Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!


Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Remembrance Day
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 20 (view)
Remembrance Day
Posted: 11/16/2011 1:03:26 AM
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once. - Julius Caesar, Shakespeare

Brave men and women all. Thank you.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 252 (view)
Whats the Issue With Men in Australia ..
Posted: 9/26/2010 4:32:06 AM
We have one glorious moment at birth getting out and spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in. Sigh!!!
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 32 (view)
Sloganeering, Distortions, and Lies - The Australian Election Campaign
Posted: 9/25/2010 6:52:57 AM
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. My heartfelt thanks to everyone who takes the time and effort to express their thoughts.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 28 (view)
Sloganeering, Distortions, and Lies - The Australian Election Campaign
Posted: 9/18/2010 6:57:27 AM
Like I said, slogans are used by all sides in politics, both for "good" and "bad". "The Labor Party’s “Moving Forward” and the Liberal’s “Real Action” catchphrases have attracted criticism for being simplistic and condescending. Prime Minister Julia Gillard defended her party’s slogan on the ABC’s 7.30 Report, saying they captured the spirit of Australia." “I’ve been using those words because they mean something to me and I think they mean something to the nation,” she said. Political slogans should however capture the imagination of a people and embody the truth.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 26 (view)
Sloganeering, Distortions, and Lies - The Australian Election Campaign
Posted: 9/18/2010 3:41:58 AM
Slogans are not a bad thing per se. They are merely "a memorable motto or phrase used in a political, commercial, religious and other context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose." Without slogans we may find that we forget certain things. For example, in a political speech, most people will not remember every word that was said or promised, but people will remember certain slogans when they are in the voting booth, getting ready to vote.

Each slogan encompasses detailed or descriptive information about a particular thing. For example, the slogan in Utah is "Greatest snow on earth!" describes to people what Utah is like. You don't need to visit Utah to know that it has lots of great snow. Just knowing the slogan, you may decided to bring an extra coat while traveling there.

Slogans therefore can be used for "good" or for "bad". All sides of politics use slogans to rally their followers and to help them remember things.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 249 (view)
Whats the Issue With Men in Australia ..
Posted: 9/15/2010 7:03:34 AM
Hey, I'm truly sorry about your personal experience. I suppose you learn to fight when you're asian in this country. I hope things get better. Good luck and all the best.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 247 (view)
Whats the Issue With Men in Australia ..
Posted: 9/14/2010 3:16:37 AM
Oh yes, furthermore just say for example the roles were completely changed here in Australia today. Fathers had custody, mothers had to go out to work, pay child support and perhaps if lucky had their children one weekend every fortnight. Suggest you and many other women would not be happy with the situation and might be "grinding axes" as well. And if you fight for your rights, it might be good reason for mothers not to have permanant custordy.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 246 (view)
Whats the Issue With Men in Australia ..
Posted: 9/14/2010 3:10:13 AM
Agreed. Absolutely. That is why men should have custody and women can have the kids one weekend every fortnight. If the man then changes the arrangement, the woman can then take the matter to court to fight for new visitation rights again, and bear the court costs. Step back, take a walk in the men's shoes before you condemn. Its so easy to be glib when you hold the whip hand. The statement behind this situation says that fathers are not important. They are important enough to pay "child support" but not important enough to play an equal part in the upbringing of children in Australia. Something is very wrong here.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 243 (view)
Whats the Issue With Men in Australia ..
Posted: 9/13/2010 2:45:51 AM
Domestic violence/abuse is defined as :-
verbal abuse: such as insulting, derogatory or threatening comments;
emotional abuse: such as acting in a manipulative manner;
physical abuse: such as the use or threat of physical violence towards a person or towards their children, pets or associates;
sexual abuse: such as the use of direct or indirect coercion to engage in sexual acts against one’s will;
social abuse: such as regulating and restricting a person’s interaction with friends, family and the community in general;
economic abuse: such as controlling a person’s financial resources for essential needs like food and clothing;
That example falls under economic abuse. It has been argued that the definition of domestic abuse has been framed so widely that it will take judge made law, the ratio decidendi of cases in court, and the expenditure of lots of time and money by men to eventually define what constitutes violence/abuse

Wonderful. Love that argument. In this fair world, I propose that the Family Court award the children in marriage breakups to the fathers to prevent disruption to the children. Mothers can then have the children one weekend every fortnight, as is their right.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 241 (view)
Whats the Issue With Men in Australia ..
Posted: 9/11/2010 7:08:00 AM
True. If you have the time though, do check out Men's Rights Agency, Australia. It will give you the lowdown on the precarious state of Australian men.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 22 (view)
Sloganeering, Distortions, and Lies - The Australian Election Campaign
Posted: 9/10/2010 6:46:12 PM
I am not talking about countries like North Korea or China. I am definitely talking about first world countries as well. If you check with the UNHCR, you will find that countries all over the world are enacting increasingly tighter border controls to restrict the flow of illegal immigrants into their respective countries. This is true for even traditional countries offering sanctuary to refugees like the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden and Germany. With regard to refugees today, Europe is considered a difficult to assail fortress, Germany unreacheable. Germany has adopted policies to avoid the entrance of refugees and to speed up the rate of their deportation. - see Amnesty International. In Sweden for example, Stockholm has declared that there is no longer and armed conflict in Iraq. Potential asylym seekers must provide detailed proof of persecution to be considered. Sweden is also forcibly deporting refugees back to their homelands of origin and paying some refugees a reintegration payment to refugees choosing to return home. The UNHCR had once hoped the rest of the world would emulate Sweden but Sweden has instead cut back. Greece accepts almost no refugees. In 2001, the United Kingdom and Germany enacted anti terrorism laws curtailing the rights of illegal immigrants/refugees inside their borders. Denmark traditionally welcoming to asylum seekers drafted some of Europes toughest asylum regulations in January 2002. On 29 December 2004, the USA and Canada implemented the Safe 3rd Country Agreement by which each government closed the door on most refugee claims at the US/ Canada border. Canada has also in recent years made it increasingly difficult for persons to claim refugee status. The US has long had a history of detaining many asylum seekers for long periods. The definition of persons in need of protection is also narrower than the Canadian definition - Canadian Council for Refugees. In the USA, the state of Arizona enacted state legistation sb1070 in April 2010 this year, making it a state crime to be an illegal within its borders. This move is shrouded in controversy because the USA has long had a practice of employing cheap illegal labour within its borders and this move by Arizona could effectively stem that source. It is a grassroots approach as a result of failed national policies to the problem and its controversy is that US citizens of Hispanic origin might inadvertently be caught up in the net and potentially racially profilled in targeting the illegals. These examples only scatch the surface of a larger international movement. More and more countries the world over are choosing to exercise their right to determine who can enter their borders and the purpose and duration of their stay.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 20 (view)
Sloganeering, Distortions, and Lies - The Australian Election Campaign
Posted: 9/10/2010 8:06:27 AM
It would appear that we will have agree to disagree on this matter. However, the way you mock the shadow minister, calling him the "Minister of Propoganda", informs me that you, rather than I have already made up your mind. Labor good, Liberal/National bad. I might say that I have not descended to insulting any Labor minister, much as I am sorely tempted to. I might also add that I voted Labor in the 2007 election. If those numbers were lies, they would have been taken to task not by you but by Labor ministers in the 2010 election.

Contrary to what you write, immigration policy is at the very crux of determining the number of refugee arrivals into any country. If any country said no to refugees and did not allow them in , then refugees would not be permitted enter that country. The navy/coast guard/border patrol of each respective country would have the task of preventing any illegal incursions into their respective countries. During the fall of Vietnam, numerous South East Asian countries pursued a policy of turning away refugees from their shores. They were refueled, restocked, treated and provided with the means and directions to travel to other countries willing to accept them, Australia being one. The fact is no refugees other than those already accepted for migration to 3rd countries were accepted into most of their camps. This was their immigration policy and it worked for them. No illlegals were imposed on their societies. Australia had a different outlook. Australia chose to sign the Refugee Convention. Under internationl law, no one sovereign state can impose international law on another sovereign state. The government of the day in Australia chose to bind and to continue to bind itself now under international treaty. Parliament is sovereign and could choose today, at this very minute, not to continue to bind itself or tie its hand behind its back in dealing with this problem. I understand what you are saying in that refugee flows follow global trends but immigration policy decides once and for all who and how many enter and stay in any respective country and who do not.

It would be interesting to find out why those who arrived by boat chose to do so. By all accounts, what they have to pay for illegal passage via boat to Australia is by far much greater than economy airfare to Australia on an airplane. Do they already have something to hide which would have been picked up by immigration at the airport? Do they not have the necessary travel documents which would enable them to board a plane to this country?

Finally, as Australia is a democracy in which the wishes of the majority carry the policy of the day, my statement asking for a referendum from the Australian people with regard to wishing more refugees still holds. Two questions should be asked of the people. Firstly "Do you want more refugees?" and secondly "Are you willing to pay for them?" Those like yourself happy and willing to pay for them would then be taxed at a different rate to pay for any costs incurred by refugee arrivals and looking after them in the community. This would then be a choice tax only imposed on those able and willing to pay. That is only fair.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 31 (view)
Atheists are believers who hate god.
Posted: 9/10/2010 12:53:47 AM
Hey what about the neighbour in Chadstone Herald Sun 9/92010 who is demanding that his devout Christian neighbour remove a cross erected on his own property because it disturbs/offends him.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 18 (view)
Sloganeering, Distortions, and Lies - The Australian Election Campaign
Posted: 9/10/2010 12:36:55 AM
Oh, I forgot to mention, I just got my water and gas bill. Simply put, I don't know about anyone else but I just can't afford Labor or the Greens.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 17 (view)
Sloganeering, Distortions, and Lies - The Australian Election Campaign
Posted: 9/10/2010 12:33:05 AM
The facts were from the Liberal website and by Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Scott Morrison and Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection, Michael Keenan. If you look at the source you have quoted from, they are at least one and a half years old, out of date and way before Rudd's failed policies have had a chance to impact on illegal immigration numbers in Australia. None of your figures dealt with the last financial year just prior to the 2010 federal elections.
Australia is an independent sovereign country and as such has the right and the responsibility to its voting citizens first and foremost and to guard and protect its borders. Its federal government is elected by the people of Australia and its leaders must always remember they are not elected to grandstand and pose on the world stage but to carry out the wishes and hopes of the electors who voted them in. In view of the enormity of the issue of migrats and the impact they have on society in general, it would make sense to have a referendum (apart from the election which covers numerous issues) asking people how they feel on the subject. "Do you want more refugees?" Members of political parties who feel strongly, on way or the other can then present their cases for and against. I'm not a betting man but I'm guessing the reason no one has ever gone for it is because I can guess the outcome. Its really interesting to observe how they deal with it though. On the one hand we know we need a larger population to maintain our lifestyle but on the other we are constantly told we do not have enough water etc.
You spoke about TPVs (Temporary Protection Visas) not working. Your source just has not given them enough time to take effect. Given enough time, they work because once the political situation in their country of origin is stable enough for them to return, they can be repatriated to their country of origin and are no longer a burden to Australian taxpayers. They have the added disadvantage to being able to return with skills and monies acquired whilst here and contribute in the building of their own countries. Furthermore, countries like Australia would have done their duty in looking after the refugees during their time of need and allowed them to return home when possible. Remember, refugees to this country are not citizens unless the current government make them citizens. I would imagine Labor would love them to be citizens so they can all vote Labor.
Countries like Indonesia might not be signatories to the Refugee Convention but nevertheless, provide a valuble stepping stone in the refugee acceptance program to third countries. The accepted legal process might take some time but will eventually happen to those deserving of help. By your reasoning, everyone in Afghanistan or Pakistan, not only the ones who can afford to pay for passage to Australia is deserving of refugee status and we should fly the entire population of those countries immediately to Australia and forget about the process. Perhaps that might cheer you up but I hope you know people willing and happy to pay for it.
I still maintain that the current processing of refugees is not on a first come first serve basis but based on the concept of who is more needy and deserving. Illegal boat people therefore take the legal place of others whose circumstances warrant a more immediate intervention.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 9 (view)
The Chinese Games...all fun !!
Posted: 9/9/2010 11:13:53 PM
China’s Olympics PR and Why the Chinese Just Cannot Win

By Chris Devonshire-Ellis

July 22, 2008

A lot of comment continues to appear in various media about the Olympics, much of it negative. From reports in Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post about “black people not allowed into Beijing bars,” to issues over excessive clampdowns and visa issues, it seems whichever way the Chinese turn, a media angle is there to criticize.

However, much of the criticism is directed at issues that are not quite as they initially appear. The article about black people in Beijing ’s bars, which in the face of it appears racist, emanates from a different set of circumstances. Regrettably, the bar street concerned (a rather seedy area to be frank, populated by bars selling low cost happy hour beers, and a haunt of students, rather than Beijing locals or businessmen) has long had problems with drugs. The pushers and dealers are regrettably often Africans. [Oh?] What the police actually asked bar owners in the area to do was to “look out for black people behaving suspiciously on your premises, and if necessary, ask them to leave.”

Given the full context of the circumstances, it’s not as initially racist as it appears. It’s not unreasonable for the police in any country to work and make requests concerning security to bar owners and managers. Who are the perpetrators of wrongdoing here; the Chinese police, trying to crack down on drug abuse during a time when the city is full of tourists; or the drug dealers, viewing the Olympics as a prime occasion to make more money than usual? Yet it’s the Chinese police who get all the negative headlines.

Negativity has also been directed at the heavy handed manner that China has again gone about its traffic management during the Games. Commencing just a few days ago, private vehicles in Beijing were restricted to even numbered license plated cars on the streets one day, odd the next. Draconian? Hardly. It’s a time proven way to widen road capacity during a busy period and also assists with pollution issues. Years ago, when I lived in Athens , the Greeks would do the same when the pollution got too bad. People would grumble about if of course—it’s inconvenient and out of routine—but faced between that and choking, putrid air and congested traffic, it’s the lesser of two evils by far. Yet certain media take issue with it.

The same applies to checking bags and having x-ray machines installed, for the first time, on Beijing ’s subways. Passengers are required, rather like at an airport, to put baggage through an x-ray machine, and not to take drinks or food on the stations. Complaints aplenty, but why? Hong Kong’s excellent MTR system has never allowed food and drink on the subway, and surely the specter of some idiot with a vengeance carrying explosives into a crowded underground space to blow himself up is a legitimate one given today’s heightened security situation and tensions. These measures are not unreasonable. The next Olympics, in 2012 are in London and I am sure that similar measures will be in force on the underground system there.

Discussing the issue with China-based PR experts, I hear a common thread: “When a media situation becomes a no-win argument, it’s better just to say nothing,” and common agreement that in handling the media as they are, the Chinese are doing a very professional job, rather than a poor one, in their management of such stories.

Continuing a debate along such lines can make matters far worse, as was pointed out. In the past, when China has tried to explain its position, it’s just dug itself deeper into the mire. Consider Darfur . Much has been written about the Chinese supply of arms and equipment to the government and thus adding to the problems of the civil war. When attempting to explain their position, the international media just went further on the offensive. Little matter that the trucks and arms the government backed militia are using were sold to the Sudanese [by whom?] well before the conflict erupted.

The perception has largely been the Chinese have directly helped fund the conflict. Mia Farrow dubbed the 2008 Games, “The Genocide Olympics,” and called for a boycott of an event “organized by mass murderers.” [Whoa!]

The Chinese then just stopped talking to the media, and instead limited their discussions over the Darfur problem with other nations, behind closed doors. The issue has now dropped quietly from the headlines.

I live in Beijing , and I can advise the ambiance there is one of emerging excitement and anticipation, and that the Games look as if they are going to be a blast. It’ll be a great occasion, and one I do not want to miss. So, when reading negative headlines about China , business, culture, and the Olympics, especially at this moment when the international world is focused on the country, consider these truisms: don’t believe everything you read in the media, and sometimes you just can’t win. These have never been truer about China , or about the Chinese, than they are right now.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 15 (view)
Sloganeering, Distortions, and Lies - The Australian Election Campaign
Posted: 9/9/2010 8:38:09 PM
Not an expert either but checked up on the figures and it was way more than 260. Last financial year, 117 boats illegally arrived in Australia carrying more than 5,600 people who had to be processed and paid for by Australian citizens and tax payers. The flow of illegal boat people was by and large stemmed during the guardianship of the Liberal government but the floodgates reopened due to the changes in policy under Rudd. News of this change of heart fuelled the resolve of people determined to cut the queue, regardless of who was ahead of them. Apparently, processing for refugee places in the first world is not actually on a first come first serve basis but on the concept of who is more needy and deserving. Illegal boat people therefore take the legal place of others whose circumstances warrants a more immediate intervention. Furthermore, many refugees from Afghnistan and Pakistan ( as was mentioned), who are muslims did find safe refuge in the predominantly muslim countries of Indonesia and Malaysia. Many have lived there for a number of years. In these countries, their religion and way of life fits into that of mainstream of society there. However, perhaps because they had to abandon lives and a quality of living they were used to in their original countries, they subsequently decided to pay illegal smugglers to make the journey to Australia. Refugees were not refugees all their lives. Some held high office in previous governments in their original countries and/or were businessmen or professionals. The boat journey is but a shortcut, paid for by those wishing a more immediate resolution to the ambitions and dreams for a better life in Australia rather than await their turn. With Labor/the Greens in power, expect more.

You're quite right though as to the underlying reason the Liberal/National Coalition was able to make the boat people an election issue to the extent it was. Cultural fear and xenophobic attitudes, I suspect, play a large part in it. That might explain why, as all parties appear to acknowlege but no one seems to say, Australia has a growing aging population and we're not reproducing enough. At the rate were going, the working population will be unable to support the old age pension. We're already paying the highest tax rate of all the OECD countries. Do we need migration? Can the country/infrastructure support it? (We're already short of water etc) If so I'm all for economic migrants who bring skills and money into Australia, (mind you, they have to be recognized skills which can be applied to work after a short transitional traing period) but that might be another issue/thread.

Labor is full of good intentions, although there is sometimes a bit of the jobs for the boy mentality. Unfortunately they always spend us into the red. If anyone thinks it is not a big issue for governemts, look at America. Ultimately, no country can keep borrowing money to spend, no matter how good the cause. The more money, you borrow, the more of your GDP goes into repaying the debts and the less you have to spend on infrastructure or social issues. The Labor party is party time. The Labor government is all heart, no brain. Would be nice to have a combination of the best of all parties, if thats at all possible.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 12 (view)
Sloganeering, Distortions, and Lies - The Australian Election Campaign
Posted: 9/8/2010 2:33:54 AM
Just curious. When does a refugee stop being a refugee and start being an economic migrant? Many of these "refugees" have stopped in a large number of politically and economically stable asian and south east asian countries for a number of years before deciding that the countries were too "poor" for their tastes. They then purchased places on boats for their trip to Australia. Accepted, things might have been bad in their original homelands but they did find refuge in numerous other countries on their way to Australia. If found to be legitimate, they are eligible to be processed by the UNHCR and resettled in first world countries willing to accept them. Naturally, all eligible refugees have to join a queue and await their turn for resettlement. Thats only fair. However, we have here people who choose not to follow the equitable and accepted rules of resettlement and choose to queue jump. Many have chosen to destroy identity documents so any verification of their identity/knowledge of their possible criminal activities cannot be assertained. By the same reasoning used by these "refugees" then, every citizen in Indonesia, Malaysia, East Timor (no offence meant to their citizens) etc is eligible to be a refugee because Australia is "richer" and a more plum final destination.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 15 (view)
Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 9/2/2010 11:19:08 AM
Always wanted to date a Klingon but unfortunately First Contact doesn't occur until later in the future. Darn! Missed out again. In the current absence of Klingons, it would be lovely to meet a nice human being. (whatever the race or colour). Live long and prosper.
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 21 (view)
No more contact after you tell them what you do for a living
Posted: 8/28/2010 5:23:50 PM
Perhaps this might explain something.

The ego epidemic: How more and more of us women have an inflated sense of our own fabulousness
By Lucy Taylor
Last updated at 7:55 AM on 14th September 2009
• Comments (207)
• Add to My Stories
Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists.
More of us have huge expectations of ourselves, our lives and everyone in them. We think the universe resolves around us, with a deluded sense of our own fabulousness, and believe we are cleverer, more talented and more attractive than we actually are.
We have trouble accepting criticism and extending empathy because we are so preoccupied with ourselves.

Got it all: Actresses Kim Cattrall (left to right), Cynthia Nixon, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kristin Davis on location for the new movie 'Sex and the City 2'
Am I making you angry by telling you this? It figures. Narcissistic or egotistical women do have an overwhelming sense of entitlement and arrogance.
Of course, I joke, but researchers say there is growing evidence of an epidemic of ego-itis everywhere.
Once a traditionally male syndrome, narcissism generally begins at home and in schools, where children are praised excessively, often spoiled rotten and given the relentless message that they are 'special'.
Psychology professors Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell analysed studies on 37,000 college students in 2006.
In a survey, 30 per cent of them said they believed they should get good grades simply for turning up.
NET WORTH: Facebook is a boon for those with narcissistic traits, who use the networking site for self-promotion, says a recent study

And it's not just about how intelligent they think they are. In the workplace, in friendships, even in motherhood, the pervading culture seems to have become one of competitiveness, superiority and one-upmanship.
But the sphere in which the signs of self-obsession are perhaps most obvious, and the consequences most immediately felt, is the dating one.
In a recent magazine article, four women in their late 20s and 30s shared their thoughts about why they were still single. A 39-year-old beauty director claimed to be too independent for a relationship.
A 38-year-old music agent attributed her single status to the fact she was an alpha female - independent, feisty, strong-minded, high-achieving and intimidating.

Mirror, mirror: Are woman increasingly believing that the universe revolves around them?
She pointed out that she owned a gorgeous flat with gorgeous things in it, had a nice car, was a member of a fancy gym and wore designer dresses. 'I do what I like, when I like,' she said.
She'd been told, and appears to believe, that she's too successful and too well-educated for most men.
The third woman, a 30-year- old arts writer and curator, has been having too much fun to settle down.
Another, a 29-year-old, said she was too picky. She was looking for a guy who is (just) tall enough. And (just about) good-looking enough (but not too good-looking so that she'd play second fiddle).
He needs to be successful, solvent and driven. He must also be long on genuinely good jokes, with a decent sideline in bad ones that only she finds funny.
He needs to 'speak good restaurant', to have no special dietary requirements and to always be discerning without ever being fussy.

Me, me, me: The workplace is one area where women can develop an over-inflated view of themselves
He needs to be clever without ever making her feel stupid. He needs to 'get' but not 'know' fashion...and so the list went on.
She concluded that she would rather eat wasps than share her Sunday with anyone who fails to measure up to her idea of Mr Perfect.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having high expectations. But being delusional and having a totally unrealistic blueprint are an altogether different matter.
And they often go hand in hand with acute ego-itis. As Margot Medhurt knows only too well.
She is the founder of Yours Sincerely, an Edinburgh-based personal dating and introduction agency for professionals. She has almost 30 years' experience in the industry and has noticed a significant rise in this phenomenon in recent years.
'It used to be that most women who joined a dating agency had a pretty good idea of where they stood in the eligibility stakes,' she said. 'But in the past few years, I've noticed that there are a significant number of women who don't.
'They tend to be in their 30s, and there is a wide discrepancy between how they perceive themselves and how others see them.
'They are often very plain, but see themselves as being absolutely fabulous, exceptional people.
'They invariably reject every guy's profile I send them. But if a guy rejects their profile, there is all hell to pay. There is disbelief. They are really saying: "I'm so fabulous. How dare he turn me down?"
'In the past few years, I've noticed a real sense of entitlement among this small group of women. The idea that a guy might not find them as amazing as they find themselves doesn't enter their head.
'They often become indignant and angry towards me, demanding to know why a guy dared to turn them down. Most people simply accept the facts of the dating game: some people will find you attractive and others won't, in the same way that you'll be drawn to some but not others.
Women today think the universe revolves around them and have a deluded sense of their abilities
'These women, however, are unable to get their heads around the fact that the rest of the world might not share the distorted, inflated view they have of themselves.'
She said she had a eureka moment when she read a recent article about the rise in narcissism among women.
According to the American research, there has been a 67 per cent increase in it over the past two decades, mainly among women.
An estimated ten per cent of the population suffers from narcissism as a full-blown personality disorder.
The symptoms include: a grandiose sense of self-importance; the belief that he or she is special or unique and in some way better - either intellectually or physically - than others; a requirement for excessive admiration; a sense of entitlement, whether to fame, fortune, success and happiness or simply to special treatment; enviousness of others or a belief that others are envious of him or her; an inability to empathise; an inability to admit a mistake; and haughty behaviour or attitude.

Food for thought: One woman said she would not share time with a man unless he was her ideal of Mr Perfect
What researchers have also identified, and are far more worried about, is what has been described as 'normal' narcissism - a cultural shift that has seen even non-narcissistic people seduced by the emphasis on material wealth, physical appearance and celebrity worship.
The researchers believe our culture brings out narcissistic behaviour in almost all of us.
They blame the internet (where 'fame' is a click away), reality television (where the lure of fame without talent is most prevalent), easy credit (which enables people to buy far beyond their ability to pay), celebrity worship, our highly consumerist, competitive and individualistic society, and a generation of indulgent parents who have raised their children to think they're special, amazing and perfect.
According to Twenge, this focus on self-admiration has caused a cultural flight from reality to the land of grandiose fantasy.
We have phony rich people (who actually have massive mortgages and piles of debt), phony beauty (via plastic surgery), phony celebrities (via reality TV and YouTube), phony genius students (with grade inflation) and phony friends (with the social networking explosion).
TOP DOG: Narcissists are most likely to end up in leadership roles despite the fact they often don't make good leaders, according to a U.S. survey

'I had noticed this trend, but wasn't really sure what it was all about,' says Margaret Medhurt.
'However, when I read that article and thought about the unrealistic expectations and sense of entitlement among some of the women, it really struck a chord.
'One of the cases that brought it home to me involved a 38-year-old businesswoman.
'I knew there were going to be problems right away. As soon as someone joins the agency, we get things moving very quickly - but this wasn't quick enough for this woman.
'She wanted a date immediately. The first man I sent her profile to declined an introduction and she was extremely cross. She couldn't accept it and she couldn't even be polite about it.
'In three weeks, three men turned her down. I explained that it takes time to meet someone but she just got angrier and angrier. She was demanding to know why these guys did this. I was trying to get the balance right - between being honest with her and being tactful.
'I think, ultimately, she had a very flawed perception of herself. And she almost couldn't bear that it was being challenged. It was as if she couldn't deal with the fact that some guys didn't think she was amazing - and she left.'
Men, traditionally regarded as the more self-centred of the species and the rogues of the mating game, are left scratching their heads and pondering Freud's famous question: what do women want?
David Baxter (not his real name) is a 40-year-old management consultant. Previously married for nine years, he joined a dating agency in the summer.
He says he's not perfect, but is told he's an eligible and pleasant guy with a lot to offer.
'I've had three successive dates recently with ladies in the late 30s to early 40s age bracket that have left me dumbfounded,' he said.

• Divorced by my best friend: Adele Parks thought she and her best friend of 20 years were inseparable - until she was dumped
• I've got a great big zonking bottom: Emma Thompson and other celebrities reveal their body insecurities
• Rowan Pelling's sex advice column: To wax or not to wax - have women ever faced a greater dilemma?
'I've never come across such massive egos, such arrogance and lack of basic courtesy.
'It was as if these particular dates were a forum for them to tell me how exceptional they were. One told me repeatedly how many young guys at the gym asked her out; another was very artificial.
'You sensed that they absolutely worshipped themselves, though none of them was drop-dead gorgeous or had amazing personalities, jobs or anything else to set them apart and elevate themselves into some superior position.
'I also thought it was quite telling that none of them had ever been married, engaged or had recently - or perhaps ever - been in a long-term relationship.
'I got the feeling that these women were living in a Sex And The City-inspired fantasy world. I also sensed that nobody would ever be good enough for them.
'They seem to be looking for something that doesn't exist: Mr Perfect, or perhaps some larger-than-life, dashingly handsome and unattainable character such as that portrayed by Mr Big. Nothing else will do.'
Despite his recent experience, David still considers himself lucky.
'I'm still positive about the whole thing, but I have friends who are not so optimistic and it's evident that encounters with these sort of women seriously erode their self-confidence, which is a real shame. There are a lot of genuine, decent guys out there who are getting a rough deal.'
Neil Hay is a 32-year-old former professional golfer-turned-financial consultant who lives on the outskirts of Edinburgh.
After taking some time out following the death of his mother, he joined a dating agency almost a year ago.
'It's made me terribly cynical, not just about the way women are, but also about what on earth it is that they are looking for in a guy,' he said.
'Of course, we all have standards and preferences. There's nothing wrong with that. But most of us are also realistic. We know that Cheryl Cole is out of our league.
'I had been hoping to meet someone who was quite nice-looking, with a good personality, someone to go for dinner and to the cinema and have a decent conversation with. But I'm left feeling that this isn't what women are looking for.
'It's as if they want to be swept off their feet right from the first date, as if they're waiting for someone like Brad Pitt or George Clooney. They're not interested in a regular, normal, decent guy. That's not good enough for them.
'I spent three hours on a date with one woman. I thought we got on brilliantly, but then she said she didn't want to meet again.
'This has happened a few times. It makes me think that if you don't live up to their perfect fantasy, then that's it. It's game over before you've even had any chance to begin to get to know each other.
'It does dent your confidence. I'm left thinking either that there's something wrong with me or that I'll just never be whatever it is that these women are looking for.
'I know there are a lot of single women who say things like they're too independent, too feisty, too confident or too successful for men. Or they claim that men are intimidated by strong, intelligent and independent women.
'But this is simply not the case. I think they just tell themselves this. It's a way of rationalising things. It's as if it's easier for them to believe their own myths than to face reality - that they are completely ordinary.'

Read more:
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 239 (view)
Whats the Issue With Men in Australia ..
Posted: 8/25/2010 6:29:10 AM
Why is it that men themselves don't seem to do more in the fight for their rights? Women seem to run roughshod all over us and we appear unable or reluctant to fight back. Would really appreciate some feedback as to this shocking state things and this of apparent mindset. Men are the weaker sex, really. We die earlier, have to work harder to attract a mate, come home tired and work to entertain her so that she doesn't run off, work hard outside the home, miss out on our children growing up and developing a relationship/bond with them, end up getting turfed out of the homes we built and paying rent because the woman becomes primary carer on account that we had to go out into the world to support the family, pay child support(a disguised form of alimony as we do not have any input as to how it is spent or if it is spent on the children at all), lose our tax entitlements for the children despite paying child support and if we somehow overcome these problems and try to pull ourselves out of this hole, have the rent money on any investment property we might strive to acquire counted as total income( for child support purposes)despite it being negatively geared and our real/true income suffering a loss.(This effectively means we are unable to invest for our future) The current federal government, Labor, has also reversed the conservative policy of ensuring a 50% custody of the child between both parents. Its currently back to the bad old days of if your're lucky you might get to see your child one weekend every fortnight. New "domestic violence " laws were further enacted to enable women to kick their partners out, no proof needed. One phone call and the jacks turf you out with ten minutes to pack. By the time you go to court, they tell you that since you're out, you might as well stay out because don't forget, they get custody of the children as primary carer and therefore the house. Family court lawyers are now automatically telling women to put in a claim of domestic violence to get their husbands out. "Violence" furthermore is defined so broadly that a failure to give your partner money to go shopping can effectively fall within the definition. Furthermore, men are at greater risk of drug use, alcoholism and suicide. Don't blindly believe all that I say. Do your own research and hopefully more men will get involved in fighting for our rights. If our lives aren't worth fighting for, we must really be stupid. No wonder women laugh at us and treat us like fools. I think we just might be fighting for our lives.
Show ALL Forums