Post: #1

Iranian university bans on women causes consternation



With the start of the new Iranian academic year, a raft of restrictions on courses open to female students has been introduced, raising questions about the rights of women to education in Iran - and the long-term impact such exclusions might have.

More than 30 universities have introduced new rules banning female students from almost 80 different degree courses.

These include a bewildering variety of subjects from engineering, nuclear physics and computer science, to English literature, archaeology and business.

No official reason has been given for the move, but campaigners, including Nobel Prize winning lawyer Shirin Ebadi, allege it is part of a deliberate policy by the authorities to exclude women from education.

"The Iranian government is using various initiatives… to restrict women's access to education, to stop them being active in society, and to return them to the home," she told the BBC.

Higher Education Minister Kamran Daneshjoo has sought to play down the situation, stressing Iran's strong track record in getting young people into higher education and saying that despite the changes, 90% of university courses are still open to both men and women.

Rest of article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19665615

Post: #2

Persians tend to take things too far.

Post: #3

(09-22-2012 02:30 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Persians tend to take things too far.

You know I just read another article where they made their own version of the internet.
It has no access to the the outside world. They control the content.

It's amazing what people will do to control the pussy.

Post: #4

There was a link floating around that said the more a woman has to depend on her husband, the less likely she will divorce. Common sense in these parts, but efforts like this, which personally I don't agree with, do more to maintain nuclear families.

Post: #5

Let's re-write the headline:

Iran Tackles Hypergamy To Prevent Impending Marriage Crisis

Post: #6

(09-22-2012 03:25 PM)Private Man Wrote:  Let's re-write the headline:

Iran Tackles Hypergamy To Prevent Impending Marriage Crisis

I love that Private Man

Last thing you want is a bunch of sexually frustrated men in an ultra-conservative environment
with no means to relief. What could possibly go wrong?

Post: #7

Iran finds themselves under assault and essentially at war.

War is fought with warriors. - actual war, intellectual war, economic war, spiritual war, cultural war,........

Wars are fought by men and Warriors are men. -

This is prudent action on their part. In war time , women are:

1. back line support

and if you lose, they are:

2. Spoils of war; pussy and wombs for the victor.

Period.

Post: #8

I actually agree with this. Limiting the education of the women might not be good for women, but it will be good for the country as a whole.

Post: #9

Its not so much about limiting women as marshaling precious resources during sanctions for where they will be most effective now and in the future and that that will be the warriors: MEN.

in the event of war, women are back line support/wives,mothers

and if they lose women will be spoils: pussy and wombs for the victor.

They are on a war footing and need to make sure warriors are prepared for war and its aftermath: actual hot war, cold war, economic war, intellectual war, spiritual war, cultural war. - and able to continue the fight even after major hostilities end and rebels and dissidents are needed.

Post: #10

(09-22-2012 04:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I actually agree with this. Limiting the education of the women might not be good for women, but it will be good for the country as a whole.

Limiting women's education = slashing their pool of skilled workers, which is going to be small enough for Iran as it is with their hyper-ageing. At the rate they're currently going half their population will be over 60 in 60 years.

Post: #11

(09-22-2012 10:21 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-22-2012 04:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I actually agree with this. Limiting the education of the women might not be good for women, but it will be good for the country as a whole.

Limiting women's education = slashing their pool of skilled workers, which is going to be small enough for Iran as it is with their hyper-ageing. At the rate they're currently going half their population will be over 60 in 60 years.

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.

Post: #12

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.

Post: #13

(09-23-2012 03:47 AM)kdolo Wrote:  

(09-22-2012 10:21 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-22-2012 04:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I actually agree with this. Limiting the education of the women might not be good for women, but it will be good for the country as a whole.

Limiting women's education = slashing their pool of skilled workers, which is going to be small enough for Iran as it is with their hyper-ageing. At the rate they're currently going half their population will be over 60 in 60 years.

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.

(09-23-2012 03:55 AM)xsplat Wrote:  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.

Post: #14

(09-23-2012 04:09 AM)P Dog Wrote:  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.

I'm not a family man, but as far as I can see it's in the interest of players and family men to be relatively richer than women.

Go to a poor country as either and see if it's true.

Post: #15

(09-23-2012 04:20 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 04:09 AM)P Dog Wrote:  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.

I'm not a family man, but as far as I can see it's in the interest of players and family men to be relatively richer than women.

Go to a poor country as either and see if it's true.

I'm not denying having a larger wealth gap between you and the local women makes it easier to swoop. I meant more of the social/cultural effects and not the economic. Less female education = less casual sex in the developing world. That's why in the Third World the sluttiest girls are the richer ones (opposite is true in the West) and according to the Tehran datasheet the same holds true in Iran.

Post: #16

(09-23-2012 04:09 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 03:47 AM)kdolo Wrote:  

(09-22-2012 10:21 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-22-2012 04:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I actually agree with this. Limiting the education of the women might not be good for women, but it will be good for the country as a whole.

Limiting women's education = slashing their pool of skilled workers, which is going to be small enough for Iran as it is with their hyper-ageing. At the rate they're currently going half their population will be over 60 in 60 years.

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.

(09-23-2012 03:55 AM)xsplat Wrote:  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.

Post: #17

(09-23-2012 05:40 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 04:09 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 03:47 AM)kdolo Wrote:  

(09-22-2012 10:21 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-22-2012 04:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I actually agree with this. Limiting the education of the women might not be good for women, but it will be good for the country as a whole.

Limiting women's education = slashing their pool of skilled workers, which is going to be small enough for Iran as it is with their hyper-ageing. At the rate they're currently going half their population will be over 60 in 60 years.

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.

(09-23-2012 03:55 AM)xsplat Wrote:  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?

Post: #18

I have a lot of dark thoughts about politics of this sort. I think that Iran should make it look like they're educating women but secretly be doing subversive shit to undo the "progress". Basically giving the appearance of progression without the detractors that a progressive society would bring. That's kind of Machiavellian but it's these sort of heavily publicized policies that start wars.

Post: #19

(09-23-2012 06:21 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 05:40 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 04:09 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 03:47 AM)kdolo Wrote:  

(09-22-2012 10:21 PM)P Dog Wrote:  Limiting women's education = slashing their pool of skilled workers, which is going to be small enough for Iran as it is with their hyper-ageing. At the rate they're currently going half their population will be over 60 in 60 years.

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.

(09-23-2012 03:55 AM)xsplat Wrote:  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?

Remove immigrants from France's tally.

Post: #20

(09-23-2012 08:39 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 06:21 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 05:40 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 04:09 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 03:47 AM)kdolo Wrote:  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.

(09-23-2012 03:55 AM)xsplat Wrote:  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?

Remove immigrants from France's tally.

Ethnic French are 81% of the population as of 2008 according to INSEE, so roughly 51 million are French. That means they've added 10-12 million French people since the war (depending whether you count from before or after it) excluding all the ones who emigrated.

Post: #21

More "reasons" behind the French baby boom...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...egime.html

Post: #22

American female education should be limited to:

cooking 101
cocksucking 101
shirt ironing 101
fetching beer 101
house cleaning 101
underwear modeling 101
french kissing girls 101

I got professor dibbs on the last class. "Welcome bishes to RooshV U".

Post: #23

(09-23-2012 02:50 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  American female education should be limited to:

cooking 101
cocksucking 101
shirt ironing 101
fetching beer 101
house cleaning 101
underwear modeling 101
french kissing girls 101

I got professor dibbs on the last class. "Welcome bishes to RooshV U".

I got dibs on the second

Post: #24

(09-23-2012 02:50 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  American female education should be limited to:

cooking 101
cocksucking 101
shirt ironing 101
fetching beer 101
house cleaning 101
underwear modeling 101
french kissing girls 101

I got professor dibbs on the last class. "Welcome bishes to RooshV U".

They learn all that at home these days.

Post: #25

(09-23-2012 02:50 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  American female education should be limited to:

cooking 101
cocksucking 101
shirt ironing 101
fetching beer 101
house cleaning 101
underwear modeling 101
french kissing girls 101

I got professor dibbs on the last class. "Welcome bishes to RooshV U".

Such schools actually existed. There were called "Finishing Schools" They were real schools to teach the "wifely arts". I don't know about the blow job parts.

http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2012/...ng-people/