/50 just gives you a bunch of feckless, surplus males hanging around and getting rowdy.
Your problem might be assuming that there is something wrong with men and that they even need maintenance.MilSpecs wrote:Men are very high maintenance, I have to say.Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:
No, it is ignorant because the best ratio is obviously about 5 or 6 broads per fella. 50/50 just gives you a bunch of feckless, surplus males hanging around and getting rowdy.
I like your high maintenance selves. Makes life interesting.C-Mag wrote:Your problem might be assuming that there is something wrong with men and that they even need maintenance.MilSpecs wrote:Men are very high maintenance, I have to say.Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:
No, it is ignorant because the best ratio is obviously about 5 or 6 broads per fella. 50/50 just gives you a bunch of feckless, surplus males hanging around and getting rowdy.
MilSpecs wrote:I like your high maintenance selves. Makes life interesting.C-Mag wrote:Your problem might be assuming that there is something wrong with men and that they even need maintenance.MilSpecs wrote:
Men are very high maintenance, I have to say.
Speaker to Animals wrote:MilSpecs wrote:And you are ignorant of your own history. Jamestown (male) collapsed. Plymouth (families) was so successful that it gave us a country.Okeefenokee wrote:
This post reveals a good bit of ignorance.
LOL
Jamestown collapsed? Is this feminist history day? LMFAO
The survival of the Virginia colony hung, in fact, for years by a hair-breadth. The colonists were not accustomed to the labor required of a pioneer, and malaria decimated the settlers. Of the 104 colonists who reached Virginia in May 1607, only 30 were still alive by that fall, and a similar death rate prevailed among new arrivals for many years. As late as 1616, only 350 colonists remained of a grand total of over 1,600 immigrants.
One major reason for the survival of this distressed colony was the changes that the company agreed to make in its social structure. The bulk of the colonists had been under "indenture" contracts, and were in servitude to the company for seven years in exchange for passage money and maintenance during the period, and sometimes for the prospect of a little land at the end of their term of service. The contract was called an indenture because it was originally written in duplicate on a large sheet — the two halves separated by a jagged line called an "indent." While it is true that the original contract was generally voluntary, it is also true that a free society does not enforce even temporary voluntary slave contracts, since it must allow for a person to be able to change his mind, and for the inalienability of a person's control over his will and his body. While a man's property is alienable and may be transferred from one person to another, a person's will is not; the creditor in a free society may enforce the collection of payment for money he may have advanced (in this case, passage and maintenance money), but he may not continue to enforce slave labor, however temporary it may be. Furthermore, many of the indentures were compulsory and not voluntary — for example, those involving political prisoners, imprisoned debtors, and kidnapped children of the English lower classes. The children were kidnapped by professional "spirits" or "crimps" and sold to the colonists.
In the concrete conditions of the colony, slavery, as always, robbed the individual of his incentive to work and save, and thereby endangered the survival of the settlement. The new charter granted in 1609 by the Crown to the company (now called the Virginia Company) added to the incentives of the individual colonists by providing that every settler above the age of ten be given one share of stock in the company. At the end of seven years, each person was promised a grant of 100 acres of land, and a share of assets of the company in proportion to the shares of stock held. The new charter also granted the company more independence, and more responsibility to its stockholders, by providing that all vacancies in the governing Royal Council be filled by the company, which would thus eventually assume control. The charter of 1609 also stored up trouble for the future by adding wildly to the grant of land to the Virginia Company. The original charter had sensibly confined the grant to the coastal area (to 100 miles inland) — the extent of English sovereignty on the continent. But the 1609 charter grandiosely extended the Virginia Company "from sea to sea," that is, westward to the Pacific. Furthermore, its wording was so vague as to make it unclear whether the extension was westward or northwestward — not an academic point, but a prolific source of conflict later on. The charter of 1612 added the island of Bermuda to the vast Virginia domain, but this was soon farmed out to a subsidiary corporation.
The incentives provided by the charter of 1609, however, were still only future promises. The colony was still being run on "communist" principles — each person contributed the fruit of his labor according to his ability to a common storehouse run by the company, and from this common store each received produce according to his need. And this was a communism not voluntarily contracted by the colonists themselves, but imposed upon them by their master, the Virginia Company, the receiver of the arbitrary land grant for the territory.
The result of this communism was what we might expect: each individual gained only a negligible amount of goods from his own exertions — since the fruit of all these went into the common store — and hence had little incentive to work, or to exercise initiative or ingenuity under the difficult conditions in Virginia. And this lack of incentive was doubly reinforced by the fact that the colonist was assured, regardless of how much or how well he worked, of an equal share of goods from the common store. Under such conditions, with the motor of incentive gone from each individual, even the menace of death and starvation for the group as a whole — and even a veritable reign of terror by the governors — could not provide the necessary spur for each particular man.
Logic would dictate this would be untenable, since everyone changes and you can’t force anyone to change the way you want them to. We’d all be doomed if it weren’t for love. Kinda makes the whole struggle worthwhile.C-Mag wrote: Men marry the women they want to be with for the rest of their life.
Women marry the man they want to change into the guy they want to live with.
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
