|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(From the article) - "Prof Haslam found that, given the choice between a male and a female candidate, companies were much more likely to choose the female candidate when the company was doing badly."
Now, instead of the good Professor's "set them up to fail" conspiracy theory, it's equally logical that the board's of these floundering companies, composed of old rich white guys who still have tea every day at 4 o'clock, have bought into the New Age feminist screed about "women's special leadership qualities" and all the "soft-side emotional intelligence" crapola.
But I prefer to believe that the last forty years of women's career ascendancy achieved via the constant shrill whining of radical feminists was really --- the men's movement's calculated "rope a dope" strategy to set all the girlies up for that leap off the "glass cliff!"
Of course, I also believe Andrea Dworkin is the Deep Throat of the Father's Rights movement.
Guess we now know why the Brits drive on the left...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take my word for something, business professors at least most of them do not know jack shit about running a business much less who should be in charge of one. I at least think I know what I am talking about as I hold degree in Accounting(BS Florida State University) and have run a small business for the past 16 years. Upon reading some articles by these professor types my first reaction is these guys are so far off base. They have know idea how different the real business world is as opposed to the classroom. When these professor types have actually run a profitable business from which they started from scratch, only then will I be interested in their comments.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete you're right on target as to the professorial elite.
In a former career, I was the CIO for a top-twenty (well, they thought top-fifteen) Business School... let's just say upper Midwest Big Ten.
I have never in my life witnessed a more corrupted, pampered, intellectually bankrupt class of parasites.
The best "scam" was to sign a $105,000 contract as a first-year assistant prof. (For ethnicity, add another $25,000).
Then, do a couple years of slumming... i.e. teaching undergraduates who aspire to MBA's.
Then, start a "Center for Business Innovation" or a "Labor Studies Institute," or a "Women's Small Business Incubator..."
After a very few years, with tenure, you as a business school professor will have achieved what only Karl Marx envisioned....
lifetime income in six figures; can't be fired; have no concern about any significant evaluation of your performance; and you're working maybe ten hours a week playing Powerpoint shows that your graduate assistants (ah, the aspiring female supplicants...!) created for you.
Higher education in the major business schools has become Babylon.
The public might revolt if it knew the truth...
But then again, it might just go shopping...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A minor point but us British drive on the left because we didn't want to do what the French did, who were the first to drive on the right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not related but interesting any ways
Marriage: the new blue-light case of the week. Everyone is terribly worried about its condition: can it be cured? Or, has the time arrived for drastic measures - just putting it out of its misery?
Euthanasia is a dirty word but, frankly, the prognosis is not so great for this particular patient, a stalwart social institution is now scabby and infirm, gasping for each tortured breath.
Many who had once so optimistically pledged to uphold its vows are fleeing its purported satisfactions.
In the US, a well-publicised 50 per cent failure rate hardly makes for optimism. Certainly there are happy marriages - no one disputes that - and all those who are happily married can stop reading here.
And there is always serial monogamy for those who can't face up to the bad news - yes, keep on trying until you get it right, because the problem couldn't be the institution itself or its impossible expectations.
For these optimists the problem is that they have somehow either failed to find the "right person" or have been remiss in some other respect.
If only they'd put those socks in the laundry basket instead of leaving them on the floor, everything would have worked out. If only they'd cooked more (or less) often. If only they'd been more this, less that, it would have been fine.
And what of the growing segment of the population to whom the term "happily married" does not precisely apply, yet who nonetheless valiantly struggle to uphold the tenets of the marital enterprise, mostly because there seems to be no viable option?
A 1999 study reported that a mere 38 per cent of Americans who are married described themselves as actually happy in that state. This is rather shocking, so many pledging to live out their lives on earth in varying degrees of discontent or emotional stagnation because that is what's expected from us, or "for the sake of the children", or because wanting more than that makes you selfish and irresponsible. So goes the endless moralising and finger-pointing this subject tends to invite.
Is there any area of married life that is not criss-crossed by rules and strictures, from how you load the dishwasher to what to say at dinner parties?
Let us contemplate the everyday living conditions of this rather large percentage of the US population, this self-reportedly unhappily married majority, all those households submersed in low-level misery and soul-deadening tedium, early graves in all respects but the most forensic.
Regard those couples - we all know them, perhaps we are them - the bickering, the reek of unsatisfied desires and unmet needs, a populace downing anti-depressants, along with whatever other forms of creative self-medication are most easily at hand, from triple martinis to serial adultery.
Yes, we all know that domesticity has its advantages: companionship, shared housing costs, child-rearing convenience, reassuring predictability, occasional sex, and many other benefits too varied to list. But there are numerous disadvantages as well, though it is considered unseemly to enumerate them, most of which are so structured into the expectations of contemporary coupledom that they have come to seem utterly natural and inevitable. But are they?
Consider, for instance, the endless regulations and interdictions that provide the texture of domestic coupledom. Is there any area of married life that is not crisscrossed by rules and strictures about everything from how you load the dishwasher to what you can say at dinner parties, to what you do on your day off, to how you drive, along with what you eat, drink, wear, make jokes about, spend your discretionary income on?
What is it about marriage that turns nice-enough people into petty dictators and household tyrants, for whom criticising another person's habits or foibles becomes a conversational staple, the default setting of domestic communication?
Or whose favourite marital recreational activity is mate behaviour modification? Anyone can play - and everyone does. What is it about modern coupledom that makes policing another person's behaviour a synonym for intimacy? Or is it something about the conditions of modern life itself, is domesticity a venue for control because most of us have so little of it elsewhere?
Then there's the fundamental premise of monogamous marriage, that mutual desire can and will last throughout a lifetime. And if it doesn't? Apparently you're just supposed to give up on sex, since waning desire for your mate is never an adequate defence for "looking elsewhere".
At the same time, let's not forget how many booming businesses and new technologies have arisen to prop up sagging marital desire. Consider all the investment opportunities afforded: Viagra, couples pornography, therapy. If upholding monogamy in the absence of desire weren't a social dictate, how many enterprises would immediately fail? Could dead marriages be good for the economy?
And then there's the mantra of the failing relationship: "Good marriages take work!" When exactly did the rhetoric of the factory become the default language of coupledom? Is there really anyone to whom this is an attractive proposition, who, after spending all day on the job, wants to come home and work some more? Here's an interesting question: what's the gain to a society in promoting more work to an overworked population as a supposed solution to the travails of marital discontent?
What if luring people into conditions of emotional stagnation and deadened desires were actually functional for society? Consider the norms of modern marriage. Here is a social institution devoted to maximising submission and minimising freedom, habituating a populace to endless compliance with an infinite number of petty rules and interdictions in exchange for love and companionship.
Perhaps a citizenry schooled in renouncing desire - and whatever quantities of imagination and independence it comes partnered with - would in many respects be socially advantageous. Note that the conditions of marital stasis are remarkably convergent with those of a cowed workforce and a docile electorate.
And wouldn't the most elegant forms of social control be those that come packaged in the guise of individual needs and satisfactions, so wedded to the individual psyche that any contrary impulse registers as the anxiety of unlovability? Who needs a policeman on every corner when we're all so willing to police ourselves and those we love and call it upholding our vows?
In this respect, perhaps rising divorce rates are not such bad news. The British Office for National Statistics blames couples' high expectations for the rise in divorce. But are high expectations really such a bad thing? What if we all worked less and expected more - not only from our marriages or in private life, but in all senses, from our jobs, our politicians, our governments? What if wanting happiness and satisfaction, and changing the things that needed changing to attain it, wasn't regarded as "selfish" or "unrealistic", and do we expect so much from our mates these days because we get so little back everywhere else?
What if the real political question was what should we be able to expect from society and its institutions? And if other social contracts and vows beside marriage were also up for re-examination, what other ossified social institutions might be next on the hit list?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO Marriage isn't perfect but if the gubberment would keep its nose out of it it'd be the best option available for lowly humans. Fact is we're not born to be 100% happy and content, so if that's the metric than ANY life will fall woefully short of the goal. I think we're here to struggle, and it's the struggle that defines us. Marriage is most definitely a struggle, but if the two partners are both stubborn enough to fight it out, it's got it's upside... and in the balance the fact that married folks live longer than single folks seems to indicate that there's something to it. I seem to recall that the study I read that had married people at less than 50% satisfied with their lives had single people even lower.
Of course our assenine elected representatives have done a lot over the last few decades to tip the balance in favor of staying single... and it seems the more they try to "help" (the Marriage Ammendment) the more damage they do. If the government would stay out of our personal lives there'd be a fair chance that Marriage would regain favor among the dissolutioned masses.
As far as the above article... it's got a few points but is very long winded given the slim content... the author ends up sounding bitter bitter bitter.
JMO
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The sad fact is that research has consistently shown that married men are more satisfied, live longer, are less depressed and committ suicide at a fraction of the rate of their non-married brothers."
Huh. Statistics again.
There are marriageable men and non-marriageable men. All of the men who are married are marriageable (by definition). Among the men who don't marry, there are marriageable men and non-mariageable men.
The simple statistics confuse the issue and make it appear that men WHO GOT MARRIED are in a better situation than marriageable men who chose not to. What you forget in the statistics is the big mass of non-marriageable men. Women don't want them, and for a good reason: They are unhealthy, have no money etc. Examples are the corner bum on the street asking for money to buy some wine. Or men in prison. Or severely handicapped men. Or men in mental institutions. Or simply down-and-out men.
These men influence the statistics. But there is a confusion of cause and effect here. The men who are really broke, unhealthy, suicidal etc. DON'T GET MARRIED. It's the exact opposite of what the statistics seem to imply.
And if you are healthy and have some money, you will find no end to truly nice women who like you for who you are. Men who are not healthy or at least heading up in the rich department will find far fewer women who like them for who they "truly are". Your local corner bum won't find anyone - and he may commit suicide, he certainly won't be rich etc. It has to do with the initial selection of the population.
Those stastistics are as flawed as the feminist fuss Lenore Walker made about men moving ahead financially when they divorce and women moving behind. What she "forgot" is that men mostly support another woman when they divorce, but many women are SUPPORTED by a man in one form or another (not necessarily marriage) after a divorce, and that money is not counted. If a woman moves in with, or marries, a man after her divorce and refuses to work, that money was not counted in Lenore's statistics (wonder why? Huh.). But she has a higher lifestyle nonetheless. Most men don't marry a woman who inherited the Heinz fortune, so they have to continue to work. Aside from the fact that Lenore made several well-known errors in her initial calculation (like thinking "70%" equals "7%") - which even she acknowledged - though it was like trying to pull teeth out of a pitbull.
There are always things like this in statistics ...
Statistics show that people who drive Mercedes have higher IQs. So if I pinch my pennies and buy a Mercedes, I'll undoubtedly raise my IQ. Instantly.
In the 1920s, there was a correlation between wearing spats and having a lot of money. So obviously all you had to do was buy a pair of spats, and the money would flow your way (but maybe ... rich people were more likely to buy spats ...). and so forth ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Marriage isn't perfect ", First of all marriage does not exist en the west, marriage is basacally a contract in wich women had to obey and serve men and in return men had to support them.
That was like this in the west, not enymore, in traditional countries marriage is convenient for men and necessary for women, as women do not work, the foundation of marriage do no exist anymore , women do not need to be supported by men, and marriage do not give any right to men.
I can call an apple a car if i want to, but it would not drive me home, what we have in the west is not marriage is just a criminal contract that allows one person to become a parasite that profits from the labor of another person in return of nothing.
So on the one hand the reason for marriage to exist does not exist, on the other hand, marriage it doesn´t exist.
So it doesn´t matter if a man want to get married or not, becouse he can not, as it doesn´t exist, in any case he should go to a traditional country, with traditional values, and were marriage do exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Were a young man to ask me, "To marry perchance, or remain forever single?" I would, given the hostile circumstances today of law and love, urge caution. "Marriage is a commitment of several years of your life, plus child support," I would say. "Do not make it rashly."
The question is simply, "Why marry?" As a young man full of dangerous steroids, your answer will probably be, "Ah, because her hair is like corn silk under an August moon; her lips are as rubies and her teeth, pearls; and her smile would make a dead man cry." This amounts to, "I'm horny," with elaborations. It is as it ought to be. The race continues because maidens are glorious, and striplings both desperate and unwise.
Note, incidentally, that by the time October rolls around, corn silk is shriveled and brown.
Why marry, indeed? In times past, marriage occasionally made sense. Life on a farm required two people, a woman to work herself ragged in the cabin while the man carried heavy lumpish things and shot Indians. Later, come suburbia, the man did something tedious in an office and the woman did two hours housework and stayed bored for six. It worked, tolerably. In the Fifties, nobody expected much of life. It generally met their expectations.
And there was sex, though not enough of it -- the scarcity being the propellant behind matrimony. Back then, before the miracle of feminism, women had not yet commoditized themselves. A lad had to pop the question before he got laid regular. Women controlled the carnal economy and, in a world that was going to be boring anyway, that was probably a good thing. At least kids had parents.
Times change. Some advice to young fellows setting forth:
First, forget that her lips are sweet as honeydew melon (though not, of course, green). It doesn't last. One of nature's more disagreeable tricks is that while men are far uglier than women, they age better. Remember this. It is useful to reflect in moments of unguided passion that, beneath the skin, we are all wet bags of unpleasant organs.
Soon you will be a balding sofa ornament and she will look like a fireplug with cellulite. Once the packaging deteriorates, there had better be something to get you through the next thirty years. Usually there isn't.
Prospects have improved for the single of both genders. Sex is nowadays always available. If you don't marry Moon Pie, which would be wise, you may get another chance when she comes back on the market with the first wave of divorcees. It's never now-or-never. Getting older doesn't diminish your opportunities. As you gain experience, you will recognize the tides, the eddies, the whirlpools of coupling -- the urgency of the biological clock, the lunacy of menopause. Men by comparison embody a wonderful clod-like simplicity.
As you ponder snuggling forever with Moon Pie, compare the lives of your bachelor and your married friends. The bachelors come and go as the mood strikes them, order their apartments with squalid abandon, drive Miatas or Harleys if they choose, and live in such pleasant dissolution as is consonant with continued employment. The married guy lives in a vast echoing mortgage beyond his means, drives sensible cars he doesn't like, and loses his old friends because he isn't allowed to hang out with them.
Self-help books to the contrary, marriage does not rest on compromises, but on concessions. You will make all of them. Perhaps it doesn't have to be this way. But it is this way.
Moon Pie has only one reason for marriage: to get her legal hooks into you. She doesn't think of it in these terms, yet, and she has no evil intentions. She just wants a nice quiet home in the remote suburbs where she can live uneventfully, raise progeny, and keep her eye on you.
If you think surveillance isn't part of the contract, try going out late with your old buddies. Marriage is an institution founded on mistrust. If she thought you would stick around if not compelled, she wouldn't need marriage. She wants monogamy, at least for you and, with some frequency, for herself. She knows viscerally that you would prefer the amorous insouciance of an oversexed alley cat. You know it consciously. Marriage exists to control the male, until recently a good idea. Now, however, she can support herself, and doesn't need protection. She doesn't need you, or you, her.
She will, however, want to have children. Women do. At which point, God help you.
Given the schools, drugs, latch-keyism consequent first to working parents and then to divorce, and the cultural pressure on children to be slatterns and dope-dealers, reproduction is a gamble. You may not even particularly like them, or they, you. Nobody talks about this, but how many people do you know who hardly talk to their grown children?
And you've just tied yourself into twenty years of raising them.
The moment Junior enters wherever it is that we are, Moon Pie will have you screwed to the wall. She won't think of it this way, yet. She'll be delighted with the cooing bundle of joy, his little fingers, his little toes, etc. But divorce usually comes. The chances are two to one that she will file: Women are more eager than men to enter marriage, and more eager to leave it -- with the kids, the house, and the child support. It won't be amicable, not after seven years. You will be astonished at how ruthless she will be, how well she knows the law, and how utterly hostile to divorcing fathers the law is.
You don't understand how bad the divorce courts are. You probably don't know what "imputed income" is. You think that "joint custody" means "joint custody." Think again. Quite possibly you will have to support her while she moves with your kids to Fukuoka with an Air Force colonel she met in a meat bar.
In short, marriage often means turning twenty-five years of your life into smoking wreckage. Yes, happy marriages exist (I personally know of one) and there are the somnolent marriages of habitual contentment or, perhaps, of quiet resignation. But the odds aren't good.
Permit me an heretical thought. In an age when neither sex economically needs the other, in which women do not need protection from wild bears and marauding savages, not in the suburbs anyway, perhaps marriage doesn't make sense, at least for men. The divorce courts remove all doubt. A young fellow might do well to stay single, keep his DNA to himself, pick such flowers as he might find along the way, and live his life as he likes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Permit me an heretical thought. In an age when neither sex economically needs the other, in which women do not need protection from wild bears and marauding savages, not in the suburbs anyway, perhaps marriage doesn't make sense, at least for men. The divorce courts remove all doubt. A young fellow might do well to stay single, keep his DNA to himself, pick such flowers as he might find along the way, and live his life as he likes."
I'd like to make a couple of quick comments regarding two points:
Women actually still need male protection, and they get it in the form of the all-male draft, the almost exclusively male military when it comes to the most dangerous military work, and in the form of the almost exclusively male death professions in civilian jobs. (The most dangerous civilian work, like the most dangerous military work, is almost all male, and it's almost all males who pay the heaviest price. This contributes to women's longer, more comfortable lifespans.)
And finally, regarding single men who choose to stay single and not have children -- and I'm certainly not the first to point this out -- there's the disturbing fact that these men won't pass along their genes to the next generation. (I'd like to think that for every man who chooses to stay single and not have children, there's a single woman who's destined to remain unhappily childless -- at least in societies where the women outnumber the men.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women actually still need male protection, and they get it in the form of the all-male draft, the almost exclusively male military when it comes to the most dangerous military work, and in the form of the almost exclusively male death professions in civilian jobs. (The most dangerous civilian work, like the most dangerous military work, is almost all male, and it's almost all males who pay the heaviest price. This contributes to women's longer, more comfortable lifespans.) "
true, but things a re changing very vast, for example, in Spain nowmost trash collectors are women, and there are huge incentive to hire women in traditional dangerous male jobs, like contruction, and pressure for women to take those jobs, they fo it or lost custody of their kids. This is happening in all Europe, the now future generation of men will not me suckered into support female parasites and their offspring, there is no chance.
"there's the disturbing fact that these men won't pass along their genes to the next generation."
The only way to pass ones genes would be cloning, otherwise half of them will get lost, next generation only half of the half will remain, and so on.
From this point of view your are going to be a loser anyways, youn can compete, with any mentally retarded guy from a third world country, they are so prolific, i know some from subsaharian africa, they have 7-8 children over there.
The white race is just 6% of the total human population in this planet, in white societies children means, chronical poverty, the lost of their assets, the degradation of slave labor, and jail for their males, so who gives a shit if those soceities are dissapearing, (wich will do, sooner or later)?, i don´t, my mother is Belgian, in Belgium, the most popular name for a boy is now ...... Mohamed.
A society that makes having children a disgrace for half its population, who uses children as a pretext to justify slavery, plundering and imprision people it`s bound to extintion, and that is exactly what deserves.
Thsi is happening, and what the Christian-feminits politicians are thinking about it?, tougher punishment for men that do not pay "child support", yeah!!, smart people!!, may me to next will be death penalty for men that have children, yeah!!, that would do the trick sure.
Have you read the selfish gene?, 99% of our genes are exactly the same as the chimps, imagine between humans, basically we share the same genetic material, we are just combination of them, so relax "your" genes will be passed, evolutionary dead ends, like feminism and christianity must disssapear, is the law, and it is good.
But if that is so disturbing for you, become a sperm donnor, u will have up to six children, and with different women, that is more children and divesification. not all eggs in the same bascket.
Remember you are a man. live a healthy live and if you want, if passing your genes is so importanto to you, retire in a muslim country, marry a 15 year old girl and have 4, 5 children, pass your genes and help some poor family to get out of poverty, out of 6000 millin in habitants in this planet 2800 live with less than 2 dollars a day, yep, so in any case do not waste your hard worked money on this female western pathetic parasites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brilliant. Inspired. Outstanding. I will keep this and treasure it. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I could offer a young man one piece of sage advice, it would be this:
Don't get married.
Don't do it. Come the divorce, as come it probably will, the courts will systematically shear you of your children, your house, and huge amounts of your income for twenty years. Don't do it. It isn't worth it. Nothing is.
My saying this usually brings, from women, cries that I'm an extremist or woman-hater. No. The problem is not women, but the courts. Men can behave every bit as reprehensibly as women, though they go about it differently. But the judicial system, which is politicized to the gills, utterly favors women over men in divorce cases, without remorse, decency, or concern for children.
Should you doubt this, read, before you pop the most foolish of questions, From Courtship to Courthouse by the divorce lawyer Jed Abraham.*
Writes Abraham, "If you're like most men, you're married, or you hope to marry some day. You think you deserve to live happily ever after, but if things don't work out that way, you'll get a civilized divorce and move on. You'll stay pals with your ex, and you'll see your kids as often as you want.
"You have no idea what you're getting into."
And you don't. Not the faintest freaking clue.
A few facts from Abraham:
"The odds are 50% that your marriage will end in divorce. The odds are 70% that your divorce will be filed by your wife. The odds are 80% that your wife will get custody of your children-plus child support, alimony, and/or a hefty chunk of your property."
That is how it is.
Yes, I know: You don't think this applies to you. Cup Cake loves you. She would never behave in such a way. Think again. You have no conception of the hatred that divorce engenders. Men are callous; women are mean. When a family breaks up, when a life dreamed of disappears in flames and emotions go limbic, women are not the kinder sex, and certainly not the more rational. And Cup Cake will have the absolute upper hand, with the full power of the state to help her express her dissatisfaction with you.
Abraham: "If your wages are not withheld and you fail to pay your child support, the State will garnish your pay, slap liens on your property, intercept your tax refunds, report you to credit agencies, discontinue your driver's license, suspend your professional and business permits, hold you in contempt of court, put your face on a wanted poster, throw you in jail, and deny you food stamps. But if your ex doesn't spend that very same support on the children, the State will do. . . nothing."
It gets worse. There is, for example, "imputed income." This means that your child support will be based not on what your children need, not on what you earn, but on what the court decides you could earn.
Don't do it.
If you love Cup Cake, live with her. Be kind to her. Be loyal to her. She may be as nice as you think she is: Many women are. Buy her roses. Just don't marry her, or have children with her. If the laws were even-handed, marriage would be an admirable institution. The laws aren't equal.
But it's the kids she'll use, should things get nasty, to tear your guts out. If you're sure that Cup Cake won't do this, you're crazy. True, she may not. Not all women do, or not to the same degree. But you won't know until it's too late. And the courts will do anything she wants.
Abraham: "Your ex will warm to calling all the shots. She may cancel your visitation now and then. If she's truly mean-spirited, she'll go much further. Under the cover of her court-appointed role as sole custodian, she'll systematically sever your relationship with the children. She'll badmouth you to them. She'll schedule their extracurricular activities during your visitation time. For good measure, she may accuse you of domestic violence and child abuse."
Think "joint custody" is the answer? The courts won't enforce it. What are you going to do-sue Mommy? The kids will hate you for it. Do you believe in pre-nups? The courts ignore them. Read Abraham. It's all there.
Then, says Abraham, there's the killer: "More efficiently, your ex may simply move with the children to a distant community, with the law's acquiescence."
Kids are the crunch, guys. They hurt. And she will know it, and use it. The courts will help her. At bottom, the position of the courts is that the children are her property, like furniture. Judges don't care about you at all.
Ever drive away from what used to be your home, with your daughter of four streaking across the parking lot, yelling, "Daddy! Daddy! Please come back!"-and you can't?
Ever have your little girl of four say, "Daddy, can I get my birthday present early?"
"Why, Pumpkin?"
"Well. . . after the divorce we might move, and I won't see you again."
That's what you are in for, guys. Don't do it. You'll be suicidally depressed, miss your kids to the point of desperation, be almost frantic-and the courts will make sure you can do nothing about it. The ex will probably enjoy it.
That's the reality. Don't believe it? Talk to men who have been there.
Why do women do these things? Not because they're evil. Cup Cake is probably a perfectly decent woman in her dealing with the rest of the earth. She'll do it because she hates you, which is the normal outcome of a divorce. She'll do it because she can. She's furious because the marriage didn't work, which will be entirely your fault.
And the law gives her every incentive: She will get the house, the kids, the child support-and she knows she will. If women knew they had an even chance of not getting custody, of having to pay child support, the divorce rate would drop like a prom dress and joint custody would suddenly mean joint custody. Women love their children as much as men do.
But that's not how it is. The courts encourage divorce, and they rape men. Get used to it.
Abraham: "The odds are it doesn't pay for you to marry and have kids."
That's a fact, guys. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Marriage is most definitely a struggle, but if the two partners are both stubborn enough to fight it out, it's got it's upside"
What for?, may be to satisfy some religious fanatics views?, or as the article said:
.....And then there's the mantra of the failing relationship: "Good marriages take work!" When exactly did the rhetoric of the factory become the default language of coupledom? Is there really anyone to whom this is an attractive proposition, who, after spending all day on the job, wants to come home and work some more? Here's an interesting question: what's the gain to a society in promoting more work to an overworked population as a supposed solution to the travails of marital discontent? "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If the government would stay out of our personal lives there'd be a fair chance that Marriage would regain favor among the dissolutioned masses. "
On this one we agree, but ofcourse will no even resemble what we now have that is called marriage.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mostly when I hear one of these radical feminist ladies squawking and clucking about whatever is disturbing her system at the moment, I don't listen a whole lot, because most of them have the insight of flatworms and run on pure bile. But I have to agree with them about marriage. It's probably a bad idea.
For a guy, I mean. (If you're a woman, listen to the feminists. They'll tell you why marriage is a bad idea for women: Men are rapists. All of us. We batter women like cannibal tempura chefs. We don't have feelings. We're no damn good. Stay away from us.)
But let me tell you why marriage is bad for guys. If you're a young fellow thinking about tying the awful knot, read this carefully.
Guys marry for bad reasons. When it comes to women, we have less judgment than bugs in a moonshine bottle. Guys marry charm. They marry a sweet smile, a perky toss of the chin. They marry clear skin and bright eyes, soft lips, warm hands. They marry curves in a pretty print dress and silken hair that smells like warm milk and new-mown grass. (Maybe that's straining the language. Steinbeck or somebody said it.) Men marry necking on back roads with crickets creaking in the woods and warm breezes and Sally is just so unspeakably wonderful they can't do without her.
Men marry illusion. Sally marries a pre-med.
We males have an infinite capacity for deluding ourselves. The charm of women doesn't last, any more than flowers in a mountain meadow. A requirement for a marriage license should be that the guy spend fifteen minutes thinking of Sally as twenty pounds heavier with crow's feet and PMS and no further incentive to control it. In five years she won't want to party. Little Richard will give way to easy listening. In a decade she won't even slightly resemble the lissome damsel he married. She won't like his friends unless they're boring. The fun and excitement will fade and life will be just life.
Charm has a short shelf-life. A fellow should ask himself: Is her mind such that he wants to spend forty years talking to her?
Maybe so. Some women are great that way. One was reported in San Francisco a few years ago, and I know of one in Canada. (Actually a fair number of gals are seriously bright. But Willy Bill probably won't marry one. Anyway, ask yourself the question.)
However, the overarching aspect of marriage, the one that ought to be part of the dictionary definition, is that Sally will get the children. She'll get the house too, but the world is full of houses. The kids are the killer.
Women have a mysterious power to fog men's minds. I hear Willy Bill saying, "Divorce? Impossible. Sally's adorable. Even if it happened, we'd still be friends." There was a case of this reported too. In central China. Pre-Confucius. Scholars debate its authenticity.
Willy Bill very likely will get divorced, which will very likely be Sally's idea, and she will get the kids with virtual certainty. Further (and he won't believe it in the full flood of hormonal misjudgment) she will in all likelihood use them against him. Even if not, she'll remarry and move to the other end of the country, and he will be lucky if he sees the kids a week at Christmas. Willy Bill now faces fifteen years of child support for children he will barely know. At best Sally will be heartless about it, at worst vengeful. The courts will support her every step of the way.
If you think this doesn't happen, regularly, think again. Think several times.
The way to avoid the morass is simply not to marry. Thanks to the Sexual Revolution, guys don't have to. Find one you like and live with her. If you get along, keep on living together. Maybe you will have a long, happy life together. It happens. However, most women give the marry-me-or-leave ultimatum in about two years max, which means that you'll have to find another. This is unpleasant, but then the variety is nice. Serial monagamy isn't too bad. (I personally prefer parallel monogamy, but it isn't real practical.)
Once you tie the knot, your house is toast. But the for-keeps breakpoint, the one that really hurts, is children. Dead serious, guys, watch this one. Here, Sally holds all the high cards. I talk to a lot of men who are going crazy because the ex just remarried and went to Oregon with the kids. They do this. All the time.
Remember that after the divorce, Sally is going to hate you. The divorce will have been your fault. You will have failed her in every way. You won't have met her expectations. That's the opening hand.
She will want to remarry. Fine. If you're crazy, maybe you will want to remarry. How much do you think she's going to want you around, after she has re-daddied your children? Is she going to tell New Daddy he can't take that promotion in Oregon because of your rights to see your kids?
As a rule, she won't concede that you have a right to see your sprats, or that they have any stake in seeing their father. Her rationale will be the passive-aggressive formulation, "Well, he's so insensitive I just can't believe he really wants to see them, blah blah blah."
This is Sally, remember, with the perky smile and soft lips.
Don't do it, guys. At least, don't do it unless you have a bomb-proof pre-nup saying that when the divorce comes, either party who leaves the region has to leave the kids with the other.
It's a hell of a way to begin a marriage. But do it. Do it because you can count on one thing: The courts will be absolutely on her side.
Better yet, if you want kids, go to Asia and marry. The women are feminine (consult your dictionary), beautiful, agreeable (consult your dictionary), and don't have cellulite.
Don't marry,guys. Stay single. The feminists are right on this one. And when you get married anyway and lose the house and kids, remember that weird columnist who said it would happen, and he was right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the bottom of this article is:
Better yet, if you want kids, go to Asia and marry. The women are feminine (consult your dictionary), beautiful, agreeable (consult your dictionary), and don't have cellulite.
Strike that part about 'wanting kids' if you're in Japan. She'll take them away and hide them from you, and you'll never see them again:
http://www.crnjapan.com/en/
At least she doesn't take all your money and force you to work harder until you make the salary the court thinks you should be making. But it's not pretty in Japan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Break
Fantastic Posts, really enjoyed reading them and I think they are dead on the truth.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do like i do, save them, and repost them some time some where, spread the truth, knowledge is power, if by this you can help just one guy, just one to avoid becoming a slave, or at least to reject a relationship with what was obviously a human scum bag, it would have been worthwhile.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devvy Kidd charges that America has lost its manhood, by which she means men prepared to defend women and children against the advancing global tyranny.
“Today the men in this country,” she writes, “sit around watching mindless trash like Survivor or Friends on the boob tube, instead of shouting down the roof against state and federal systems that are utterly and completely rotten beyond redemption. Systems and agencies that are putting their women and children into a state of involuntary servitude for all their lives.
Instead they sit back with nary a whisper while state and federal judges to uphold this carnage against the people. Why is this?”
One might have thought the answer was obvious - the predictable result of the attacks on men and masculinity that have come from the feminist movement over the past two decades, with the backing of the state, and with the acquiescence of the vast majority of Australian, and American, women. And while Ms Kidd might wonder where the men prepared to defend women have gone, one could suggest they have gone where the women prepared to defend men have gone – into the pages of history.
In many French cities with a growing radical Islamist population, no teenage girl can go out in the evening, at least not without a full burqa. If she does, it will mean that "she is for everybody": in short, a whore. In the same cities, every teenage girl - regardless of religion - has to wear the Muslim veil if she does not want to be harassed or killed. Almost every month, a young woman is mugged and raped in a suburb of a big city. Gang rape has become so frequent that a new word, used by the rapists themselves to define their hideous actions, is used by everybody: tournantes (revolving). To the rapists, the woman is nothing, a mere object to be thrown away after use. The people who speak about "revolving" seem to forget a human being is involved as the victim. Policemen do nothing.
They they buy some pop-corn to eat while they observe, lol!!.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In many French cities with a growing radical Islamist population, no teenage girl can go out in the evening, at least not without a full burqa. If she does, it will mean that "she is for everybody": in short, a whore. In the same cities, every teenage girl - regardless of religion - has to wear the Muslim veil if she does not want to be harassed or killed. Almost every month, a young woman is mugged and raped in a suburb of a big city. Gang rape has become so frequent that a new word, used by the rapists themselves to define their hideous actions, is used by everybody: tournantes (revolving). To the rapists, the woman is nothing, a mere object to be thrown away after use. The people who speak about "revolving" seem to forget a human being is involved as the victim. Policemen do nothing.
Hmm, this is news to me. Can you supply a URL or some other source discussing this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes sir!! :
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?I D=1523
Guy Milliere some articles related to that from the same author:
The Psychosis of France
Published: Thursday, June 05, 2003
A New Muslim Country
Published: Monday, May 12, 2003
France is Almost Finished
Published: Thursday, April 10, 2003
France is Not a Western Country Anymore
Published: Monday, March 31, 2003
Some excerpts:
Union of Islamic Organizations in France (UOIF), it is even an important part of the French Muslim council recently created by the French government. You might think the Muslim Brotherhood goes forward by partly hiding what it wants in order to be accepted. You’d be wrong: it says exactly what it wants. It created many websites in French and in Arabian where everything is explained very clearly. It organize lectures everywhere in France where you can hear speakers saying: “we only have to obey the law of Allah”, or more nicely, “some stupid western intellectuals, mostly Jews, write that nobody has the right to kill in the name of God. They do not understand: It’s a duty to kill in the name of God.”
These speakers are the Ramadan brothers, grandsons of Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who have created a European center of Islamic studies based in Geneva, Switzerland. One of their stars is a man called Yahya Michaux. He is a Christian converted to radical Islam. He is one of the most ferocious and scary orators I have ever heard.
Every year in April, UOIF organize a national congress in Le Bourget, just north of Paris. This year, more than thirty thousand people came. If you went inside the main meeting hall, you had a shocking view: ten thousand people seated, five thousand men on the right side, sixty per cent of them wearing a thick beard; five thousand women on the left side, almost all of them wearing scarves that cover everything, the hair, the neck, the ears, and let appear only what’s in between the eyes and the chin. The orators speak about the greatness of Allah, about the fact that everything is ruled by the Quran. “Nobody must say we have to respect the secular rule of law, the Quran provides us the rule of law.” There are guests from all the main French political parties, except the rightist National Front. When it’s their turn to speak, they seem too afraid to say anything except: “Islam is one of the greatest accomplishments of civilization.”
On the Congress's last evening, Saturday April 19, Nicolas Sarkozy, chief of the Department of the Interior, came and said he agrees with everything Muslims ask from the French Republic, except one thing: Muslim women will not have the right to have a picture of them with a scarf on their ID. A large boo came from the audience, and Sarkozy could hardly finish his speech. He then left very fast. After he left, the president of UOIF said that to push Muslim women to not wear their scarves would be a way to discriminate against them. He added, without shame or hesitation, that it would the equivalent of the yellow star Jews had to wear in the forties.
But Muslims, and especially radical Muslims are more trusting of Jacques Chirac and his moderate right party. “Chirac knows very well we are the future, and he accepts it completely,” says a document written for the members of UOIF. And I think the document is right. Chirac knows very well radical Muslims are the future.
France will become a Muslim country. French leaders know it. They will never take a decision that could make young radical Muslims angry.
Well At least Europe will be liberated from the Christian-feminist colaition that treat men like scum, but is not only France Germany now has 100 million inhabitants, several millions are turkish, in 15 years or so its population will be arround 72 millions but that only becouse inmigration, (read more Turkish), without imigration Germany population will be just 50 million, in Belgium one each born child is muslim, in Spain each year enter the country 300,000 muslims imigrants, and so on, so on.
I turned on spectator mode some years ago, Yep: We are dying. Thanks to feminis and Christian Puritanism, the ideology of self-delusion and self-destruction. We are doomed.
"Even if birth rates were to double overnight, it would take 20 years before this made the slightest blip on the size of the workforce.", this is from the european C.I.S, (centro de investigaciones sociologicas).Damn! Too late!.
Such worderfull demographic policies, jailing men for having children, taking 60% of their income after taxes, stealing their houses, and they do not have enough, so amazing!!, may be death penalty for becomeing a father will change this and increase the pupulation of Europe.
But who cares?, i do not.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the bottom of this article is:
Better yet, if you want kids, go to Asia and marry. The women are feminine (consult your dictionary), beautiful, agreeable (consult your dictionary), and don't have cellulite.
Sorry to dissapoint you mate India also has been taken over by femininazis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to know pete!!, and for bharati, yep tru, the islam is the answere, marry 3 4 wives and make them work for you, marry there makes sense, having children over there is a joy not a disgrace, even in europe, as long as one is muslim, muslim migrants have 2, 3 wives, 6,7 children and collect all the money the generous whimpy welafare european goverments give for children, then nthey place those women to work and they just relax and enjoy live, wise people them.
Dovirce?, not a problem for them, they have fair laws regarding divorce, even if they live in Europe our laws do not apply to them, catholic countries did not have dovorce till a few decades ago, the muslim have it since 8 centuries, they know hao to do things.
Take care both!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:56 PM September 8th, 2004 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Break, it's cool that you like Fred's columns, but you need to do a better job of citing your sources when you're quoting someone else. A lot of these lengthy posts are actually from this site: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Menu-Column.htm
Some people here seem to be congratulating you for your words of wisdom, when many that you are posting are not your own. I am not affiliated with the site, I am just a reader who has read and enjoyed Fred's stuff as well. Please give credit where credit is due.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comme on!! i doesn´t take a PHD to notice this, my english sucks, i am spanish, my level of english is the one i have from the public school
,and those articles are very well written, so is easy to see what is written by me and what is not. Any ways i use to keep all articles that found interesting so in case i want to argue something i don´t even have to argue myself just copy and paste.
I do not writte for money, to show off or something like this, just to learn and share ideas.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:25 PM September 11th, 2004 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but that's not an excuse for failing to cite sources. And, in case you haven't noticed, some people have in fact mistakenly assumed that you are the author of some of those which you cut/pasted. If you enjoy Fred's work, have the decency to give him the recognition he deserves. It's not that hard.
-A Concerned Reader
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The number of British Muslims praying at mosques has outstripped the number of regular worshippers in the Church of England, the mother church of the Anglican communion, which covers 160 countries, a mass-circulation British daily reported.
According to figures compiled from government and academic sources, some 930,000 Muslims go to the mosque at least once a week against 916,000 Anglicans, The Sunday Times said.
The figure does not include young children and does not give a real estimate of practicing Muslims, given that many of whom pray at home.
Tariq Modood, a professor of sociology at Bristol University, has found that 62 percent of Muslims pray in places of worship.
The Muslim community does not keep registers of attendance in mosques, the British daily said.
Archbishop of York David Hope, second in the church hierarchy, acknowledged that the number of Muslim worshippers has become greater in amount.
But he said that many more people "have an affinity" to the church than the number recorded as having attended once on a Sunday.
The figure proves the rise of Islam in Britain and the religious freedom enjoyed by around three million Muslims in the country amid calls for allocating more seats in the House of Lords to Muslims and other religious communities.
The Church of England has 26 seats in the House of Lords. However, the recent figures do not include Catholics.
Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) released recently a CD targeting the sizable Muslim community, reminding them that they are part and parcel of the British society and that their contribution "is not just a matter of history, but a reality in every walk of life".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chicago Tribune (01.10.2003)/- Two years ago, Mahmood Khawel, a 34-year-old financial consultant and devout Muslim from the Midlands city of Peterborough, wanted a quickie divorce.
So he went to an Islamic court in London where he performed the divorce ritual known as talaq. Standing before a judge, he declared three times in succession that he was repudiating his wife. Judge Omar Bakri Muhammad, an expert in Shariah, the sacred law of Islam, granted the divorce on the spot.
But now Khawel and his wife have changed their minds. They want to reconcile. Last week, Khawel was back in Muhammad's courtroom, asking for an annulment of the talaq.
"OK, brother, don't worry," Muhammad told him.
None of this would be recognized in any British civil court, according to legal experts, but for growing numbers of Britain's 3.6 million Muslims, Shariah is the law.
During the past decade, a parallel universe of Islamic jurisprudence has sprouted across Britain. Shariah courts can be found in almost every large city. In London, different Muslim immigrant groups--the Somalis in Woolwich, for example--have established ad hoc courts that cater to their community's needs.
Most operate quietly
No one knows how many of these courts are operating in Britain. Because of their informal nature, reliable statistics do not exist.
Most of the Shariah courts go about their business quietly. But Muhammad, 44, a native of Syria who studied Islamic law in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, does not shy from controversy.
His outspoken support for Osama bin Laden and his praise for the Sept. 11 hijackers--"the magnificent 19," he calls them--have landed him in trouble with British anti-terrorism authorities. Earlier this year, police closed his north London office, and last month they seized all his legal files.
But the faithful who fill the makeshift courtroom above a North London sweatshop care little about Muhammad's politics. They come here because they believe he is uniquely qualified to settle their marital disputes, sort out their business partnerships and decide the amount of blood money that should be paid to compensate the victim of a crime.
In his white gown, white skullcap and beard, Muhammad is an imposing figure behind the cluttered table that serves as his bench. Justice is rendered with swift certainty, and many pleadings are handled via the Internet.
Divorces form the bulk of his caseload. For men, getting a divorce is simple. For women, it can be more problematic. Usually, women have to buy their way out of an unhappy marriage. They also have to give up custody of their children and forfeit their property rights.
Muhammad said he tries to be lenient with women who are the victims of physical or psychological abuse by their husbands. These women are not required to pay off their husbands, and they also get to keep their jewelry and dowry, which are considered the bride's property under Islamic law.
He also said he gives the benefit of the doubt to women in cases where they married against their will. In these instances, he said, he simply annuls the marriage contract.
But if a woman wants a divorce "because her husband is impotent or he smells bad or he is ugly," the woman has to pay her husband double the value of her dowry, he said. In all cases, community property and custody of the children go to the husband. In the case of very young children, there is joint custody until age 7. Then the father gets full custody.
The custody laws are "quite logical," Muhammad said. "A child comes from the seed of a man. The woman is the soil in which the seed is planted. A man is fully entitled to the fruit of his seed."
British civil law would disagree, but Muhammad shrugs.
"I can't change God's law," he said.
Separate realms
Anjem Choudary, a lawyer with a degree from a British university, represents clients in Shariah court as well as in Britain's civil court system. He often hears the argument that when Muslims choose to live in Britain, they should obey British law.
"They do obey British law," he said. "But the Shariah is God's law. It is a fundamental part of being a Muslim. If you call yourself a Muslim you must put God's law ahead of man's law."
When the two are in conflict, as in the case of child custody laws, God's law prevails, he said. But why would a woman give up custody and surrender her property rights when she could easily obtain a no-fault civil divorce? The answer is usually family pressure.
A Muslim woman who ignored Islamic strictures and obtained a civil divorce would immediately be declared an apostate. In the insular and tightly knit immigrant communities of Britain, this would disgrace her entire family.
"The Shariah is what we live and die by," said Khawel, the man who was seeking to annul his divorce. Khawel and many others in the Muslim community have little faith in Britain's "manmade laws." This is especially true when their main source of information about it is the tabloid press, which tends to highlight cases of rapists escaping punishment while homeowners go to jail for defending their property against burglars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do civilizations fall? Islamic thinkers had an image for it. Consider a civilization based upon a court in a thriving city— Baghdad, for example. Arts and the intellect flourish. But over several generations, as the great Islamic philosopher of the fourteenth century Ibn Khaldun put it, the civilized become decadent with luxury. They lose their sharpness and think only of the good and the beautiful. And then some tribe of fierce Bedouin, smelling out weakness, come thundering in from the desert and storm the city. As barbarians, they do not understand the usages of civilization. They stable their horses in the libraries and use sculptures as doorstops, pictures for target practice. Given a pillow, Ibn Khaldun tells us contemptuously, they suppose it to be a bundle of rags. In time, however, the power of a superior culture is felt, and these people adopt and sometimes extend the ways of civilization, until they too are overthrown in their turn.
This is the way the world goes. Sometimes it happens in one lifetime, as with those barbarian soldiers who rose to become Roman emperors, sometimes in slow motion, as with the fall of the Roman Empire, in which many centuries were to elapse before the new civilization emerged from the disorders of the barbarian invasions. With us, the decor is quite different, but the realities may be closer than we suppose.
In modern Europe, we don’t quite have Bedouin storming in from the desert (merely millions of depressed migrants trying to slip through the gates), but the tendency towards barbarism is an active force all around us. Hence the formula for overthrowing a Western society must be not “storm the walls” but “organize your own barbarians” within the walls. Those who hate European civilization know that it cannot be taken by direct assault. It must thus be captured from within.
European civilization has been attacked and conquered from within, without anyone quite realizing what has happened. We may laugh at political correctness—some people even deny that it exists—but it is a manacle around our hands. It binds us quite tightly, though some freedom must be left, because without the contribution of subjugated males, things would very rapidly decline. What political correctness amounts to in reality is a treaty of accommodation reached between the conquerors and the conquered. Women have forced their way into money and status, sometimes beyond their merits, but they have also lost a freedom (Professor Schaub calls it “leisure”) that might have saved them from being formularized in terms of contemporary Western styles of work. Had this not happened, we might well have been saved from some of the discontents that currently afflict us. To be “socially included,” as women have been in the workforce, has many practical advantages, but it involves a spiritual loss. So far the conquerors have not destroyed the geese that lay the golden eggs, so the surface of our civilization does not reveal how profound the change has been. But underneath that surface, there are currents which no one understands.
There has been a revolution, then, but a silent one. It has taken place with such stealth, and so gradually, that people have become accustomed to it little by little. I am reminded of the famous Chinese executioner whose ambition it was to be able to cut off a head so that the victim would not realize what had happened. For years he worked on his skill, and one day he cut off a head so perfectly that the victim said: “Well, when are you going to do it?” The executioner gave a beatific smile and said: “Just kindly nod.”
When politically-correct, 'soft', left-wingers tell me that human children are born with a natural predisposition to do good, to behave well and to behave non-violently, and, further, that it is only through the corrupting influences of 'harsh' parental discipline or poverty that they descend into anti-social, poorly-behaved beings, I travel back through time and consider two separate tribes of humans going about their daily lives.
The Peace Tribe has equality of the sexes and rears its children in a laissez-faire manner, with everyone having 'rights' to do more or less as they please, even if this involves disrupting any other members of the tribe.
The Aggressive Tribe has a dominance-hierarchy where the children are reared in such a way as to promote the welfare of the tribe as a whole. Its men are trained to be aggressive soldiers and hunters, and to lead the tribe forward in its task of conquering the environment and capturing more resources.
As time moves on, both tribes begin to expand, until, one day, they find themselves in contact with each other, and in competition for the limited resources available.
What happens?
Well, if the Peace Tribe remains a tribe of peace - with everyone doing their own thing, and with the growing youth actually disrupting any chance of harmony within it - how are its people going to compete with the Aggressive Tribe?
They won't, is the answer. Before long, the Aggressive Tribe would easily march in, kill the ill-prepared males, carry off the women and children, and incorporate these into their own tribe. The males of the Peace Tribe would be dead, or, perhaps, enslaved.
The Peace Tribe, itself, would have been extinguished.
There is simply no hope for the Peace Tribe. They can only survive if ALL its COMPETITORS are also made up of people with the same peaceful values. But JUST ONE Aggressive Tribe could see them all off!
So, what can a Peace Tribe do to save itself from being extinguished? Well, it would have to start training at least some of its men for battle. But, as soon as it started to do this, a number of consequences would follow.
The whole of its society would have to change.
Suddenly, its children would have to be reared in such a way that they were disciplined and 'trained', not only in terms of fighting, but in terms of fighting ONLY certain 'outsiders' rather than causing mayhem within their own tribe - in which they would have to be disciplined and restrained.
The young male soldiers would have to be supported by the rest of the tribe. They would have to be 'paid'. They would expect access to the women, and perhaps they would demand more access to the women than would be allowed to those men who were not prepared to train and risk their lives in battle.
And who could stop them from demanding and achieving this? No-one, unless another group of individuals within the Peace Tribe, with power over the aggressive males, could be established; such as a 'police force'.
Before long, therefore, the Peace Tribe is not a tribe of peace any longer. In fact, it has extinguished itself. It has become more like the Aggressive Tribe; with rules, regulations and the training of males to be more aggressive.
In terms of evolution, there is just no hope for a Peace Tribe. The Aggressive Tribe wins hands down, every time.
In today's Britain, we have laws and policies designed specifically to undermine the white, heterosexual male population. There are mechanisms in place to ensure that our own males and our own 'race' are purposefully disadvantaged. The traditions and values that brought success to our people over hundreds of years, both militarily and in terms of our education, our science and our way of thinking, are being denigrated and cast away. And power has been given to the very people least able to use it fruitfully.
Children now have more power than their parents and their teachers. Employees have powers over those whose energies created their jobs in the first place. Women have power over their menfolk with little requirement that they or their offspring produce anything of value for society, and preference is given to those who have a certain gender, colour or age regardless of the merit of their 'case'. At all times, however, the white, heterosexual male is put last, and considered least, regardless of his 'merit'.
Pseudosciences, such as astrology and palmistry, now have far greater currency among the population than real science despite the fact that pseudoscience has achieved absolutely nothing in the way of furthering our progress but has done a great deal to retard it.
In the past two weeks we have witnessed government by The News of the World, a newspaper which firstly promotes paedophilia by displaying barely-clad 16 year-old girls on its pages and then incites riots and vigilantism against it by inflaming those whose IQ barely exceeds those of Neanderthal.
We have the case of a gang of youths raping a woman and then throwing her into the river while their jeering girlfriends looked on, thus demonstrating the effects of making children, and, hence, young adults, feel that they are so 'paramount' that they never have to give the slightest consideration toward others.
We have women and children growing up believing, correctly, that they can levy false accusations against men, without providing any supporting evidence, and that by doing so they can debilitate and damage whomsoever they wish with impunity and without fear of punishment, or even publicity.
We fund women's groups who wish to destroy the relationships between men and women, and we support those women who seek to enhance their positions and those of other women through political intimidation and blackmail rather than through merit.
As a consequence of both, we have a birth rate declining so rapidly that in the near future there simply won't be enough workers to support our ageing population. Medical and social care for the elderly are both already far below what is really necessary, and money that should be spent on scientific progress and technology, from which we would all benefit, is being wasted on continually having to pick up the pieces from the failed social experiments of feminism and political correctness.
We already have such a shortage of workers that there is now a strong argument for encouraging foreigners to come to our country to take up some of our available jobs. There are plenty around, particularly in the service industries, but our self-opinionated youth, even those without ANY worthwhile qualifications, think that such jobs are 'beneath' them - besides which, the government happily provides them with funds for doing nothing, and there is also much more to be made from crime or drugs.
Then there are those available jobs which require a great deal of skill but which too few of our population have been trained for. Again, the country needs to recruit those from abroad.
In short, the Peace Tribe is slowly crippling itself and committing suicide, and it is being poisoned as much from within as by those outsiders who, understandably, seek to benefit from its demise.
A Peace Tribe can never win. It is either taken from without or it collapses from within.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Charles Darwin ...
"A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection."
"If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this would also seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be."
"He who believes in the struggle for existence and in the principle of natural selection, will acknowledge that every organic being is constantly endeavouring to increase in numbers; and thus if any one being vary ever so little, either in habits or structure, and thus gain an advantage over some other inhabitant of the country, it will seize on the place of that inhabitant, however different it may be from its own place."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If some group is beeing exploited and want that explotation to come to an end, the first thing thay have to do is tell it.
Western marriage is a contract, (any marriage is just that, a contract), in wich men that signs it are allowing women to forced them to profit from their labor, allow women to take their savings, their homes, their retirment benefits, to support the children they decide to bring to the world, using their sperm or the sperm of the plumber, letterman or tenis instructor, all this in return for NOTHING, i repeat NOTHING, feminits marriage gives men no rights at all.
Western marriage, feminist marriage, or modern slavery crontract, (what ever you prefer), is a contract in wich men become exploited by women.
What should a man sign it?, signing it is voluntary, so men are voluntarly submiting to this sort of slavery, a man can marry to get nationality, or if he is poor and has a rich lover that fancys to get married, in those cases what the hell, why not?, but in general marriage is absurd.
Men complain about being exploited by women but they voluntarely sign those slavery contracts, absurd.
Love?, becouse a woman is in love with a man she is supposed to accept that he exploits her?, (ask a feminist), same for men, love has nothing to do with slavery or explotation much less if the one to be exploited is the one is supposed to be loved.
By not getting married, (except for profit), the message is clear, i do not expect any women to serve and obey me, (nosense becouse is that way alrready, wether one is married or not), but nether i accept that any women profit from my labor, live at my expense, steal my house, my savings or whatever.
The message is clear, no i do not accept that my role in live is beeing the slave of a woman, not voluntarely.
Well some would say that it can be done by force, using children as an excuse, (child support), yep true but much, much less:
1) Taxes are so high that there is not too much that they can steal from one average salary, with that ammount is just imposible to support to homes, so bummer western women go for benefits but as their number gets higher and higher western goverments force them to work.
2) Here in Europe we have what we call minimum supporting level, this is the minimum ammount of money one needs to survive, this ammount is not taxed, and can not be garnished, boooom!!, an other strike against male slavery, if i make 2000 € per month but the mimimum support level is 1000 € how much they can take from my salary without making me quit my job? let see, 30%?,
That would leave me with 1400 € per month, but if I quit working i will receive 1000 €,(income support), so in fact i am going to work for 400 € per month, who is going to do that?, not me, not you, not anyone, so the goverment wanted to save money by forcing me to support a female, and now has two people on social benefits, and one, (a productive member of the society), that was previously paying taxes and contributing to the social security system, and now is not, but still consumes health care services, income support, and so on.
So how much they can take from an average salary without making that guy quiting job?, 10% perhaps? might be this, or arround this, but no more than that, so goverment turn their heads on women and start demand them to work or else lose their children, (given to the father, or placed into adoption), and lose benefits too, ohhh!! bummer!!.
Here is happening, one can see a lot of women doing any kind of dirty jobs, trash collector, public gardener, and so on, huge campaigns to incentive women to work in traditional male areas, masons, truck drivers, whatever, otherwise there is going to be a problem, if women must not obey and serve men anymore, men are not going to support them either, just a matter of time, they know that, that is also changing women attitudes, they know they can count anymore on living parasitically at the expence of men labor, an option each passing day avalaible for less and less women.
3) Women has no legal duty to men, so long so good, neither must men have any towards women, if women want custody of their children they must be responsible to support them, however, as long as they do not work, the goverment will not force them to do it, and will try to force men instead, so lets make them work, by letting them knowing that they are not going to be supported, so they must work like men do, the alternative is looking for food on the trash containers.
4) As more and more people are not married, (divorced and never married), it would be obvious that we live in a soiciety with two different citizenships, first class, the ones that get paid to have children, has reproduction rights, and custody rights, and second class, with no reproduction rights at all, for wich having children just means a sentence to perform slave labor during 20 years or more. The more obvious, the more difficult to maintain.
There is an obvious correlation between men rights and responsabilities regarding children and the percentage of unmarried people in the wester world, the more unmarried people there are, the more rights and less responsabilities men have. The legal duties of women towards men are zero, nill, nada, in the whole west, however the duities of men towards women are lesser in countries with moere unmarried people, alimony has been otulaw in may countries, marital property rights too, (the right of a female to loot a man savings).
5) Saying no to feminist marriage is saying no to Slavery.
The more men remain unmarried the more marriage becomes just another option in the eyes of younger men, and knowing what marriage is, the less will get married.
As some of the this forum said : "It takes all of five minutes, a pencil, and a legal pad with columns labeled "Advantages of Marriage" vs. "Disadvantages of Marriage" for any man to conclude that the coochie ain't worth the risks..."
Citing Esther Vilar:
"If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst."
More light:
"The point is that women have EVERY incentive for divorce, including the criminization of a man based on words alone, wage garnishment, sole custody, separation of a man from his property and the governmental control of the family unit.
What gets me is that so many men are still marrying and having children, through their own volition. If a lot of men made a practice of putting their hands into fires and then yelled and bitched, when they got burnt, how much sympathy would most people have for them? It's no longer a mystery, what is going on. The facts are clear for anyone to see.
Yes, many men would love to have a stable, committed, balanced, and fair relationship with a woman. Many of these men would love to have children. But such a relationship with a woman isn't possible, because women have all the power in a relationship by law. And it isn't possible for a man to be a father under the law; it is only possible for a man to be, under threat of literally being locked in a cage and tortured (imprisoned), financially responsible for a woman's children. Many men are figuring it out. It's an imperfect world. A legally fair relationship with a woman isn't possible, and it isn't possible for a man to legally be a true father."
6) Do not relate To female parasites, there are good and bad women, same with men, but avoid getting related with golddigers or parasites that feel entitled to exploite male labor, thus exploite you, also avoid poor or lazy women.
Today's possibility is tomorrow's expectation.
"While men have often felt the need to be both physically attractive and economically successful to qualify as dating and marriage material, women have merely had to be attractive. (And feminists have complained about that one expectation!) That's all changed. For some time now, it has been possible for women to become as successful at work as men. Not only are men more and more receptive to female success, but now many expect it. A lot of single men are looking for women who are both attractive and successful because it's possible to find them. The possibility of female success has created the expectation of female success. Women are becoming increasingly saddled with the same double expectation many men have always felt saddled with. Perhaps that's why more women are smoking and drinking to relieve stress. Welcome, women, to "men's world" and gender equality!."
From a woman:
"Women need money, because they want to be able to live when they get divorced, something quite frequent in society. Women therefore become professionals and build careers, and must wait to marry until they are dangerously close to the infertility cliff.
The closer they get to the cliff, the more desperate and anxious they become. The more desperate the women are, the more they offer themselves to men. The men have all the sex they want, and know, too, that if they marry, there is a good chance that a divorce will come and blow everything away.
A feminist judge or one sympathetic to the children will jail a father if he does not pay monies that the father may not have. Judges are "helping" women by going after men with savagery. Women who deny the father visitation rights are to be found all over the country, but they don't get jailed. Men have their revenge by watching women age. Our country gets lovelier every day."
Now add that there is no even going to be marriage, so work is no longer an option for women is a duty now, like for men, only the sick and the elderly adults should be allowed to live without working, the days of the parasites are numbered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage
The couple as a social institution is built upon a relationship of exploitation.The social and religious institution of marriage is hardly compatible with love. Marriage kills love.
Children
If the state wants to have children, then the state should pay for them. "The desire for children is a learned desire." "The mother instinct is a myth." One can decide not to have children. Children are the source of all the problems. Children are not necessary for happiness and if a couple decides not to have children, they can be happy together.
Some would say: What will happen if there are no children in the world? My answer is that it makes no difference. It is more important that people are happy than that they reproduce more unhappy people. Maybe it is better that the insects inherit the world. At least they won't feel anything if they can't be happy, in contrast to humans who must suffer through their unhappy lives. Then there would be less suffering in the world. An unhappy life is not worth living.
The Family
Some would say that conflict between the sexes is inevitable and unavoidable because of the biological difference between men and women. Vilar says: "A woman will certainly feel happy when she has an orgasm - but it is not the most intense pleasure she knows. A cocktail party, or buying a new pair of ... boots, rates far higher." Peck cites an example of a woman who becomes pregnant because she doesn't feel any sexual desire.
Some women don't want to work and they "need children to justify their laziness stupidity and lack of responsibility".Unlike men, women have a choice between a career and "the life of a dimwitted, parasitic luxury item"."This latter type of woman is nothing more than one of the many types of prostitutes. Men and society should recognize them for the trash which they are, and reject them. When a couple meets for the first time and they buy something together (for example a drink), the man should become suspicious, if the woman doesn't offer to pay half. If she is a parasite, as it seems, it will become worse and worse with time. From the drink, she will lead him into paying for her apartment and her clothes and she will never be satisfied unless the apartment and the clothes are better than those which other women have. If the man is content to be her meal ticket and earns enough money to feel secure, she will demand to have another child, so that he must work harder and feel less secure. It is never enough, she will always want more. If, finally, he has had enough and wants to leave, he knows that the laws in the Feminist-Christian countries will give her, his wife, the children and almost all of his property, and they will force him to pay a large part of his income to her for the rest of her life. If he doesn't pay, he will go to jail. If it were she who had had enough (with his frugality, for example) she could leave with the children and he must pay in any case. The states have supported this type of woman, with the marriage laws, in order to have many young soldiers for the army. In a just state, marriage would not be recognized. It would be better for a parasitic mother's children to be aborted or to grow up under the state's care in an orphanage. The bible says: "After the resurrection one will neither marry, nor be given in marriage". Why must we wait for another life which may never come?
There are also parasitic men, and they are as evil and despicable as parasitic women, but they are less dangerous because they don't have the support of the law. It is as Nelson Mandela said: "I loved even my enemies while I hated the system that turned us against one another".
Plato imagined that in antiquity man and woman were together as an androgynous race and that God cut them in half to make them weaker. Todays system of sexroles is what holds the two halves apart.
Love
There are several types of love. One has love for his parents, for his siblings, for his country and perhaps for his dog; but the most important type of love and the type which interests me herein is the love between the sexes. Even between the sexes, there are three main types of love: prostitution, marriage and real love. The first two are purchased love. In the first case, love is purchased retail and in the second it is purchased wholesale.
Real love is based upon shared responsibility and spiritual fellowship. Ahead of all else it is characterized by complicity. It is very rare, and for most people "it is not even a reality dreamed of, it is barely a horizon which we can see a glimpse of, it exists only on the level of a seed, it awaits it's hour". Marriage kills love. Marriage is the first step toward divorce.
Of all the countries in the world, the worst is USA, of which, Vilar says: "No other society exists where the male sexual drive is exploited for money so unscrupulously. Unlike most countries,couples which live together have legal status as "sambo" in Sweden, and also unlike many other countries which give a couple such status, the individuals don't have any financial responsibility for each other. It is not only the laws which make the difference between various societies. For example, in America there is a strong social feeling that the man in a couple should pay for everything. This doesn't exist in Sweden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've made some good points, but it has nothing to do with the story. Try to keep your postings relevant please.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right, but the idea was to expalain the whole situation in order to it make easier to understand why any of those stories are happening.
So if one would be a jew living in Nazi germany would not be surprised by readiing in the newspapwer that a jew was condemned to pay damages to an arian becouse while beaten by him the arian got a finger broken, so what?, a jew an arian, a Nazi Judge, no news, no surprise, all normal and logical under the Nazi rule.
you yourself wrote:
"it is always the man who is exploiting the woman. If the man is younger, then he is a gigolo after her money - economically exploiting the woman - but if the man is older, then he is sexually exploiting the woman. Men are always in the wrong."
Yep,completly true, i agree onehundred per cent, but do i feel outraged?, may be surprised? why. The national organitation fo female parasites, (NOW), proclaim the right of parasites to be parasites, aja!!, so what?, or "Nobel Prize Winner Loses In Divorce Court", at this time of the events is anyone supposed to be socked by this?, a jew sue an arian in Nazi germany and lose, really?, how was that possible?, this is no news, the news would be that the jew wins.
So you are right the post are not related to this particular event, i just wanted to help people to see the big picture, to undestand that western men are just third class citizens so once they realize this, those news would become very easy to understand.
But anyways you are right, next time i will focus my comments on the subject.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No offence man. You made a lot of good points.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it means that her promotion was actually an act of discrimination by the Old Boys' Network, to try and MAKE the business fail.
I am so damn sick and tired of hearing this crud about the "old boys network." How about the "old girls network?" It does exist. That is where all the misandrous divorce and custody laws are coming from.
Just as much more harm has been inflicted on the liberty and freedom of Americans by tyrants in black robes than by tyrants in white ones, more harm has been caused by the OLD GIRLS NETWORK than by the fabled and much overrated old boys network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:22 AM September 8th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Once again we see the victim card played, and this after we are constantly hammered about the inherently superior leadership qualities of women in business.
The one thing that stands out most about this article is the troubling tendency of female leadership not to accept responsibility for their actions and decisions. If this happened to a man he would be called a loser, given his walking papers, and never given a second thought. He would be told, "Excuses are like a _ _ holes, everybody's got one."
Perhaps we should be looking at the team building deficiencies these women failures exhibited, instead of calling them victims and blaming men for their failures.
I suppose I shouldn't act at all surprised, given all the societal and educational conditioning giving women the right to choose, the right to change their minds, and the right to blame men for every little thing that doesn't go their way. From women's studies young females are taught: "the patriarchy has power and control over women's lives," "patriarchy is privileged," "women are victims of oppressive men," and "all men are oppressors." Our societal and educational institutions constantly praise, build up, and empower females (you go girl) at the same time they tear men down with everything from biased curriculum and laws to outright hate filled advertising and T.V. shows.
Anyone that says the failures of women are all men's fault is supporting the fraud that is being perpetrated by the man-hating feminist movement. The only question I have is "When, oh when, are women going to start accepting responsibility for their decisions, their behavior, their choices, and yes their failures?????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? "
Lastly, I would like to see much more detailed information about how any study was conducted, and the affiliations of the people involved in the study before I made any decision about the objectivity. Let's face it, "feminist friendly studies" in liberal academia and social science litter the bookshelves with biased reports that have first established conclusions, then set out to gather information to support their contentions, while ignoring facts that contradict their ideology. I'm not saying that is the case here, but I am saying that needs to be looked at based on past "inconsistencies" that have come out of "feminist friendly studies," etc. that have later proven to be outright lies.
One need only look at the domestic violence industries history of lying and battering men with hate filled propaganda to clearly establish the need to examine any new "feminist friendly study" with the utmost scrutiny.
Sincerely, Ray
(click) Blame 1/2 the world
(click) Challenge women's studies prejudices
Please do not scroll up the page of linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only question I have is "When, oh when, are women going to start accepting responsibility for their decisions, their behavior, their choices, and yes their failures??????
1 Decisions - why? When it makes no difference if you decide one way or the other or none, every decision you make is rewarded.
2 Behaviour - why? When you can do whatever, whenever without consequences.
3 Choices - why? When every choice is a winning choice.
4 Failure - why? You have ample scapegoats.
So at the end of the day you win and men cop the lot. Now given all this why would a woman want to change anything and accept responsibility?
Surely you knew this though.
Anyways...
Man CEO Company fails - Man loser
Man CEO Company Succeeds - What we expected
Woman CEO - Comapany Fails - Woman blames men. (Still an inspiration and the justification for further help to others. Oh and possibly a book and film deal as well as plenty of chances to tell tales of woe in TV interviews.)
Women CEO - Company Succeeds - The great all powerful, super role model, best thing since sliced bread wonder person [er.. woman] on the planet, words just can't express the fundamental changes that have occurred in this marvelously diverse society and an inspiration to all (especially young women and we told you so)!
Westcoast2 just chuntering on. All made up by himself. Any sarcasm, irony, comedy, sense or accurate spelling is purley accidental.
be well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Prof Haslam found that, given the choice between a male and a female candidate, companies were much more likely to choose the female candidate when the company was doing badly."
The professor then goes on to explain that this represents discrimination against women. We can only surmise what the conclusion would have been if the results had been reversed, if he had found that when a company was doing badly they hired men.
Does anyone really doubt that he would have concluded that companies still don’t trust women to take on the real challenges? And conclude that it represents discrimination against women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent point A.J.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous?
(1) Feminists rail against the evils of Capitalism. Capitalism is one of the bad things that men do to women. However, feminists want to get more women into board-rooms. Can someone explain that to me? It's another example of the blatant double-standards that pervade feminism - Capitalism is only a bad thing if men do it, it's a good thing if women do it.
(2) A key idea in feminism is that gender is socially constructed - it is not the case that men are 'naturally' stronger than women, or that anyone is 'naturally' better at anything - to say so is called 'essentialism', and 'essentialism' is a swear word in feminist circles; feminists are 'social constructionists' - they believe that everything is the product of culture. However - women are naturally better managers than men. Essentialism is good as long as it benefits women; it's only bad if it benefits men. They present us with a lot of anti-male hate speech masquerading as science, telling us that women are naturally better managers, naturally better communicators, better at 'multi-tasking' and so on. There is not a scrap of scientific evidence for any of it, it is pure ideology.
(3) Having condemned capitalism, and complained that women aren't doing enough of it, and convinced us that women are naturally better at it anyway, feminists need to explain why this is, and what can be done about it. So they offer us the conspiracy theory that lots of women would love to become big corporate sharks, but for the fact that evil, nasty men conspire to prevent them. As usual, women's personal lifestyle choices and preferences are ignored.
(4) So - it keeps getting stranger - they advocate a left-wing social engineering program to artificially force more women into boardrooms. Positive discrimination, quotas, and so on. That strikes me as ironic - rigging the job market so that more women can get to the top of the capitalist free market - except that then it's not the free market any more. Er...confused? You have a right to be. This is a strange perversion of socialist principles. The labour movement was begun 150 years ago to secure safer conditions for workers in heavy industry. Now the same sentiment about social justice is being hijacked to justify handing out 6-figure salaries to spoiled middle-class prima donnas.
(5) Having shoe-horned their role models into top boardroom jobs, it seems that at least some of them perform badly. Why? It's all the fault of the Patriarchy again! Men only 'allowed' them into those top jobs in order to make fools of them!
An astonishing theory. Really pathetic. Ask yourself what the goals are of those 'old boys' just before they hire the woman CEO. The company is already sliding. Are they just going to sit back and watch the company go under - which will eventually cost them their own job as well - or are they going to try to save it? The idea that they are just looking for someone to blame before they lie down and die is absurd.
Roy said "it's equally logical that the board's of these floundering companies...have bought into the New Age feminist screed about "women's special leadership qualities" and all the "soft-side emotional intelligence" crapola".
It's not equally logical - it's much more logical.
I can't believe the crap we are expected to swallow from the femini$t movement.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:39 PM September 8th, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Ladies, the first step in helping yourself is admitting that you have a problem.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
