kosko said:
P Dog said:
kdolo said:
limiting female education = more iranians in the future.
These will revert back to doing what women do when not distracted.
Get married and have children........ this may be a plan to increase population.
They already announced a $15 billion dollar plan to boost fertility rates before this education thing. What reducing women's education will do is make the very painful, very massive strain on the workforce even worse until their 80's born generation is dead and buried.
Not to mention that this step would make getting laid in Iran even harder then it already is.
xsplat said:
If I were a woman I'd be against this. As a man I want women to be economically disadvantaged. It works out great if you can look forward to building up your financial value and translate that into sexual value.
If I were a woman I'd fight against it, using all my most powerful means. I'd organize other women, gain the ear of sympathetic men, and try to make it seem as if anyone who disagreed with me would never get any of my sisters pussies. And try to censor any disagreement through threat of the ire of my army of consumerist hens.
But I'm a man, and I'm not ashamed to take sides. For my personal benefit. I don't have to claim it's for the benefit of society. It would be good for me, personally, and so I'd favor it.
Is it good for you as a family man or is it good for you as a player? There aren't many cases (Eastern Europe?) where you can have your cake and eat it too.
It's the opposite. Iran slowly had to rebuild its demographics after a good chunk of young Men were killed off in the war. This was only one generation ago, and as they sit back they now see the west with negative birth rates. France has still not recovered its demographics from World War I & II, which was 80 years ago. Why? Because since the 60s Women in France are offed everything a man can do but have chose to shun the one thing they can do which is have kids. In all developed societies birth rates tank as women go up the ladder. So it makes logical sense from a country that is somewhat homogenous to hedge itself as is women become more educated and wealthy to maintain some solid reproduction rates.
Iran is simply doing what other homogenous societies don't have he balls to do. Japan I can almost guarantee mulled something lie his in their policy tanks but did no have the balls to hammer it in.
That's not true. Iran already has negative birthrates, worse then even America's. They went from something like 7 to 1.7 in a quarter of a century, way faster then any other country because the Iranian government did this on purpose from the early 90's because they were afraid it would overstretch the countries resources so they invested heavily in family planning and removed welfare benefits to create the fastest fertility fall in human history. They didn't stop to think what effect this would have on their population pyramid. All of this happened independently of women's advancement, it was government dictated as is the U-turn Iran is now trying to do.
That was a bit off-topic. Anyway what I basically meant with the "have your cake and eat it too" comment was that if you limit women's progress it becomes even harder then it already is to get laid in places like Iran but it's great to be a married man, while if you do the opposite you get very easy girls but your women will probably become fat and masculine.
EDIT: I forgot to mention France. France is the most fertile country in Europe except maybe Ireland. They have definitely recovered since World War II. Where are you getting your facts from?
