Equality in Federal Contract Bidding

by Keoni Galt on October 17, 2010

Reading today’s Pacific Business News – a Hawaii-based business paper, I saw the most recent issues latest front page, above-the-fold headline:

Apparently, some feminists and their mangina politicians passed some law 10 years ago that gave preference to women owned businesses in certain industries when bidding for Federal Contracts. This law has basically not been used or enforced since it was passed…but now that we are in the midst of the Great Depression 2.0, and more men than women have been getting laid off, NOW the Federal Government decides is the perfect time to resurrect this affirmative action legislation.

The rule, which was first proposed by Congress in 2000 but only published in the Federal Register last week, aims to increase the amount of federal contracting dollars that go to businesses that are at least 51 percent owned by women in 83 industries in which women were found to be underrepresented — everything from construction to accounting to public relations. The agency has 120 days from the date of publication to implement the new rule

Oh, but it gets worse than a simple case of affirmative action…

The new rule puts some teeth in the regulations, putting women-owned businesses on similar footing as service-disabled veteran-owned businesses and businesses that participate in the SBA’s 8(a) business-development program, which enjoy the benefits of bidding for contracts that are set aside for their specific programs.

Let’s get this straight….

…if you’re a male who went to fight for this country in one of the various wars for the US Military, and got a limb blown off or lost your sight or some other horrific war injury…and you come home and start a business, you will be able to receive equal preference under this program…equal to other American business owners who are designated for this legislation simply because they were born with a vagina and whom also own a business?!?!

EQUALITY BABY!!!!

“This new ruling is going to be substantial in that it will mean something,” Downs said.

Oh it will mean something alright…it means the only way a man can have an equal opportunity to receive preference under this new regulation like a woman, will be to get disabled while fighting for our Cuntry.

Words fail me at the moment.

{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }

MenZo October 17, 2010 at 06:40

wow….. just… wow

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 68 October 17, 2010 at 07:21

The attack on men will never stop until one of two things happens. First, the men of this nation grow a pair and stand up for their civil; legal; human; and constitutional rights. This will never happen.

Or, the Huns come in and do a hard reset.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer October 17, 2010 at 07:29

It’s standard practice for men to name their wives as president/owner of their small business to take advantage of this. If you’re fishing in federal contract waters it’s just another loophole to check, just like taxes.

We often hear about the great tide of “women-owned businesses” and “entrepreneurs” but I think much of it is based on this lie.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 2
criolle johnny October 17, 2010 at 07:48

Dept of Labor form HFVPO1 “Homeless Female Veterans’ and Homeless Veterans’ with Families with Families Program”

“address the complex problems facing female Veterans and Veterans with families”

Single male veterans, you’re left in the cold.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
escaped man October 17, 2010 at 08:19

Uncle Elmer,

You are so right. I considered doing this when I was married. Women are inherently lazy so all this bs about women owned businesses is just that. It will be men placing figurehead women as “owners” of their businesses who will benefit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
Joe October 17, 2010 at 08:35

I was working at a public university about 12-15 years ago when I first found out about this. One of the project managers told me that minority and women owned businesses got preferences over white male owned businesses so a lot of guys would put their business in the wife’s name to get the advantage. It’s high time us plain ol’ white guys abandoned white guilt and start behaving like a tribe when the primitive cultures around us make it necessary.

As far as men not standing up for themselves, I’m sure many won’t but others will. I think one of the first steps is the abandonment of multiculturalism. This is happening somewhat in Europe where white europeans are getting fed up with muslims. I think that most of the time catholic and protestant cultures really don’t belong together. There is a fundamental difference between the type of people who embrace the church of rome and those who don’t. To me, it’s the same basic difference that exists between a subject and a citizen.

At some point some people are gonna grow up and abandon the retarded idea that all types of people can and should live together. This is plain as day where I work. In my industry/location a very disproportionate part of management is from a particular ethnic group. There appear to be a few reasons. Firstly, they’re shamelessly tribal and show preferences to each other more than other groups and if anyone says anything they play the victim, it’s disgusting. Secondly, they’re very aggressive when it comes to pursuing positions of authority. This is clearly cultural. The problem is that they aren’t the least bit interested in doing the mundane management tasks that come with these positions. They also don’t value competence, they just want to be the boss of as many people as possible. They mess things up bad most of the time.

One thing that is obvious to me is that groups of people that have widely varying levels of aggression and tribalism don’t do well together. You don’t have to be smart to recognize this, you just need the balls to point out the obvious. The more aggressive/tribal group will end up very overrepresented in power positions. This happens despite their frequent inability or lack of interest in bearing the responsibility that comes with the position. The less aggressive group may be the more capable of running a successful organization but they end up doing all the grunt work and existing in very unmotivating dead-end situations.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 13
Rebel October 17, 2010 at 08:48

I think that Uncle Elmer is on the right track.

There is always a workaround. And wise, smart men will, no doubt, take advantage.

But anyhow, with the government going bust, there will be fewer and fewer juicy gobmin contracts (save for the military, where men predominate).

In themselves, I do not perceive these “laws” as threatening: they will hurt the gobmin more than they will hurt men.
It may even be one more nail in the gobmin’s coffin.

The weaker the gobmin, the better.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
Snark October 17, 2010 at 08:52

They are using crisis to bolster their position. Lenin suggested this policy regarding the First World War.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Keyster October 17, 2010 at 08:55

Not to distract from the main point, but yes its true; a “female owned business” that might exploit this is highly likely to be a business owned and operated by men, that use a “trusted” female as a proxy. Typically a wife who has little if anything to do with day to day operations. This is well known and a bit of a joke in business circles that deal with the federal and many state governments.

Not to say there aren’t true female owned and operated businesses, but its highly unlikely that the federal government would need to hire a PR or accounting firm. There simply aren’t that many truely female owned and operated businesses to choose from, that the federal government would or could do business with. That’s the reality these “equality” bureaucrats fail to comprehend. Yet they’ll wrap themselves around the axle trying to find several as “TOKENS”, just to demonstrate that the program is working.

Our tax dollars at work, just to make people feel less guilty and more righteous about themselves. It has little to do with competence or actual ability to perform as required. It’s about feelings.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Keyster October 17, 2010 at 09:18

You don’t have to be smart to recognize this, you just need the balls to point out the obvious.

Or the conservative female leader of a financially solvent European nation.
Such as say, Merkel in Germany.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
Herbal Essence October 17, 2010 at 09:50

Joe-

The reality is, a small minority of super-powerful (mostly) white males is using Feminism and other PC bullshit to undercut their only real competition – other males. As many smart men have pointed out, women are the knives the ruling class uses to stab men in the back.

The real enemy is not minorities, gays, or even most women. They’re just tools acting out an agenda.

I have no problem with notions of tribalism. It can be healthy. But that doesn’t mean that every white male is on our side, or every woman/non-white is against us. It’s much more complicated than that. Especially when taking into account that white males make up the vast majority of feminism-enabling white knights.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 6
barbarossaa October 17, 2010 at 09:52

yes and it will continue on like this.

i say this in the most serious way possible.

MEN they will not rest until they completely dominate you. if you do not allow yourselves to be dominated, they will seek to destroy you. Its that simple

until men start coming to this conclusion in large numbers they will be unable to defend against misandry, and thus incapable of defending themselves.

the more you try to serve the machine, by for example fighting in wars to defend it, the more they will hate you for being stupid enough to willingly serve in the demise of your own genders self worth and respect.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Anti Idiocy October 17, 2010 at 10:33

@ Uncle Elmer: “It’s standard practice for men to name their wives as president/owner of their small business to take advantage of this.”

I knew a man, a business contact, who lost his business in divorce as a result of doing this. Shortly after the divorce settlement, his wife just shut the business down. He was left with none of it.

This might, in some cases, be a good game to play, but I’d want to be damn sure of the legalities beforehand.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
njartist49 October 17, 2010 at 10:43

Anon 68:
“Or, the Huns come in and do a hard reset.”

Most likely to happen.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Joe October 17, 2010 at 11:11

@Herbal Essence – the notion of “minorities” is useless where I am. There is no meaningful majority. When I say plain ol’ white guys I mean those of us who really don’t have any ethnic identity to speak of outside of just being Americans. I have no interest in favoring any of the dozen or so ethnic groups of my recent ancestors. There are several groups in my region that have much more of an ethnic identity and behave much more tribally than guys like me. In my experience, the more destructive of these groups are “white.” This tribal behavior prevents men from organizing in any kind of a cohesive way because they’re used to all of this nonsense that will prevent them from getting fair treatment.

I don’t have a problem with tribalism either but I think that people who want to live as members of some tribe and show preference to members of their tribe need to go live and work within that tribe. Some tribal people expect to live and work as minorities, be treated as equals when equality is convenient, but still behave as members of a distinct tribe when it is to their advantage. If they’re discriminated against because they’re in the tribe they throw a fit, but they have no problem discriminating against those outside the tribe when they’re in a position of power. That is bullshit.

The problem with this type of tribalism is that it’s almost impossible to deal with. If members of one group behave much more tribally than members of another group, what do you do? You either don’t discriminate against them and they end up with an inappropriate amount of power, or you open the can of worms that is systematic discrimination against an ethnic group. A group of groups of people is sort of like a group of people. Some asshole always has to ruin it for everyone by acting like they’re special and don’t have to be fair or ethical.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5
misterb October 17, 2010 at 12:54

It’s a dangerous game that feminists and the le femmes are playing dangerous game. With economics and the lives. In truth they don’t care, or practically don’t even know what the hell they’re doing.

Passing the feel good laws.

From the looks of it, they’re going to enforced that stupid law. Actually they are enforcing it.

Speaking as an aboriginal man in Canadian north, I noted that he (the white man) needed to ground himself. Time after time, his traditions were trashed by his own brethren of the same colour. In truth, he’ll have to rebuild his traditions and restore his honour.

As man of different background, I noted that people of other colours have problems with white people. In loose translation, other people have this supremacist attitude toward others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
misterb October 17, 2010 at 14:11

There’s no such thing as equality.

The unions were originally meant to provide the workers loose protection. Basic protection from their employers, so they don’t whack their employees. In pre-60 eras, during and after the great depression. Sweat shops were not that uncommon. In fact they exploited immigrants coming to the US and Canada.

From the 1990s to 2000, the unions have become the worthless behemoth shadow of its former self.

Now skip to the present. After the idiots and crybabies had gotten their way. In Canada, we have heterosexual men discriminatory bills. catering to the hateful gay people, idiots, murders, douche bags and so forth.

An honest man is taxed to death by the government. And whatever little dignity people have left on Indian reserves is taken away.

I hate to break this to you. Gay people are themselves the feminists, who join the other she demons, in the grass they graze. aka we men are the grass that the females and gays graze upon.

misterb aka misterbastard

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Snark October 17, 2010 at 15:25

Another one of these stories

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321314/Broadmoor-nurse-slept-patients-forced-quit.html

A police investigation has been launched after a nurse at Broadmoor quit over allegations she had sexual relationships with TWO dangerous inmates.

One of the patients at the high-security hospital is HIV-positive double-child rapist James Saunders, known as The Wolfman.

HIV-positive child rapists are soooo hott, right gurls?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Snark October 17, 2010 at 15:31

OMG the evil evil patriarchs are always finding new ways to oppress teh porr porr gurls. Now they have made it so unequal that school meetings are held in the evening and this is SEXIST!!! We’re not sure why but IT IS BECAUSE WE SAY SO!!! SEXISTS!!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321389/School-meetings-evening-sexist-says-equalities-quango.html

Schools and local councils could be guilty of discrimination against women if they hold parents’ or public meetings in the evening because mothers might be at home putting their children to bed.

According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the timing of such events could mean some women are unable to attend – a disadvantage that exists because of their domestic duties.

The guidelines from the quango were in a code of practice explaining the new Equality Act, which was passed just before the election and championed by Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman.

It states a local council could be hit by a legal claim if, when it holds consultation meetings on a weekday evening, ‘it discovers fewer women than men attend’.

A woman could make a case on the basis ‘that this is because some women cannot come because of childcare responsibilities’.

‘This is enough to demonstrate disadvantage,’ it says. ‘She does not have to show the absence of women is attributable in particular cases to childcare responsibilities.’

Women would not have to show they have lost out financially, it adds.

Graham Stuart, Tory chairman of the Commons education committee, said: ‘It is extraordinarily idiotic when we need to be encouraging people to come together.

‘The last thing we need is to put the fear of God into people who want to hold a meeting in the evening.’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Snark October 17, 2010 at 15:34

I love this part:

“a disadvantage that exists because of their domestic duties.”

What domestic duties? LOL! Women don’t have any fucking ‘domestic duties’ and haven’t ever since men invented microwaves and washing machines.

Get bent, ladies. For real – get bent. You are the biggest, most atrocious, most obnoxious whiners on the planet and you make me sick.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 0
misterb October 17, 2010 at 16:18

As my father once said, life is easier. Than it was in the past. In the past you had to walk or paddle in canoe just to get one point to another.

When you had to get to the fire wood, you had to drag it by wheel barrow or by using dogs.

Airplanes, vehicles, microwaves, grocery stores, convenience stores, electricity, utilities, baseboard heaters, a dentist, dentures and so forth. Have all made it possible.

I read somewhere that a Russian woman literally broke down and cried when she saw inside of the grocery store. According to her she never seen so much food.

It shows that people and women in general. Take things for granted. Of what people only dreamed about. One of these days, they would disappear, and the modern women would realized the harsh reality.

The women had no right to complain, only those who have to right to complain, are women who are literally struggling on a shoe string budget just to feed her kids.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
misterb October 17, 2010 at 16:22

@ Snark

the women are indeed the most atrocious, most obnoxious whiners, in the world.

I don’t know if you guys are religious. Or you believe in a higher being or not.

I bet God is thinking to himself with one eye brow up. Every time he sees women complaining.

misterb aka misterbastard

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
universe October 17, 2010 at 16:58

In 1984, Canadian MPs passed another Act of Parliament. This Act, much like the British North America Act, was entitled the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This Charter became the latest of seven active ‘constitutions’ governing the Dominion of Canada.

Under the “Equality Rights” heading

“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, sex, etc”

. But it gets interesting. The next statement reads, “Subsection (1) does not preclude [prevent] any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration [improvement] of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, sex,etc., etc.” Essentially, it says that everyone is equal except for certain people Parliament had deemed disadvataged. A friend’s once apt but cynical summary, “imbiciles, cripples and women (plus immigrants)” get the special treatment. This “equality” section contradicts itself by first citing “equality” but quickly discriminates for and against.

So, basis an unchallenged perception of the past, feminist organizations, by funded invite, heavily influenced the drafting formation of a nation’s rulebook. In retrospect, it apears that the framers (professional politicians and insider bureaucrats) of this ‘constitution’ merely led a procession towards an outcome previously long decided upon before its unravelling. (Decided upon by totally whom is unclear). It didn’t seem to matter that the facts manufactured by feminist groups had little basis in actual reality, as does most current feminist inspired literature. Previous to the 1984 Charter signing, no known organized body, successfully intervened to refute the assertions and figures of government invited and funded feminist groups. Politics appears to be a process of perception and feminist groups provided a heavily bias perception of the past with little veracity allowed or forthcoming. Politicians of that era, eager to score elector points, literally rubber-stamped an endless procession of female favouring policies.

As a lead to discussion, what HL unearthed, in terms of American legislation favouring female owned businesses, is just another blatant example of short-changing men basis inaccurate perceptions. The fact that this measure, and countless others, contributes to social and economic insecurity to the most productive members of society seems to hardly matter to politicians everywhere in the western world.

Through false information, feminists continually contribute to the deliberate weakening of societal conditions for men. The effect of which continually weakens nations around the world. The average female seems to care not that these tilted outcomes exist against many men. Actually, many seem to revel in it all. The with-holding of men’s personal protections for females might very well be a consequential outcome.
“And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold”
Matthew 24:12

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
3DShooter October 17, 2010 at 19:11

I read an interesting piece by Wendy McElroy today (from on of the many libertarian/min-archist/anarchist sites I read regularly) that speaks to the situation described:

Dr. Mark Cooray has well expressed the difference between various concepts of equality within feminism. “Equality of opportunity provides in a sense that all start the race of life at the same time. Equality of outcome attempts to ensure that everyone finishes at the same time.” Cooray considers “equality of opportunity and freedom” to be “two facets of the same basic concept.” Equality of results, however, “is the goal of radical socialism.”

Read the whole piece here: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?item.3551.1

Seems to sum up the state of affairs nicely . . .

I don’t think men as a whole object to equal starting conditions – that is freedom – what we object to are mandated equal outcomes, without regard to talent/effort – that is feminism/socialism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
codebuster October 17, 2010 at 19:25

I’m sure most of us get it how insane this is. For those who don’t…

Women have the escape-hatch of stay-at-home mom. The role of stay-at-home mom defines purpose, dignity and direction (for those women who accept their responsibilities). So where many provided-for women are in a position to regard work as something akin to a hobby – something to do if they like, something to do if their fancy takes them, someplace to while away the hours, someplace to gossip with friends, they still get first priority over men, for whom work defines purpose, dignity and direction, and for whom not working is not an option.

God help us. This is truly primitive. Not even Russian communism could beat this insanity – their efforts to bring women into the workforce had less to do with the women-are-oppressed fairy-tale than it did with making use of able-bodied human resources in supporting the economy. There is no voodoo-practicing tribe of headhunters, no tribe of hunter-gatherers or Cro-Magnons, no village of third-world peasants that would buy into this garbage. They would recognize it for what it is – tyranny, and they would kill, pillage and rape until there was nothing left.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Indomitable Thoughts October 17, 2010 at 20:35

Women are always trying to paint themselves as victims. That picture shows it in graphic detail that’s not so obvious at first– affirmative action is making it so their “plight” has the same priority as someone who got his legs blown off in Iraq. Hell, I bet the whole combat veterans thing was just thrown in, with the priority being the “at least 51% women owned” businesses thing. It shows how pampered and privileged women are in today’s society.

Cue back to the whole Alte/Rob argument a few stories back. It seems like almost every woman has some kind of abuse story that she willingly dishes out to try and garner sympathy and bootlicking from men. Disgusting. Disgusting how women try to shame and manipulate men like this.

We’ve been thoroughly emasculated, folks. Thoroughly emasculated.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Indomitable Thoughts October 17, 2010 at 20:40

If a man complains about his (often legitimately shitty) lot in life, he’s told to “man up” and “take it like a man” from both bootlickers and women.

On the other hand, if a woman complains about her lot in life, she’s given support from women, manginas, and the government.

This is a double standard that feminism aims to amplify, and amplify, and amplify…they simply don’t give a fuck about anything but giving women the upper hand at the expense of basically everyone else. And manginas back them up, either walking straight into the oven, or fucking over other men so they can have sex with them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Gorbachev October 17, 2010 at 21:29

This is insane.

We need to stop protecting a society that continually demeans us.

Women seem to have nothing but complete, unabashed contempt for men.

Well, let them work, pay taxes, and defend their own country.

We need to stop doing all of those things. Right now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
JFP October 18, 2010 at 01:59

That McElroy article on women voters/office holders reminds me of all the gripes about women’s sports not getting traction/interest by the public.

It is apparently all men’s fault that the WNBA or women’s soccer isn’t that popular. Women tennis players at Wimbledon earn the same prize money now but play less (best of 3 vs best of 5) and draw fewer crowds…

If women want those sports to thrive, support them and go to them. The real answer is, many just aren’t that interested in sports to lead to professional leagues.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Zammo October 18, 2010 at 06:37

The purpose of feminism is to ensure that all women are victims so they may gain privilege at the expense of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Nemo October 18, 2010 at 12:10

This sort of law actually *increases* racism, sexism, nationalism, or whatever else the government claims that it is trying to cure.

It’s one thing to make it illegal to discriminate. It’s entirely different to ORDER the government to discriminate against whatever groups it happens to dislike at the moment.

In the US, there are “protected classes” listed in human resources guidelines. Women, gays, and non-whites are protected. Most East Asians and Jews are also tossed in with “whites” – they have been able to achieve economic success without the aid of government, so they are now “unprotected”.

These classes are the first to be hired and the last to be fired, according to HR guidelines. A “protected” person who is laid off can sue their employer and probably win some money. An “unprotected” employee can not. Therefore, from a legal point of view, the unprotected employees are the first to go and the protected employees are the last to go.

About 80% of all job losses in the US during the recession have been men, and this is a major factor in creating that 4:1 sex ratio among the newly unemployed.

People who previously thought of themselves as full citizens of the United States are now realizing that if they are white, East Asian, or Jewish they are demoted to second class citizens. If they are straight, they are demoted to third class citizens. If they are men, they are demoted to fourth class citizens.

All in the name of “equality”.

We are resurrecting the medieval idea of “High Justice” for the nobles and “Low Justice” for the serfs, and “white” heterosexual men are the new serfs.

The net effect of all of this is to cause the groups that are now being “deselected” by the government to self-identify themselves not as full citizens, but as members of a minority group that is oppressed by the government.

Congratulations, Washington, you’ve just made everyone think of themselves as a member of an oppressed minority group instead of a citizen of the USA.

To repeat, this sort of law actually *increases* racism, sexism, nationalism, or whatever else the government claims that it is trying to cure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 19, 2010 at 07:41

””””’Apparently, some feminists and their mangina politicians passed some law 10 years ago that gave preference to women owned businesses in certain industries when bidding for Federal Contracts. This law has basically not been used or enforced since it was passed…but now that we are in the midst of the Great Depression 2.0, and more men than women have been getting laid off, NOW the Federal Government decides is the perfect time to resurrect this affirmative action legislation.””””””””””””””

Shit not used?

How naive.

Everything my company bought had to be checked to see if it could be bought from a woman owned minority owned business.
They have a section of the company devoted to making sure it is done.
Not about price.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 19, 2010 at 07:57

Price I know you have the capability to do research and the info is out there.

If you want to really be disgusted go ahead and see how deep the rabbit hole goes and for how long.

A long dam time.

Been like this dude.

Like the stories I have told and people didn’t want to believe it is just another day dude.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
KT March 31, 2011 at 10:55

Men have a lot to answer for in this world; all wars have been started by men, most crimes are commited by men etc., etc. You’ve had your fun, now move over and let women take the control, we’ll do a better job, I can guarantee that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Samson July 1, 2013 at 14:38

@KT

“All wars have been commited[sic] by men”

Bullshit.

“Most crimes are commited[sic] by men”

Again, bullshit.

A better job? Hardly, and that’s already being proven. If you think I’m going to go quietly into the night, that I’m going to let queen-bee-wannabes like you castrate me, imprison me, and just generally treat me like dispendable worker bees, if you think I’m going to be enslaved without incident, you’ve got another thing coming.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Clay November 28, 2013 at 16:40

What will ultimately happen is that our economy will suffer. It doesn’t really matter what women say when they whine and say that they can produce just as much as a man. The truth is that the average man will always out-produce the average woman, with few exceptions. Not only do men out-produce women in the same 40 hour work week, but men are more likely to put in a 60 hour work week. If the government transfers capital goods over to women in the form of federal contracts, then obviously production of those goods will decrease. Of course, when the economy slides, nothing will be said about why. The lie will just continue. The feminists at the top won’t care because they will be making millions while the rest of us suffer. But as more and more men run from marriage, and our population decreases, eventually the whole thing will collapse. Then, in 2040, some young men that haven’t been dumbed down by the media will rise up and fight. There will be wars and wars, and more wars….and in a hundred years we might be able to get back to the way things used to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: