You see we're prohibited in the developed world from saying women seek out men with money.
It's politically incorrect.
We're prohibited in the developed world to point to the countless marriages where the wife has her degree in community service, works 15 hours a week at the local charity, brings in $10,000, but spends $50,000 per year because her engineering husband makes $80,000, because that would imply she isn't an independent woman.
It's politically incorrect.
We're prohibited, if not lectured in the developed world if we dare suggest marriage is not in a bachelor's best interest and being single forever is actually a pretty good life, especially for the bachelor.
It's politically incorrect AND non-conformatory.
But jeezus-h-hosephats-cripes, "The recession is on, I can't make as much money as I want. So now I'm looking for a husband?"
I am so not moving nor investing in Japan.
Remember, it is cheaper to lease than to buy.
8 comments:
I just got out of a lease, and have test driven a few in the past couple of months. Forget, buying, why even lease when test driving is cheaper?
Captain, you were making perfect sense right up until you mixed up western feminism with Japan. Japanese women and western women are entirely different breeds, feminism never took in Japan like it did in the west. While feminism has made inroads into Japan it is not mainstream, the traditional separate roles for men and women are still intact. So what the article is really showing is that even those inroads are starting to crumble. Japanese women are still one of our best shots at having a sane woman play the part of a traditional wife. I'm surprised at this Captain, do you know something the rest of us don't?
Did you read about the Swedish countess asking for $53,000 per week from her divorce?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5024356/Countess-demands-53000-per-week-for-basics-in-divorce.html
I think AeroGuy nailed this one. The Japanese ideal of the yamato nadeshiko is still quite prevalent.
It's also worth pointing out that the woman in the article is looking for the stability of marriage rather than somebody who's going to pay for horses. It think it displays a greater understanding of the economic situation, not an ignorant desire to continue a free ride lifestyle. The woman in the article already has a job.
Will you marry me?
With all those yacht-owning, jet flying real estate moguls you hang out with, you'd think you'd have heard that famous proverb:
"If it floats, f***s or flies, you're better off renting."
Let's be honest here, ol' Capitan. Prohibited from saying something? You? Really? Because it kind of seems more likely to prohibit bears pooping in woods than it would be to prohibit you from commenting on the proclivities of the female sex.
And I will be quite honest, I did look for a guy with money. Not for quantity so much, but more for the ability to hold onto said money. Works steady at a decent job? check. Not making 5 or more monthly payments on man toys? Lets see, truck, 4-wheeler, boat... that's only three, so check. Doesn't drink some sort of jackass topshelf concoction like red bull and crown or buy umpteen rounds of rediculous shots because his buddies suggest it? Miller lite draft and one round of regular Jose tequila... check! All right, lets see where this goes...
I mean really, anyone who makes a legal commitment to someone without checking that they have their head at least partially out of their ass when it comes to "Money in>=Money out" kind of deserves what they get.
It reminds me of that old joke about what "extreme" situation could drive a woman have sex with a relative stranger. The punch line goes:
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am!?
Man: Dear lady, we've already established that. Now, we're simply haggling over price.
Post a Comment