Discussion in 'Book Talk' started by hotspur, Feb 14, 2017.
Steve, you're embarrassing yourself.
Oh well this thread can also be drawn to a close. I did notice that the post four years ago when ODM threatened to glass me wasn't deleted at the time.
Perhaps because we were all hoping he'd do it?
Boo hoo, a nasty stranger on an internet forum called me names and made violent threats against me, call the fucking police. A bit like when you threatened to sue Betnod when your avatar was changed for a laugh. Grow a backbone man, you cunt.
Yes let's all have a sense of humour when it suits.
So back in the 50's we had longer working hours (with far fewer health and safety precautions in place) with fewer holidays.
21% fewer men employed, but 20% more women employed, so almost identical employment.
Workforce - 46% of the total population in 1952, 51% in 2012. Oh dear, Steve.
And don't get me started on the disgusting stuff which went on in the 'perfect' public schools involving young boy's anuses
COULD YOU BE ANY MORE WRONG, STEVE?
I'm no feminist but women were treated like slaves to their husbands in the 50's, as this article describes..https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/apr/28/housewives-fifties-good-old-days
I seriously doubt any of these women will be looking back in quite the same way as you do, Steve.
I've read the article on Jessica Mann and these women (including Margaret Thatcher and Isobel Barnett, both of whom I wrote articles about on this site) are pretty much exceptional in the scheme of things. That's not to say all women are stupid (of course they're not) but unlike men they have a maternal instinct and a biological body clock ticking. It's my belief that women should have their children as soon as possible anyway to avoid being an old, crotchety mum, and if Jessica Mann was one of the elites of her day then surely she had the presence of mind to pursue a career at 21 and not succumb to the social mores of her day?
I'm not sure where you get the figure of 20% more women employed in the 1950s if I've read it right. The whole point of the 1950s was that women were the cornerstone of the household and made it function, including looking after their own children and parents and not pushing all this onto the welfare state as occurs far too often these days. Part of the reason children in the UK are the unhappiest in the Western world is because families have broken down under the socio-economic pressures of the workplace where now it is deemed that two incomes are needed, leaving jaded parents unable to interact with their children, some of whom find it hard to comprehend why they are left on their own for so long during the week.
The point is that women really can't have it all. You choose between being a good mother and wife or a career, but it's incredibly difficult to combine the two. I agree with the first sentence of the article: women covertly would like to be homemakers but feel pressurized to enter the workplace, thus depriving men of full time employment, and employers have taken advantage of this to weaken workers' rights and cut wages to the bone. There's really no way out except possibly to pay women to stay at home and give men who work full time the proper wage to be able to support a family with it.
No Steve - the stats show that there are 20% more women employed nowadays than in the 50's. You said that there was full employment so everyone got a job in the 50's, yet the stats I posted show that there is just as much employment nowadays as there was then (1952 = 96% men & 46% women, average 71%....2012 = 75% men & 66% women, average 70.5%).
Unless of course you believe that only men should count, as women shouldn't even work and should know their place (the kitchen) and be content being slaves to their husbands? Which you probably do, considering you've shown yourself to be a misogynist with antiquated views on many occasions on here in the past.
Life is dynamic Steve, things change and we adapt to suit.
Two incomes are certainly not needed to create a happy family, that's bollocks. And looking back to my childhood, admittedly the 70's and early 80's, there was far more families living in poverty than there are now.
If the children in the UK really are the unhappiest in the Western World then they're a bunch of spoilt little bastards, what I would have given to have a fraction of the stuff they have nowadays when I was a kid.
Err, or perhaps pay men to stay at home and give women who work full time a proper wage?
Should I be able to guess the book ?
Can I have a clue?
Thanks for confirming that which I didn't need confirming. And that I'm doing the right thing by not usually reading your replies to me.
If I'm honest I can't quite say I dont care about the opinions of anyone on here as I think there are definitely two people -possibly more than two- whose opinions I care about.
I haven't wasted as much of the last twenty years as I'd thought then.
As for being a retard for believing that reading books is a waste of time then that of course might explain why I can't remember more than 1% of the books I've read.
The irony is that one of the books I've read that I can't remember anything about other than less than 1% of it,was a little book that caught my eye in the business section of a book shop.
I wasn't intending to look at those books at all but the title appealed.
Anyway the one thing I remember in that book was that it said to make sure you write something every single day.
Now I won't bother with the reasoning,just to say that I've tried to do that.
And that is why I wrote the first post to this thread. I think I had written something just before but anyway that's by the by.
Because one thing I never knew until I came onto this website was that apparently when someone posts everyone else believes that they are posting in the hope that someone will care what they've written.
I remember Scotty once saying he didn't care what any of the people on this forum thought and rc gills asked him, "Well why do you post then?"
And that's when the penny dropped.
About 5 years ago that will have been.
I've since seen people tell others on other forums "No one cares" and no doubt I must have been told that myself.
But I've never ever posted anything anywhere because I was hoping someone gave a shit what I think about anything.
The not too surprising truth is I post mainly about betting. And the only thing I care about is whether or not anyone has taken up doing accumulators on long term markets.
I am always really pleased to see that someone has started betting this way.
But if no one ever did I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Anything else anyone says on the subject of betting is interesting to me but I obviously am not going to care about it .
And the first thing I admitted on this site was that I'm a cunt.
(For new members ,I said that I felt I'd let down my parents)
So obviously I don't mind anyone thinking I'm a cunt. In fact being liked is something I go out of my way to avoid.
And then on this forum that leaves everything else.
And I already know that everything I say is automatically assumed to be bollocks.
So by all means feel free to carry on pointing out that no one cares and I'm a cunt and I don't know what I'm talking about etc etc.
But don't go thinking that with the exception of the two people I mentioned before (and even there I only care what they think about one or two very specific subjects) that what you say is going to have the slightest affect on me.
(Of course I realise that in making this long post I've invited another mocking or insulting post but there you go)
"Anyway the one thing I remember in that book was that it said to make sure you write something every single day."
Can you do us all a favour and just make it the one thing then you fucking boring cunt?
This is it...
Earlier this year I saw it on eBay and bought it for a couple of quid and read it all again. Despite being 30 years since I last read it, I reckon I remembered about 40% of it.
So you're talking bollocks, hotspur
Think i was 13 at the time.
I've read about 6 Autobiographies but The Racing Post is the Holy Bible.
What, you mean it's utter bollocks?
I just cant take fiction or fantasy in as a rule.
I meant it as credit to Roald Dahl
Yeah, you might want to steer clear of the holy bible then mate