Because feminists have been doing the same thing to heterosexual men for 40 years now. They do it today when they proclaim that all men are rapists, that marriage is oppression, etc.
I for one am quite tired of it - and you can bet that these types of comments will escalate in the future. People are getting sick and tired of this insane censorship brought about by feminism - and they're gradually starting to fight back.
Of course if she doesn't, everybody will focus on how stressed out she was (or in some other way excuse the fact that she failed to win).
Also, nobody will dare to point out the glaringly obvious fact that the best player will almost always be a man. "Not enough female participation yet?" What, 40 years of oppression by feminism (see title IX, which - thanks to feminasties - has turned male athletics into a wasteland) has not yet been enough to "equalize the playing field?" Maybe - just maybe - that's because men and women aren't and won't ever be equals? You'd think?
And if you think that's sexist, let me remind you that you just posted an article hyping the fact that a girl is going to "break up the male-dominated PGA."
Feminists have been shoving this same old shit down everybody's throats for decades -
Yet now, when people are finally fed up with their bullshit and tell them to fuck off, feminasties turn around and accuse them of the same game they've been playing. Talk about a double standard here.
There is a word for such a person in the English language: hypocrite.
No. The salary gap numbers compare workers with the same level of experience and qualifications.
Yet another study shows the exact opposite: when such factors are controlled for, women earn $1.01 for every dollar that men earn. So now you have the PC study and the "insensitive" study. Which one is going to get quoted orders of magnitude more often by everybody (especially the media)?
How about this one: wearing flimsy clothes is mental rape, you cannot deny it. I don't want my mind violated by women, it should be illegal. Why can I not sue them? Obviously I fight against it but in the end I am powerless. It is the exact definition of rape.
The problem is, any time you have a government sponsored program to "get everybody in line," it tends to get out of hand (as it has now).
The other question is, when do you decide that your goal has been accomplished? And what do you do about the institution that acted as the enforcer? Tell everybody they're out of a job and they can now go home?
Re:Sociological implications.. and the flipside?
on
Virtual Girlfriend
·
· Score: 1
Funny though how the VB has "features" which allow it to do things for its user, while the VG only has one feature: to nag.
1. A philosophy, often translated into art forms, holding that humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe and that any search for order by them will bring them into direct conflict with this universe: "True absurdism is not less but more real than reality" (John Simon).
No, you're merely confusing rights with privileges. The only reason anyone has a "right" to anything is because there exists an authoritative structure that enforces this right. This authority itself is an artificial construct which does not normally exist to the same degree as it does today.
In the absence of this structure, humans revert to their "natural" state - namely survival of the fittest. So the points are in a very real sense genetic, not cultural.
Besides, the problem today is too much political correctness, not too little. There is a blind adherence to equality, that is what is causing problems; and people who blindly pushing this baseless new doctrine are the root cause of a lot of misery today.
Funny how back when everybody was stereotyped against, men were a bunch of animals and women in this country were oh-so oppressed, this country was numero uno in the world in so many categories. Now that we're busy trying to figure out the best way to ensure that everybody's chances are absolutely equalized (i.e. dragging the best down to the worse), we find ourselves competing with third world countries technologically.
I'd be more interested in finding out how many women are in construction these days. Funny though how that equality door swings - eh, I mean is SUPPOSED to swing - both ways.
I will refute the first few points because this is largely a waste of time:
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
FALSE - thanks to affirmative action and numerous state/federal programs/grants, being a white male now makes it harder to get a job, no matter your skill set.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true.
TRUE - ironically because you now need to be far better than any other applicant to get the position if you're a white male. Still this proves my point.
3. If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex.
BS - women are encouraged, pushed, shoved more into the promotion cycle than men these days. Prove otherwise....
Anyway you're welcome to make whatever point you may have now.
I would say it does everybody a disservice - including the men who feel increasingly alienated from something they would otherwise be good at, because the new mantra now dictates that they be left to fend for themselves.
I think the shrinking percentage of male enrollment in college supports my point. You can only have "equality" by forcibly suppressing one group of people, otherwise gradients automatically and naturally form. The current system is neither natural, nor optimal, nor sustainable in the long term.
I would posit that any country that lets men be men and women be women and doesn't worry about blind political correctness will in the long run outperform a country that dictates absurd gender-neutrality which neither exists in nature, nor is supported by any factual/unbiased gender behavioral studies.
just that - they get carried away, as with any "mandate" or "policy" that tries to change subtle differences in life by bulldozing into the opposite direction, all else be damned.
I saw a comparison between the RX8 and the G35 (a car with a 3.5 V6 that weighs more and makes more power). The G35 had a slightly better gas mileage than the RX8. Why is Mazda so enamored with Wankel engines?
2001 Audi A4 1.8, stage 3 turbo (280 hp/300 ft-lbs). I get around 300-320 miles to the tank (15 gallon, which includes 2-3 gallons spare), depending on how hard I drive it.
I think the factory claims 22/28, which sounds about right. Too bad the stock car makes only 170 hp (110 less than mine at this point).
They can't spank or yell or punish the children as may be necessary. The parents can do it when they get home, but are often too tired or don't even find out about their child's problem behavior.
Actually, they can't. Fascist liberals took this right (and basic "service" that they owe to their children) away from them.
If some of those countries that are currently taking away high tech jobs were on the same playing field (in terms of development and otherwise), you would have a point.
As it stands, you are essentially encouraging people to buy products from countries some of which will in turn not reciprocate your sentiment.
Maybe people in the U.S. have a choice in the matter and people in India simply can't afford U.S. products; but does it really make a difference? The fact remains that talent/experience/knowledge/"advantage" will continue their monotonic flow out of the country. That, I would say, has a more negative effect on this country than protectionism would otherwise.
There's more in life to worry about. If you find that you can't compete, or that it's no longer feasible financially, then look into fields that are. Get started with real estate. Become a car salesman. Become a plumber. There are many lucrative jobs that are here to stay, it doesn't matter whether or not your extroverted.
Every career has a learning curve and it's safe to say that IT has one of the steeper ones. So go, find something else to do. Maybe somewhere down the line someone will realize that it was a mistake to force this dilemma on you in the first place; when it no longer pays to get a technical degree, perhaps then someone will realize that a strategic mistake with lasting consequences has been made.
Slashdot Mirror
Because feminists have been doing the same thing to heterosexual men for 40 years now. They do it today when they proclaim that all men are rapists, that marriage is oppression, etc.
I for one am quite tired of it - and you can bet that these types of comments will escalate in the future. People are getting sick and tired of this insane censorship brought about by feminism - and they're gradually starting to fight back.
Of course if she doesn't, everybody will focus on how stressed out she was (or in some other way excuse the fact that she failed to win).
Also, nobody will dare to point out the glaringly obvious fact that the best player will almost always be a man. "Not enough female participation yet?" What, 40 years of oppression by feminism (see title IX, which - thanks to feminasties - has turned male athletics into a wasteland) has not yet been enough to "equalize the playing field?" Maybe - just maybe - that's because men and women aren't and won't ever be equals? You'd think?
And if you think that's sexist, let me remind you that you just posted an article hyping the fact that a girl is going to "break up the male-dominated PGA."
Feminists have been shoving this same old shit down everybody's throats for decades -
Yet now, when people are finally fed up with their bullshit and tell them to fuck off, feminasties turn around and accuse them of the same game they've been playing. Talk about a double standard here.
There is a word for such a person in the English language: hypocrite.
Because eventually there will be no discount and this intrusion will become mandatory.
Yet another study shows the exact opposite: when such factors are controlled for, women earn $1.01 for every dollar that men earn. So now you have the PC study and the "insensitive" study. Which one is going to get quoted orders of magnitude more often by everybody (especially the media)?
How about this one: wearing flimsy clothes is mental rape, you cannot deny it. I don't want my mind violated by women, it should be illegal. Why can I not sue them? Obviously I fight against it but in the end I am powerless. It is the exact definition of rape.
The problem is, any time you have a government sponsored program to "get everybody in line," it tends to get out of hand (as it has now).
The other question is, when do you decide that your goal has been accomplished? And what do you do about the institution that acted as the enforcer? Tell everybody they're out of a job and they can now go home?
Funny though how the VB has "features" which allow it to do things for its user, while the VG only has one feature: to nag.
absurdism
n.
1. A philosophy, often translated into art forms, holding that humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe and that any search for order by them will bring them into direct conflict with this universe: "True absurdism is not less but more real than reality" (John Simon).
No, you're merely confusing rights with privileges. The only reason anyone has a "right" to anything is because there exists an authoritative structure that enforces this right. This authority itself is an artificial construct which does not normally exist to the same degree as it does today.
In the absence of this structure, humans revert to their "natural" state - namely survival of the fittest. So the points are in a very real sense genetic, not cultural.
It is marked "funny" because it is so wildly ignorant that a rational person can merely scoff at it.
Where are your references to the contrary?
Besides, the problem today is too much political correctness, not too little. There is a blind adherence to equality, that is what is causing problems; and people who blindly pushing this baseless new doctrine are the root cause of a lot of misery today.
Funny how back when everybody was stereotyped against, men were a bunch of animals and women in this country were oh-so oppressed, this country was numero uno in the world in so many categories. Now that we're busy trying to figure out the best way to ensure that everybody's chances are absolutely equalized (i.e. dragging the best down to the worse), we find ourselves competing with third world countries technologically.
Funny though, isn't it?
I'd be more interested in finding out how many women are in construction these days. Funny though how that equality door swings - eh, I mean is SUPPOSED to swing - both ways.
I will refute the first few points because this is largely a waste of time: 1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed. FALSE - thanks to affirmative action and numerous state/federal programs/grants, being a white male now makes it harder to get a job, no matter your skill set. 2. I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true. TRUE - ironically because you now need to be far better than any other applicant to get the position if you're a white male. Still this proves my point. 3. If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex. BS - women are encouraged, pushed, shoved more into the promotion cycle than men these days. Prove otherwise. ...
Anyway you're welcome to make whatever point you may have now.
I would say it does everybody a disservice - including the men who feel increasingly alienated from something they would otherwise be good at, because the new mantra now dictates that they be left to fend for themselves. I think the shrinking percentage of male enrollment in college supports my point. You can only have "equality" by forcibly suppressing one group of people, otherwise gradients automatically and naturally form. The current system is neither natural, nor optimal, nor sustainable in the long term. I would posit that any country that lets men be men and women be women and doesn't worry about blind political correctness will in the long run outperform a country that dictates absurd gender-neutrality which neither exists in nature, nor is supported by any factual/unbiased gender behavioral studies.
just that - they get carried away, as with any "mandate" or "policy" that tries to change subtle differences in life by bulldozing into the opposite direction, all else be damned.
Reality is, point by point, it can be 100% refuted today.
I saw a comparison between the RX8 and the G35 (a car with a 3.5 V6 that weighs more and makes more power). The G35 had a slightly better gas mileage than the RX8. Why is Mazda so enamored with Wankel engines?
2001 Audi A4 1.8, stage 3 turbo (280 hp/300 ft-lbs). I get around 300-320 miles to the tank (15 gallon, which includes 2-3 gallons spare), depending on how hard I drive it.
I think the factory claims 22/28, which sounds about right. Too bad the stock car makes only 170 hp (110 less than mine at this point).
Or maybe her job was outsourced and she's got all this free time now?
What if a meteor strikes t
What if you have no chance to survive make your time?
Actually, they can't. Fascist liberals took this right (and basic "service" that they owe to their children) away from them.
Are you familiar with the concept of a "trend?"
If some of those countries that are currently taking away high tech jobs were on the same playing field (in terms of development and otherwise), you would have a point.
As it stands, you are essentially encouraging people to buy products from countries some of which will in turn not reciprocate your sentiment.
Maybe people in the U.S. have a choice in the matter and people in India simply can't afford U.S. products; but does it really make a difference? The fact remains that talent/experience/knowledge/"advantage" will continue their monotonic flow out of the country. That, I would say, has a more negative effect on this country than protectionism would otherwise.
There's more in life to worry about. If you find that you can't compete, or that it's no longer feasible financially, then look into fields that are. Get started with real estate. Become a car salesman. Become a plumber. There are many lucrative jobs that are here to stay, it doesn't matter whether or not your extroverted.
Every career has a learning curve and it's safe to say that IT has one of the steeper ones. So go, find something else to do. Maybe somewhere down the line someone will realize that it was a mistake to force this dilemma on you in the first place; when it no longer pays to get a technical degree, perhaps then someone will realize that a strategic mistake with lasting consequences has been made.