Post: #1

The Hill:

"[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage"

Post: #2

Post: #3

As a solution, food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be advised to take up a simple, time-honored activity known as "gardening."

Post: #4

Beaches beaches everywhere and all the chicks will be skinny.

Post: #5

Any resident Progressive Democrats care to hop in and defend this shit?

It's getting to the point where these jerk offs are having a hard time even making their arguments appear to be specious. There is a valid argument that nearly every piece of legislation passed in the last 50 years meant to coddle some persecuted(real or imagined) group, has actually caused more harm than good to that group. Even when it's proven that their ideas are chock-full of fallacies they're still unrelenting, because it's emotion, not logic, driving them.

Post: #6

Has anyone noticed that they are now starting to say "climate change" instead of "global warming"? It's a little easier to sell given we are all freezing from the unusually cold weather. The lady with the sign has a scarf, a warm coat, and just to make sure, a sweater underneath.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/20...r/2121737/

Post: #7

Post: #8

Unless he's a politician, it's almost as if every male who votes Democrat has to give up his testicles.

I've met only 2-3 Democrats who were clearly alpha.

Post: #9

My Plan:

Step 1:



Step 2:



Step 3:



Step 4:

Post: #10

Good. I'll have cum dumpsters well into old age.

Post: #11

Did anyone even bother to read the proposal that was linked in the article? It has nothing to do with feminism as was so inconveniently portrayed in the title and the OP.

The policies being discussed are on an international scale, where women and children will be most susceptible to the changes brought upon by climate change. The House and Senate wants to include women in the most at risk and poorest areas in the collaboration on how they can protect themselves, their families, and their community. As the principle caregivers providing for children who are most susceptible to new diseases and risks, excluding them from this discussion would be remarkably ignorant.

There is no need to turn everything into an us vs. them debate.

Post: #12

All sex is transactional, the problem feminists have is that they expect the moon for giving it up rather than a bushel of chickpeas.

Post: #13

(04-30-2013 08:46 PM)Chunnel Wrote:  There is no need to turn everything into an us vs. them debate.

Alright, I just read the resolution and it is full of nonsense WAGS words and concepts, and based on a flawed science.

Quote:Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
2 concurring), That Congress—
3 (1) recognizes the disparate impacts of climate
4 change on women and the efforts of women globally
5 to address climate change;
6 (2) encourages the use of gender-sensitive
7 frameworks in developing policies to address climate
8 change, which account for the specific impacts of cli-
9 mate change on women;
10 (3) recognizes the need for balanced participa-
11 tion of men and women in climate change adaptation
1 and mitigation efforts, including in governance posi-
2 tions;
3 (4) affirms its commitment to support women
4 who are particularly vulnerable to climate change
5 impacts to prepare for, build their resilience, and
6 adapt to those impacts, including a commitment to
7 increase education and training opportunities for
8 women to develop local resilience plans to address
9 the effects of climate change;
10 (5) affirms its commitment to empower women
11 to have a voice in the planning, design, implementa-
12 tion, and evaluation of strategies to address climate
13 change so that their roles and resources are taken
14 into account;
15 (6) affirms the commitment to include women
16 in economic development planning, policies, and
17 practices that directly improve conditions that result
18 from climate change;

The rest goes like this, and I quote: Blah, blah, blah, blah.



In other words, even if climate change was a real problem, the feminists would be less concerned with solving the problem than making sure enough women were involved with the attempted solution.

Post: #14

redacted

Post: #15

(04-30-2013 01:56 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  

Scarf goes on because of climate change. Scarf comes off because of climate change. Hat goes on because head is cold but neck is not, because of climate change.

Yeah, women are more affected. That fucking climate change...

Post: #16

I don't get why any of you act surprised anymore. Nothing Liberals say or do pisses me off anymore because I expect it from those lowlifes.

What boggles my mind is how any man with a modicum of self-respect can become a Liberal/Democrat ! Especially red pill guys on this forum. They're either too stupid to understand or are part if the " I'm a minority so everything wrong in my life is caused by whitey" crew.

Post: #17

(05-01-2013 03:44 PM)TheRookie Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 08:46 PM)Chunnel Wrote:  There is no need to turn everything into an us vs. them debate.

Alright, I just read the resolution and it is full of nonsense WAGS words and concepts, and based on a flawed science.

Quote:Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
2 concurring), That Congress—
3 (1) recognizes the disparate impacts of climate
4 change on women and the efforts of women globally
5 to address climate change;
6 (2) encourages the use of gender-sensitive
7 frameworks in developing policies to address climate
8 change, which account for the specific impacts of cli-
9 mate change on women;
10 (3) recognizes the need for balanced participa-
11 tion of men and women in climate change adaptation
1 and mitigation efforts, including in governance posi-
2 tions;
3 (4) affirms its commitment to support women
4 who are particularly vulnerable to climate change
5 impacts to prepare for, build their resilience, and
6 adapt to those impacts, including a commitment to
7 increase education and training opportunities for
8 women to develop local resilience plans to address
9 the effects of climate change;
10 (5) affirms its commitment to empower women
11 to have a voice in the planning, design, implementa-
12 tion, and evaluation of strategies to address climate
13 change so that their roles and resources are taken
14 into account;
15 (6) affirms the commitment to include women
16 in economic development planning, policies, and
17 practices that directly improve conditions that result
18 from climate change;

The rest goes like this, and I quote: Blah, blah, blah, blah.



In other words, even if climate change was a real problem, the feminists would be less concerned with solving the problem than making sure enough women were involved with the attempted solution.

Translation: Global warming is now linked to feminism, so that any funds collected from taxpayers for the global warming hypothesis, a portion thereof will go to new projects to further empower and finance feminist bureaucrats.

Post: #18

(05-01-2013 08:11 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Translation: Global warming is now linked to feminism, so that any funds collected from taxpayers for the global warming hypothesis, a portion thereof will go to new projects to further empower and finance feminist bureaucrats.

Exactly - it is basically a jobs program for middle to upper middle class feminists with masters degrees in things like English and Social Work.