.
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very
severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire
will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
 |
| Click Pic for "Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers!" |
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from
the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will
eat
food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and
thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat
of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the
ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you
will return." -- Genesis 3:16-19
And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men's curse as their own.
And what's a man to do about it, after all?
Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth,
there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to
give birth. This is women's curse, and it is their curse alone to bear,
for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it - even if
men were so stupid to want to.
.
Apparently though, this is not the case in reverse, for women seem to
not only be agreeable to take on man's curse, but they are downright
using every bit of power their feminine wiles can muster to force it
into social and legal acceptance, and if it tosses men aside in the
meantime, then so be it! Ever heard about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry
Finn and the great whitewashing of the fence fiasco? Well, this
situation is similar, except that the one's holding the short end of the
stick (men) aren't the one's doing the manipulating!
No, in the situation of men's curse, it is actually
the women
that are manipulating behind the scenes for the curse of toil and
labour, without any real encouragement (nor discouragement) from the
males. Apparently, women are
demanding to alleviate men from their curse. Well, gosh and golly, I suggest that the slaves
let them! What slave on the plantation would scorn his master for demanding the slave work less, so that his master may reap
the benefits of being a cotton-picker?
.
But, it's not all quite so simple. Perhaps we should look at this a little closer.
.
Doing the Math
.
This morning, as I was watching the Business News Network (B.N.N.), Rona
Ambrose, the Canadian Minister for the Status of Women (S.O.W.),
trumpeted out the same old tired song about women on executive boards
once more. The refrain goes like this: "Research has shown that having
more women on executive boards is good for the economy. Therefore..."
.
Really? Is that so? Or is it simply that when you
only consult advocacy researchers from an ideologically driven and politically activist arm of academia (
Women's Studies), you will only receive results that are consistent with their ideology?
 |
| Click Pic for "Peer Reviewed Research: The Holy Grail of Truth?" |
For example, since the stock market crashed back in 2008-2009, the
Business News Network has relentlessly trumpeted that women who were
investment managers fared better than men, because women are more "risk
averse." And this is true, so long as you cherry-pick through your
research and ignore any factors which don't support your ideology. The
real truth of the story, however, is that while female investment
managers lost less money during the crash than male investment managers,
in the run-up to the crash, women also created less wealth because of
their aversion to risk. All you have to do is run a few numbers to see
what a fraud the Business News Network is promoting as "fact."
For example, if a man invests $10,000 and averages a return of 9% a year
for 8 years, he will have $19,926. Then when the economy collapses and
he loses 20% of it, he will be left with $15,941. And, if, during the
same time frame, a woman invests $10,000 and averages a return of 6%,
after eight years she will have $15,938. When the economy collapses and
she loses only 10% because of her aversion to risk, she will have
$14,345 left. Hmmm... so, sure,
during the market crash, it
appears that she "out-performed" because she lost only 10% as opposed to
the man's 20% loss, but overall, you would still be better off with the
man's pot of cash than with the woman's. In fact, the man still earned
11.1% more than her during the same time frame. These are quite some
"facts" media shills like the Business News Network are promoting,
aren't they? Indeed, making less money than men shows how superior women
are, so long as the real facts are distorted and hidden. Makes you
wonder why anyone would watch such a channel trying to learn "the
facts," doesn't it? I guess they are trying to make sure that women
aren't oppressed by math.
Another ideologically driven "fact" that gets bandied about is that
women somehow bring more ethics and morality to the workplace -
especially when they are on the board of directors of major companies.
This "women are more ethically pure
fact" is just more smoke and
mirrors, since it has long been known that while men are more prone to
break the law with crimes of violence, women break the law in greater
numbers than men in crimes of deceit, such as perjury, fraud and
embezzlement. The shucksters in academia and the media get their "women
are more morally pure" trope from the fact that women are
prosecuted less for these crimes of deceit than men are.
Women are also given far lighter sentences for the same crime when they are actually convicted (
this is true of all crimes), and so it is that there are more men
in prison for crimes of deceit than women, even though
women
commit the majority of deceit crimes.
 |
| Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy" |
.
"Men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts. females arrested for a crime are also significantly more
likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as
likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."
.
This is indeed an interesting
fact that insinuates many things about our society and our notions of
"equality under the law," but in no way does it stand as valid research
which proves women's ethical and moral purity is greater than men's. For
these very women who release such "facts" which are obviously lies in
themselves, it illustrates something very negative about
their ethics and morals in the first place, wouldn't you agree?
.
And yes, my goodness, I know, women only receive $0.76 for every dollar a man
earns!
This has been debunked so many times by so many people that I feel
rather foolish even mentioning it, but here we are. Women are not paid
$0.76 for doing the exact same work as men, (this has been illegal in
America since the Equal Pay Act back in 1963) rather, because of the
choices women make and the
lesser hours they actually work throughout their "careers," they only
earn 76% of the wages that men do.
Imagine for a moment that there are two young boys, Jack and Tom. Both are eight years old and have identical abilities in
every
possible way. Both of them have a dream to be accepted to the
basketball team when they enter university, and so they start practicing
for when the day comes that they will be given the opportunity to try
out for the team by shooting hoops each day after school.
Jack dedicates himself by shooting hoops for 60 minutes every day. Tom,
however, has taken it upon himself to also have a paper route so he can
earn a little pocket-money, and in order to make the time for delivering
his papers, he only practices for 45 minutes a day. After four years of
practice, 12 year old Jack will have spent 1,460 hours practicing as
opposed to Tom's 1,095 hours, and by now, Jack is able to put the ball
through the hoop with 8 out of every 20 attempts. Tom, however, is only
able to sink 6 out of every 20 attempts, because he practiced less than
Jack.
Out of frustration at his lack of performance, Tom wonders if
perhaps basketball isn't for him after all, and so he quits practicing
and takes up karate instead, while Jack continues shooting hoops
faithfully for 60 minutes a day.
But after three years of karate, the
now 15 year old Tom decides that he really did like basketball better
than karate after all, and so he quits his karate classes and resumes
practicing hoops for 45 minutes a day. At this point, after 2,555 hours
of practice, Jack is able to sink 14 baskets out of 20, but Tom, who
hasn't practiced at all in the last three years and is now a bit rusty,
is only able to make 5 out of 20 baskets. But, both boys continue
practicing for the next three years until they finally enter college and
are able to try out for the team. By now, Jack has spent 3,650 hours
practicing and he can sink 20 out of 20 shots
every time and he
easily gets accepted onto the team. Tom, however, has spent only 1,916
hours practicing over the past ten years and is only able to make 10
shots out of 20... and so he doesn't make the team.
The two boys were of
identical ability, remember, and their outcomes were different
only because of the choices each boy made throughout the past ten years. Had Tom made the same choices as Jack, he probably would have made the team too.
It's pretty easy to see how this translates to the workplace. Is Tom
only getting "paid" $0.50 for each $1.00 Jack makes? Nope, he's getting
paid exactly what he deserves. Is there a patriarchal basketball players
club conspiring behind the scenes to keep Tom off the team? No again.
Choices have consequences. What a revolutionary concept!
 |
| Click for "The Suffragettes versus The Marketplace" |
June 2003 -
More
than half of all students taking up scarce places at medical school are women -
yet, after 10 years, 60 per cent of them have given up, leaving a huge hole in
the NHS. The same goes for teaching.
September 2012 -
Rising numbers of women doctors working part time present a “huge risk” to
the NHS, the General Medical Council is warning, with hospitals
potentially having to employ many more foreign-trained medics to plug
gaps.
.
All you need to know about how false the $0.76 propaganda which academic
and media charlatans like BNN spews forth is this: If it were true that
women only made 76% of the wages as men for doing the exact same thing
with the exact same efficiency, then there would be no shortage of
people who would simply buy a company, fire all the men, and replace
them with the far cheaper labour of women. They would make money hand
over fist while putting the competition out of business for secretly
conspiring behind the scenes to pay men more than women. It's such a
simple formula for success that it's amazing no one has thought of it
before, eh?
Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcomes?
You can see the fraud of
feminist "academics"
and the media's complicity in perpetuating their lies fully exposed by
the way they reported on Wal-Mart's recent Supreme Court case, regarding
whether there was "a culture of discrimination" against women in their
organization. Keep in mind that even though Wal-Mart successfully
defended themselves, they did not entirely "win" either. It was because
feminist lawyers tried to launch a class-action suit that the Supreme
Court said there was no definite policy at Wal-Mart which favoured men
over women, and thus they did not entirely throw the law-suit out, but
rather said that it must be dealt with in the lower courts on a more
individual basis.
And how did the BNN cover this story? Why, in
order to get a "balanced and unbiased" view on the decision, they
interviewed a feminist from Eastern Canada and another feminist from Western Canada. (Gee,
I guess degrees in Journalism are about
as useless as degrees in Women's Studies).
The consensus was that this culture of discrimination against women was
allowed to persist because there were too many of those dastardly,
right-leaning
men on the Supreme Court, still perpetuating the
infamous "Old Boys Club." But don't worry, they pointed out that soon
Obama will be able to stuff a couple more of these "morally and
ethically pure" women onto the Supreme Court, so that when a case like
this is inevitably brought before the court again, the decision will be
in favour of women.
What they glossed over completely, however, was the absurdity of the
argument itself, and the dire implications it would have had on
Wal-Mart, as well as every other company in America, and they failed to
extrapolate the implications further to its effect on the economy
over-all.
 |
| Click Pic for "Feminizing the Decline" |
One of the core arguments of the lawsuit was that men were promoted to
management positions ahead of women because women were unable to work as
many hours as men. They also claimed women could not as easily move to undesirable
locations where they would more easily advance their careers - because of
the
other responsibilities women had
outside of the workplace, such as caring for children or elderly parents.
In other words, if we take this back to our basketball example with Jack
and Tom, the argument becomes that since Tom had other things to do
besides practice shooting hoops, such as his paper route and karate
classes, the university had no right to "discriminate" against him for
only being able to make 50% of the baskets as Jack, and both boys
should be equally accepted to the team, regardless of their actual performance abilities.
That's literally what was being argued in this Wal-Mart case. Because
women have other responsibilities that are completely not related to the
workplace, it is workplace discrimination for them not to receive
promotions and pay commensurate to those who actually did work more
hours and made more sacrifices which advanced their careers.
Thus, if the BNN were actually in the business of reporting the facts,
and Wal-mart had actually lost their case, rather than reporting it as a "triumph
for women," they would have been more accurate to report it as follows:
"Wal-Mart Forced to Replace Top-Notch Management with Mediocre Employees. Long-Term Outlook for Stock Valuations is Grim!"
This is not a slam against women, this is simply the truth. It wouldn't
matter if the employees were male or female. If you take employees
willing to work 60 hours a week and relocate wherever they need to, and
replace them with employees only willing to work 40 hours a week and
only in desirable locations, it doesn't matter which gender, you would
be severely handicapping the company.
In the same way, if Jack and Tom's university would insist that out of
the five basketball players on the court, at least two players who are
capable of making 20 out of 20 baskets must be replaced with players
only capable of making 10 out of 20 baskets, the performance of the team
would suffer - especially against teams that are not burdened in the
same way. It is pretty easy to see the numbers. If five players take 100
shots and 100 of them go through the basket, such a team will far
out-perform a team that can only make 80 out of 100 baskets, which is
exactly what would happen if the team were to replace two players at
Jack's 100% ratio with two players at Tom's 50% ratio.
And you thought globalization and cheap foreign labour was the only
reason the Western World is falling behind the Developing World, eh?
Equal or "Equal?" (Wink! Wink!)
.
"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon,
"Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991
When the Status of Women Canada, the "academic" juggernaut of Women's
Studies, and the Business News Network (BNN) continually make the case
that more women
deserve to be on executive boards regardless of
their abilities (due to outside choices women themselves are making in
their lives), you will discover they never argue that it extends that
women also, therefore, deserve to be equally represented in jobs that
don't carry prestige and high pay. After all, when was the last time
Minister Rona Ambrose got on the TV and argued how ridiculous it is that women make up less than 10% of the garbage
collectors in the
country?
I mean, you would think the government
would
want women to take on more of the low prestige, dangerous
and dirty jobs, since careless and clumsy men are accounting for over
90% of all workplace injuries and deaths. The government and Canadian
employers would save billions a year in Worker's Compensation expenses
by increasing the amount of women in these types of jobs. This is simple
feminist math. If over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths are
males, then if we increase the amount of women in these positions to
50%, we will reduce such injuries and deaths by around half as well!
It's so simple!
Of course, you know I am being facetious.
But seriously, what does anyone think will happen to the men who are in
these high paying, prestigious jobs such as CEO or Chairman of the
Board? When the government of Norway made it law that all corporate
boards must have at least 40% women, do you think they simply created
more positions and only hired women until they made up 40%, or did they
keep the amount of positions the same, fire the required amount of men,
and then replaced them with women? I think you know the answer without
my stating it.
 |
| Click Pic for "Male and Female: Equal But Different" |
What you find in the workforce is the same that you will find almost everywhere else when you compare men and women.
While our averages are pretty close to the same, how we reach those averages is quite different.
For example, men and women both have similar averages of IQ, however
there is far greater variability in male IQ than in the female
IQ, which
is clustered around the mean in greater intensity than with males.
Thus, even though we have similar averages in IQ, there are far more
males who inhabit the areas of extremely high IQ and extremely low IQ.
This translates also into the workforce, where you will find that the
very powerful and wealthy (like CEO's or those on executive boards) are
mostly male,
and also that most of the very poor, like the
homeless, are male (85% of the homeless are males).
It's not only
intellectually dishonest to selectively observe only the men who have
risen to the top while at the same time ignoring the men that have
fallen through the floor, but it is also socially irresponsible. It's
like taking the examples of Denzel Washington and Will Smith as
successful and powerful black millionaires, and therefore claiming there
is no poverty problem in the Black Community. But this is exactly what
is done every single time that "our betters" in the government,
academia, and the media address women in the workplace.
.
If, as a society, we are going to boot out qualified men from top
positions to make way for less qualified and less motivated women, it
will cause a chain reaction all the way down and increase the amount of
those at the bottom. After all, if those who would have merited an
executive board position are restricted from achieving those levels,
they will be stuck being over-qualified and underpaid at the
middle-management level, where again, they will be
displacing those who
should have merited middle management positions, and forcing those men
downwards to lower management and basic employee status. Thus, the men
currently in those lowest of positions will be losing their jobs and
sleeping on the streets.
The Return of Aristocracy
.
It's not hard to see that if fully qualified men are displaced from high
level prestigious positions, to be replaced with less qualified, less
motivated women - while at the same time ignoring the fact that women
are not equally represented in the less desirable positions like garbage
collector, ditch digger, or enemy moving target - we will be returning
to an aristocratic class structure in society, except based on gender
rather than bloodline.
Again, it is just simple math. If women only replace men at the top, in
the most prestigious and well paying of jobs, then you are virtually
guaranteed to increase the amount of men in the dredges of the
workforce, or drive those men out of the workforce entirely and into the
streets.
 |
| Click Pic for "The Secret to Life: Shut Up and Shovel the Fuckin' Gravel" |
Quite frankly, men would be twits if they continued working their tails
off 60 hours a week trying to get ahead in the corporate rat race, if
they had no chance of making it because a woman who only works 40 hours a
week will be preferred for the job anyways. It will very quickly become
that men will simply stop trying to be successful in those jobs at all
and abandon them en masse for jobs where they don't have to put up with
such nonsense.
You don't think that will happen? Have a look at how men
have virtually disappeared from the teaching profession since every man
in close proximity to a child has become viewed as a pedophile. Men
simply said, "No thanks," and moved on to other professions.
.
In a generation or two, you will see the class distinction between men
and women quite clearly. Women: Good paying, high prestige jobs in
air-conditioned offices. Men:
Shutting up and shoveling the gravel to keep the electricity on and the sewers working. That's some "equality."
.
Hypergamy and the End of Marriage
.
 |
| Click for "The Family Plot: The Present (No Fault Divorce and Hypergamy)" |
The essence of
hypergamy
is that women "marry up" while men "settle down." Thus, we see in
society that, while men are not necessarily "better" than women in
general,
women do insist that the men they marry are "better" than they are.
Male doctors marry female nurses. Male lawyers marry female
secretaries. Male factory workers marry the waitress at the diner, and
so on. Conversely however, female CEO's
do not marry
auto-mechanics, but rather, they tend to seek out a mate who is "higher"
than she is. The problem is, when you are a female who is near the top
of the economic food chain, there are very, very few males who meet this
criteria, and of the ones that are actually around, hypergamy dictates
that those males are attractive to all the different levels of females
below him. Not only are there slim romantic pickings for women at the
top, but they have to stand in line with, oh, about a gajillion other
women for the only men they are attracted to.
Now, many women counter this by saying that they "had to" marry upwards,
because it was the only way they could be socially and financially
mobile under the dreaded Patriarchy. If men were just to step aside and
make room for women at the top, things would change. It's too bad that
this is not the case though. In fact, there is much evidence that it is
not men's super-sized egos that demands they must earn more money than
their wives, but rather it is women themselves that are angry at
husbands who don't earn as much money and thus, they aren't "pulling
their weight." This is further evidenced by "kitchen-bitch" marriages,
where the roles are reversed with a female breadwinner and the man being
more focused on the home. The divorce statistics for regular marriages
are bad enough, but in kitchen-bitch marriages, divorce rates sky-rocket
to 90% - yes, that high!
.
 |
| Click Pic for "Sex Sells (Hypergamy Explained)" |
Hypergamy is a very real force to be reckoned with - especially if we
are to continue shoe-horning women into top positions of power and
wealth. If we create an aristocratic class of women and a peasant class
of men, then marriage - as screwed up and broken as it already is - will pretty
much grind to a complete halt. The prince marries the maiden Cinderella
who scrubs her step-mother's floors, remember? Snow White did not marry
one of the Seven Dwarves.
Perhaps now you can understand why men work their tails off
more than women to have a successful career. It fulfills women's
hypergamy and makes men sexually attractive to women, whereas women are
not considered either more nor less sexually attractive because of their
social and financial status. They don't have near the motivation for it
as men do! Furthermore, women are not socially considered to be
deadbeats if they are not economic performers, nor are they considered
to be "bums" if they take a few years off and let their husbands fully
support them while they pursue other things they want in life. Working,
for men, is not a choice like it is for many women. Either men work or
they become invisible. It only makes sense then, that men will put in
more effort to make their jobs "work" for them, while women, who have
other options, will not view the workplace with the same intensity as
men.
"Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male." -- Newsletter of the Women's Freedom Network, Spring 1997
Mutilated Beggars
.
During the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, we termed the resulting
recession as "the mancession" because the vast majority of the jobs lost
were those done by men. If I remember correctly, it was three men
losing a job to every woman who became unemployed.
But, when the
economic stimulus was injected into the economy, they had feminists
appearing on the Business News Network (BNN), madder than wet hens that
women were not equally receiving stimulus money as men. It really did
make sense that more money was spent on men's jobs than women's, since
those
were the vast majority of the unemployed, but feminists
demanded 50/50 equality in the spending of stimulus funds. See how this
works? America had become
A Woman's Nation
because they finally outnumbered men in the workforce, and they were so
gracious about it that they cackled and laughed and wrote about
The End of Men,
spitting in men's faces when they were down. But when it came time to
deal with the problem and get men back on their feet, they screamed and
wailed that they were
victims for not receiving equal funds - funds they did not need nearly so much as men.
.
 |
| Click Pic for "The Mutilated Beggar Argument" |
And further, when people mentioned that a lot of those men were
supporting families, you could almost see the hatred spill from the now
ex BNN news anchor
ess, Kim Parlee's
eyes, matching the spirit of her "unbiased" panel: a gaggle of feminists pulling
The Mutilated Beggar
argument. You see, women support their families too! Therefore, it was
sexist to insinuate that it was higher priority to put those men back to
work instead of women.
.
Except... let's not forget that, at the behest of feminist and media brainwashing, we now claim that "all families are equal."
But they aren't.
When we talk of men and their families, we are talking about a man, a
woman, and the children they might have together. When we talk of women
and their families, however, we are talking about a single or divorced
woman and the children she has. The man is non-existent in this
paradigm.
But does that mean that man has truly ceased to exist?
Nope, what it means is that the man, whose job was taken by a woman, is now sleeping down by the river beneath a bridge.
You see, men take care of themselves, women and children. But women?
They take care of only themselves and children, while leaving the man to
fend for himself. Thus, if you wanted to benefit
the most people
in society with jobs, you would first give the work to men who then
turn over their paychecks to their wives. This simply does not work the
same way in reverse.
This Way to See the Great Egress!
.
There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so
successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so
packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled.
So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start
shouting "This way to see the great EGRESS!" The herd surged through the
gates and found out that "egress" means "exit."
 |
| Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Marketplace" |
Feminism has done far more to liberate men than it has to liberate women, although most men don't think it has at first glance.
All throughout history, men have had the curse of having to work.
Society greatly enforced the "gender role" of men being the breadwinner who then passes on "the bread" to females.
Up until the feminist revolution of the past fifty or so years, the
only men who got away with being socially acceptable without tying
themselves to the responsibilities of a job, a marriage, and supporting a
wife and children, were eccentric rich men. For the rest, if you didn't
follow in the condoned path you were considered a social outcast. But
remember,
men only need to expend around 20-30% of their labour ability in order to survive - when yoked to a woman and children, the excess went to them, not to the man.
 |
| Click for "The Amazon Women (The Science of Why Males Exist)" |
Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland.
This goes all the way back to when we were living in caves. When the
woman heard a rustling outside, she pushed her caveman out first, using
him as a shield to check if it was a sabre tooth tiger. Once the area
outside of the cave was secure, the woman took over the immediate area
around the cave while she sent the man further out into the dangers of
the wilderness to hunt mammoths and bring her back some meat for dinner.
Once the male has made things safe and easy, the woman takes over and
pushes the man away, insisting he move on and make
more things safe and easy... and when he succeeds in doing it, she takes over that space too!
.
The same thing happens in the workplace. Work was never been "fun" for
men. It has been oppressive and often downright dangerous. The 50 some
odd men who gave their lives so that the Hoover Dam could provide
electricity for women and make their lives much easier probably didn't
feel overwhelmed with their "patriarchal power." But, as soon as men
make a certain area of the workforce safe and pleasant, women
immediately move in and claim they were "oppressed" by not having the
opportunity to do such work throughout history. Today, women are not
claiming they are being "oppressed" by not being represented in great
numbers in the construction industry. But this kind of work is often
dangerous and dirty, climbing around on roofs and scaffolding while
pounding away with a hammer and being exposed to all sorts of inclement
weather. However, once construction work becomes so computerized, safe
and pleasant that one can build a house by sitting in an air-conditioned
box, pushing buttons while gabbing mindlessly with one's friends, women
will claim they have been "oppressed" throughout history for being
"denied" the opportunity to do such work, and they will force the men
out so that they may exercise their girl power.
I say, "Let them!"
.
Sure, men still have to find some work to do in order to provide for
themselves, but so long as they aren't attached to women and children -
which feminism has done everything possible to make happen - they really
don't need to work
that hard. If you don't get saddled down with
debt for a useless degree, or a useless McMansion, or a useless wife
who secretly hates your guts, but rather find something decent to do
like being an electrician or a plumber, you could easily save up enough
money by 35 or 40 to run off to Mexico or
 |
| Click for "The Fish and the Bicycle" |
Thailand and live like a king,
never having to be a wage slave again.
.
Women are demanding to have our curse because
"They don't need no Ma-yan!"
Let them take it!
Work sucks! A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work!
.
You Go, Grrrls! Men have better things to do!
.
.
.
Something I think men will have to come to terms with is that when the
pendulum inevitably swings back, what actual benefit do men think this
will have for them? Will it bring that fabled equality everyone is
seeking? Will everyone join hands and sing kumbaya and live happily ever
after? Will the planets align and Heaven on Earth make itself apparent
to man and woman alike?
The Serenity Prayer comes to mind here: 
