Finally a Woman that has Sense

Off Topic
61

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
My husband probably does 70% of the household chores, although we do have a maid who comes 1-2x a month. Why does he do it? Pretty simple. I’m out of the house from 7am - 7pm or later, and he works from home. While he pretty much is on call 24/7, he can do dishes, swiffer the floors, etc. on conference calls or during down time.

In addition, he is a neatnick and I’m pretty much a slob in comparison. I am comfortable with clutter and kitchen counters that aren’t spotless - he isn’t, and really can’t relax if things aren’t nice. So he feels better, and more able to relax, when things are pretty.

If he wanted me to clean 50-50 with him, it would take away from any time we get together after I get home from work. He’d rather spend naked time with me than windex time with me.

I don’t ask him to do a damn thing around the house, and if he wanted to play Xbox during his down time and clean with me in the evenings, then that’s what would happen. He’s just a fucking adult who knows he likes cleanliness and order and sex, and puts things the way he likes.

Now what were we talking about? Slapping a bitch? Hmmmm…

[/quote]

Excellent post, PMPM.
The whole “gender role” thing is ridiculous. The idea that a particular task is “woman’s work” means nothing… unless you’re an insecure man whose afraid that yer drinkin’ buddies will goof on ya for doin’ the dishes. lol

Like you and your husband, my wife and I more or less fell into our tasks based on who is available and out of necessity. This is even more key when children are in the picture.
We also have a cleaning service come in 2x per month for a thorough house cleaning.

I have a friend who married a feminist. The poor bastard has dealt with YEARS of this woman pushing him into housework of all sorts. One Wednesday he called me, fully exuberant about a large corporate illustration job he just landed. The money was unbelievable! He goes home and earnestly starts work on the project, completely forgetting that Wednesdays were HIS day to make dinner (before the wife gets home from work). Well, she gets home, he excitedly tells her about this great project he’s just landed, and what does the bitch do? She says, “where the fuck is dinner?”

FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!

62

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Waylander wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
Hiring quotas- Would the women who can do the job get hired or get their apprenticeships without hiring quotas?

I think lowering the standards to fill quotas is not a good thing but are the women only hired (even the capable ones) because of quotas?

[/quote]

If she could suck a mean dick then yeah[/quote]

So in your opinion is … No they wouldn’t hire a woman unless forced even if she can do the same job?[/quote]

I kid. My opinion is that it’s up to the discretion of the business owner to decide who they want to hire, and they should not be told by the government what to do. Women should get the same chance if they are as able as a man to do the job. This promotes the idea of meritocracy. A women being employed if she is less capable than a man, just to fill a quota aka positive discrimination/affirmative action undermines meritocracy and just patronises women: “WELL DONE FOR BEING A WOMAN, HERE’S YOUR REWARD.”

63

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:

Bitch, you wouldn’t even know a divorce from your asshole if it weren’t for feminism. You’d more likely get backhanded in the mouth before you could even fathom leaving your husband.

[/quote]

Woman, your’re retarded, or at least grossly mis-informed if you think that the most husbands ever beat their wives in this or any western country. It was harder to get divorced, and domestic violence was not prosecuted as vigorously as it should have been, but no woman’s father or brothers would have tolerated her getting beaten by her husband. It has always been taboo in western culture to hit women, even amoung the lower classes. It happened, there have always been horror stories of abuse, but I doubt the numbers have ever varied much from where they are today. No, I don’t have statistics for domestic violence from 1861, but then neither do you.[/quote]

I was taking artistic license for the sake of my point, but “It was harder to get divorced, and domestic violence was not prosecuted as vigorously as it should have been” is still good enough for me.

And please don’t make any claims on my behalf. I wasn’t going to ask you for any statistics. Domestic violence was wrong in 1861, it still wrong in 2010. I don’t need numbers to tell me that much.[/quote]

It was socially acceptable in 1861 and much, much, more recent.[/quote]

In Saudi Arabia, yes. In the United States, most of Europe and Asia, no, it wasn’t. You’ve been fed a bunch of lies by your hairy-legged Women’s Studies Professor.

64

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
Hiring quotas- Would the women who can do the job get hired or get their apprenticeships without hiring quotas?

I think lowering the standards to fill quotas is not a good thing but are the women only hired (even the capable ones) because of quotas?

[/quote]

They were probably necessary to break open doors in a lot of areas, but in the long run quotas do more harm than good, because inevitably some will be hired to fill quotas who are not capable, which feeds resentment and negative stereo-types. Once the doors are open, and one gets used to working with women (the competent ones), the initial bias is destroyed, and any compentent employer will want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of gender (this should be our goal as a society to move past race and gender and judge solely on merit).

It may take a generation or two to let old prejudice die (retire) off, but after that the quotas need to go.

65

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…all I know is when ANY public speaker says that women are smarter than men, the entire audience erupts in applause. Why is that?

I mean, seriously. Why?[/quote]

Women love flattery, even when they know you are just pandering to them.

66

The sure sign of being a secure, strong man is taking the time to whine about feminism. Deal with the woman, you don’t like her thinking move on. What’s the big deal?

67

[quote]Waylander wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Waylander wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
Hiring quotas- Would the women who can do the job get hired or get their apprenticeships without hiring quotas?

I think lowering the standards to fill quotas is not a good thing but are the women only hired (even the capable ones) because of quotas?

[/quote]

If she could suck a mean dick then yeah[/quote]

So in your opinion is … No they wouldn’t hire a woman unless forced even if she can do the same job?[/quote]

I kid. My opinion is that it’s up to the discretion of the business owner to decide who they want to hire, and they should not be told by the government what to do. Women should get the same chance if they are as able as a man to do the job. This promotes the idea of meritocracy. A women being employed if she is less capable than a man, just to fill a quota aka positive discrimination/affirmative action undermines meritocracy and just patronises women: “WELL DONE FOR BEING A WOMAN, HERE’S YOUR REWARD.”[/quote]

That is not what I asked. I said if she could do the job(same as a man) would she get it?

It sounds like your opinion is “I don’t know”. This is also my opinion.

I do wonder if we would get equal rights and opportunities if it was not forced down men’s throats still.

68

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
Hiring quotas- Would the women who can do the job get hired or get their apprenticeships without hiring quotas?

I think lowering the standards to fill quotas is not a good thing but are the women only hired (even the capable ones) because of quotas?

[/quote]

They were probably necessary to break open doors in a lot of areas, but in the long run quotas do more harm than good, because inevitably some will be hired to fill quotas who are not capable, which feeds resentment and negative stereo-types. Once the doors are open, and one gets used to working with women (the competent ones), the initial bias is destroyed, and any compentent employer will want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of gender (this should be our goal as a society to move past race and gender and judge solely on merit).

It may take a generation or two to let old prejudice die (retire) off, but after that the quotas need to go.[/quote]

I agree that eventually we can let go of quotas and the like but not yet. I don’t feel we aren’t there yet.

edited

69

[quote]comus3 wrote:
The sure sign of being a secure, strong man is taking the time to whine about feminism. Deal with the woman, you don’t like her thinking move on. What’s the big deal?[/quote]

Because we live in a society with things called laws, dumbass.

70

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
Hiring quotas- Would the women who can do the job get hired or get their apprenticeships without hiring quotas?

I think lowering the standards to fill quotas is not a good thing but are the women only hired (even the capable ones) because of quotas?

[/quote]

They were probably necessary to break open doors in a lot of areas, but in the long run quotas do more harm than good, because inevitably some will be hired to fill quotas who are not capable, which feeds resentment and negative stereo-types. Once the doors are open, and one gets used to working with women (the competent ones), the initial bias is destroyed, and any compentent employer will want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of gender (this should be our goal as a society to move past race and gender and judge solely on merit).

It may take a generation or two to let old prejudice die (retire) off, but after that the quotas need to go.[/quote]

I agree that eventually we can let go of quotas and the like but not yet. I don’t feel we are there yet.
[/quote]

How do we objectively measure when we are there? Some will always use the crutch of “they just didn’t hire me because I’m _____”, and most of the time those are the worthless motherfuckers who make everyone else look bad.

I say you got 2 generations, 40 years tops. If it didn’t work oh well.

71

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
Hiring quotas- Would the women who can do the job get hired or get their apprenticeships without hiring quotas?

I think lowering the standards to fill quotas is not a good thing but are the women only hired (even the capable ones) because of quotas?

[/quote]

They were probably necessary to break open doors in a lot of areas, but in the long run quotas do more harm than good, because inevitably some will be hired to fill quotas who are not capable, which feeds resentment and negative stereo-types. Once the doors are open, and one gets used to working with women (the competent ones), the initial bias is destroyed, and any compentent employer will want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of gender (this should be our goal as a society to move past race and gender and judge solely on merit).

It may take a generation or two to let old prejudice die (retire) off, but after that the quotas need to go.[/quote]

I agree that eventually we can let go of quotas and the like but not yet. I don’t feel we are there yet.
[/quote]

How do we objectively measure when we are there? Some will always use the crutch of “they just didn’t hire me because I’m _____”, and most of the time those are the worthless motherfuckers who make everyone else look bad.

I say you got 2 generations, 40 years tops. If it didn’t work oh well.
[/quote]

I get what you are saying but I think that when we get rid of it is when we(all of us) think it is time. In my opinion we need to wait until all the people, who were born and worked in a time before women’s lib, are dead.

72

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]comus3 wrote:
The sure sign of being a secure, strong man is taking the time to whine about feminism. Deal with the woman, you don’t like her thinking move on. What’s the big deal?[/quote]

Because we live in a society with things called laws, dumbass.[/quote]

Laws about doing the dishes?

73

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Waylander wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Waylander wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
Hiring quotas- Would the women who can do the job get hired or get their apprenticeships without hiring quotas?

I think lowering the standards to fill quotas is not a good thing but are the women only hired (even the capable ones) because of quotas?

[/quote]

If she could suck a mean dick then yeah[/quote]

So in your opinion is … No they wouldn’t hire a woman unless forced even if she can do the same job?[/quote]

I kid. My opinion is that it’s up to the discretion of the business owner to decide who they want to hire, and they should not be told by the government what to do. Women should get the same chance if they are as able as a man to do the job. This promotes the idea of meritocracy. A women being employed if she is less capable than a man, just to fill a quota aka positive discrimination/affirmative action undermines meritocracy and just patronises women: “WELL DONE FOR BEING A WOMAN, HERE’S YOUR REWARD.”[/quote]

That is not what I asked. I said if she could do the job(same as a man) would she get it?

It sounds like your opinion is “I don’t know”. This is also my opinion.

I do wonder if we would get equal rights and opportunities if it was not forced down men’s throats still. [/quote]

I don’t know. I have no idea what every single recruiters preferences are. What I do know is that forcing quotas onto people creates the adverse effect in the sense that they hate being told what to do, so feel bitter that they have to hire people to fill a quota, and would subsequently not be as willing to hire women because of this bitterness.

Also don’t forget that recruiters are also women now, not just men, so it goes both ways.

74

[quote]comus3 wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]comus3 wrote:
The sure sign of being a secure, strong man is taking the time to whine about feminism. Deal with the woman, you don’t like her thinking move on. What’s the big deal?[/quote]

Because we live in a society with things called laws, dumbass.[/quote]

Laws about doing the dishes?
[/quote]

I take your approach when it comes to relationships. If I don’t like their views then I don’t bother with them. But it’s pretty hard to ignore feminism when its not just in interpersonal relations, but in laws dictated by the country.

75

[quote]comus3 wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]comus3 wrote:
The sure sign of being a secure, strong man is taking the time to whine about feminism. Deal with the woman, you don’t like her thinking move on. What’s the big deal?[/quote]

Because we live in a society with things called laws, dumbass.[/quote]

Laws about doing the dishes?
[/quote]

You emasculated bitches can either do the dishes at home, or IN JAIL. The feminists have not marched long miles in their comfortable shoes for nothing!

76

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…all I know is when ANY public speaker says that women are smarter than men, the entire audience erupts in applause. Why is that?

I mean, seriously. Why?[/quote]

Because someone (okay a huge amount of women/people) went a little too far with the idea “equal” and figured that the only way someone would believe that if is the party that was considered inferior was shown to be superior, instead of simply equal. I’m sure you’ve expereienced that yourself once or twice.[/quote]

Or…it’s a classic example of the speaker’s address being unnaturally self-assured because they know the audience will applaud them just for saying it.

[/quote]

…and they ALWAYS DO.

Does anyone here think the same reaction would be seen if it was said, “men are smarter than women”?

You would get boos and hisses.

This can’t even be argued.

Feminism may have started good…but it has gotten pretty fucking evil in the way it has twisted society as a whole.

Things aren’t equal when this reaction can be seen in every audience in the country filled with both men and women.[/quote]

More food for thought. Think about how often you have smoking hot, all together wives married to a babbling idiot whose the brunt of all the jokes in a sitcom. Now name ONE sitcom (post 1990) where it’s the woman of the house who is the village idiot. I can’t think of any. Few very good examples:

Everybody Loves Raymond
Home Improvement
King of Queens
Simpsons

To answer your question, perhaps it’s society’s way of giving them a free pass for…ya know…suffering the pains of childbirth so that we can exist? I think I can handle a room full of clapping people thinking for a brief moment that women are smarter than men in return for the pain my mother went through to create me. But whatever, that’s just me. [/quote]

American Dad…I win

77

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…all I know is when ANY public speaker says that women are smarter than men, the entire audience erupts in applause. Why is that?

I mean, seriously. Why?[/quote]

Because someone (okay a huge amount of women/people) went a little too far with the idea “equal” and figured that the only way someone would believe that if is the party that was considered inferior was shown to be superior, instead of simply equal. I’m sure you’ve expereienced that yourself once or twice.[/quote]

Or…it’s a classic example of the speaker’s address being unnaturally self-assured because they know the audience will applaud them just for saying it.

[/quote]

…and they ALWAYS DO.

Does anyone here think the same reaction would be seen if it was said, “men are smarter than women”?

You would get boos and hisses.

This can’t even be argued.

Feminism may have started good…but it has gotten pretty fucking evil in the way it has twisted society as a whole.

Things aren’t equal when this reaction can be seen in every audience in the country filled with both men and women.[/quote]

More food for thought. Think about how often you have smoking hot, all together wives married to a babbling idiot whose the brunt of all the jokes in a sitcom. Now name ONE sitcom (post 1990) where it’s the woman of the house who is the village idiot. I can’t think of any. Few very good examples:

Everybody Loves Raymond
Home Improvement
King of Queens
Simpsons

To answer your question, perhaps it’s society’s way of giving them a free pass for…ya know…suffering the pains of childbirth so that we can exist? I think I can handle a room full of clapping people thinking for a brief moment that women are smarter than men in return for the pain my mother went through to create me. But whatever, that’s just me. [/quote]

American Dad…I win[/quote]

Married With Children?

78

Christina Applegate!

So hot as Kelly. It started before the 90s, so his point stands.

79

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…all I know is when ANY public speaker says that women are smarter than men, the entire audience erupts in applause. Why is that?

I mean, seriously. Why?[/quote]

Women love flattery, even when they know you are just pandering to them.[/quote]

Yeah. Men, now, they’re not susceptible to that sort of thing. Much more grounded. Men are so honest, so thoroughly square…eternally noble, historically fair…

80

Umm… men play the “babbling idiot” because it allows them to say and do funny shit. Women making fun of them simply spikes the humor lobbed by the man.

Women can’t be the babbling idiot because women have no real sense for comedy. It would just be retarded and depressing to watch a chick try to pull something like that off.

Oh, wait, nope, forgot the the site I’m posting on… it’s a conspiracy against men.