Forbes Magazine: Female Dominance not Total, More Laws Needed

by W.F. Price on January 11, 2010

Forbes magazine, supposedly dedicated to profit, business and the American Way, has published a feminist call to action, written by Dina Bakst, demanding legislation to prop up women in the workplace.

The article starts out with celebration of victories, such as chasing men out of college and the workplace:

Going into a new decade, women have many things to celebrate: They now earn close to 60% of all college degrees, run more than 10 million businesses with combined annual sales of $1.2 trillion and, for the first time in history, make up half of all workers on U.S. payrolls.

Followed, of course, by the obligatory whine about the “glass ceiling”:

Yet the struggle for women’s equality is far from over. Despite remarkable advancements, the glass ceiling remains securely in place for American women–even with 18 million cracks in it.

How do we smash that glass ceiling? Well, we need laws. Lots of ‘em!

The time has come to update our laws and policies. First and foremost, Congress should expand access to family-friendly employee benefits, including paid family leave and paid sick days.

[...]

Congress should also expand access to workplace flexibility and fair work schedules by reforming the Fair Labor Standards Act and passing a law that guarantees workers the right to request flexible work. Flexible work arrangements (e.g., part-time work, flexible workday schedules and telecommuting) are crucial for many workers with multiple responsibilities.

[...]

In the current recession, claims of pregnancy discrimination and other forms of family responsibilities discrimination have increased, yet the gaps in our existing framework of civil rights laws leave many workers without a valid claim. In addition, Congress should strengthen our fair pay laws and ensure that part-time workers are afforded pro rata pay and benefits. Many federal laws explicitly exclude or authorize the denial of benefits to part-time workers.

And what else? Money:

Then there’s Social Security, which needs major revisions. Our national social insurance system has never been updated to provide economic support to workers who reduce their hours or exit the paid workforce to care for family members.

I never knew Forbes was a major supporter of government regulation. Does feminism actually trump profit now? My, how our country has changed…

{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }

David January 11, 2010 at 14:53

I don’t believe that American women run 10 million real businesses. It is impossible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
@David January 11, 2010 at 14:57

Come on, man. Being a prostitute, a stripper, a mistress, or a trophy wife is being a business owner. Not to mention the webcam chicks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 11, 2010 at 15:04

@David

I don’t believe that American women run 10 million real businesses. It is impossible.

If you do the arithmetic, average revenues of those 10 million businesses are $120,000. So what we have are a couple of dozen large companies, 1 million businesses with a handful of employees (topless espresso booths) and 9 million sole proprietors doing diversity seminars for the Federal government and Fortune 500. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
David January 11, 2010 at 15:08

Yes, it’s a bullshit statistic. Look, I am an Australian, but even I know that there are only about 150 million females in America. Leave out the young and the old, the mentally deficient, and so on, and the figure of 10 million businesses indicates that nearly every third or fourth adult woman runs a business. Oh, come on!

The definition of “business” must include women selling cakes to their neighbours! It’s a bullshit statistic. Impossible.

Perhaps I should watch “Weeds” more closely in future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Ragnar January 11, 2010 at 15:11

By GOOW we leave the field of interaction with women to the thugs and manginas.

It must be clear that manginas should be treated as scum with no rights among us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 11, 2010 at 15:13

Also, one can apply an anthropological argument, based on first principles. Knowing what women are actually like, how likely is the claim? It would be like claiming that there is a tribe of women in Africa who have built a space shuttle. Obvious bullshit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Snark January 11, 2010 at 15:25

More social engineering? But I thought America was ‘A Woman’s Nation’ now.

Never mind all those men out of work. Clearly the already victorious women require more help to be more ‘independent’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Ragnar January 11, 2010 at 15:27

Maybe Forbes is seeking a new battle like the one with career women some time aga.
Maybe this is the link;
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html

If so, why not give them what they ask for – you only need a comment section.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo January 11, 2010 at 15:35

Relax, guys.

All of the real jobs will be in China in five to ten years. So will all of the money. The US will go broke. The Chinese will buy all of our land, evict any squatters, and move their surplus population to the US. They will negotiate extraterritorial laws that give their citizens special rights, just like Westerners did in China just before the Boxer rebellion. This time, the Chinese will play it smart simply hire the US government to do their dirty work for them.

Our native population of Ameriskanks will die out and law and order will be re-established under the rule of Chinese patriarchs.

Why should we worry about destroying a government that is already quite busy destroying itself?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
jfr January 11, 2010 at 15:39

Take note of H.R. 4173 Wall Street & Consumer Protection Act of 2009 introduced by Barney Frank that passed the House last month.
Under,
Subtitle I Miscellaneous
Sec. 1801
there is,
Director of Minority and Women Inclusion.
Basicily, Obama appoints a director for all (?) Federal Bureaucracies that contract with businesses to ensure women and minorities are given preference.

The word “Inclusion” just cracks me up! I use to work in special ed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 11, 2010 at 15:45

Well, all we need to do is run men only associations that conduct businesses such that the associations are not subject to the femnazi legislation.

The ‘company’ that is subject to legislation is not the ONLY form of business in the world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Truth January 11, 2010 at 16:12

Who cares? Let the skanks have it all. Time for the smart American man to go ghost. Win without fighting. Classic Sun Tzu…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 16:33

”””’Going into a new decade, women have many things to celebrate: They now earn close to 60% of all college degrees, run more than 10 million businesses with combined annual sales of $1.2 trillion and, for the first time in history, make up half of all workers on U.S. payrolls.”””””””

When the media wonders why government sponsered companies pay 600 dollars or whatever for a toilet seat it is because they are force to buy from minority business including female owned. Although even with all the largess bullshit. Look at the news and kbr/haliburton getting slammed for prices and shit. Well the government makes them do that. lol How the fuck you gonna turn around and be surprized shit got overcharged when you told em to do it. Although stil provided a lot of shit for the price he he he

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 16:35

Then a couple guys get to take the heat and go to jail for taking bribes in nigeria. From what I heard you either give bribes in nigeria to do business or you don’t do business. Or your oil rig ends up having all dead people on it because you didn’t pay the bribe. Shits funny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 16:39

”””’j’fr January 11, 2010 at 15:39
Take note of H.R. 4173 Wall Street & Consumer Protection Act of 2009 introduced by Barney Frank that passed the House last month.
Under,
Subtitle I Miscellaneous
Sec. 1801
there is,
Director of Minority and Women Inclusion.
Basicily, Obama appoints a director for all (?) Federal Bureaucracies that contract with businesses to ensure women and minorities are given preference.

The word “Inclusion” just cracks me up! I use to work in special ed.

”””””””””’

Wake up they already are given preference. When every time I left a job location they replaced myself with 4 minorities. I think it proves preference don’t you. The governemnt gives more money for more positions for minorities created not for efficiency.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jfr January 11, 2010 at 16:40

Globalman,
Meanwhile can you e-mail your senator if you’re in the US.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 16:40

You could put just in time ordering in iraq and afganistan very easily with some scan guns and a computer program. Nobody wants to get rid of all the minority jobs though. If the scangun shit where implemented you would only need the people who do work which would be majority white male.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 16:42

Even when you add the people that we import from india and sri lanka and pakistan and whatever. No one can compete with an all white male workforce. Period. No fucking contest. They can outwork the shit out of anyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 11, 2010 at 16:49

jfr January 11, 2010 at 16:40
Globalman,
Meanwhile can you e-mail your senator if you’re in the US.
JFR,
you could not pay me enough money to live in the US. I really dislike the place. No history and no culture.

I work in an loose association of the most brilliant people in my industry and none of them are women. In my industry there is only one woman who can claim to be in the top 20 and she doesn’t travel much which means she simply can not compete against the men for business.

When it comes to the tougher jobs or the jobs requiring travel or long hours the western women are massive failures. Mind you Indian women are now travelling in droves for IT jobs. The Indian women are going to take away the jobs of western women because they are both female AND black. That’s two ‘minority’ points per woman. (For those of you men who don’t realise women, being 51% of the adult population are actually a ‘minority’ according to the femnazis.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 17:08

”””””””””’In the current recession, claims of pregnancy discrimination and other forms of family responsibilities discrimination have increased, yet the gaps in our existing framework of civil rights laws leave many workers without a valid claim. In addition, Congress should strengthen our fair pay laws and ensure that part-time workers are afforded pro rata pay and benefits. Many federal laws explicitly exclude or authorize the denial of benefits to part-time workers.”””””’

Fuck yea!! I think I should get backpay for all the money I saved by being able to do 4 peoples jobs. Considering everyone in a job description got paid exactly the same male female whatever but they have diferent responsibilities within those jobs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 11, 2010 at 17:10

10,000,000 women charging $1500 on hubby’s visa to start up a tupperware party/spice party/sex toy-fuckerware party styled home business, pulling in a revenue of $300/yr minus $600/yr expenses for chips and a box of Chateau Cardboard… yup, the economy is saved!

Well, at least hubby gets a tax-write off. Now that is the path to gargantuan profits and freedom 55!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Basil Bonerath January 11, 2010 at 17:20

That article was so bad it almost humorous. It was almost like a parody of feminism, but somehow she actually wrote all that and meant it. Just dripping with entitlement and selfishness. You can’t make this stuff up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
John January 11, 2010 at 17:31

Wake up guys.

First of all, there is no way that American women run 10 million businesses.

Second, there is no need for further legislation supporting women.

The fact that this persuasion piece is being published in a prominent media outlet like Forbes only indicates one thing. It is this: the American elite, media and otherwise, is on board with finishing off the white male heterosexual upper middle class and middle class.

And they will pusheverything possible to bleed you dry, you, the white heterosexual middle class male, reading this.

They want to crush you, and they will peddle any and all feminist bullshit to accomplish that.

The American elite wants to crush the prole male masses, and especially potential competition – I think commentor Globalman has said as much previously on this site.

“Feminism is a thing that’s given to conquered peoples” – E. Michael Jones.

Let me put it this way: I guarantee you that the actual American elites involved here do not believe in giving women more power. But YOU are supposed to think so. Feminism is good enough for YOU, dear proletarian reader.

Steve Forbes does not believe in his heart of hearts – but feminism is good enough for you.

In addition, I know for a fact that the Jewish elites do not believe in feminism. Feminism is good for the goy rabble who consist of their ethnic competition.

“Feminism is a thing you give to conquered peoples.” Trust me – no self respecting successful Jewish man actually believes in feminism.
The Jewish race is, at root, patriarchical, as is the dictates of your local rabbis, and the Talmud.

Feminism, more power for women, etc., etc, is all “high comedy” for our American elites, guys. Trust me on this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 17:46

My wife has been self supporting with her businesses for the last year and a half or so while raising a baby by herself.

That is the point though woman do not need anyone to hold their hand and treat them as a child. They don’t need special laws so they learn to only beg for handouts.

My sister makes some pretty serious coin from a business she started from scratch. Again it is just taking away from woman who are successful by acting like woman can’t succeed unless they have someone handing them the shit. It is not the case. Why I also say more must be expected of woman. They can raise the kids run the business and make the money as well as clean the house and make the shit look easy. Just like in my workplace before nothing was expected of woman really as long as they are not raised in an environment where everything is given to them becasue they have a pussy. They where obsolete in the majority of the work they did. That is not empowerment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 17:56

””””””’“Feminism is a thing you give to conquered peoples.” Trust me – no self respecting successful Jewish man actually believes in feminism.
The Jewish race is, at root, patriarchical, as is the dictates of your local rabbis, and the Talmud.

Feminism, more power for women, etc., etc, is all “high comedy” for our American elites, guys. Trust me on this.

”””””””””

I thought it was pretty wild when I was told that hasidic jew make their woman shave their heads. Probably not spelled right. But yea other than that never dealt with em except for the wierd references that seem out of place in comedies to things I have never seen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 11, 2010 at 18:02

John:

“Let me put it this way: I guarantee you that the actual American elites involved here do not believe in giving women more power. But YOU are supposed to think so. Feminism is good enough for YOU, dear proletarian reader.”

David: Exactly. Truly powerful men are surrounded by subservient women. And they don’t end up married to sluts. Feminism is shit for other men to cope with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TG January 11, 2010 at 18:06

As a black man, I’m tired of minority and women being tied together synonymously. Women represent HALF of society and are hardly a minority group. Also, I don’t want advantages, I just want a legit society and nothing beyond that really.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 11, 2010 at 18:11

The reality is that the men-in-power support feminism because it is a way for them to deflect competition from lesser men who would otherwise seek to undermine them. They never saw feminism as a threat, rightly, because at the top end of the bell curve (not just in intellect, but also in drive/ambition/ruthlessness, etc.) men outnumber women, and the men there know this, and women are no threat to them. By unleashing women on other men, though, they effectively cut off competition from other men by drowning them with women competitors (making competition overall at the lower levels much harder), who, again, are mostly not threats. It’s the perfect solution for the men at the top of the male dominance hierarchy to make their position quasi-permanent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 11, 2010 at 18:19

It’s the perfect solution for the men at the top of the male dominance hierarchy to make their position quasi-permanent.

-Novaseeker

All the more reason to take the gloves off and go for the throat. Let their women protect them!
;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 18:25

”””””’David: Exactly. Truly powerful men are surrounded by subservient women. And they don’t end up married to sluts. Feminism is shit for other men to cope with.

””””””’

Truly powerfull men have woman beg to raise there kid without any support at all. It is what it is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 11, 2010 at 18:25

As a black man, I’m tired of minority and women being tied together synonymously. Women represent HALF of society and are hardly a minority group.

Of course. You’re being exploited by the feminists, because they get to say: “See! We women are/were as oppressed as black americans are/were! Join us in our revolt against our male oppressors!”. The farce of upper middle class privileged white women convincing society that women like them are as oppressed as black men is just unbelievably obnoxious towards black men, and disrespectful of real history. That women succeeded in this effort is testimony to the vested interests at the top of society who wanted them to succeed — on its face it’s quite laughable, but what was laughable became politically correct dogma, at the expense of black men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed January 11, 2010 at 18:37

The farce of upper middle class privileged white women convincing society that women like them are as oppressed as black men is just unbelievably obnoxious towards black men, and disrespectful of real history. That women succeeded in this effort is testimony to the vested interests at the top of society who wanted them to succeed

And, I sort of hate to say this but it does need to be said – how fuckin’ stupid the average non-elite male is. The most pig-headed defenders of the “poor widdle ‘oppressed’ women” I’ve known have been men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 18:45

To see how strong woman can be you really have to travel to other countries. Then you see woman who raised families of 11 on almost no money. That is empowered. I mean hard to think possible but you see it happened.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Brutal corporate male here January 11, 2010 at 19:06

Just letting you all know I made a woman at work cry today. As a brutal abusive member of the patriarchy, I asked her a very simple question in a kind and jovial tone of voice. Upon which she burst into tears.
I even was so callous to her, that I uttered unforgiveable words like “Good afternoon” and “How’s your day been.”
We shall see if, as a brutal corporate male weilding pleasantries, I am disciplined by management.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed January 11, 2010 at 19:30

Insensitive brute!!! Clearly she felt that the inherent power differential was forcing her to have a better day than she was capable of having. Clear and obvious HARASSMENT!!

Baliff – whack his peepee! ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 11, 2010 at 19:32

And, I sort of hate to say this but it does need to be said – how fuckin’ stupid the average non-elite male is. The most pig-headed defenders of the “poor widdle ‘oppressed’ women” I’ve known have been men.

And the wanna-be-elite guys, too. I mean the types who have degrees and work in corporate america or law firms or ad firms or what have you. Indoctrinated by the elite’s brainwashers at the university level (and before nowadays), they spout the party line of the elite, thinking they are one of them, when in fact they are simply a higher class of social ballast in the eyes of the elites.

What a swindle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jon January 11, 2010 at 19:41

I used to work in the physical facilities department of a public university. This university, and probably most/all public institutions, gave preferences to woman and minority owned businesses when hiring contractors to do the many jobs it outsourced. The result was that a lot of guys put their business under their wife’s name to improve their chances of getting public sector jobs. There’s a ton of government money that gets spent maintaining and expanding thousands of public organizations and a significant portion of it is set aside for the ladies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel January 11, 2010 at 20:35

Forbes publishes its infamous warning about career women. What followed was a tsunami, or almost.

This time, Forbes strikes again at the hearts of males.
I would expect the reaction to be at least as big: this time, it will come from men, not women.

There just has to be a relationship between the two events.

What is Forbes exactly trying to do? What is truly behind this? To trigger a deep gut feeling, resentment in men? Why are they stirring shit like that?
Where is the money??? (it’s always the bottom line in America, the land of the dollar bill).
Who profits from this?

Why do they print such divising articles?

To tell the truth, THAT is what’s bugging me.

Those two (heavy) Forbes articles have a purpose: what is it?

Remember Sun Tzu: war is the art of DECEPTION.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed January 11, 2010 at 20:49

This time, Forbes strikes again at the hearts of males.
I would expect the reaction to be at least as big: this time, it will come from men, not women.

For some reason, I don’t expect it to be that big at all. I think men have moved on from that sort of bickering.

Or, maybe it’s just me that has moved on because to me the “protector/provider” role is deader than the dodo bird.

It is really fascinating the way women have been able to redefine both “business” and “jobs.” When I was entering the workforce, the employee accomodated the employers demands and wishes – IF he wanted a job and a paycheck, that is. Nowhere in my wildest imaginings was even the glimmer that I could call for laws that would force an employer to not only provide me with a job and paycheck, but to do it on my terms.

But, with their eternal weapon of victimhood and their endless supply of willing White Knights in the government, ever ready to beat those bad men into giving the little ladies what they are stamping their feet in their little tantrums for, the employee is now the boss and the employer dances to her tune.

I do wonder, as you do, Rebel, what in the world a magazine supposedly aimed at business owners is doing promoting the idea that women are not only entitled to a job, but with enough perks to go along with that job that the business has to accomodate her rather than the other way around. It sounds a lot like a suicide pill to me.

In any case, if women have laws that dictate a business has to hire her on her terms, she certainly doesn’t need any of my hard-earned money. And, the businesses that do hire them, certainly aren’t going to get any of my productive contribution to make up for all the dead wood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster January 11, 2010 at 20:50

@Rebel

Those two (heavy) Forbes articles have a purpose: what is it?

Not only Forbes, but also The Economist, 30 December 2009:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15174489
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15172746

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 11, 2010 at 21:02

Yep. It’s the new meme: women are taking over, and we should all celebrate. Hatred of men, pure and simple. Taking sides in the sex war, shamelessly.

The Economist has been a ****ing disaster for a few years now. It’s long lost its mooring.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 11, 2010 at 21:10

The Economist used to be economically liberal but fairly socially conservative. I buy it occasionally and I noticed some time back that it is clearly now socially liberal as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech January 11, 2010 at 21:50

but even I know that there are only about 150 million females in America. Leave out the young and the old, the mentally deficient, and so on, and the figure of 10 million businesses indicates that nearly every third or fourth adult woman runs a business. Oh, come on!

The definition of “business” must include women selling cakes to their neighbours! It’s a bullshit statistic. Impossible.

That’s because it is BS. There are a lot of businesses where the real owner is a man, but uses his wife’s name as the owner to make it a “female owned business”. When it comes to government contracts, there are also a lot of “female owned” (and “minority owned”) businesses that do nothing but act as brokers. They do nothing but get the bid by virtue of being a “female owned” business and rebid the contract exactly to real businesses while adding a fee on top of it. For a lot of government everything costs more since a lot of these “female owned” businesses are just one step above being shell companies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
hell_is_like_newark January 12, 2010 at 04:48

great.. more govt. intervention into the work place. Soon we will have labor laws more Byzantine in nature than those in Europe. Why bother even hiring someone if legally, they don’t need to show up when you need them?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 January 12, 2010 at 05:08

I won’t make a huge argument of why this is the PC hatred of males at it’s finest, but then people wonder why all labor is exported to China in a heartbeat. One would think that for recovering an economy there should be reasons for investing on it, but social-political math is done in a fourth dimension of rationalization where natural laws don’t apply.

This is just FAIL. I can understand why they do this, but is ridiculous how a magazine of ECONOMY doesn’t know how to attract capital. Mind boggles.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Garbage Man January 12, 2010 at 05:19

I would never hire a woman… too much risk these days…. they get pregnant and fuck off… and then you have to pay these cunts for a year or more… complete waste of time.

The modern western woman is good for sucking cock, nothing else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 12, 2010 at 06:09

Thanks for the economic security of the 21st century older people. At least government jobs for women and minorities are stable. Why do I even try? I should have stuck with the starving artist plan. At least then I would have a zen like acceptance of my economic uncertainty. Notice how the elites aren’t affected by this as much, and actually benefit. Fuck the middle class being just squeezed, its being squeezed to death. This shit is a joke. I didn’t spend 16 years of my life to get a college degree just so I could bounce around the job market like rubber ball never knowing where I will land.

Class warfare people. Class warfare.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/the-permanent-disposable-work-force.aspx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
@Jabherwochie January 12, 2010 at 06:25

I saw that disturbing article too. I’m not rich but I’m nicely successful and respected in my profession, especially this early in my career.

The “socialism for the rich and for the women, capitalism for the men and the poor” economy maintained by our government is a fat middle finger in the face of people like me (and many on this site) who have played by the rules and worked hard to get where we are.

The thing is, I have quite a few skills I can use fairly easily to manipulate the hell out of smart and dumb people alike. In the past I’ve held off from doing that due to having a conscience. But now I know for sure that conscience is seen as a “kick me” sign on my back by society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
msexceptiontotherule January 12, 2010 at 07:04

To be perfectly honest, before there are more laws and new rules made, the focus should be on fixing the current inequalities that exist. What I mean by this is that feminists who have been claiming that their fight was for equality and then turned around and went to work pushing for a skewed policy that favors women (particularly in the area of family law) over men, and that needs to be fixed. I’m all for equality, as long as it is extended to both genders, in a truly gender-neutral fashion like the term “equal” implies.

As you can imagine, my opinions tend to make me unpopular with the feminists.

I like working, and in the year I’ve been a widow, working has been the main focus in my life. It’s easier to do that than to sit at home and allow myself to dwell on the loss of my spouse – it’s hard enough to deal with as it is. Oddly enough, I’ve had more compassion from men than women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 12, 2010 at 07:24

@ msexceptiontotherule -

To your point, those ideas are several of many things on our plate. Excuse us if we choose to crush the feminist movement in its entirety for dessert. To put it simply, I’m here for revenge. My God sees revenge as a force of balance and karmic justice in the universe. You do not have to participate, but it would be wise to not interfere.

No offense meant, and this is only tangently related to what you say, but I have a male mind, and as such would love to be able to “sit” at home. I could invent things, write books, paint paintings, become a activist for a cause (maybe the MRA movement). But alas, as a male, I am expected to work myself into an early grave and not complain. The only people who “like work” either have very interesting and inherently rewarding jobs (rare), never worked for more than a decade, do a non-job that is really just an excuse to socialize with other adults, or are simple minded and easily amused. Real work is mind numbing and tedious, stressful as hell, or physically difficult. What do you do?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Wobs January 12, 2010 at 08:06

Dina was a NOW lawyer:
http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/leaders_entry.php?id=13137&area=All

First against the wall when the revolution comes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
msexceptiontotherule January 12, 2010 at 08:32

Jabherwochie –

I cannot give specific information regarding my employment, due to the security restrictions I’ve agreed to. However, I enjoy what I do and also knowing the importance of it to my employer is a plus, though most people would probably find it boring and difficult. I can tell you that I work in the legal profession, though I am not a lawyer for ethical/moral reasons, (Defend those who are not honestly innocent, prosecute those who are not honestly guilty…) and I am more than just a legal assistant.

But I do appreciate your responding civily.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 12, 2010 at 08:47

I can appreciate that. I’m glad you found your niche. Must don’t.

As a creative type, most jobs, even creative ones (which are actually quite often restrictive, as you are most often meeting somones specific needs and demands), are hard for me to deal with. Luckily I work twice as fast as a normal person, so have lots of time to blog at work. Once my wife is back on her feet, I’m transitioning back to art. God, give me the perseverence to keep pushing these papers until then. Carpal Tunnel setting in already! Damn, un-ergonomic keyboard and desk! I’d rather dig ditches. At least then I would be getting exercise. Office Space anyone. Watch it, if you haven’t seen it.

“But I do appreciate your responding civily.”

What, a big, educated women like you can’t handle a little ball busting? What a fucking princess! I would go ahead and leave then. We don’t need PC touchy feely cunts around here stinking up the place.

(Thats a joke, but even if it wasn’t, you shouldn’t let it bother you. Just a heads up.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 12, 2010 at 08:51

“In today’s modern workplace women are increasingly out-earning their male partners.

“But it seems that becoming the main breadwinner does not necessarily make for a winner on the home front.

“In fact, many women begrudge their partner’s lack of earning power.”

[...]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-419488/Successful-women-begrudge-husbands-earn-study-claims.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Wobs January 12, 2010 at 08:58

“In fact, many women begrudge their partner’s lack of earning power.”

A major cause of divorce throughout the West.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 12, 2010 at 09:38

A major cause of divorce throughout the West.

Right Wobs, cause lack of the mulla might cramp the ‘lifestyle’ of many a ‘Western’ woman:

Women will spend more than eight years of their lives shopping, says a study.

While keeping their families fed and clothed -and indulging in a little retail therapy – the average woman will shop for an astonishing 25,184 hours and 53 minutes over a period of 63 years.

If the average expedition lasted the length of a full working day – from 9am to 5pm – that would be 3,148 days trudging around the shops, or just over eight-and-a-half years.

The poll of 3,000 women, conducted by GE Money, revealed they make an average of 301 shopping trips per year, lasting a total of 399 hours and 46 minutes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-419077/Women-spend-years-life-shopping.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
msexceptiontotherule January 12, 2010 at 10:12

Jabherwochie:

it’s not that I can’t handle it, it’s that I wasn’t expecting it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 12, 2010 at 10:16

girls never
expect anything

it’s part of
their charm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 12, 2010 at 10:21

A major cause of divorce throughout the West.

Actually I think it is a bigger cause of low marriage rates. Despite all the hoo-hah about “changing gender roles”, if men do not bring economics to the table that is roughly equal or, preferably, better than the woman’s, their prospects for marriage are slim (barring the “adorable starving artist” exception in places like SF and NY, but even here, many of these kinds of couplings split over the financial issue).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 12, 2010 at 10:27

A major cause of divorce throughout the West.

Did y’all see this gem -

Recession: When the money goes, so does the toxic wife – Telegraph

… ‘You loser!” screamed Katie, aiming a vase at her husband. “You’ve destroyed my life,” she continued, hurling it. “Just look at my hair, look at my nails! You loser, you jerk, you nobody.”

Katie’s husband, Jack, whose property portfolio disintegrated in the financial crash, had just told his wife that she would have to cut back on her thrice-weekly visits to Nicky Clarke, the nail salon in Harvey Nichols, and the oxygen facials, chemical peels and seaweed wraps at Space NK.

Not only that, but they no longer had the money to pay for an army of bullied Eastern Europeans to wait on her hand and foot.

Worse was to come – the brow-lift would have to be cancelled; her black Amex card would have to be snipped in half; and there was no way, he told her, that he could carry on spending £28,000 a year on Henry’s school fees at Eton.

Chloe, too, would have to leave the marginally cheaper (only £25,000 pa) Wycombe Abbey immediately.

Such was the aggression and verbal and physical abuse that followed that Jack was left with cut lips and blood streaming from a broken nose.

Their eight-year-old child, not yet at boarding school, sat cowering in a corner and dialling 999. When they arrived, they had to restrain Katie forcibly from attacking her husband.

An extreme and isolated example of the global economic meltdown hitting the £1 million home? Sadly no. When the super-rich feel the pinch, inevitably, the Toxic Wife heads off…

Indeed, lawyers and financial advisers have reported a 50 per cent increase in the number of divorce inquiries since the financial markets collapsed in September…

How we laughed when Richard, with admiration in his voice, mentioned at a drinks party last year that he’d turned to his wife in the middle of the night and asked her if she’d still love him if he lost all his money.

”F— no!” had been her answer. Such a feisty, amusing (and obviously joky) response delighted him. But today he is scratching his head with abject dejection. She had meant it.

She left him the moment he lost his senior post at an investment bank and immediately hooked up with another rich man. …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/3527803/Recession-When-the-money-goes-so-does-the-toxic-wife.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 12, 2010 at 11:02

“(barring the “adorable starving artist” exception in places like SF and NY, but even here, many of these kinds of couplings split over the financial issue).”

It worked for me, but then my wife got sick. It was sweet while it lasted. It will be reinstated soon enough, as she is almost ready to enter the workforce again. I’m just that fucking adorable. I expect people to take care of me, and in return, I offer my sublime presence. It was her house, her stuff, her car, etc. etc. So in the event of a divorce, it will be a net financial gain for me. Even her disability checks are a little more than I bring in working full time. All my collectables, cough, I mean worthless junk, stay at my mom’s house, safe from the family courts greedy paws. They belong to her after all. I…left them to her when I moved out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eman January 12, 2010 at 11:40

A news story for you Welmer – “Have Women Really Taken Over The Workforce?” – http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/01/have_women_really_taken_over_the_workforce.php

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 12, 2010 at 13:04

I love the Jews! Where?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 12, 2010 at 13:06

Am I lazy? Or just really efficient?

I love words. They practically have no meaning at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 12, 2010 at 13:57

Just in case you women missed it. Go and read this article.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html

You women think you are intelligent? You are laughable. Look at the infantile way in which Elizabeth Corcoran responds to the very well put argument by Michael Noer. Her entire ‘argument’ is “So, guys, if you’re game for an exciting life, go ahead and marry a professional gal.”

Ah…Michael already shot down that arguement and your best ‘counter’ is a subtle slur ‘game’ and ‘exciting life’? Yes, wondering how to hide and avoid the cops who want to taze you and lock you up for not paying your ‘child support and alimony’ IS exciting I guess.

Western women are crap. All of you. One reason is not denouncing this imbecillic bitch for the brainless trollop she is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
msexceptiontotherule January 12, 2010 at 14:00

firepower:

That shows how
little
you know.

I
was expecting
you
would appear and
of course
say something like that.

You always do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 12, 2010 at 14:04

Garbage Man January 12, 2010 at 05:19
“The modern western woman is good for sucking cock, nothing else.”
Actually, I disagree with this one too. Not that I have much experience with western women ‘sucking cock’. I mean, my sum total of western women sucking my cock is two. Hardly a wide survey. But my sum total experience of eastern women now stands at about 20 I guess. And all but 3 or 3 were wwwwaaaaaayyyyyy better. I don’t think western women are even good for ‘sucking cock’. ;-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 12, 2010 at 14:06

Kulak January 12, 2010 at 10:27
Yep..that one was all over Men Are Better Than Women.

We collect annecdotal evidence from the news sources over there.

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums

I think there are about 800 entries in annecdotal evidence now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 12, 2010 at 19:15

This doesn’t bug me. All these demands will merely hasten the outsourcing of female-occupied jobs to other countries where such demands would be unheard of.

I have noticed that Asian women are far better performers in the workplace than white women. This is even in side-by-side cubicles in the US.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 14, 2010 at 08:30

Welmer on January 11, 2010

Forbes magazine, supposedly dedicated to profit, business and the American Way, has published a feminist call to action, written by Dina Bakst, demanding legislation to prop up women in the workplace.

The article starts out with celebration of victories, such as chasing men out of college and the workplace:

Forbes Magazine is like any other business in America: fearful of Government persecution.

Better Forbes persecute men – than be persecuted themselves by feminized Federal and State governments’ perpetual crusade for “rooting out discrimination.”

Sixty percent of degrees isn’t enough. They will continue until it’s 100%.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Vince January 17, 2010 at 08:59

“In today’s modern workplace women are increasingly out-earning their male partners.

“But it seems that becoming the main breadwinner does not necessarily make for a winner on the home front.

“In fact, many women begrudge their partner’s lack of earning power.”

The probem with modern day women is that they are unable to accept when they are the primary breadwinner of the family. More and more, they are getting fancy degrees and earning more in the workforce, yet they are ignorant because they refuse to have a husband who makes less money than them.

In my opinion, when you get a college degree and set out to get a high paying job, you need to either accept the fact that your future spouse will probably make less than you, or just decide to not get a degree in the first place.

Females seem to be the sexist ones in today’s world, because men accept stay at home moms. However, women find stay at home dads to be “lazy bums” even if they do make an effort at cleaning and cooking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 17, 2010 at 09:29

There are some women I’ve known who are professional colleagues of mine who have stay at home husbands. It has led to tension, but in some cases it works. In every case, though, the husband is still quite highly educated — think educated artist types rather than blue collar or even white collar functionary types.

The trouble the rising generation of women is going to face, though, is that because they outnumber educated men to such a widening degree, there just won’t be enough educated guys — of whatever earning potential — to go around. For the guys who *are* educated, though, it will be a seller’s market in mating for these guys with respect to the women who are interested in mating to begin with (rather than the “Grrls Just Wanna Have Fun” types in the Big Blue Cities).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed January 17, 2010 at 09:37

The trouble the rising generation of women is going to face, though, is that because they outnumber educated men to such a widening degree, there just won’t be enough educated guys — of whatever earning potential — to go around. For the guys who *are* educated, though, it will be a seller’s market in mating for these guys with respect to the women who are interested in mating to begin with

This is where feminism and the female tendency toward hypergamy collide head-on. Several years ago I tried to wrap my head around the finding that most college women both expected to make as much as any man in their profession, but at the same time expected to marry a man a bit older who made more money that they did.

This pretty much put the lie to “wimmins are just as good at math as men.” I don’t know how they managed to believe that no men would make more than they did and at the same time expect that there would be an endless supply of such men to marry, but somehow they managed to do it.

Men probably need to hunker down for some real serious bashing in the years ahead as women confront the unpleasant mathematical reality that they cannot get 60% of the college degrees without 3 of them having to compete for every 2 men who have one.

Of course, it will somehow be men’s fault that 3-2=1 and one out of every 3 women will be left without a chair when the music stops.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 17, 2010 at 10:05

Yes, zed, they will blame men for being lazy and underachieving and not pulling their own weight and yadda yadda. We can see that coming from how men are regarded in the black community, can’t we? It can’t possibly be the cocktail of feminism plus Great Society that led to the proliferation of single motherhood (aka de facto matriarchy) in the black community that has led to these behaviors by men? No, of course not. Why, it’s the men’s fault themselves for being so lazy and underachieving. That’s certainly the attitude of most black women and most non-blacks towards black men. And in the years ahead we’re going to see it applied increasingly towards men in general.

Won’t help the situation, though. Carping and finger-wagging at black men hasn’t changed much of anything really, because it isn’t addressing the source of the problem, but instead blaming the symptom. The same pattern will be repeated in the broader culture in the years ahead, without doubt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood January 17, 2010 at 10:07

The trouble the rising generation of women is going to face, though, is that because they outnumber educated men to such a widening degree, there just won’t be enough educated guys — of whatever earning potential — to go around. For the guys who *are* educated, though, it will be a seller’s market in mating for these guys with respect to the women who are interested in mating to begin with (rather than the “Grrls Just Wanna Have Fun” types in the Big Blue Cities).

Let’s not forget the new useless degrees in America. Like Electrical Engineering, or Computer Programming. Both actually. Isn’t that nice.

Of course, the operative word is In America. I’m going to complete this cycle of beating my head against the wall(about 2 month) get the experience I need for the new direction I’ve decided to go in, and then I’m gone.

Fuck them all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed January 17, 2010 at 10:21

It can’t possibly be the cocktail of feminism plus Great Society that led to the proliferation of single motherhood (aka de facto matriarchy) in the black community that has led to these behaviors by men? No, of course not. Why, it’s the men’s fault themselves for being so lazy and underachieving.

Aye, there’s the rub, because if those same men were not so “lazy and underachieving” they would both individually and collectively be harming all women because “women still only make 75 cents to every $1 a man makes.”

It seems fairly clear that no matter what men do, women are going to bash us, so we might as well go fishing. What “good news” men might find in this is that only takes a fraction of the effort to avoid having a toxic woman in his life as it takes to try to have one. In fact, it is actually a lot of work to get one, and even more work to try and maintain her, and all a man has to do to avoid it is Go His Own Way.

To me, it looks like a win-win for men, particularly when you look at the STD rates for single women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 17, 2010 at 11:23

@Brutal corporate male

Just letting you all know I made a woman at work cry today. As a brutal abusive member of the patriarchy, I asked her a very simple question in a kind and jovial tone of voice. Upon which she burst into tears.

LOL. When I worked for a Fortune 100 company as a corporate troubleshooter, I once made the mistake of leaving a voice male for a woman in the division I was working in, asking when she was going to be able to send the documents she had promised me a week ago. The next thing I know, she’s crying in her boss’s office and I’m called on the carpet by my boss.

That was the last time I ever left a voice mail or sent an e-mail at work that wasn’t 100% plain vanilla.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 17, 2010 at 11:24

voice mail….voice male….LOL…Freudian slip.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: