Gold Diggers Are Alive and Well in 2006

If anything there are more gold diggers today then there ever were. Women of the "You can have it all" generation are the one's who are graduating from University and contributing nothing but one maybe two babys to the world for all their education. Not even enough to maintain the population.

Women are causing more damage to the system then they ever have by rejecting all roles society has to offer. They are not assuming men's roles in the workplace (at least not long term, they give it a fo for a few years and then quite to "discover themselves" or have a baby). They are also not having babies like they used to. These days (three of the young females in my family have done this so far) women are having one child and then getting their tubes tied to prevent themselves from having more. Then they are sitting on their fat asses bitching how hard they have it while their husbands travel all over the prvince busting thier asses in high paying but unpredictable and non-secure factory work. My one cousin loves this arrangement though because it has allowed her to have guilt free sex with every man in her town while her husband is away making money for his family.

Gold diggers are not only alive and well they are a prospering growth industry.

Stay single, date but never let her move in to your house, and for the love of God don't marry her.

I have a great arrangement with my current girl friend. She does not drive, so I have to drive 100% of the time, but she pays for our entertainment nearly 100% of the time - unless its something I volenteer to pay for. My car, my gas, my insurance & maintainance, my taxi service when she needs to get somewhere, her paychecks for our fun. She wants to move in with me though because she does not like paying rent for her apartment - but I will never allow that.

Marty states the "women demand options" well. Do not women demand the best education just so they can trap a sucker to foot the bills for life.
Do not female doctors retire as soon as they reach their 30's to breed as their clocks ticking away even though it cost approx 1.6 million dollars to train one. A truly selfish act.
Moving into your apartment is the beginning of the end.
She will eventually grind you down and the number one reason for moving in with boyfriend is not to help you out, it's always what it saves or benefits her.
Other posters, especially females continually deny that women are not the issue, it's feminism.

Wrong, women and women's behaviour is the issue and they are the major part of the problem. It's the action of women that continually undermines any effort to get a better deal for boys as well as men.

hello

feminists have always told women how to lead their lives. when in reality, a female's desire might be something completely different. there must be more involved than some females superficial desire to stay at home and spend money. as usual, i blame feminism. (i can't resist). are women only interseted in spending money and drinking martini's at home, or have they come to the realization that they've been mislead by feminism.

for many years feminists have told women "get out there and work", there is no need for "stay at home moms". maybe feminists are wrong? (they always are). after reading this article, i'm not certain educated women simply want to spend hubby's paycheck, rather a biological need to raise children and have protection (financial)provided from their husbands.

im not surprised about the data presented regarding MBA"s and male/female graduates at Stanfard. even though more women enter college (60%), i often wondered what they actually do with those degree's? feminists call women who leave the work force to raise children "drop outs", and find it irrelavant if the female is happy as a homemaker. feminists believe these so called "drop outs" are doing other women a great injustice.

feminism, which is based on a flawed theory of male oppression, has become an a oppressive factor in the average woman's life. a group of man-haters telling women what to do. (ie: "you must have a career") the reality is, many women simply don't want that. so who are the real oppressive tyrants..men or feminists?

hillary clinton (god help us all), recently demanded more opportunrties for women in the construction business. hillary (an admitted feminist) is telling women what they don't want to do. most women simply choose not to become carpenters, electricians and plumbers. unfortunately, many women are conformists, so if hillary tells jane to swing a hammer, jane must do so. over the years you might see more female carpenters, yet these women will eventually realize "what the hell am i doing", i never wanted this.

my point, gold diggers? maybe, or probably confused women who simply want the very life (ie: raising children) that scares the hell out of feminists. i think marty is being a bit harsh with his notion that women would only rather spend their husbands money than work. portraying these women as gold diggers and not acknowledging the feminist influence on a life they've never wanted.

maybe feminists are more of an enemy to the average woman than the average man?

anthony

Hating women and branding them all gold diggers wont ever work to create change because it just removes men from any responsibility in this situation. I mean was there ever a gun to some guys head demanding he use money to attract women?

Guys have to realize that for equality to happen, we actually have to stand up for ourselves and change how we interact with and what we are to women, hating them all for treating us like cocks and wallets, branding them gold diggers might get guys to stop spending money on women based on resentment but not because of renewed identity or greater sense of self.

I for one do not want to become just some angry woman-hating loser that only ever bitched and whined and never actually tried to change anything, that’s too much like feminism to be good for anyone.

Realizing she is a gold digger or “whore” is one step, realizing that you volunteer to play the role of the john is the next. I guess if we all stop buying it means freebies for everyone!!!

“... according to scientists who study the mate-attraction engineering of the human mind, we spent more than 99 percent of the millions of years it took human beings to evolve, living in primitive conditions. As a result, the theory goes, our brains developed to solve the kinds of problems that those early human ancestors encountered. The most important challenge they faced was reproduction ... and making sure children lived long enough to propagate their genes. ... That our mental instincts haven’t changed in millions of years may explain why WOMEN, worldwide, look for the same ideal qualities in a long-term mate ... in every culture women are less concerned with a potential husband’s visual appeal and more interested in his material resources and social status. ... Females value these qualities in a mate much more than males do, regardless of the females’ assets and earning capacity. ... Women also look for mates who are, on average, at least four inches taller, and three and a half years older. These female preferences are universal. Scientists conclude they’re part of the inherited architecture of the female brain’s mate-choice system – and are presumed to serve a purpose. ... Worldwide, MEN prefer physically attractive wives, between ages twenty and forty, who are on average two and half years younger than they are. They also want potential long-term mates to have clear skin, bright eyes, full lips, shiny hair, and curvy, hourglass figures. The fact that these mate preferences hold true in every culture indicates that they’re part of men’s hardwired inheritance from their ancient forefathers. Why would these particular criteria top men’s lists? From a practical perspective, all of these traits, superficial as they may seem, are strong visual markers of fertility." (From the recently published THE FEMALE BRAIN, by Louann Brizendine, M.D.)

So it appears that being a gold-digger has since cave days been both a practical as well as honorable vocation.

And since only those ancient gold-diggers' offspring are reading this web site....

well, you get the point!

From an abridged version of Arthur Schopenhauer's famous essay – "On Women")
---

Natural weapons:
"In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason."

Female truth:
"The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all."

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html

Deleted

RM, all,
A gross misconception is that these are the same, which is why many women are angered when someone says men and women are not equal.

It gets me, the hatred of men by the feminists who claim to be equal to them. It is so twisted and sick to me, that these people hate men, yet they want to be like men at the same time. It is an age-old concept, I realize, but I just don't understand it. Men and women are different. This is a good thing. I love men for their logic and their lack of pettiness. I love them for their strength--physical and emotional. I love women because I am one and motherhood is one of the greatest gifts God ever gave humankind. Well, that and when some guy boasts about benching 300 lb, I can come back and say "Yeah, but can you squeeze something the size of a watermelon out an opening the size of a quarter without screaming? AND drugs?" :) I will never bench 300lb. I'm not going to make people laugh as I try I just accept that I am not built to do that. I'm ok with that.

Feminists though, believe that acknowledging these differences are bad, or wrong, which says to me that if they really believe that being different from a man is bad, THEY are the ones who really hate women or think they are inferior(did that make any sense at all???). Would you agree?

I don't know, it is late. That's all I got for now.

"Hating women and branding them all gold diggers wont ever work to create change because it just removes men from any responsibility in this situation."

Hey Bert, I got a live one for ya!

hujo, are you saying that men need to "man up" and take responsibility for being manipulated by another human being? That it is the man's fault that he thought the woman he was with would show him the same respect that he showed her?

Is your position that there is always a man to blame, you just have to look hard enough and far enough??

Well, it's nice to see that I'm not the last person alive who respects and values the differences between the sexes. 6 billion more of us, and there will be peace, at least between men and women within individual cultures.

Feminists aren't interested in equality. They're interested in supremacy. Some women who are genuinely interested in social justice and legal equality for all people mistakenly identify themselves as feminists. They are anything but. How can someone be focused on "equality" when their ideology and worldview only address one group? Equal to whom? Without a basis for comparison, equality can never be achieved, by definition. Hence the inevitable and unassailable conclusion that feminism is in fact a supremacist movement. One cannot seek equality by advancing the agenda of a single group. This is contrary to the very definition of the word "equality", which implies the presence of at least one other element in the equation for the purposes of comparison. It's also the basis of my argument that women are an integral part of the men's movement. We can't achieve legal equality unless all people are welcome to participate in the cause.

Men and women are complementary. Sure, we can exist on our own, but we're a hell of alot better off together, if both people are in the right headspace; a lamentably rare situation, to be sure. I used to joke with a hardcore radical feminist I was unable to enlighten that I was better than women...in that I could move heavy objects farther. Some of the time. Other than that, we were totally different yet approximately equivalent. She hated me because I was a man, but it was fun to watch her turn purple as I refused to swallow her female-supremacist drivel. Unlike this woman, I believed that we were equals in the legal sense of the word. She felt otherwise, of course.

When women and men get back to accepting and respecting our differences, we will find it universally easier to achieve a few meaningful steps towards social justice and a more egalitarian society. Until then, the pointless, destructive war of attrition we're trapped in will continue.

I think that you may be right in saying that it is feminists who loathe women and perhaps themselves, NotAFeminazi.

I consider women to be equal to me in every legal sense of the word. Therefore I deny that women require special consideration, privileges or advancement to achieve the best outcome they are capable of in society. They are, after all, afforded at least the same opportunities I am. I say this not only out of respect for men, but out of respect for women: I truly believe they are my equal in the legal sense of the word.

Feminists, on the other hand, believe that women are less than equal and require special consideration, privileges and advancement to achieve equal "outcomes" despite the innate differences between the sexes and individuals. Therefore, we can conclude that feminists consider women to be inferior to men, because they believe that women are unable to achieve what men have achieved without special consideration. This demonstrates a profound disrespect for women as it requires that all women be objectified as incapable children. It's my opinion that feminists are responding in the way they are due to a phobia. They fear female inferiority, so they announce their "superiority" at every opportunity in order to externalize that fear (i.e. projection) while simultaneously denying that there is any difference at all between the sexes (i.e. denial) and claiming that the reason women need special treatment is that they are "oppressed" (i.e. rationalization). The pathology behind contemporary feminism is really quite simple - it's based on the belief that women are inferior.

I'm an MRA, a philosopher, an author and a scholar (i.e. every bit as likely to be an ideologue/demagogue as a radical feminist). Yet my actions and my ideology demonstrate that I respect women and view them as my legal equal. I seek equality of opportunity for all people and welcome women to this cause.

A feminist's words and actions demonstrate a consistent belief that women are inferior to men in every way, and that women are incapable children. Their actions demonstrate a profound disrespect for women, and they seek supremacy, not equality. Men are their sworn enemy and have no place in their world or movement, other than as slaves.

NotAFeminazi, my questions to you are: in your opinion, who is really "oppressing" the women in our society and keeping them from achieving the best possible individual outcomes in our society? Do you believe that someone motivated by hate (i.e. a radical/gender/other feminist or a true misogynist) is capable of respect for themselves or others? Without respect for themselves and others, how then can such people claim that they seek "equality" for anyone, if they are focused on debasing everyone?

Feminism isn't about advancing the cause of women. It's about the hatred of women and men.

Bert you are not a manly man you are pussy you are like feminist. You just hate women, big fucking deal, whats more you hate men that like women.

I have no sypathy for gold diggers or the suckers that they manipulate. All I am saying is learning how not to be manipulated is better than hating women

bert you're just like some bitter old fuck thats pissed off that no one will fuck him you sound like every feminist man hater that ever got stood up at the prom.

I hate feminists, I hate women with influance that would try to promote hatred of men, I make examples out of these women that deserve it. Hating all women is as lame as dorkins and mckinnons work.

Bert get a fucking life.

Please explain to me what is manly about hating all women huh? You cant because hating is for cowards Fuckin pussy.

"hujo, are you saying that men need to "man up" and take responsibility for being manipulated by another human being? That it is the man's fault that he thought the woman he was with would show him the same respect that he showed her?"

No, Just sayin men need to prevent themselfs from being manipulated. At the first sighn of golddiggery split, thats what i am saying, dont just hand over your cash and then cry about how evil and shollow the women are.

Everyone gets burned.

Its what you learn from it, you can be a man and learn to avoid shallow women or you can be a little pussy douche and pretend that all women are gold diggers and worthy of hate.

Deleted

This article says far more about the quality of individual who would engage Marty Nemko's counseling services than anything else. Also, quoting second hand statistics from Time, 60 Minutes & the NY Times without dates, authors or original study sources is just shoddy pseudo-science.

Thinking men deserve a better representative than this.

RandomMan --"Therefore, we can conclude that feminists consider women to be inferior to men, because they believe that women are unable to achieve what men have achieved without special consideration."

Well, I had intended to argue that this is an incomplete thesis, because feminists posit The Evil Patriarchy as the "special consideration" men inherit.

But then RM wrote an insightful illustration based on feminist psychological projection, which cannot be denied, and that throws a psychological monkey wrench into the whole equation.

Then, RM observed– "The pathology behind contemporary feminism is really quite simple - it's based on the belief that women are inferior."

I would argue that this view doesn’t quite get the drift of feminist polemics. Fems don’t believe women are inferior, they believe women are SUBJECTED TO INFERIORITY via male domination i.e. Evil Patriarchy.
It's not necessarily pathological to pose this argument.

(It IS pathological to propose that women are morally superior merely because of their gender, which feminists have indeed argued.)

In other words, feminists would never suggest that women are innately inferior, though their compensatory legal and cultural arsenals and campaigns give this impression.

It’s more a case of saying --- "If women weren’t kept down by male oppression, then women could demonstrate their equality."

Hence all the feminist attention to legalizing special privileges for women. (i.e. removing the patriarchal roadblocks to equality...)

Now by male logic, conceding that you need all these legalized prostheses, head-starts, and special metrics for assessing your capabilities --- merely amounts to an admission of a major inferiority complex.

Feminists want to dismantle the imagined patriarchy – based on seeing the 2% of rich & powerful men as a generalized oppressor class – remove them, so that women can "naturally" excel. (Never mind that 98% of men are not remotely as well-off to be considered ruling patriarchs.... or ruling much of anything.)

Men just want to understand why female marathon runners get to "win" the race after getting a 2:00 minute head start against their male competitors.

How is this "equal?" (Just to make this version of feminist equality more dramatically visual, why not tie ankle weights around every male runner, then deprive them of any water throughout the race, and kneecap any of the guys who still slog through to threaten a female victory?) Fems want to "guarantee" equality, and they view it as a zero-sum contest.

And then, there’s the always omnipresent gender "victim" card.

The Holy Grail of feminist ideology.

Anybody up to interrogating that little feminist sleight-of-hand?

"Feminists aren't interested in equality. They're interested in supremacy..."

Precisely.

Because by feminist logic, equality means POWER OVER... not POWER SHARED.

Somebody has to get drafted, get killed, take out the garbage, clean out the sewers, dig out the coal, get killed, repair high voltage power lines, get killed, commit suicide (redundant reply....), make steel, build skyscrapers, drop bombs, dig up bombs, get killed, etc. etc. etc.

Where are all the girlies from Kim Gandy's harem at N.O.W. petitioning for equal rights in gender mortality rates?

hello

if the men in this country knew 1/4 of what you guys know, gender feminism would be an endangered species. don't believe for one second kim gandy (N.O.W. fascist leader) isn't ease dropping on this website. she must be shiting a brick.

hello kim....what do ya think??

anthony

p.s. (roy): kim gandy wants women in combat, she wants to see them die to support her feminist agenda. good grief!

"Hating women and branding them all gold diggers wont ever work to create change because it just removes men from any responsibility in this situation. I mean was there ever a gun to some guys head demanding he use money to attract women?"

Sounds just like a practised feminist response. The good old, "well, no-one is allowed to say anything negative about them", so there.
It's pathetic.

Even now, while women have a purse full of the folding stuff they still refuse to pay or even pay for their own share and please spare the drivel with "well I do it" as it's the exception.

Then we have the "hating women" trauma, another standard feminazy hysterical response to curb any commentary or comment against the "privilege princess". How dare anybody not worship the ground she walks on.

Well manginas, women suck and that's the known truth. They have utterly and completely proven it beyond doubt. It's not relevant to prove this, it is really more relevant to try and disprove it.

I never once defended gold diggers or put the blame on men. Are you familiar with the phrase painting them ALL with the same brush? See when you reduce it too every member of a specific group "sucking" because of the actions of an unknown minority/majority, you self-isolate from said group as a whole and become out of touch with reality. Ya know, JUST LIKE FEMINISTS DO WITH MEN!!! Can you not see this?

It is my honest opinion that “*ALL*” women are NOT gold diggers, sure, there is a significant noticeable amount but if you didn't hate women so much, and you know, actually interacted with them, you would find some deep pockets in the admittedly shallow north American seas.

I can admit that north American culture is shallow, there are indeed plenty of women that view men as cocks and wallets, as well as plenty of men that use their money to bed multiple women, taking advantage of gold diggers for their own sexual gratification. So all women suck? Or do we not both perpetuate this shallow arrangement? Do we, as men, not enable women to "leech" off of us?

I am not “blaming the victim” you reverse feminist weirdoes,(Do you think all men are rapists too?)I am examining the issue.

If you read, my advice is to ignore and avoid those types of women, to not allow yourself to spend money on or support women.

This issue is not "women suck", it’s the result of our shallow culture, and feminism.

The way I figure feminism plays into this is that feminism allowed women to question and analyze their roles in society and evolve beyond traditional settings, while men were not privy to such higher learning and self betterment. This inequality of self-exploration is now a set fixture in academia. You simply cannot critically analyze men’s roles in the past, or our status in the present, in any university, there are no men’s studies courses in this women’s studies nation. We have whole generations born into this inequality of perception that was created by and maintained by man hating second wave feminists with power and influence. Women are raised not to need men and to have faith in themselves and men are still raised to feel like losers for not being successful and having all that comes with success, the hot girl the nice car and the big house, yes some women do capitalize on our dated perceptions of chivalry and success, we don’t know any different and they wont teach us.

For progress we have to change perceptions, not hate anyone.

My post was mostly a negative reaction to the retarded women hating posts

There is a whole lot more to this issue (and others) than…”Women suck, and men who don’t hate women suck”

How are you so blind that you cant see how pathetic that is?

The trouble with this idiocy is that the number one thing to do now is to attract members to the movement, to inform and spread the concepts and ideas, this is what the site is for. All that Bert’s posts or women hating posts accomplish is to reinforce the negative stereotype of the MRA, as in, "bitter, lonely, woman haters, that just like to bash women"

I am NO friend to feminism.
http://hottopictalk.com/talk/viewforum.php?f=2
And FTR *Gold digging* women do indeed suck but they don’t get this guys money, so I don’t care about them, unlike you guys they have no power over me.

Since you asked...IMO, motivation by hate is the most destructive force and ineffective means to move any cause. I look at the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, Al Qaida and others and know this is true. I believe the same about the hateful pursuits of radical feminists and as you say, true misogynists. I don't believe those people are capable of respecting anyone, and I do not believe they truly want equal rights. The Ku Klux Klan is a perfect example--if those people had their way, there's still be slavery in the U.S. Or, as I just saw, "Chain them to the kitchen sink." Nope, no equal rights wanted there.

Another thing is, hate is learned and thus can be taught. Maybe a woman becomes an ultra-radical feminist because of bad experiences she has had with men; but she can also become one by buying into feminist-produced, overblown accounts of other women being mistreated, or "oppressed". I think the he same is true for men, that either too many bad experiences or reading/hearing of such experiences from others can lead them to hate women. Regardless, such hate only begets hate and never accomplishes anything. Additionally, People who hate the other gender (or other races, creeds, or religions, etc.) do not truly want them to have the same equal rights as they do. It's not hard to see this.

Furthermore, I think your posts in this thread and other threads are on the money, intelligent, and very insightful. My thanks to you RM, Roy, and all for your perspectives and direction. Best wishes to you.

I perused back to the McCartney thread and saw your post, "You missed the point." You challenge me...which I like but I also curse you for it since I am usually here after a long day and bloody tired. But nonetheless...

To be honest, I have not had any exceedingly hurtful things done to me by either gender, at least nothing that I would consider overly serious. I wrote about the whole BMX bike incident, which was perpetrated by both girls and boys. I can also remember getting fired up about mine and my teammates' meal allowances for road trip basketball games being far less than the boys' (hey, both teams had 2-a-days, both had the same types of schedules, what gives???). Of course later I acknowledged it was because the boys' team brought in more money and they also had an alum footing the bill most of the time. I have lost more female friends over stupid crap than I have male ones, but that just points to the nature of both genders, or the differences in my male vs female relationships. In short, I see your point now. I think.

As for your post with the following:
"Men just want to understand why female marathon runners get to "win" the race after getting a 2:00 minute head start against their male competitors."--

As you say, it isn't fair...at all. My better half is a former Army man, and he alwasy said he's fine with women in combat--as long as they pass the SAME physical tests the men have to take. I joke that one of the reasons I married him is because he let me win in our basketball games...the truth is I know damn well he'd beat the crap out of me if he played like he does when he is with the guys...so we play "HORSE" instead (b-ball shooting contests). What fun is it if they have to let you win?

Zero-sum indeed.

Hujo, I believe what you are saying is there are shitty people in both genders--which I agree. Sometimes we get hurt when we find the wrong person; many awful people are remarkable at masking their true persona when attempting to reel someone in for their own selfish purposes. I believe in the old adage, "Hurt me once, shame on you; hurt me twice, shame on me." You just simply don't allow yourself to be taken advantage of.

"Or, as I just saw, "Chain them to the kitchen sink." Nope, no equal rights wanted there."

Are you saying that in spite of everyone else in the thread calling Bert a troll, you are going to tell us that he represents men's rights activists to you? That he is representative of MANN for you?

If you really are taking him/it seriously, then I don't know what to say.

I appreciate your remarks about women knowing that men are letting them win.

What do you think this leads to,in the long run?

I think it's pretty obvious.

You?

Certainly not Maz; I made an example using his quote to illustrate that haters don't want equal rights. I was not implying that he is representative of the MRAs I have encountered. I tend not generalize people into one category if I can help it.

This is the only site in which I have chosen to post so far. I think it is among the best out there and I assume from what I read that the men are true to their claims for equal rights--and I support that. I don't waste my time or Internet bandwidth on haters or hate sites. I show no interest in those because they emulate exactly what they claim to despise (feminists). Fight hate with hate? No dice.

Well...in competitive play, I don't see the point in playing if someone is going to "let me win". When I played with the boys as a kid, they didn't let up. As I grew up, playing with the guys was not something I took very seriously because I knew they weren't going to play up to par. That's sports, but the same is true in life. Why play if some bloke is going to give you a job because "they need more women and minorities on staff? ("women and minorities encouraged to apply") I turned down a job like that once.

In the long run--if we play a "game" where one side always has to let the other side win in order to be "fair", it never will be fair for anyone and society will suffer because of it (we already see that it is). That said, everyone should have their chance--but it is up to everyone to know where their gifts lie and what they need to do to achieve their goals.

Well, just personally, I thought it might lead somewhere...

Wrong, again.