The Man Who Cried
|
IMDB rating: 6.00 Plot: A young girl and her loving father are separated when he goes to America, intending to send for her. Shortly after his departure, their village goes up in flames, and the girl is forced to go to England, where she takes on the name Suzie, and finds that although she is misunderstood, tormented, and teased, she has one gift: she can sing. The movie follows Suzie through the events of her early life, from when she moves to Paris and joins a dancing troupe, to when she meets flirt and showgirl Lola, to when she falls in love with the gypsy Cesar. In the chaos and mayhem of the beginning of a World War, we witness Suzie’s struggle as she is forced to decide between the love of her past to the new love that she has only just discovered. |
Actors: Yankovskiy Oleg,Scheinmann Danny,Davis Barry,Osborn Thom,Chersky Frank,Hart Daniel,Majer Peter,Hassan Abraham,Martin Lloyd,Meir Uri,Drama,Music,Romance,War,
One reason why feminism has been embraced by governments, is because it almost doubled the workforce?
Meaning a lot more income tax money, doubling the price of houses/apartments and thus stimulating the building industry and making a lot of money for those who owned rental housing.
The problem now is that it has gone too far, with marriage rates at an all time low, negative population growths (not counting immigration) and a silent war going on between men and women. Women are now often in the position where if they can find a man that is willing to father a child with them, they have to work full time and put their children into childcare. Alternatively, they become single mothers and then find out how difficult it can be to bring up a child alone.
Divorce rates for the under 40’s run at over 40% in most OECD countries, making marriage a very poor proposition. Men are joining men’s groups in increasing numbers and crying out at the discrimination being leveled at them in education, marriage and employment.
So where do we go from here?
Our governments are almost oblivious to problems like this. They care about the economy.
We simply just continue and wait and see what happens say – 20 years from now.
Here’s another reason why Feminism has been embraced:
Scared politicians! They know they can’t deny modern day feminists in GENERAL and their inaction to their requests will generate hatred from women (and men). Not to mention they risk being looked down upon by rival politicians and even other countries. News like this will spread like a plague.
By ignoring Feministaz, they risk losing AT LEAST half of their votes/support as well.
Mr. Perfectionist | Feb 01, 2010
Yes, it doubled the workforce with little increase in productivity. And it created lots of blood sucking industries, mostly from the back of Men. We poor men gonna break out back on such a heavy burden, while filthy rich men are laughing.
Man-haters can’t do it alone without biggies behind.
Politically Corrected PARROT | Feb 01, 2010
Much of what you say has merit. The workforce didn’t quite double with the move towards women having jobs, I think it increased by about 60% (not sure).
Yes, housing prices skyrocketed to take into account the fact that two people in a couple could earn an average income. I have quoted many times that, once upon a time, it was possible for a man to work in the factories, raise a family with a wife at home, and own a home and bring up the kids. Now this wasn’t the greatest lifestyle – there were no microwaves, etc, but they did all right.
A woman working at that time in a couple was a luxury, bringing in extra money. Now it is a necessity for both members of a couple to hold a job to pay for massive mortgages and high interest rates. For example, average house prices in Sydney, Australia are around $630,000. Even allowing for a huge deposit, a couple is easily left with a $500,000 mortgage, which works out, over 30 years, to around $3400 a month. Average weekly earnings, which many do NOT get, are currently around $1100 a week. Work it out for yourself. At that rate, their mortgage repayments leave them with about $1000 a month to buy and pay for a car (usually a necessity due to lack of transport infrastructure), furniture, food, etc. So Mum has to go to work so they can even consider a good life, and then along come child care costs, which are rising rapidly.
This is one of the reasons for the skyrocketing divorce rate – the simple pressure of making ends meet is often too much, and people just fall apart, with the only winners being the banks, lawyers, etc. This is also a cause of domestic violence, from BOTH sides and in many guises, including using the law to intimidate. People simply are running close to boiling point all the time.
Another affect of masses of women in the workforce has been a permanent level of real unemployment, at a rate higher than the Great Depression. Real unemployment includes people in ‘MacJobs’ which pay a pittance for irregular work and short hours, and those who have opted out permanently from even looking for work, and accepted a pension when it has been available. Now I do not blame women for this – I am simply stating the fact, and many of these same women are in ‘MacJobs’, many have gone on pensions, and many are single with kids as well.
There is, obviously as you have stated, a greater pool of tax revenue, but this is offset by the greater level of social security payments needed to prime this fibrillating economic system and keep it pumping (you’ll have to read all my stuff to get full details on that and other things).
This situation is also inflationary, since every grab for a pay rise to permit a slightly higher standard of survival living in the mortgage belt causes a parallel rise in costs of housing, and in a range of other things. Part of the current world crisis is because of this. Government ‘controls’ inflation to some degree by controlling the cycle of money – the government giveth and the government taketh away, and the only control is how quickly money is returned to government through taxation, etc (another issue).
So, at its basest level, feminism is an organised approach by a group for what they see as a fair share of this crumbling economic pie, and they see this as a serious competition, even a war, which is why we have the rhetoric of ’struggle’, ‘oppression’, etc, and the incitement to violence, real or imagined, of many proponents of extreme feminism.
I suppose an argument could be made that feminism and its outcomes are the result of an organised conspiracy on the part of banks, real estate agents, property developers, loan sharks, lawyers, etc, who seem to be the only ones gaining from all this uproar, and that feminism is not a genuine popular movement at all. I won’t go that far, but I will and do lament what has become of my once great country.
Poor Fellow – My Country. Reminds me of a line from the film ‘Fargo’ – "All this, over a little money?".
The Grappler | Feb 01, 2010
I have to grudgingly agree- and it’s unfortunate. To maintain a household, have health insurance, and put anything into retirement requires two incomes. And daycare costs are so high that some women don’t work because it would take too much of their pay. But- it’s an example of which came first? The chicken or the egg? Divorce rates were steadily on the rise and the economy was in the grip of a serious recession and inflation was rampant in the ’70’s- many women felt compelled to work. And at that time there were no mandatory child support laws. And the situation has definitely been exploited by the government and greedy investors draining everyone dry.
But- what to do? Men and women don’t have much "choice" anymore. Smaller households, tighter household budgets and saving seem to be the only ways that men and women can cooperate to just break even and stay out of the grip of life draining debt.
Kelly S | Feb 01, 2010
I doubt that it almost doubled the workforce. Plenty of women were working before feminism. They worked from economic necessity, not because of feminism.
Louise C | Feb 01, 2010
