[quote]Oleena wrote:
Haha I don’t think you know shit about the modern feminist if you think withholding sex is a landmark of one.[/quote]
Women do not withhold sex from men they desire.
[quote]Mascherano wrote:
Its not a problem as long as individuals can stop thinking so rigidly and see the human animal as an adaptive creature who’s persona is in a constant flux depending on the nature of the situation. We simply cannot place individuals in stringent niches anymore! We’re way past this. [/quote]
Amen!
Men get here eventually or spend their lives with women who have similar dysfunctions to themselves.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Christina Applegate!
So hot as Kelly. It started before the 90s, so his point stands.[/quote]
I think he meant Peg was an idiot but, so was Al. Also Kelly was the daughter not the wife.
[quote]Mascherano wrote:
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
i remember seeing a program where the woman who campainged for women’s vote, equality etc. she was the real OG of women’s movement said women today have effectivly Fucked themselves over. [/quote]
Its not that feminists have “fucked themselves over,” per se. The complications of feminism is the dichotomy of women wanting their own agency, to obtain power in their own right, to not have males meddling in their decisions, assets, education, etc.; and then simultaneously to want to continue to be viewed as feminine and maternal and be sexually objectified (not saying this as a negative, btw).
Its not a problem as long as individuals can stop thinking so rigidly and see the human animal as an adaptive creature who’s persona is in a constant flux depending on the nature of the situation. We simply cannot place individuals in stringent niches anymore! We’re way past this. [/quote]
Are we though? The fact that we are adaptive creatures puts us in a situation where one stringent niche will lead to another one. There are those who are content to sit in them and those who profit by keeping the niches going.
[quote]Waylander wrote:
[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. [/quote]
You know you can say that you think most recruiters would not, that’s what I think and I wouldn’t be surprised if most people think this way too.
I wonder would a man hire a woman he wouldn’t want to have sex with?
I mean would a man hire Big Bertha who can climb up the ladder with 100lbs+ of cable(or whatever AC was talking about) or that cute little thing with the hot ass?
You and others have mention the sleeping with the boss factor this is why I brought it up.
Personally I think job specific physical education in public schools would help.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The way I’ve heard it there are at least two different types of feminists nowdays: those who believe that women are equal to men in every way, but deep down push for superior power over men, and those that believe women have different gifts from men, many of which are not appreciated or given a chance to flourish by the traditional patriarchal system (such as a different type of leadership that has been effective and the ability to bring people together in peace. Women were even used as body guards by certain Pacific Islander tribes for kings because they never turned into traitors. Around the same area they were expected to negotiate trade deals with foreigners because they had a more soothing manner and were also cunning). This later type seeks recognition, but doesn’t desire to control or over power men. They want to coexist with respect and appreciation for what the other brings to the table.
Both types of white feminists also promote greater sexual freedom for women and the taking back of sexual rights, not through withholding sex, which is the way the old fashioned wives used to do it, but by ignoring stereotypes that prevented women in the past from doing what they want with their bodies(“doing this would make you a slut, doing that would make you a whore”). it actually makes sense for men to get on board with that idea, because, as we all know, the less those words get thrown around outside the bedroom, the more you get laid.
As for the new division of labor, that was predicted long ago by economists as the product of capitalist society, as much as I’d love to blame it on the women. The new methods of production have allowed women to take different roles and with that the entire family system must be redefined. It’s not really the women who made this possible- but mass production creating a society where one person CAN raise a family with their solitary efforts. As a result, families can become much more prosperous by both working outside the home and both doing the chores (which now take a fraction of the time thanks to washing machines and vacuums).[/quote]
Hahahahahahahaha, “Hey bitch, get your ass in front of these bullets!”
Now there is a role for a feminist if I’ve ever seen one.
[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]
Yeah but it was that bitch Eve who ate the apple first.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Haha I don’t think you know shit about the modern feminist if you think withholding sex is a landmark of one.[/quote]
Women do not withhold sex from men they desire. [/quote]
So, so true. Work on your bedroom skills, gentlemen!
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The way I’ve heard it there are at least two different types of feminists nowdays: those who believe that women are equal to men in every way, but deep down push for superior power over men, and those that believe women have different gifts from men, many of which are not appreciated or given a chance to flourish by the traditional patriarchal system (such as a different type of leadership that has been effective and the ability to bring people together in peace. Women were even used as body guards by certain Pacific Islander tribes for kings because they never turned into traitors. Around the same area they were expected to negotiate trade deals with foreigners because they had a more soothing manner and were also cunning). This later type seeks recognition, but doesn’t desire to control or over power men. They want to coexist with respect and appreciation for what the other brings to the table.
Both types of white feminists also promote greater sexual freedom for women and the taking back of sexual rights, not through withholding sex, which is the way the old fashioned wives used to do it, but by ignoring stereotypes that prevented women in the past from doing what they want with their bodies(“doing this would make you a slut, doing that would make you a whore”). it actually makes sense for men to get on board with that idea, because, as we all know, the less those words get thrown around outside the bedroom, the more you get laid.
As for the new division of labor, that was predicted long ago by economists as the product of capitalist society, as much as I’d love to blame it on the women. The new methods of production have allowed women to take different roles and with that the entire family system must be redefined. It’s not really the women who made this possible- but mass production creating a society where one person CAN raise a family with their solitary efforts. As a result, families can become much more prosperous by both working outside the home and both doing the chores (which now take a fraction of the time thanks to washing machines and vacuums).[/quote]
Hahahahahahahaha, “Hey bitch, get your ass in front of these bullets!”
Now there is a role for a feminist if I’ve ever seen one.
[/quote]
You think that’s funny? Do you? IT’S NOT.
The feminists decide what is funny. They have decided bumbling men are funny. AND THAT’S THAT.
Oleena…do you make this shit up as you go? I mean, some of it is fine, but…you do your causes no favor when you allow yourself to speculate beyond what you know or can find through a reputable source.
Is it just me or does the whole feminist thing sound like a crock of shit any ways? It’s almost like feminist women are trying to convince themselves they are strong, secure and independent. They have to loudly and obnoxiously talk themselves in to believing it, like a powerlifter yelling “This is light shit!” before a squat and then they unleash their insecurities on the world in the guise of strength. It’s fucking sad. Like a shrimpy kid beating a dog to feel tough after a run in with a bully or something.
True strength is a quiet confidence that gets situation relevent shit done and always has been.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Waylander wrote:
[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. [/quote]
You know you can say that you think most recruiters would not, that’s what I think and I wouldn’t be surprised if most people think this way too.
I wonder would a man hire a woman he wouldn’t want to have sex with?
I mean would a man hire Big Bertha who can climb up the ladder with 100lbs+ of cable(or whatever AC was talking about) or that cute little thing with the hot ass?
You and others have mention the sleeping with the boss factor this is why I brought it up.
Personally I think job specific physical education in public schools would help.
[/quote]
I suppose it’s a form of natural selection. Are you going to hire for the good of your company or are you going to hire for eye candy or an easy lay? Then watch as companies that recruit based on meritocracy expand and improve, whilst companies that recruit based on other factors wither and get trampled.
You can see this in Britain, where business owners have rejected the idea of Ian duncan Smith asking them to stop recruiting immigrants and start recruiting British people. The business owners would rather have immigrants like the polish with a strong work ethic, than recruit lazy brits.
Job specific education would help what exactly? Would help more women get recruited? Or would stop biased recruitment?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The way I’ve heard it there are at least two different types of feminists nowdays: those who believe that women are equal to men in every way, but deep down push for superior power over men, and those that believe women have different gifts from men, many of which are not appreciated or given a chance to flourish by the traditional patriarchal system (such as a different type of leadership that has been effective and the ability to bring people together in peace. Women were even used as body guards by certain Pacific Islander tribes for kings because they never turned into traitors. Around the same area they were expected to negotiate trade deals with foreigners because they had a more soothing manner and were also cunning). This later type seeks recognition, but doesn’t desire to control or over power men. They want to coexist with respect and appreciation for what the other brings to the table.
Both types of white feminists also promote greater sexual freedom for women and the taking back of sexual rights, not through withholding sex, which is the way the old fashioned wives used to do it, but by ignoring stereotypes that prevented women in the past from doing what they want with their bodies(“doing this would make you a slut, doing that would make you a whore”). it actually makes sense for men to get on board with that idea, because, as we all know, the less those words get thrown around outside the bedroom, the more you get laid.
As for the new division of labor, that was predicted long ago by economists as the product of capitalist society, as much as I’d love to blame it on the women. The new methods of production have allowed women to take different roles and with that the entire family system must be redefined. It’s not really the women who made this possible- but mass production creating a society where one person CAN raise a family with their solitary efforts. As a result, families can become much more prosperous by both working outside the home and both doing the chores (which now take a fraction of the time thanks to washing machines and vacuums).[/quote]
Hahahahahahahaha, “Hey bitch, get your ass in front of these bullets!”
Now there is a role for a feminist if I’ve ever seen one.
[/quote]
You think that’s funny? Do you? IT’S NOT.
The feminists decide what is funny. They have decided bumbling men are funny. AND THAT’S THAT.
Oleena…do you make this shit up as you go? I mean, some of it is fine, but…you do your causes no favor when you allow yourself to speculate beyond what you know or can find through a reputable source.[/quote]
I’ve got some funny on the back of my right hand! Now doll up your face and look pretty to deserve it!
[quote]Waylander wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Waylander wrote:
[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. [/quote]
You know you can say that you think most recruiters would not, that’s what I think and I wouldn’t be surprised if most people think this way too.
I wonder would a man hire a woman he wouldn’t want to have sex with?
I mean would a man hire Big Bertha who can climb up the ladder with 100lbs+ of cable(or whatever AC was talking about) or that cute little thing with the hot ass?
You and others have mention the sleeping with the boss factor this is why I brought it up.
Personally I think job specific physical education in public schools would help.
[/quote]
I suppose it’s a form of natural selection. Are you going to hire for the good of your company or are you going to hire for eye candy or an easy lay? quote]
Well… the men on staff could pick up the extra slack…
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Is it just me or does the whole feminist thing sound like a crock of shit any ways? It’s almost like feminist women are trying to convince themselves they are strong, secure and independent. They have to loudly and obnoxiously talk themselves in to believing it, like a powerlifter yelling “This is light shit!” before a squat and then they unleash their insecurities on the world in the guise of strength. It’s fucking sad. Like a shrimpy kid beating a dog to feel tough after a run in with a bully or something.
True strength is a quiet confidence that gets situation relevent shit done and always has been.
[/quote]
You’re right, of course, but what you’re saying is true of the feminist haters as well. Who really cares how many foolish men are featured in sitcoms? Before we get all flapped about that shouldn’t we have some info about primary viewership? Because I’d guess that the viewers of these shows skew male. But here again we have people unleashing their insecurities.
Still, to be fair to both the feminists and their detractors, when it’s you getting fucked over it matters. Charlie Horse mentioned “Big Bertha.” She’s probably not going to find a kind, successful man who’ll want to treat her like a princess. She needs protections. It has historically been a harsh world for an ugly woman or one who doesn’t like men or who doesn’t have strong social skills. Why shouldn’t women like that be given a fair opportunity to work at jobs and enjoy “a quiet confidence that gets situation relevent shit done”? Big Bertha is no threat to feminine women or the men who want to be able to access them. She’s no threat to anyone. She just wants to thrive, as all of us do.
On the flip side, it is currently a frightening world for a man who gets involved with a woman who is mean or crazy, because the legal system is biased in her favor at this time, particularly where children are involved. So some insecurities are valid. Not everyone has the luxury of strength (which for a woman is likely to be an attractive body, despite its lack of brute strength), security, and independence. That’s really what everyone is seeking.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The way I’ve heard it there are at least two different types of feminists nowdays: those who believe that women are equal to men in every way, but deep down push for superior power over men, and those that believe women have different gifts from men, many of which are not appreciated or given a chance to flourish by the traditional patriarchal system (such as a different type of leadership that has been effective and the ability to bring people together in peace. Women were even used as body guards by certain Pacific Islander tribes for kings because they never turned into traitors. Around the same area they were expected to negotiate trade deals with foreigners because they had a more soothing manner and were also cunning). This later type seeks recognition, but doesn’t desire to control or over power men. They want to coexist with respect and appreciation for what the other brings to the table.
Both types of white feminists also promote greater sexual freedom for women and the taking back of sexual rights, not through withholding sex, which is the way the old fashioned wives used to do it, but by ignoring stereotypes that prevented women in the past from doing what they want with their bodies(“doing this would make you a slut, doing that would make you a whore”). it actually makes sense for men to get on board with that idea, because, as we all know, the less those words get thrown around outside the bedroom, the more you get laid.
As for the new division of labor, that was predicted long ago by economists as the product of capitalist society, as much as I’d love to blame it on the women. The new methods of production have allowed women to take different roles and with that the entire family system must be redefined. It’s not really the women who made this possible- but mass production creating a society where one person CAN raise a family with their solitary efforts. As a result, families can become much more prosperous by both working outside the home and both doing the chores (which now take a fraction of the time thanks to washing machines and vacuums).[/quote]
Hahahahahahahaha, “Hey bitch, get your ass in front of these bullets!”
Now there is a role for a feminist if I’ve ever seen one.
[/quote]
You think that’s funny? Do you? IT’S NOT.
The feminists decide what is funny. They have decided bumbling men are funny. AND THAT’S THAT.
Oleena…do you make this shit up as you go? I mean, some of it is fine, but…you do your causes no favor when you allow yourself to speculate beyond what you know or can find through a reputable source.[/quote]
I’ve got some funny on the back of my right hand! Now doll up your face and look pretty to deserve it!
[/quote]
Feminism is, always has been, and always will be about ugly women wanting the same privileges that pretty women have.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Is it just me or does the whole feminist thing sound like a crock of shit any ways? It’s almost like feminist women are trying to convince themselves they are strong, secure and independent. They have to loudly and obnoxiously talk themselves in to believing it, like a powerlifter yelling “This is light shit!” before a squat and then they unleash their insecurities on the world in the guise of strength. It’s fucking sad. Like a shrimpy kid beating a dog to feel tough after a run in with a bully or something.
True strength is a quiet confidence that gets situation relevent shit done and always has been.
[/quote]
You’re right, of course, but what you’re saying is true of the feminist haters as well. Who really cares how many foolish men are featured in sitcoms? Before we get all flapped about that shouldn’t we have some info about primary viewership? Because I’d guess that the viewers of these shows skew male. But here again we have people unleashing their insecurities.
Still, to be fair to both the feminists and their detractors, when it’s you getting fucked over it matters. Charlie Horse mentioned “Big Bertha.” She’s probably not going to find a kind, successful man who’ll want to treat her like a princess. She needs protections. It has historically been a harsh world for an ugly woman or one who doesn’t like men or who doesn’t have strong social skills. Why shouldn’t women like that be given a fair opportunity to work at jobs and enjoy “a quiet confidence that gets situation relevent shit done”? Big Bertha is no threat to feminine women or the men who want to be able to access them. She’s no threat to anyone. She just wants to thrive, as all of us do.
On the flip side, it is currently a frightening world for a man who gets involved with a woman who is mean or crazy, because the legal system is biased in her favor at this time, particularly where children are involved. So some insecurities are valid. Not everyone has the luxury of strength (which for a woman is likely to be an attractive body, despite its lack of brute strength), security, and independence. That’s really what everyone is seeking.[/quote]
Paragraph 1:
Thanks, and I agree, it’s a two way street. However, I care how many prime time tv slots are taken up by similar, goofy male plots. The shows are played out and I want something good to watch but that is another topic.
Paragraph 2:
Big Bertha will probably find Big Bill who will treat her like a princess. I’m not a woman so I don’t know how poor physical attributes hurt professional ambition (plus i’m pretty sexy), but I know I’ve worked with some big berthas. I wouldn’t make them my princess but they have been good at what they do. Poor social skills make a tough life for anybody, gender is not a part of that issue.
Paragraph 3:
Yes, the world is a tough place for males in many circumstances, especially white males when legalities are concerned. Of course some insecurities are valid, but using them as a hammer in courts to force companies to hire you is not a valid response to insecurities. Bill needs to grow some balls and Bertha needs to dry her pussy. The world isn’t always nice but we do have the same opportunities available to us. Strengthen yourself, don’t weaken your competition. It’s counter-intuitive to society as a whole. And you can’t find a quiet confidence by coercing society to kneel to you. You find it by rising to what ever occasion you are up against and kicking it’s ass.
My first person comments are not directed at you emily. i am just taking short cuts in my post.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The way I’ve heard it there are at least two different types of feminists nowdays: those who believe that women are equal to men in every way, but deep down push for superior power over men, and those that believe women have different gifts from men, many of which are not appreciated or given a chance to flourish by the traditional patriarchal system (such as a different type of leadership that has been effective and the ability to bring people together in peace. Women were even used as body guards by certain Pacific Islander tribes for kings because they never turned into traitors. Around the same area they were expected to negotiate trade deals with foreigners because they had a more soothing manner and were also cunning). This later type seeks recognition, but doesn’t desire to control or over power men. They want to coexist with respect and appreciation for what the other brings to the table.
Both types of white feminists also promote greater sexual freedom for women and the taking back of sexual rights, not through withholding sex, which is the way the old fashioned wives used to do it, but by ignoring stereotypes that prevented women in the past from doing what they want with their bodies(“doing this would make you a slut, doing that would make you a whore”). it actually makes sense for men to get on board with that idea, because, as we all know, the less those words get thrown around outside the bedroom, the more you get laid.
As for the new division of labor, that was predicted long ago by economists as the product of capitalist society, as much as I’d love to blame it on the women. The new methods of production have allowed women to take different roles and with that the entire family system must be redefined. It’s not really the women who made this possible- but mass production creating a society where one person CAN raise a family with their solitary efforts. As a result, families can become much more prosperous by both working outside the home and both doing the chores (which now take a fraction of the time thanks to washing machines and vacuums).[/quote]
Hahahahahahahaha, “Hey bitch, get your ass in front of these bullets!”
Now there is a role for a feminist if I’ve ever seen one.
[/quote]
You think that’s funny? Do you? IT’S NOT.
The feminists decide what is funny. They have decided bumbling men are funny. AND THAT’S THAT.
Oleena…do you make this shit up as you go? I mean, some of it is fine, but…you do your causes no favor when you allow yourself to speculate beyond what you know or can find through a reputable source.[/quote]
I’ve got some funny on the back of my right hand! Now doll up your face and look pretty to deserve it!
[/quote]
:-([/quote]
Just know that I love you. This is for your own good.
PS. You could have come back with some kind of “funny in my pussy” joke but it’s ok you didn’t. I won’t judge you.
[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:
Feminism is, always has been, and always will be about ugly women wanting the same privileges that pretty women have. [/quote]
this will be my new mantra.
All I’m saying is you just can’t panic