也論港女

星期日檔案探討港女這個題目﹐在博界再次引起討論港女現象的熱潮﹐差不多每個我常看的博也寫這題目。眾博主的立場十分鮮明﹐大至分為男人和女人兩大陣營﹐還有少數第三勢力在旁冷眼旁觀各打八十大板。竟然港女是熱門話題﹐我又怎能錯過﹐手痕也來寫幾句關於港女現像﹐說說其他人還未說過的觀點。

在節目中張文慈拉著老公亮相接受訪問﹐高調宣揚男人應該把全副身家給老婆的道理。很多反對者說張文慈是港女拜金主義的代表﹐我倒想為張文慈平反一下。說在前頭張文慈的宣言其實有誤導成份﹐她的老公並沒有人工全數上繳﹐只是存入兩公婆的聯名戶口。她老公絕對保留用錢的自由和權利﹐因為那個戶口也是屬於他的。

其實我和老婆也是這樣安排﹐人工自動轉賬入聯合戶口﹐家用洗費從這個戶口中扣除。據我所知很多同事也是這個安排﹐我看出有什麼不妥的地方。在法律上﹐結婚後兩夫婦的財產已是共同擁有﹐張文慈的安排其本上乎合婚姻的法律精神。反過來若果老公隱暪著老婆﹐有不見得光的收入才有問題。除非是包二奶或賭錢﹐否則老公為什麼要隱暪收入呢。若果有餘錢可以消費﹐又是正正經經的良好嗜好﹐老婆豈會干涉禁止。

網民批評港女的罪行之一是崇尚名牌﹐其實名牌沒有什麼不好﹐名牌是品質的保證啊。名牌既能保值﹐也比較安全耐用﹐我也堅持一定要用名牌呀。我愛用的名牌主要有﹕ Glock, Berrata, Remington, Walter, Colt等。

男人投訴港女擇偶條件要求高﹐女人亦投訴港男質素低。其實若果用經濟學角度去看﹐港女的擇偶條件﹐又或者港男對港女批評﹐不過是開天殺價落地還錢。只看開價和價並沒有多大意義﹐應該要看成交價才能決定市場資訊。我們應該看最係什麼樣的女人﹐最後嫁給什麼樣的男人。嫁得出同娶得到的人的條件﹐與開價競投時的條件有多少分歧。港女開出那些條件看似很高﹐只是這樣高的價值沒有多少成交量。嫁得出的港女最終變成港師奶﹐她們的老公大部份都只普通男人﹐那裏是港女開價的超級白馬王子呢。或許港女配港男﹐不是冤家不緊頭﹐才是天生一對呢。

9 thoughts on “也論港女”

  1. Horace,

    The problem with 港女, 港男 is that 哩兩個文化概念(memes) have become such loaded terms that they have becoming lighting rods instead of tools to assist good discussion.

    You funny man. The gun brands you like will get you into HK jail quickly, and I wish it is the same here in Canada. May be since we can’t quite ban private guns, we can ban(d) you? (ha ha) Put you into a band and playing Beatles music all day instead of playing with guns? How about Imagine?

    This is so funny, “應該要看成交價才能決定市場資訊”!!! Absolutely 隔岸觀火,哈哈!

    Of course, not everyone, in fact most HKers don’t think about getting married. So there may not be many “嫁得出同娶得到”, they just stay dating. I suppose looking at those dating couples, you can say thats their “成交價”? Ha ha.

  2. Maybe I should use Wittgenstein analytical philosophy on the “Hong Man” and “Hong Girl” symbol.

    Band me is fine, if the band is rock bands like Gun n’ Roses, NIN. Those bands fits perfectly with guns.

    If the relationship stays at dating, it not a final deal. We can’t estimate house price by looking at rents. If dating is not aiming for marriage, then the men are paying way too high for the service they get from the “hong girls.” It is more rational to buy the same service on day by day basis.

  3. One problem in HK (perhaps not as bad now) is that many people can’t afford to get married. Houses/apartments in HK are so small that you can’t really fit in another person. But houses/apartments are so expensive in HK that you can’t really afford one. HK is becoming a strange place.

  4. Horace,

    Thia is a trick question. Before you married “wife”, how much did you pay to “buy the same service on day by day basis”?

  5. > If the relationship stays at dating, it not a final deal.

    Even if a relationship goes to the “married” stage, nowaday, people get divorced so often, how can you be sure it’s a final deal?

    Since there is no reliable method to define “final deal”. I think maybe using the definition of “a couple moved together” as a “final” is good enough.

  6. ka: Divorce is a problem of modern society. People didn’t think clearly before getting marry. Actually living together is consider as common law partner under Canadian law, it is entitle to all benefit of a married couple.

    Maybe the law should force all couple try to file a divorce enter a survival boot camp. Dump the couple in a dessert island and they have to learn relying on each other to survive.

    uncleray: buying name-brand per se is not the problem. buying over-valued name-brand is the problem.

  7. Oookay…. I am going to give you benefit of the doubt and try to believe that you are not trying to turn us women into commodities 🙂

    成交價? I think most women want to marry up though. Say, a high school graduate would prefer someone with a college degree; a college graduate would shoot for someone with may be a PHD….surprisingly a lot of women get what they want too. That’s why it doesn’t hurt for women to set higher standards. Why settle when you are still young and desirable?

    My theory is that there is a lid for every pot. Just when you think you are losing hope, the perfect match will show up at your door 🙂

Leave a Reply