Hardwired to desire married men?

The interest over my appetite for married men continues to surprise to generate more interest than anything else I’ve previously written. Maybe I’ve struck a nerve, a raw nerve even. Yet what’s the problem? Could it be that I’m irritating some because I’m behaving like…yes you’ve guessed it a man. This means being forthright, dominating, competitive and selfless and this is just in bed!

This attributes could account as to why you are not in the top job, when you’ve got the better qualifications, attitude, and commitment?

Historically feminists have pointed to patriarchy imposing structural constraints on women, more commonly known as the ‘glass-ceiling’. I guess if you haven’t yet banged your head on it then you’re guaranteed to do so sometime soon.

It’ll happen when you’re forced to put your career on hold to start a family, or simply because you’re paid less than a man for doing the same job. For some women it’s simply a matter of tradition, you’re place is in the home caring for all and sundry. Whatever its manifestation, male power will keep be you out of the boardroom.

But this view is under question by Susan Pinker in her book The Sexual Paradox. Her thought provoking perspective recognises that across 30 European Counties girls are outperforming boys in the three Rs.

However despite girl’s achievements surpassing those of boys Pinker argues that boardroom success will remain a dream for most women because of their innate disposition. She puts it down to women being hardwired for empathy.

Girls it would seem are biologically rather than socially engineered to be less extreme than men and so tend to be more consistent and steadier unlike their erratic male counterparts. Therefore,as Pinker’s argument goes, women are designed to want to limit their time at work and subvert a colleague in order to succeed.

Pinker’s theory might be right, but it still doesn’t mean women should have to put up with the raft of inequalities found in society which limit the opportunities of those girls that might not be so resolutely hardwired. Men have enough excuses to emasculate us they don’t need anymore so I’ll continue to emancipate myself from their iron-like grip.

Women do prefer married men

Last night’s post about my preference for married men certainly attracted a raft of readers. Indeed the number of visits surprised me. My musings on the issue were sincere, as I’ve become fed-up of continually being let down my guys of the single variety. It’s their arrogant peacock mentality.

Once they feel you’re theirs they strut around pubs and bars in full bloom saying “look at me I’m so gorgeous, look at what what you’re missing” it’s a penis driven monologue. They want us, their girlfriends to protect them from themselves! “I couldn’t help sleeping with her, it meant nothing, she came on to me”

In contrast married men don’t make such demands. Yes I know they want sex, but so do I, but when I want it. And it seems I’m not alone just look at these links on the same subject!!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2615_v125/ai_18576923

http://www.sosuave.com/quick/tip120.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/fashion/2007/07/22/st_mistress2.xml

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Single-Women-Date-Married-Men&id=146934

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/393673/5_reasons_why_women_date_married_men.html

Why I prefer married men

 

Patriarchy isn’t the dominant force some men think it is especially when it comes to relationships with successful and confident women.

 

When I listen to some of my girlfriends the Bridget Jones syndrome seems to dominate their perspective on life and relations, to the extent they don’t ‘exist’ unless they have a man by their side.

 

And when I say ‘have’, I don’t mean have in the contemporary colloquial sense. This idea of having, refers to  shagging men’s brain’s out. No what I mean is, they have to have a man in order to give them an identity, to make them a whole person. Severe the man and the woman die’s metaphorically.

 

Now I in contrast, made a decision long ago to resurrect myself from any relationship fall-out with a strategic shift in my relationships. I got fed up from the after shocks which follow the discovery of your man’s infidelity.

 

It’s all the apologies, incessant visits from Interflora, texts, phone calls and other excuses for their penile indiscretions which I have found tends to rain down after a man chooses to start shagging someone else while in a long-standing relationship.  

 

Come on girls, we all know where men’s brain are and we also know they’d happily shag anything with a hole. Coarse of me I know, but at the same time true! They promise the world just so they can glide their smooth hands down deep into your pants. They can be such charmers when. We all know it’s not just their eyes that bulge when they get a glance of your pantie lace and talk about persistence. It’s a better they weren’t so committed to screwing up the fixtures and fittings.

 

But with a career and life to manage who needs all this fall-out, not me, but every so often I need a shag, so that’s where married men come in. You can detect them a mile off; their wanton gaze quietly scanning the bar or club for a reciprocal interest, with a timidity that’s unique to their situation.

 

You beckon them over and they’re yours for the evening’s entertainment. No, I don’t mean getting straight down to it, you’re a lady. Exchange mobile phone numbers, and meet them during the day for coffee, weigh them up and down and watch them hanging on your every word. Then the decision becomes yours. And that’s the best part plus I’ll be honest their eagerness means they taste better too.

You can use them to meet your sexual needs because they think they’re using you. You can call them up and ask them to do to you what you want them to. You’re in so much control they literally are putty in your hands. The best bit is you can say not tonight and there’s nothing they can do! They’ll never let you down but if they do drop them straight away knowing there’s a million more just waiting for your matriarchal smile!

 

 

 

 

Tormented by missing biscuit

  It would seem the recent concerns over a possible global food shortage have already come to fruition in the UK.

Supermarket shelves up and down the Britain are already short of one of my favourite foods stuffs – the fig biscuit.

In fact things are so bad Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Tesco’s are just some of the supermarkets who have been forced over recent days to go as far as remove the fig biscuit label from their shelves.

So empty are the shelves it’s as if the fig roll never existed. But those of us who relish in the simple pleasure of letting the dry outer biscuit crumble into ones mouth to reveal the sticky fig centre are bemused by the loss of such a simple pleasure.

The reason for its absence is due to a poison called aflatoxin which has been found in consignments of Turkish dried figs. It’s a naturally occurring mould found on figs but it’s been linked with cancer, hence the fruits withdrawal.

Fortunately the biscuit’s absences is only temporary and stocks will return to the supermarket shelves once a fresh consignment of the fruit comes to our shores.  

Who are they kidding?

 So Alistair Darling is planning to signal changes to compensate those people hit hardest by the recent tax reforms.

Yet amidst the political furore over the loss of the 10% tax band, something has been missed by everyone. Why hasn’t any politician said it’s reprehensible that any UK family should be attempting to live on an income that doesn’t extend beyond the 10p tax rate?

It is low incomes, not tax bands that trap parents and their children into a life of poverty. Maybe politicians of all persuasions would be better trying to gain political capital out of raising incomes by at least 10% rather than making a virtue out of salvage a meagre £5 a week!

 

 

 

Energy shortage ignites fuel poverty

 UK energy firms are getting prepared to fuel a further hike in household bills caused by a shortage to natural gas.

 

Energywatch boss Allan Asher believes another 25% rise in bills over the summer would decimate some family finances. Some households are still reeling from the recent 15% price rises at the start of the year and fuel poverty is becoming the norm for a significant number of people.

 

The reason is UK reserves of natural gas are slowly dwindling to the extent we will be importing 50% of its gas from counties such as Norway and Russia. The problem is these countries don’t see the UK as a main concern. Norway sees the UK as a secondary priority, as it already has to service long established contracts with mainland Europe.

 

This hasn’t come as a complete surprise; the extent of our natural gas reserves was on the agenda back in the 1970s. Therefore it’s hard to imagine why we’re running into such trouble now. Becoming more and more dependent on third-parties for our energy is very dangerous and action needs to be taken now before the UK is held to political ransom

 

Nuclear energy has been touted as the best way forward for our electricity but it does nothing for our gas reserves. One answer could be to turn the clock back and reintroduce town gas.

 

We have massive coal reserves and its introduction would be an upheaval but if it was accomplished on a graduated basis it would help solve a potential catastrophe for the UK.

Immigrants aren’t us (part 4-Britishness)

 Britishness is about is about tolerance not intolerance. It’s about allowing people to have dual identities, for example being Welsh or Muslim and at the same time being British. Such co-existence of communities provides unhindered movement between peoples. This provides our sense of belonging to a time and place through commonly shared values.

 

People who terrorise us may live in Britain but they are not British simply because they don’t respect, maybe even appreciate our laws, the parliamentary and democratic political structures, traditional values of mutual tolerance, respect for equal rights. Yes some of these structures are inherently flawed and evidently prejudicial, but taking time to challenge these flaws is being British.

 

Britishness is about assimilation into our established customs, values and beliefs in order to give people a sense of national identity but not at the expense of their own heritage. Our Union flag symbolises the tolerance of difference by recognising our similarities. Maybe it’s time we all sat the Britishness test so we could find out exactly who we are!

Immigrants aren’t us! (part 3 migrants)

By researching the movement of second career individuals into teaching I challenged the conceptual usefulness of ‘social-class mobility’ and ‘tourism’ and instead argue the term migration is more appropriate mechanism when identifying social processes. Mobility implies free movement in any direction both up and down.

 

Indeed the word mobility implies a form of movement that is open to one and all either in its relative or absolute term. More importantly the idea of mobility ignores the various obstacles people face on these social journeys. For any migratory movement involves crossing graduated processes, barriers and procedures of change rather than the spontaneous agency implicit surrounding the language of mobility.

 

Therefore the migrant is someone who consciously undertakes an arduous social journey in order to move from one occupation to another. For example a woman employed in a traditionally male occupation, or an older person seeking employment or the working-class person taking up a middle-class occupation like teaching. All these people experience corrosive patterns of prejudice, fear and discrimination, in the same way an ethnic minority experiences prejudice coming into the UK.

 

This perspective isn’t undermining the centuries of horrendous experiences black people have had at the hands of white people. Instead it’s arguing that the vast majority of us experience the horror of prejudice, and so we have more things in common with each other, than differences.

 

Until we recognise our similarities we won’t see the barriers we erect that prevent equal socio-economic opportunities, socio-cultural mixing and the ability to engage everyone in civic participation and belonging. You only have to recognise how alienated white working-class males are in the UK to see that prejudice alienates everyone. Once people’s eyes are opened to the alienation caused by the prejudice then we’ll collectively be able to point the finger at those people who do terrorise us without being called racist.

 

Immigrants aren’t us!(part 2-prejudice)

 On the one hand there’s the prejudice arising from fear. Post 9/11 and 7/7 any fear of colour, especially Muslim colour, can be rationalised through terror. Yet these acts of terrorism came after racial prejudice had been firmly grounded in our national psyche. So any prejudice must stem from something else and this is the key dynamic, prejudice.

 

As a nation we are encouraged to highlight social differences between people, be it on intellect, age, gender, sexuality, appearance, social class etc. Exploiting differences is a fundamental aspect of our social interaction which can be traced back centuries through either the lens of social-class, gender, ethnicity, age etc. Such a dynamic is exploited by powerful elites as a means of social control in order to retain their dominance and distance through barriers of social difference.

 

This approach prevents any notion of integration through multiculturalism from taking hold. For example in education independent schools keep a minority of children out of mainstream state education so they never have to integrate with the majority. Similarly existing discourses of multiculturalism conveniently ignores the fact the UK is comprised of four countries with distinct cultural differences. Indeed Wales is expanding its cultural difference through the growth of the Welsh language, yet we largely remain comfortable with these examples of multiculturalism mainly because we don’t see the difference.

 

Yet on this basis the vast majority of us experience more prejudice than we realise. Indeed it’s so subtle more of us experiences migratory prejudice than we realise. As a secondary school teacher I have witnessed an increasing number of adults entering teaching as a second or third career due the increased popularity of SCITT (school-centred initial teacher training) based courses. An individuals’ decision to change career is as diverse as their social, economic and cultural backgrounds. And it’s this diversity or difference which makes the migration from one job to another difficult or sometimes prohibitive. Because when you arrive having maybe crossed a social border you’re viewed by the ‘indigenous’ as an outsider, a threat and therefore an immigrant.

 

Immigrants aren’t us!(part 1-race)

   

Jungle-bunnies, coons, Kit-e-kat eaters, scroungers, terrorists, Muslims, mirgrants are just a few of the adjectives that are frequently used to when discussing issues of race and immigration. To the extent race is now synonymous with immigration. Only coloured people migrate don’t they?

 It will soon be 40 years since Enoch Powell delivered his now infamous ‘Rivers of Blood Speech’. His polemic argued for the repatriation of black people as integration he argued was doomed to failure on the grounds of visible difference – skin colour.

Integration, assimilation or multiculturalism, are different models which are used to describe the political processes being used to eliminate difference. But difference persists, indeed post 9/11 the gulf between colour and whiteness is arguably wider than ever. But what are issues about race really about? Ostensibly it’s about racial difference; however the human genome project has largely eliminated such differences.

 

There is no black gene, in the way there is no ‘criminal’ gene, there’s just us, people. You have to look at it like this there are billions of human beings living on earth at this very moment. We all share the ability to learn a language, reproduce, and grow and development in the same way. Similarly we all age the same and are anatomically and physiologically identical in form and function as well as being susceptible to the same diseases. We all laugh, cry, love, feel pain hunger and desire no matter what our race. Therefore the mapping of human genes has told us we are all more alike than we are different indeed any difference is largely superficial.

 

Nevertheless, any difference no matter how superficial it is can be exaggerated to the point it becomes the most visible dynamic. Skin colour is superficial, it’s a coating, a cover, a layer of and not the person yet it’s become the key difference between people. Paradoxically legions of white people go to great lengths and expense every year to darken their skin. Moreover once home from holiday they even ‘top-up’ their tan so they can continue displaying their new coating of colour. Therefore it would seem that colour per se isn’t the basis of prejudice so what is? Part 2;   Part 3;   Part 4