Post: #26

(12-04-2013 11:33 AM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 11:11 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  They are also the majority of those with degrees and experience to gain those positions.

And it has nothing to do with race. Bringing race to this debate is nonsense. All men are badly discriminated against in the USA and at least the MRA's are standing up about it, rather than just letting it get worse.

All men are badly discriminated in the USA...



Anyone who says this doesn't know what real discrimination is. Again, that's why we run almost all the major businesses, make almost all the laws that are supposedly meant to discriminate against ourselves, we run practically all the world's nations, we get to make practically all the rules, yet we're still somehow the most oppressed little things in the world.

Right.

"Real" is some arbitrary term you come up with to win a strawman argument. Discrimination is discrimination, and men are discriminated against in the USA...

- Divorce and family courts
- Laws and how they are applied and the punishments
- Support and safety nets
- Employment and advancement opportunities

And these greatly affect men, women, and kids. It is a serious problem, and one that if not addressed will destroy the USA.

Post: #27

(12-04-2013 03:00 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  They may to do good work with respects to father's rights or raising awareness about injustices in divorce court, but beyond that, I don't have much respect for them.

Boom, this is the only thing I am compassionate for. Women argue about vague societal perceptions that really won't be changed, but divorce laws are something that could actually be fixed overnight. Whether you're an MRA or not, men only having a 10% chance of gaining custody of their children is all sorts of fucked up.

With regards to everything else though, as men we should just embody the kind of man we truly strive to be and lead through example.

Post: #28

(12-04-2013 11:33 AM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 11:11 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  They are also the majority of those with degrees and experience to gain those positions.

And it has nothing to do with race. Bringing race to this debate is nonsense. All men are badly discriminated against in the USA and at least the MRA's are standing up about it, rather than just letting it get worse.

All men are badly discriminated in the USA...



Anyone who says this doesn't know what real discrimination is. Again, that's why we run almost all the major businesses, make almost all the laws that are supposedly meant to discriminate against ourselves, we run practically all the world's nations, we get to make practically all the rules, yet we're still somehow the most oppressed little things in the world.

Right.

You don't need to fill out forms and send them into the central patriarchy to run a successful business. You need a sharp mind and you need to take heavy risks. There are no barriers to entry for women to start successful companies. There are also no barriers to entry for female politicians, other than who is willing to vote for them.

The people who make the rules are not the majority of men. Regardless of what percentage of lawmakers are men or women, they make up a minute fraction of the population; the average man in the Anglosphere today has no reproductive rights, and gets shafted heavily in divorce courts. Even if you could produce similar travesties women have to face as a class, this would only be an argument against anti-feminism, it would not be an argument against men campaigning on behalf of their own interests.

As a side note, I'm not actually an MRA, because I think their cause is a lost one. I respect some of them, and it's actually through a video Karen Straughan did that I found places like this, but their movement is becoming increasingly ideological and their attempts to co-opt the feminist narrative in terms of "female privilege" will backfire, because women are hard-wired to play better victims than men, and all humans are hard-wired to care more about female victims than male ones.

As long as our society has the wealth to pay for it, feminism will continue to flourish. As long as feminism is alive and healthy, it will eat away at the wealth of our society. Eventually something will give, and we'll see real societal change. Until that point, becoming an MRA is to waste energy that could be devoted to improving your own life and looking out for those closest to you.

Post: #29

There are so many acronyms in this corner of the web I don't even know what any of them are.

Roosh said he's not manosphere
Then he also stated the MRAs are not "our friends" I don't know wtf any of these things are anymore.

Here is my criteria:
1. Do you complain? Rarely
2. Do you get laid enough not to complain about women? Yes again rarely
3. Do you have your finances in check? Yes
4. Can I learn something from you? Hopefully yes

Everyone else is a waste of my time.

People who are getting "pushed out of the market with women" are just that... Dudes who should be pushed out of the market. Usually have weak ass game so may as well encourage it. Less dudes at bars the better. Either shut the fuck up and fix your life or spend your time doing anything else besides arguing on the Internet with your important beliefs that no one cares about.

So that's pretty much it, most of the dudes who 1) complain, 2) talk about how much better the past was and 3) offer no tangible game advice should step away from the computer and look in the mirror.

Post: #30

(12-04-2013 11:38 AM)Ocelot Wrote:  First things first, can you really say men "rule the world" in a democracy, when more women vote than men. There are no barriers to entry for female politicians, all they require is that people vote for them.

MRAs claim men as a gender are ‘oppressed’. Those who run the world are almost all men. Does that mean we all rule the world? No. However, it does make the idea of society being run by a conspiracy to persecute men seem ridiculous.

Quote:Secondly, what you're ignoring when you focus on male over-representation at the top of society, is that there is also male over-representation at the bottom.

This is irrelevant. If men were being oppressed by an international misandrist conspiracy that favored women, we wouldn’t find leading positions in every field filled by us. The amount of “male over-representation at the bottom” has no bearing on this. There are poor White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. I guess that means White Anglo-Saxon Protestants have never had it better as a whole.

Quote:Furthermore, of what consolation is it to a man born into poverty that more men than women are rich? It's completely irrelevant unless you can actually demonstrate that it's easier for him to improve his position than a women in the same place.

The problems of a man born into poverty are a question of classism. This has nothing to do with whether or not men count as an “oppressed” group. Either you’re confused or you’re sidestepping the point.

Quote:Does the fact that there are more men than women who can bench 220 follow as a result from systemic oppression against women? How about the fact that 75% of gambling addicts are men?

These analogies are pointless. Again, are men an oppressed gender in the sense that MRA’s claim? So far, I see little reason to think so.

Quote: There are far more male geniuses than female, and there are also far more male idiots

Sources? Something other than what was found on an ideologue’s website?

Quote:Third, trying to compare gender to race is ridiculous.

It’s more than accurate enough. There is little reason to think otherwise.

Quote:Women, as a class, have never been oppressed or systemically exploited in any society, ever.

I laughed out loud at this.

This is why no one takes the MRAs seriously.

Quote:The position of women in times past would be better compared to that of children - less agency than men, but exposed to none of the risks that men were.

And this is justified because…?

Quote:Feminism has nothing in common with the civil rights movement, and would be better compared to a child throwing a tantrum in the sweet shop.

We’re talking about whether men count as an oppressed group. So far, I’ve seen nothing that would indicate that they do. How much feminism is analogous to the Civil Rights movement is irrelevant.

Quote:

Quote:Divorces and child custody aside

This is the single most important thing MRAs are campaigning against, it's the crux of their movement; you don't just get to push it to one side then attack what's left. This whole way of thinking is sloppy and wilfully ignorant.

If they’re going to argue that white men as a group are systematically oppressed by an international conspiracy that privileges women, they’re going to need a bit more than child custody rights to be taken seriously.

Granted, some of their concerns are legitimate. Child custody and divorce settlements are legitimate problems, but to say that men as a class are therefore systematically oppressed and that we've never enjoyed collective privilege is hard to hear and keep a straight face.

My original claim was that MRAs are comparable to White nationalists as their ideology is based around the idea of largely imagined persecution. So far, you’ve done little to dispute this.

Post: #31

Quote:MRAs claim men as a gender are ‘oppressed’. Those who run the world are almost all men.

Just because a very few small select group of well connected men run the world, doesn't mean the average Joe out there is also entitled.

In the USA, men are discriminated against, repeatedly, and it is getting worse every year. The real concern is not that men are discriminated against, nor that it is getting worse, the real concern is that as it continues to get worse the country continues to get closer to imploding.

Post: #32

(12-04-2013 11:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  "Real" is some arbitrary term you come up with to win a strawman argument. Discrimination is discrimination, and men are discriminated against in the USA...

- Employment and advancement opportunities

What employment opportunities are being taken away from you? For every 1 job that a white male lost to affirmative action, there are probably 3 jobs they got from some form of cronyism or networking.

Here are some numbers from fortune 500 companies:
96% of them are run by men
96% of them are white
~91% are white men

Around 80% of executive positions are held by men. 82% of the house (80% of senate) is compromised of men.

If you believe that men are being held back from advancement opportunities, do you believe that true rate of male CEO's should be like 97-99% male instead of 96%?

Post: #33

(12-04-2013 12:50 PM)J.J. Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 11:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  "Real" is some arbitrary term you come up with to win a strawman argument. Discrimination is discrimination, and men are discriminated against in the USA...

- Employment and advancement opportunities

What employment opportunities are being taken away from you? For every 1 job that a white male lost to affirmative action, there are probably 3 jobs they got from some form of cronyism or networking.

Here are some numbers from fortune 500 companies:
96% of them are run by men
96% of them are white
~91% are white men

Around 80% of executive positions are held by men. 82% of the house (80% of senate) is compromised of men.

If you believe that men are being held back from advancement opportunities, do you believe that true rate of male CEO's should be like 97-99% male instead of 96%?

I don't know why you keep bringing race into this. And I don't know where your made up stats about losing 1 job but gaining 3 more come from.

Yes, more men do run companies and yes more men are in congress. This isn't because women are not allowed to do so. In fact the opposite, many women are strongly encouraged to do so. It is because women simply choose to not do so.

I think most men are held back in all facets of life in the USA, and most men know it.

Post: #34

(12-04-2013 12:37 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  ...it does make the idea of society being run by a conspiracy to persecute men seem ridiculous.

Nobody has suggested this is the case. People often act against their own interests, as feminism itself shows.

(12-04-2013 12:37 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

Quote:Secondly, what you're ignoring when you focus on male over-representation at the top of society, is that there is also male over-representation at the bottom.

This is irrelevant. If men were being oppressed by an international misandrist conspiracy that favored women, we wouldn’t find leading positions in every field filled by us. The amount of “male over-representation at the bottom” has no bearing on this.

You made the claim that men's legitimate issues are minor compared to women's, based on the fact that most politicians and heads of large companies are male. It is not irrelevant that the same reason men are over-represented at the top leads more men than women to be homeless, or to work in dangerous jobs and die young. It's like saying people who don't play the lottery are oppressed by pointing to all the people who have won it. For the evidence to back your claim, it would have to also be true that as many women as men try to become successful politicians or businessmen and that they are, on average, equally capable of doing so. Furthermore, it would have to be true that any systemic reasons they are not able to do these things do not advantage them equally in other ways (although in the present day, there aren't any systemic reasons women can't pursue these careers).

(12-04-2013 12:37 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  The problems of a man born into poverty are a question of classism. This has nothing to do with whether or not men count as an “oppressed” group. Either you’re confused or you’re sidestepping the point.

Again, you made the claim that women have more legitimate problems than men... by pointing to the top 0.1% of men...

(12-04-2013 12:37 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

Quote: There are far more male geniuses than female, and there are also far more male idiots

Sources? Something other than what was found on an ideologue’s website?

This is the first thing a search turned up, but it's a claim I make from having worked with gifted children for many years.

(12-04-2013 12:37 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

Quote:Third, trying to compare gender to race is ridiculous.

It’s more than accurate enough. There is little reason to think otherwise.

White supremacists generally believe a) their race is superior, b) their race is under threat by an anti-white conspiracy and c) they must try and "purify" their countries of origin by making them all-white.

The only unifying belief I've found amongst MRAs is that the legal system overwhelmingly favours women. Hell, half the MRAs I've met have been insufferable white knights. Your analogy quite simply doesn't hold up.

(12-04-2013 12:37 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

Quote:Women, as a class, have never been oppressed or systemically exploited in any society, ever.

I laughed out loud at this.

This is why no one takes the MRAs seriously.

Quote:The position of women in times past would be better compared to that of children - less agency than men, but exposed to none of the risks that men were.

And this is justified because…?

It isn't. Not today in countries like the USA with unimaginable wealth, because women can be afforded the same freedoms as men without being exposed to any great risk. Funnily enough, it's also not the case today. What you need to understand is that agency and safety are inversely linked. You cannot increase the agency of a class without also increasing the risks they are exposed to, so to make the claim that women were historically "oppressed", when they have always been the most protected class in society is absurd. If you had to choose between being born as a working class woman or man in 1700s England, I can't imagine many people choosing the latter if they weighed up their odds thoroughly.

(12-04-2013 12:37 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:Divorces and child custody aside

This is the single most important thing MRAs are campaigning against, it's the crux of their movement; you don't just get to push it to one side then attack what's left. This whole way of thinking is sloppy and wilfully ignorant.

If they’re going to argue that white men as a group are systematically oppressed by an international conspiracy that privileges women, they’re going to need a bit more than child custody rights to be taken seriously.

Then I suppose it's quite fortunate that they're not arguing for the existence of an international conspiracy against men. Also, what does "white" have to do with anything? Black men have been more negatively affected by feminism than any other class.

I'd also add that custody rights and divorce courts are an issue that can't be overstated. The creation and protection of a family is something primal, that almost all men want to do at some point in their lives. The sweeping reforms made in the wake of feminism have made it strategically unwise to start a family, so of course there's going to be a backlash.

As I said before, I'm not an MRA, but it's because I think they're getting too tied up in identity politics and the victimhood olympics, and their work will ultimately prove fruitless; not because they're wrong.

Post: #35

delete

Post: #36

   

Post: #37

I just want to say that, if it wasn't for the game part of the sphere, the MRA's would have put their wimpy, whiny, equalist hooks in me eventually.

God I'm so glad I didn't end up like that.

Post: #38

MRA stuff is useless if you're in you're early twenties.

It's useful if you're older, divorced or a parent.

There is a guy named Glenn Sacks who fights for fairness in laws regarding custody, child support, paternity fraud and alimony. He writes clear, concise editorials that have been game-changers in various states. Here is a link to his Web site.

All of these issues have been longstanding problems for men of a certain age. And if they now seem like cliches, it's because Glenn helped bring them to the mainstream ten or more years ago. Tom Leykis used to read his columns on the air, which is how I heard of him.

As for other MRAs...well, I find their Web sites and blogs unreadable. Meaning, they're just poorly-written. Often, the articles seem to start in the middle of thoughts, the references that have no context, and the various ideas are uncomfortably thrown together. They also seem to get in feuds a lot and write articles on that, but give no background on what they're on about to the (confused) reader.

Post: #39

(12-04-2013 12:50 PM)J.J. Wrote:  If you believe that men are being held back from advancement opportunities, do you believe that true rate of male CEO's should be like 97-99% male instead of 96%?

Nope, but nice try. It should be 100%. Female "CEOs" are a ludicrous Year Zero sham. They only exist because these companies feel compelled to toe the equalist party line.

This disgusting hag is now single-handedly destroying IBM, one of America's greatest companies:

(12-04-2013 12:50 PM)J.J. Wrote:  What employment opportunities are being taken away from you? For every 1 job that a white male lost to affirmative action, there are probably 3 jobs they got from some form of cronyism or networking.

Here are some numbers from fortune 500 companies:
96% of them are run by men
96% of them are white
~91% are white men

Thanks for trolling us with the dullest feminist party line about "cronyism" and "networking". All these spuriously precise percentages won't do your cause any good.

The number of female Fields medalists is 0%. Maybe that's also "cronyism"? Or could it possibly be that men are just better at these things than women are.

Post: #40

MRA was initially a grass roots movement on the Internets that arose in the early 00's.

The OG bloggers like Angry Harry, Rob Fedders, Duncan Idaho, Fred X, Captain Zarmband, The Black Misogynist, Outcast Superstar, The Counter Feminist and others were the first wave of men who took to the internets to discuss politically incorrect topics regarding feminism and the gender war.

MRA back then was a general term to describe the movement.

At the tail end of this "movement" is when I started my own blog, and I first went along with the designation of "MRA."

But even back then, I was always arguing that the term should mean "Men's Rights Awareness" and not "Activism," because as I believed back then (and as I believe now), there are no political means for changing the anti-male aspects of our system.

The system is not broken. It's doing precisely what it was designed to do.

Divide and conquer, foster dependence on the Government, and increase the scope of power and control the Government has in all of our lives.

But I always supported the MRA blogosphere because it was also my first introduction to "red pill" ideas that ran counter to the mainstream.

And despite disagreeing with plenty of the present day state of the "MRA" blogsphere (like AVfM's inclusion of women, anti-game stance, and other issues), I STILL believe the MRA movement still has a useful function in providing anti-politically correct, pro-establishment propaganda for the average blue pill person that attempts to seek truth on teh Interwebz.

A lot of folks still believe in all the bullshit like Women are oppressed by the Patriarchy, the wage gap myth, outlandish rape statistics, etc.

In my view, I believe the emergence of the Manosphere occurred in the blog comments over at Roissy in D.C. back in '09. This is where the convergence of MRA topics intersected with game and the study of inherent differences in gender. This convergence in Roissy's comment threads lead to the creation of the two most notable sites that are the forerunners to today's manosphere - The Spearhead and In Mala Fide. Those two sites, combined with Roosh's grass roots marketing of his Bang books are responsible for what we now know of today as "The Manosphere."

I'm also of the belief, that the increasing popularity of our fringes of teh Interwebz, gained the notice of "The Cathedral" and we have now been infiltrated by false flag bloggers, commenters and various figures that have in effect divided the manosphere and fostered a lot of infighting.

Nevertheless, I still give nominal support and linkage to some MRA blogs and sites, because I do believe they still have a role in raising awareness for the average, blue pill sheeple.

I just don't believe supporting them politically (signing petitions, attending demonstrations, or making donations) is going to do jack shit in fixing any of the problems we all recognize.

Post: #41

When I was young and free and my imagination had no limits, I dreamed of changing the world. As I grew older and wiser, I discovered the world would not change, so I shortened my sights somewhat and decided to change only my country.

But it, too, seemed immovable.

As I grew into my twilight years, in one last desperate attempt, I settled for changing only my family, those closest to me, but alas, they would have none of it.

And now, as I lie on my deathbed, I suddenly realize: If I had only changed myself first, then by example I would have changed my family.

From their inspiration and encouragement, I would then have been able to better my country, and who knows, I may have even changed the world.

-Written on the tomb of an Anglican Bishop in Westminster Abby

(Source: Reddit)

Post: #42

MRA's are misguided because they think their cause can be won by reason. They think if they use the arguments of equality that feminists use, then shit will go their way. It's a completely heuristic argument based on the premise that everyone wants equality.

That's where it falls down.

Feminists don't want equality, the recent "brain scan" revelation shows that, they are having a conniption about the findings because it may unwind their hard earned privilege. White knights also enact their protector instinct to defend women.

MRA's don't, and won't get act this because men don't need defending.

Game's "defence" is don't marry western women, prevention is better than the (non-existent) cure.

Post: #43

Women whine.

Men go out and make shit happen.

Post: #44

MRA = angry beta
Red pill = men becoming alpha

Post: #45

(12-04-2013 02:27 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  You made the claim that men's legitimate issues are minor compared to women's, based on the fact that most politicians and heads of large companies are male.

I made the claim that men's issues do not suffice to qualify them as an "oppressed group", based on the fact that, as a whole, we as men are indisputably the dominant gender on this planet. The fact that we are the dominant gender is made obvious by the fact that we are overrepresented in every hierarchal structure…anywhere, at any level. Whether this is due to some sort of discrimination, inherent superiority, or simply more men trying to reach these positions than women is irrelevant, and it does not change the fact that we are the dominant group. To claim that the dominant group in a society is simultaneously an oppressed group is a self contradicting statement.

Quote:It is not irrelevant that the same reason men are over-represented at the top leads more men than women to be homeless, or to work in dangerous jobs and die young. It's like saying people who don't play the lottery are oppressed by pointing to all the people who have won it. For the evidence to back your claim, it would have to also be true that as many women as men try to become successful politicians or businessmen and that they are, on average, equally capable of doing so. Furthermore, it would have to be true that any systemic reasons they are not able to do these things do not advantage them equally in other ways (although in the present day, there aren't any systemic reasons women can't pursue these careers).

This has nothing to do with the point I made. Again, collectively, we are the dominant gender on this planet. If that is the case, then the idea of men as a whole being oppressed is a contradiction.

Quote:Again, you made the claim that women have more legitimate problems than men... by pointing to the top 0.1% of men...

I said absolutely nothing about women’s problems. I disputed the claim that men are an oppressed group. Again, we dominate in practically every aspect of government, business and religion. We as men are the dominant gender. Therefore, as a gender, we are not oppressed victims. To think otherwise is delusional. Get used to it.

Quote:This is the first thing a search turned up, but it's a claim I make from having worked with gifted children for many years.

Fair enough.

Quote:White supremacists generally believe a) their race is superior, b) their race is under threat by an anti-white conspiracy and c) they must try and "purify" their countries of origin by making them all-white [...] Your analogy quite simply doesn't hold up.[/

MRAs generally believe a) their gender is superior, b) their gender is being oppressed by an anti-male conspiracy. The only thing that does not generally apply to them is c.)

Then of course, there's this...

Quote:Women, as a class, have never been oppressed or systemically exploited in any society, ever.

Which has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever read.

Quote: What you need to understand is that agency and safety are inversely linked. You cannot increase the agency of a class without also increasing the risks they are exposed to,[…]

This is exactly the reason why no one takes the MRAs seriously.

Being allowed to choose who one marries, receiving an education, being allowed to vote, being allowed to own property pose no significant risk to the individual whatsoever. You have no case here.

Quote:[…]so to make the claim that women were historically "oppressed", when they have always been the most protected class in society is absurd.

Not being allowed to vote, to choose who you marry, own property, leave the home without a male chaperone, not being allowed to drive, not being allowed to hold a job without your father’s/husband’s permission, being denied education, being disproportionately subject to infanticide, honor killings, foot-binding, and probably thousands of other things I could list that have occurred somewhere or at some time.

Remember, you’re claiming women have never been oppressed in any society in any historical contexts. Saying that the above things when applied to any population of adults do not count as some form oppression is horseshit. If anyone here had to choose between being born a man or a woman in Saudi Arabia or Rural India, I doubt many would choose the latter.

Quote: If you had to choose between being born as a working class woman or man in 1700s England, I can't imagine many people choosing the latter if they weighed up their odds thoroughly.

You can always tell someone doesn't know what they’re talking about when they make these kinds of statements. Working-class women and children during the Industrial Revolution largely spent their days in factories and coalmines. Peasant women in pre-industrial times largely sent their days doing backbreaking work on the farm like anyone else. It was mainly women from wealthy pre-industrial families who could really afford to spend all day at home (which is why many cultures idealize fair-skinned women – lacking a tan was a sign of the upper class, as it implied she could afford to stay indoors). On top of that, after returning home from the factories they also took care of the house and kids. The average person in these times could not afford to keep women "protected". So if I had to choose between being a working class man or woman in the 1700s-1800s…I wouldn’t want to be either, but I’d choose to be a man without a second’s thought. That women collectively were one of societies butt-monkeys in is a firmly established fact of history. To attempt to argue otherwise is delusional.

Quote:
Then I suppose it's quite fortunate that they're not arguing for the existence of an international conspiracy against men.

You may not word it literally as “international conspiracy”, but that’s what it essentially boils down to.

Quote:Also, what does "white" have to do with anything? Black men have been more negatively affected by feminism than any other class.

I used “white” because I stand by the statement that MRAs are not only a mirror image of feminazis but the gender counterpart of guys who complain about “white oppression”, saying they’re under threat by an implied conspiracy to take away rights they, for the most part, never lost in the first place. There are several other parallels I could think of. Your attempts to dismiss this analogy do not hold up.

Of course, this doesn’t mean none of the Men’s Right’s issues are legitimate. Child custody and divorce settlements are a legitimate concern, and it’s something that needs to be dealt with. Plus, I’m sure there are MRAs who are not batshit-insane or reactionary drama queens. However, that doesn’t make the MRM as a whole legitimate, nor does that change the fact that collectively we are still and always have been the dominant gender in practically all human societies, making the notion of us being oppressed victims ridiculous. It’s not only the false victimhood, but other claims they make, but I’m not going to delve into that here.

To be clear, I am not defending modern-day feminism by any means, nor am I talking about any type of exaggerated organized "patriarchy" feminazis complain about. Honestly, I don’t give two shits about feminists either way (I know someone here is going to start throwing around the word "white knight", anyway, but personally, I care). My main concern is not as much with women as it is with the whining and false self-victimization that MRAs tend towards.

Post: #46

(12-04-2013 04:42 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 12:50 PM)J.J. Wrote:  If you believe that men are being held back from advancement opportunities, do you believe that true rate of male CEO's should be like 97-99% male instead of 96%?

Nope, but nice try. It should be 100%. Female "CEOs" are a ludicrous Year Zero sham. They only exist because these companies feel compelled to toe the equalist party line.

This disgusting hag is now single-handedly destroying IBM, one of America's greatest companies:

I don't know many female ceo's. Is there data on how much female ceo's are ruining all the companies they run? Based on the premise that 0 females deserved to be CEO's, you would see the stock prices of these companies fall down. I don't know much about CEO's but I would love see the studies on the effects of female ceo's on companies

Post: #47

(12-05-2013 04:43 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  When I was young and free and my imagination had no limits, I dreamed of changing the world. As I grew older and wiser, I discovered the world would not change, so I shortened my sights somewhat and decided to change only my country.

But it, too, seemed immovable.

As I grew into my twilight years, in one last desperate attempt, I settled for changing only my family, those closest to me, but alas, they would have none of it.

And now, as I lie on my deathbed, I suddenly realize: If I had only changed myself first, then by example I would have changed my family.

From their inspiration and encouragement, I would then have been able to better my country, and who knows, I may have even changed the world.

-Written on the tomb of an Anglican Bishop in Westminster Abby

(Source: Reddit)