Have women ruined BBC?

[CrossLOPER]

According to monocle man...yes.


Moore blames women for 'banal' TV
Sir Patrick Moore

British TV standards are deteriorating because the BBC is "run by women", astronomer Sir Patrick Moore has said.

The Sky at Night host also described female newsreaders as "jokey" and called for separate channels to cater for the needs of the different sexes.

"I think it may eventually happen," the 84-year-old told the Radio Times.

A BBC spokesman described Sir Patrick as being one of TV's best-loved figures and said his "forthright" views were "what we all love about him".

The presenter said: "The trouble is the BBC now is run by women and it shows soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn't have had that in the golden days."


"I would like to see two independent wavelengths - one controlled by women, and one for us, controlled by men."

He claimed that interesting programmes were screened too late at night, and said he would "rather be dead in a ditch" than appear on Celebrity Big Brother. And asked about his favourite series, Sir Patrick said he no longer enjoyed certain programmes because of their modern storylines.


"I used to watch Doctor Who and Star Trek, but they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing. I stopped watching."

Sir Patrick appears in the Guinness Book of Records as the longest-serving TV presenter, having appeared on his show about astronomy since 1957.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6634255.stm
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6634255.stm)

EDIT: ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? LOL

[InsaneApache]

Leave Pat alone. He's a boyhood hero of mine. :2thumbsup:

Oh! yea he's right.

The BBC is rubbish (trash)

I hate the fecking barstewards......

:egypt:

[caravel]

He's right.

[Adrian II]

According to monacle man...yes.It's 'monocle' - sheesh, are you a woman or something?

Moore is right.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Sky at Night host also called for separate channels to cater for the needs of the different sexesThere are separate channels already. Men are watching his 'interesting programmes' on Sky Sports and internet pr0n sites all night.

What a sexist. He's still living in the times when men were men, women relegated to the kitchen and Rhodesia part of the Empire. How can anybody grow this out of tune with the world... :no:

[ShadeHonestus]

One woman's struggle against a fork and why men made the fork evil.

Tonight at 8pm on the lifetime channel.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

There are separate channels already. Men are watching his 'interesting programmes' on Sky Sports and internet pr0n sites all night.

What a sexist. He's still living in the times when men were men, women relegated to the kitchen and Rhodesia part of the Empire. How can anybody grow this out of tune with the world... :no:

You must admit that a lot of the naffer shows on television do seem to be watched more by women, though? I know a lot more girls who watch, say, Eastenders than I do men.

Perhaps separate but equal is a doctrine that would work in this case? I certainly don't see how having two channels with narrower demographics would make the programming worse. If there was something good you wanted to watch on the girls' channel, you could always switch over anyway.

[Lemur]

Since I don't have to watch the BBC, I assumed this was a classic Grumpy Old Man Wishes Things Were Like They Used To Be story. But based on the responses from our British Orgahs, I'm getting that his criticism has some truth to it?

[Whacker]

Same boat as Lemur, don't get the BBC.

All I can say is this the topic made me LOL...

And I thought BKS was a hot chick anyway?? Where's that thread where we all posted our self pics... :hide:

JUST KIDDING MATE!! :laugh4:

[spmetla]

Hey, give him a break, he's old...old people are allowed to be grumpy old farts. When he was a kid he could count all the nations of Africa on one hand much less see women in charge of media.

So long as women don't take over the History channel or the military channel :laugh4:

[CrossLOPER]

It's 'monocle' - sheesh, are you a woman or something?

Moore is right.
THERE ARE DOZENS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE RELATED ATROCITIES COMMITTED HERE EACH DAY EACH DAY AND NO ONE SAYS A WORD YET ONE DAY I MISSPELL ONE FREAKING WORD AND YOU GIVE ME LIP SHUT UP YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW HARD IT IS TO BE LOOKED DOWN UPON!!!

[ShadeHonestus]

*looks down on you* Ironically from below...

[spmetla]

Aw don' think ya IOwaa boys should be fixing other folks inglish. j/k

[ShadeHonestus]

You have a point actually.

[Tribesman]

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW HARD IT IS TO BE LOOKED DOWN UPON!!!
Try stilts to raise you up if its too hard .


What a sexist. He's still living in the times when men were men
I thought he was still living in Selsey . That place is a bit of a time warp .:laugh4:



How can anybody grow this out of tune with the world...
Well apart from living in Selsey perhaps he is out of tune with this world because he has spent his whole life looking at other worlds .

[doc_bean]

It's not (just) women, it's ratings. In the good old days public television was about 'educating' the masses, about showing them interesting and culturally responsible shows. Programs weren't made as much to entertain, television was seen more a sa tool for social engineering.

Now with commericial television people can choose what they watch, and of course, being the barbarians most of us are, we watch terrible shows that have nothing to do with science, culture or politics (unless it's scandalicious !), so public television has to adapt or be content with those few thousand viewers interested in watching those kinds of shows.
Because honestly, if I'm interested in science or culture, i tend to pick up a book or go to a museum. There are some interesting documentaries made, but not enough to fill up a networks entire programming shedule.

[Adrian II]

THERE ARE DOZENS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE RELATED ATROCITIES COMMITTED HERE EACH DAY EACH DAY AND NO ONE SAYS A WORD YET ONE DAY I MISSPELL ONE FREAKING WORD AND YOU GIVE ME LIP SHUT UP YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW HARD IT IS TO BE LOOKED DOWN UPON!!!Yup. You're a woman.

What in the world's come all over me?
I ain't got a chance of one in three.
Ain't got no rap, ain't got no line
But if you'll give me just a minute I'll be feelin' fine.

[HoreTore]

if I'm interested in science or culture, i tend to pick up a book or go to a museum. There are some interesting documentaries made, but not enough to fill up a networks entire programming shedule.

Uhm, all those Discovery channels? Animal Planet?

On a different note, I'd like to see a law banning all of the "gossip-media". Could be done by stating that all persons have to approve of what is said about them in the press, when the article is not important to society(ie, not politics and business).

[doc_bean]

Uhm, all those Discovery channels? Animal Planet?

Meh, often the same shows, often uninteresting to me.



On a different note, I'd like to see a law banning all of the "gossip-media". Could be done by stating that all persons have to approve of what is said about them in the press, when the article is not important to society(ie, not politics and business).

Too much of a slippery slope. Besides, there are already laws in most countries against publishing lies about people. Anti-stalking laws and trespassing laws can be invoked against paprazzi.

[HoreTore]

Too much of a slippery slope. Besides, there are already laws in most countries against publishing lies about people. Anti-stalking laws and trespassing laws can be invoked against paprazzi.

None of those carry the death penalty...

[Husar]

Don't we, by saying that those programs women love are bad, discriminate against women by implying that what they think is important is in fact not?
Maybe science and education are not nearly as important as human relations and ultimately, women are right and the better humans? Maybe from a purely objective POV the BBC has changed and become something better?
With only men commenting here, that's hard to discuss though.

Think about it, if we were too stupid to emit greenhouse gases, we wouldn't need to worry about global warming either.:2thumbsup: ~;)

[doc_bean]

None of those carry the death penalty...

Next thing you'll know the media will be banned from covering politicians' connections with the industry, since those are 'personal matters'.

Paparazzi make a living on the edge of the law, they'll find a way to bend any law you can think up until the law becomes to totalitarian to allow anyway.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't we, by saying that those programs women love are bad, discriminate against women by implying that what they think is important is in fact not?
Maybe science and education are not nearly as important as human relations and ultimately, women are right and the better humans? Maybe from a purely objective POV the BBC has changed and become something better?
With only men commenting here, that's hard to discuss though.

Think about it, if we were too stupid to emit greenhouse gases, we wouldn't need to worry about global warming either.:2thumbsup: ~;)

Take a look at the BBC's schedule, unrealistic Soap Operas, gardening programmes with hunky presenters, DIY programmes with hunky presenters, Sunday night dramas with needy love-gods.

Yes, Moore is outdated but he does have a point.

[macsen rufus]

Don't we, by saying that those programs women love are bad, discriminate against women by implying that what they think is important is in fact not?

Be careful, Husar, that sounds a bit too enlightened a view for this thread :beam:

As for the quality of BBC TV I have to rule myself out on the grounds of non-participation - "who needs TV when I got T-War" (with apologies to Bowie and Mott the Hoople)

Having said that, it does appear to be the women around me who lap up all the soaps and "reality" shows, so maybe Patrick Moore has a point, after all someone must be watching all that rubbish....

[Husar]

Take a look at the BBC's schedule, unrealistic Soap Operas, gardening programmes with hunky presenters, DIY programmes with hunky presenters, Sunday night dramas with needy love-gods.

Yes, Moore is outdated but he does have a point.
My point was that men cannot see the value of soap operas because they are not as advanced as women. The conclusion of Moore is correct, from a male point of view, but from a female POV the premise that soap operas are bad is wrong already. And with a wrong premise, you cannot usually arrive at a good conclusion, can you?
And one man's hunky presenter is another (wo)man's great love.

Just because women have different interests, dismissing their favourite TV shows as junk is not fair. And at the same time it's wrong to assume that men are only interested in scientific reports etc, or who watches all those cheap action movies we see once the soap operas are over?

I mean, who doesn't like Dolph Lundgren?:eyebrows:

I for one would prefer to see Dolph Lundgren when I'm tired in the evening than some old guy who bothers me with the stars that I can never reach anyway.
And if the BBC has degraded that much, you can always switch to another channel that shows what you want, at least here in Germany we have a few channels(even new ones) that show mainly news and documentaries, like N-TV and N-24 and then there are ARTE and the state-owned ones which also show quite a few documentaries.

However, women are not men, as is indicated by the "wo"(woe? ~;) ), so if they need their soap operas, we shouldn't force them to watch something else. That does not mean that I like soap operas(though I occassionally watched a bit as well), but I just don't watch TV if they're on, just like all the women wouldn't watch TV anymore if switched to more manly programs.

My :2cents:

[InsaneApache]

(A)Dolf Lundgren over Pat Moore!!! Are you barmy?

I bet Husars a bird :sweatdrop:

[Bijo]

The only reason I watch BBC -- and it's there standard, I don't really pay for it to specifically receive it -- is because of the original Star Trek.

One time I was drunk on a friday night, was brought home, and sat there clearing myself up for a few hours. I was azappin' and the telly showed BBC2, Star Trek. I always hated ST, but since then I got hooked on it, because it's just beautiful, and to me it's new anyway. And it's got this nice "old" touch to it.

Too bad it only comes so damn late -- at varying times between 0200 and 0500, two episodes, and on FRIDAY, arrgh! There's no other single channel here that I got that I know of broadcasting the original ST besides BBC2 (maybe I should zap through all those digital ones, but I doubt it).

During the day I don't know exactly what BBC is about, but I sometimes check the guide and I only see rubbish shows listed, so I know enough.

And about that Discovery thing and such, I'd have to say that I pretty much think like the following as well: same uninteresting shows. On Discovery they used to show a lot more war documentaries and such, but now it's mostly those annoying engineering programs and Mythbusters, and stuff like that.... people with their small companies making vehicles, cursing each other out, etc.


I don't know that talk about women running BBC... I just know the BBC is a POS in general. Oh yeah: another good show on BBC occasionally is Family Guy. And another good thing about BBC is that when a show is going on, there's no commercials in-between.

[frogbeastegg]

:inquisitive: I always assumed TV had become crap because the ill-educated masses would rather wave their fists and throw peanuts at the TV while baying the eviction of some random Big Brother contestant than use their brains and try to follow something like HBO's Rome. I say masses because I know quite a few men who like this rubbish.

So sayth the frog who gave up watching TV a couple of years ago because it's full of banal crap.

As for hunks, surely there's more pretty women on screen and they've been there for decades longer?

:froggy glances about: Gah! I'm in the backroom! :runs off, back to waters which don't have fag ends and beer bottles floating in them:

[Husar]

(A)Dolf Lundgren over Pat Moore!!! Are you barmy?
Just a german who could never manage to watch the BBC via satellite, so I have no idea who exactly Pat Moore is.:juggle2:
I won't really include him in my nonexistant list of nonexistant childhood heroes because some people say so. ~;)

The bird reference is interesting though, on one hand because I don't get it and on the other hand because it sounds erm, well, don't know, not anymore.:sweatdrop:

On a sidenote, I think I'm going to watch Hulk this evening...

[Strike For The South]

Thats the most englishman Ive ever seen! I shall kidnap him and name him Tommy.

[caravel]

:inquisitive: I always assumed TV had become crap because the ill-educated masses would rather wave their fists and throw peanuts at the TV while baying the eviction of some random Big Brother contestant than use their brains and try to follow something like HBO's Rome. I say masses because I know quite a few men who like this rubbish.
The trouble is it's just that, a "few" men that watch it, and those few usually don't have much choice, as it is usually the girlfriend/wife that inflicts it upon them.

So sayth the frog who gave up watching TV a couple of years ago because it's full of banal crap.
I find myself in a similar situation, I've seen very little TV for years, though my wife does look at it occasionally. My work colleagues arrive on the scene every morning on a work day however and deliver the (nauseating) big bro/lost/coronation st/east enders/etc etc update, which always prompts me to make myself scarce.

[frogbeastegg]

The trouble is it's just that, a "few" men that watch it, and those few usually don't have much choice, as it is usually the girlfriend/wife that inflicts it upon them.
:looks sideways at the boyfriend who makes her watch the likes of 'The Apprentice' and who has been known to talk about soaps and Big Brother: It's one of his graver flaws. I read a book and try to ignore it. He's not the only one I know who chooses to watch this rubbish.

I also notice that the coverage rubbish like Big Brother gets in the papers tends to be greatest in ones which aim themselves at a certain type of men, like The Sun and it's page 3 "Look! b00bz1!1" and massive sport section.

So, er, you may take it I disagree with the above based on my own experience. ~:)

It also strikes me that there are plenty of programs which can't be said to be aimed directly at women, or at them at all, which fall into the category of what I consider trash. Top Gear, for example. The news (it doesn’t need music, crappy CGI graphics, and ‘hot’ presenters who wear their tie loose and sit on the edge of their desk in an effort to look cool and engage with viewers. Gah!). Those awful programs where they gather up a collection of loutish young males and send them off to a pretend army camp/prison/whatever. Those historical documentaries with the dodgy grainy slow-mo historically inaccurate 'reconstructions' playing on endless loop while ages old theories and common sense are put forward as stunning new controversial discoveries. Most modern so-called comedy.

Everything is packed full of cheap attention grabbers, be it bland 'thump-thump-thump' music which plays at a higher volume level than the rest of the program, a person who is very easy to despise and is placed there to be torn to shreds by viewers (aka a Jade Goodey) or yet another gratuitously violent and/or explicit scene which tries to push further than all the previous ones so it shocks.

It's so much easier to write a gory murder and draw people in with morbid curiosity to see what the fuss is about than it is to write a skillful bit of character exploration which requires thought and concentration on the part of the viewer, and today's average viewer is not interested in having to put in that effort. In a world of ratings and funding wars the easier, surer path is a heck of a lot more attractive.

If you ask me this is all working on a similar principle to loading food down with salt, sugar and flavour enhancers. As time passes people grow used to the existing level of salt (for example), and start to require more before it can really be tasted. So the amount included in the food increases as each brand tries to be tastier than the others and win customers. Eventually you're piling in several grams of salt and it's still not enough. Now the situation is beginning to reverse, and brands battle to be the healthiest. One can only hope the same thing happens with TV and film.

[Hosakawa Tito]

A recent article, Where Have the TV Viewers Gone? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/09/tv.missingviewers.ap/index.html)
Except for watching the local news occasionally, I don't watch network tv (ABC,NBC,CBS,FOX) at all. The History, Discovery, National Geographic channels and sports once in a while is about it. Ever since the big networks went to that "reality show" programming; I have no interest in that stuff. I spend a lot of my leisure time on the computer, reading, or outdoor activities.
Looks like I'm not alone.

[caravel]

:looks sideways at the boyfriend who makes her watch the likes of 'The Apprentice' and who has been known to talk about soaps and Big Brother: It's one of his graver flaws. I read a book and try to ignore it. He's not the only one I know who chooses to watch this rubbish.

I also notice that the coverage rubbish like Big Brother gets in the papers tends to be greatest in ones which aim themselves at a certain type of men, like The Sun and it's page 3 "Look! b00bz1!1" and massive sport section.

So, er, you may take it I disagree with the above based on my own experience. ~:)
But perhaps your situation is an exception rather than a rule? I could disagree with my above points based on my own experience also, as my wife doesn't watch this kind of trashy reality stuff and neither do I.

It also strikes me that there are plenty of programs which can't be said to be aimed directly at women, or at them at all, which fall into the category of what I consider trash. Top Gear, for example. The news (it doesn’t need music, crappy CGI graphics, and ‘hot’ presenters who wear their tie loose and sit on the edge of their desk in an effort to look cool and engage with viewers. Gah!). Those awful programs where they gather up a collection of loutish young males and send them off to a pretend army camp/prison/whatever. Those historical documentaries with the dodgy grainy slow-mo historically inaccurate 'reconstructions' playing on endless loop while ages old theories and common sense are put forward as stunning new controversial discoveries. Most modern so-called comedy.

Everything is packed full of cheap attention grabbers, be it bland 'thump-thump-thump' music which plays at a higher volume level than the rest of the program, a person who is very easy to despise and is placed there to be torn to shreds by viewers (aka a Jade Goodey) or yet another gratuitously violent and/or explicit scene which tries to push further than all the previous ones so it shocks.
All very true, and all fitting the "utter bilge" category very well. Though I do think that characters such as the appalling Goody, or Posh Spice appeal mainly to young women, though point conceded. :bow:

It's so much easier to write a gory murder and draw people in with morbid curiosity to see what the fuss is about than it is to write a skillful bit of character exploration which requires thought and concentration on the part of the viewer, and today's average viewer is not interested in having to put in that effort. In a world of ratings and funding wars the easier, surer path is a heck of a lot more attractive.
Indeed, but I think you'll find that the main issue with TV these days is that everything has already been done many times over anyway, and it's all based on ratings which makes them afraid to stray from the set formula. Most of the good dramas, which are few and far between, take their plots directly from novels. Few are written specifically for the occasion and those that are, are typically, though not always, of the second rate sensationalist trash you have referred to above.

If you ask me this is all working on a similar principle to loading food down with salt, sugar and flavour enhancers. As time passes people grow used to the existing level of salt (for example), and start to require more before it can really be tasted. So the amount included in the food increases as each brand tries to be tastier than the others and win customers. Eventually you're piling in several grams of salt and it's still not enough. Now the situation is beginning to reverse, and brands battle to be the healthiest. One can only hope the same thing happens with TV and film.
It will probably happen eventually. The diet of reality and premium rate phone-in shows is starting to show it's age. On the rare occasions I see the TV there is never anything on except these types of cheap shows, involving a phone in voting process that is stretched out over several rounds, and several weeks, to rake in as much profit as possible. While people have an appetite for this, there will always be a shortage of the quality TV. Your food analogy is good and it does apply in this case. If you buy nothing but junk food, then the shops will end up stocking nothing but junk food, but when you eventually tire of it and want a bit of real food (or you're beginning to resemble Gollum (http://www.chavscum.co.uk/4images/data/media/8/F7Z7F_1.jpg) from LOTR), tough luck... they no longer sell it.

:bow:

[naut]

I always assumed TV had become crap because the ill-educated masses would rather wave their fists and throw peanuts at the TV while baying the eviction of some random Big Brother contestant than use their brains and try to follow something like HBO's Rome. I say masses because I know quite a few men who like this rubbish.

So sayth the frog who gave up watching TV a couple of years ago because it's full of banal crap.

As for hunks, surely there's more pretty women on screen and they've been there for decades longer?
I agree, I know alot of guys who watch the trash-box for hours. And my friends all tend to like shows like Lost etcetera.

Personally I detest the damned commercial rubbish, and if there's a room with a TV blaring I'll tend to proceed as quickly as possible to the nearest exit/escape route.

[rotorgun]

He claimed that interesting programmes were screened too late at night, and said he would "rather be dead in a ditch" than appear on Celebrity Big Brother.

This statement is just too funny! :laugh4: I say, I must sympathize with Sir Patrick in this statement. I felt exactly the same way after just one viewing of American Idol, that highly rated bit of simple minded sophistry that seems to have enthralled the minions in the US. The show's only redeeming feature is that Simon fellow from England who hands out the only truth presented in the entire program, to the dismay of many contestants.

These type programs and the HGTV home improvment lot give me gas. :oops:

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

If women have ruined the BBC, then it would be a good idea to remember who put them in charge.

I, personally, do not feel as if females have destroyed the BBC directly. It's more the men who manage the BBC placing programs on for women, who are generally the most TV addicted of the sexes.

[Bijo]

I agree, I know alot of guys who watch the trash-box for hours. And my friends all tend to like shows like Lost etcetera.

Personally I detest the damned commercial rubbish, and if there's a room with a TV blaring I'll tend to proceed as quickly as possible to the nearest exit/escape route.
What if the escape routes are blocked off :saint:

And Lost: a terrible show.

[HoreTore]

Next thing you'll know the media will be banned from covering politicians' connections with the industry, since those are 'personal matters'.

Paparazzi make a living on the edge of the law, they'll find a way to bend any law you can think up until the law becomes to totalitarian to allow anyway.

Behead them all! :laugh4:

Seriously though, there has to be a way, as this is without a doubt the biggest threat to democracy. Take Clinton for example. President of the most powerful state in the world for 8 years. Remembered and brought down by ADULTERY?? Not because of his political highs and lows, his economic plans, his attempts at peace, his war, no, the thing we remember him for, is something which we do not have any right to stick our nose into.

Forget guns and bombs, all you need to bring down even the most powerful people, is a pen and a private soon-to-be scandal. That is a major threat to our democracy.

[Shahed]

LOL! That article is hilarious.

[naut]

What if the escape routes are blocked off
I'd make one, Great Escape style.

[doc_bean]

Behead them all! :laugh4:

Seriously though, there has to be a way, as this is without a doubt the biggest threat to democracy. Take Clinton for example. President of the most powerful state in the world for 8 years. Remembered and brought down by ADULTERY?? Not because of his political highs and lows, his economic plans, his attempts at peace, his war, no, the thing we remember him for, is something which we do not have any right to stick our nose into.

Forget guns and bombs, all you need to bring down even the most powerful people, is a pen and a private soon-to-be scandal. That is a major threat to our democracy.

Well, it's people who care about stuff like that that are to blame, not necessarily the ones that provide the information. If everyone would just become a little more pragmatic and libertarian (in the socially liberal sense) we'd wouldn't need to worry about things like that.

[caravel]

Behead them all! :laugh4:

Seriously though, there has to be a way, as this is without a doubt the biggest threat to democracy. Take Clinton for example. President of the most powerful state in the world for 8 years. Remembered and brought down by ADULTERY?? Not because of his political highs and lows, his economic plans, his attempts at peace, his war, no, the thing we remember him for, is something which we do not have any right to stick our nose into.

Forget guns and bombs, all you need to bring down even the most powerful people, is a pen and a private soon-to-be scandal. That is a major threat to our democracy.
More emphasis on the person rather than the policies? We live in a world obsessed with image, junk TV, celebrities and cheesy scandal. Actual politics are portrayed as boring, geeky and something that the masses shouldn't worry their little heads over. This is why the corrupt opportunists can manipulate the public into voting for them and get into power in the first place. Because people don't understand the inner political machinations they fall for the same carrot and stick trick every time.

[Bijo]

Those cooking programs are awful on the BBC. Any cooking program is awful, whether BBCish or not.
Sometimes when azappin' I think sometime in the evening (or just before) there's this cooking program with that bald guy and two other cooks on the sides, and they have guests whom they cook with, or sum' like that. "You have... twoooooooooo minutes." "Let's staaaaht.... cookinnnnnngggg." :hmg:


...far's I know, the only "good" BBC channel I get here is BBC World.

[HoreTore]

Well, it's people who care about stuff like that that are to blame, not necessarily the ones that provide the information. If everyone would just become a little more pragmatic and libertarian (in the socially liberal sense) we'd wouldn't need to worry about things like that.

Who came first, the egg or the chicken? I say smash the egg and behead the chicken. :yes:

[doc_bean]

Who came first, the egg or the chicken? I say smash the egg and behead the chicken. :yes:

Can't we just eat them both ? :huh2:

[HoreTore]

Make an omelet first, then it's ok with me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

He believes that many women make the world a more boring and foolish place when in power. He has a point. I'm sure that the women in charge are cold blooded murderous big-whig types, just like their male peers, but maybe they are catering to weak, emotional and lazy women who watch tele during the daytime. Most men don't watch daytime television.

Capitalism rather that reason has led to the empowerment of women. I don't believe reason would have ever done it. When women control money, they tend to buy WAY more than men (with relativly few exceptions). The more power they have, the more money they have to spend frivolously. When they have the money, other people in power want to advertise effectivly, so they create jobs for intelligent women to tap into what women want to see. they then create programs that, with few exceptions, cater to women.

Think about it.

[Papewaio]

Who came first, the egg or the chicken?

The proto-chicken laid the egg :coffeenews: :book: :study: :clown:

[doc_bean]

Capitalism rather that reason has led to the empowerment of women. I don't believe reason would have ever done it. When women control money, they tend to buy WAY more than men (with relativly few exceptions). The more power they have, the more money they have to spend frivolously. When they have the money, other people in power want to advertise effectivly, so they create jobs for intelligent women to tap into what women want to see. they then create programs that, with few exceptions, cater to women.

Think about it.

Huh ? I'm sorry, women are more wasteful with money than men ?

I know the shoe-and-purse-buying woman is a chilche, but those tend to be the ones that look for a rich husband. In my experience men are far more wasteful than women. Cars, stereos, computers, game consoles, expensive sport equipment and a whole bunch of other stuff is mostly targeted towards males. Most of those are a whole lot more expensive than clothes, purses and other stuff women buy 'on impulse'. Most men I know also have at least one 'serious' hobby on which they waste a few 1000€ a year. That's not counting those into serious drinking...

It all depends on the individual of course, but as a general rule, I wouldn't say women are less responsible with money than men, quite the opposite.

[InsaneApache]

Huh ? I'm sorry, women are more wasteful with money than men ?

I know the shoe-and-purse-buying woman is a chilche, but those tend to be the ones that look for a rich husband. In my experience men are far more wasteful than women. Cars, stereos, computers, game consoles, expensive sport equipment and a whole bunch of other stuff is mostly targeted towards males. Most of those are a whole lot more expensive than clothes, purses and other stuff women buy 'on impulse'. Most men I know also have at least one 'serious' hobby on which they waste a few 1000€ a year. That's not counting those into serious drinking...

It all depends on the individual of course, but as a general rule, I wouldn't say women are less responsible with money than men, quite the opposite.

As a purveyor of ladies fashion items I can safely say that this is bollocks. Stop and think about it for a minute. You and your latest squeeze are invited out. You plump for the old suit and tie and you get the cherry blossom out for your shoes. The companion says "I havn't got a thing to wear!" You look in her wardrobe and it's packed so tightly with clothes that you couldn't slide a razor blade in there. Then trouble begins. The shopping trip. :sweatdrop: A minefield for the male of the species. Shoes, handbag, make up, jewelry, parfum and the dress. Whatever you say, do not say 'fine' when asked how she looks in that dress. Another thing to remember is not to say that the dress makes her look slim. Why? Because then she will turn to you and say, "Oh! so you think I'm fat do you?" :dizzy2:

Nope women spend a lot more than men. On clothes and tutty and the suchlike. It's a fact of life.

[doc_bean]

As a purveyor of ladies fashion items I can safely say that this is bollocks. Stop and think about it for a minute. You and your latest squeeze are invited out. You plump for the old suit and tie and you get the cherry blossom out for your shoes. The companion says "I havn't got a thing to wear!" You look in her wardrobe and it's packed so tightly with clothes that you couldn't slide a razor blade in there. Then trouble begins. The shopping trip. :sweatdrop: A minefield for the male of the species. Shoes, handbag, make up, jewelry, parfum and the dress. Whatever you say, do not say 'fine' when asked how she looks in that dress. Another thing to remember is not to say that the dress makes her look slim. Why? Because then she will turn to you and say, "Oh! so you think I'm fat do you?" :dizzy2:

Nope women spend a lot more than men. On clothes and tutty and the suchlike. It's a fact of life.

And she'll waste what ? 200€ if she's still reasonable ?

even if this happens a couple of times a year (and honestly, I don't know the type that need a new dress for every occasion) she'll waste maybe 1000€.

That's a fraction of what most men spend on their hobbies, be it computers, cars, music, model airplanes,...

[InsaneApache]

So that's about £120 and £600? :inquisitive:

You have to let me have some telephone numbers of your girlfriends. They sound a bargain. :2thumbsup:

Dunno about you, but the machine I'm on right now cost me about £650 five years ago. Another bargain. :laugh4:

[Andres]

And she'll waste what ? 200€ if she's still reasonable ?

even if this happens a couple of times a year (and honestly, I don't know the type that need a new dress for every occasion) she'll waste maybe 1000€.

That's a fraction of what most men spend on their hobbies, be it computers, cars, music, model airplanes,...

One day, you will learn the truth and wisdom of the words spoken by InsaneApache...

Just wait until you're married, young padawan.

[doc_bean]

So that's about £120 and £600? :inquisitive:



Well, just for special occasion, I'm not counting every day clothes, men have to wear those too.

You guys are just :whip:

[Husar]

Oh yeah, men have to wear those two, it's just like the women in my family have new ones all the time while I'm running around with shoes that are older than one year(and I have only that one pair).
Sometimes I'm so desperate that I think about spenfing my own money on new clothes instead of having my parents pay for them...
Well, as a student, I can't afford to buy all my clothes.

But for the comparison, I can wear a pair of expensive shoes of around 100EUR for about a year. My mom and sister have to get a new pair every one to two months and while my mom ranges in at about 10-30EUR per pair maybe, for my sister, there HAS to be a brandname of some sort on them usually. Apart from that we have all the cosmetics and clothes, my dad stores some of his clothes in his office room and when I asked him why he did that he said my mom needs all the room in their bedroom lockers.:sweatdrop:
Many of those clothes may be old and the new clothes may not be as expensive, but they make up for that by the amount they buy, it's just a shirt here, a skirt there etc.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Well, a decent suit costs a lot more than £120. Then there's shirts, shoes, ties, pocket squares, watches, cufflinks, overcoats, etc. It depends if you like to look nice, really.

[Cronos Impera]

Men, why watch television when you've got a plain Youtube with all the good stuff on it?

[Vladimir]

This whole gender issue is fairly irrelevant. Daddies like to spoil their little girls and that's how they end up. You can also tell a lot about a woman by how many pairs of shoes she has. The more she owns, the less secure she feels. One thing you need to remember though, fathers and husbands, is that if she's the primary caregiver for your children then she deserves something special once in a while. Traditional families work great if the husband isn’t a cheapo.

[Bijo]

Rant:
Egh: look what it has become nowadays; men who care about how they look. Consumerism reigning and the order of the day is how people's hair look, if they "look respectable" or normal, if they have their damn eau de cologne and what brand it is, whether they got nice clothes, to brag about one's car like it's the biggest damn thing in the world, how many women they got, etc. etc., blah blah.


There used to be a time when war was the order of the day and all we cared about is life and death. Look at us now! Simple softened FOOLS. Most of us men have always been fools throughout the eternity of time anyway, but at least back in the day they were fools who actually were MEN who could say with pride that they've been through hell, pain, and suffering, war and so on... not little insecure boys who want to impress some woman, who want to further fuel their greed and egos with such trivial matters.

I've had my big share of suffering and pain -- a lot of it -- through life, and gained wisdom, and I'm eager to see what war has in stock for me when I enter. The last ultimate challenge -- no matter how risky and dirty -- to even ascend above the pain and suffering that has come and gone. To voluntarily choose for this, if you can just stay in society safely and have fun, and a normal job, is.... what is it?


And now that the rant has come and passed, let me add something relevant to this goddamn thread: BBC is worthless. Have women ruined BBC? Maybe, but it doesn't matter. BBC is worthless :)

[Vladimir]

Rant:
Egh: look what it has become nowadays; men who care about how they look. Consumerism reigning and the order of the day is how people's hair look, if they "look respectable" or normal, if they have their damn eau de cologne and what brand it is, whether they got nice clothes, to brag about one's car like it's the biggest damn thing in the world, how many women they got, etc. etc., blah blah.


There used to be a time when war was the order of the day and all we cared about is life and death. Look at us now! Simple softened FOOLS. Most of us men have always been fools throughout the eternity of time anyway, but at least back in the day they were fools who actually were MEN who could say with pride that they've been through hell, pain, and suffering, war and so on... not little insecure boys who want to impress some woman, who want to further fuel their greed and egos with such trivial matters.

I've had my big share of suffering and pain -- a lot of it -- through life, and gained wisdom, and I'm eager to see what war has in stock for me when I enter. The last ultimate challenge -- no matter how risky and dirty -- to even ascend above the pain and suffering that has come and gone. To voluntarily choose for this, if you can just stay in society safely and have fun, and a normal job, is.... what is it?


And now that the rant has come and passed, let me add something relevant to this goddamn thread: BBC is worthless. Have women ruined BBC? Maybe, but it doesn't matter. BBC is worthless :)

Bijo
Cynic, Stoic, Taoist

:laugh4:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

look what it has become nowadays; men who care about how they look....There used to be a time when war was the order of the day and all we cared about is life and death

Given the choice between wearing a well-tailored suit and going to war, I'll take the former any day of the week.

[Bijo]

Given the choice between wearing a well-tailored suit and going to war, I'll take the former any day of the week.
You can do both. Going to war and still wearing a well-tailored suit :saint: