Female stupidity

Atlanta Stripped of 'Men at Work' Signs After Complaints of Bias
Thursday, July 10, 2008

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

Political correctness rules the road in Atlanta — which is replacing all its "Men at Work" signs with gender-neutral ones after a women's magazine editor complained of bias.

The project, which involves painting over the existing 50 "Men at Work" and "Men Working" signs with those that say simply "Workers Ahead" or "Workers," will cost a total of $1,000, Atlanta Public Works Commissioner Joe Basista told FOXNews.com.

About half of the city's 100 Public Works employees are women, said Basista, so he complied with PINK magazine editor Cynthia Good's request to stop warning passersby of men at work when women were right there alongside them.

"It seemed like the right thing to do," Basista said.

The change-over, which Basista wants to complete by the end of the month, has met with little resistance so far, he said.

But it could raise eyebrows when Good goes national with her crusade — which she's planning to do.

"We're calling on the rest of the nation to follow suit and make a statement that we will not accept these subtle forms of discrimination," she told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The city will have to shell out an additional $144 per new sign ordered in the future, Basista said. But the $1,000 initial cost to paint over the existing ones is not a big hit to the Public Works budget, especially since national industry guidelines suggest gender-neutral road signs, according to the commissioner.

"We hadn't really thought about it before," said Basista. "I said, let's do it. We're changing the signs now. We're hoping to encourage others to follow."

The "Men at Work" roadway warnings were used throughout Atlanta and would often be posted where women were toiling next to their male counterparts.

The project was launched on Thursday, according to Basista.

Some female Public Works employees complained about the male-focused signs years ago, according to city union leader Gina Pagnotta.

"It is a little bit biased to say 'Men Working,'" she told the Journal-Constitution. "Women are working, too."

Source: here

A woman's magazine editor (isn't that gender bias? Oh yeah,it is gender bias against men so it's allowed) has a problem with these signs. First of all it is mostly men doing these jobs,especially the hard work such as digging and pouring hot tar,especially in summer. Women either hold the signs or other light work. As far as I'm concerned this woman can take one of her pink magazines and shove it up her pussy. It just might change her disposition and spare the rest of us a feminist headache.

O'Reilly gives black women a pass

Now the count is 2. The first one to give black women a pass was the women's candidate Barrack Obama when he blamed black men for deserting their families when it could have been just as easy for her to push him out the front door. Now O'Reilly does the same thing by talking down to these guys and lays the blame at their feet when neither O'Reilly or Obama know the man's circumstances as to why he is in this situation. Typical of the media and the candidates to ignore men's problems and to ignore women's faults. Then they wonder why the country is in the situation it is today.

The Christie Brinkley divorce and the women and wannabes

The Christie Brinkley divorce case sounds just as typical as a divorce occurring between nobodies and it could have been just as anonymous as any other and it would have been if Christie Brinkley had allowed it but she wanted it public. Brinkley said she was looking out for her children but was she when she puts them through the media wringer it makes me doubt her sincerity. Everybody is jumping Peter Cook's case. So what if he's looking at porn. Everybody needs a hobby and if porn is his more power to him. If Brinkley wasn't giving it up then chances are he looked elsewhere because after all if the kitchen at home is permanently closed then you eat out,it just that simple. On O'Reilly I saw where Megyn Kelly was dripping with venom when describing this case and O'Reilly the mangina was there to agree with her all the way. Never let it be said that O'Reilly doesn't lick female ass whenever possible. I'm sure there are other women like Kelly whom will likewise be dripping with venom toward Peter Cook and other manginas like O'Reilly who will be there to champion them. Peter Cook got fucked in both divorce court and the court of public opinion. But then again everybody in the old media licks female ass so that's nothing new.

A look into the female mind

Jennifer Brown Banks

I read this on the Forever Male blog and found the bitch who wrote had true audacity but at least she's honest and a whore which makes her an honest whore.

Why I Don't Do "Dutch"
or
(I only wanna’ be "equal" when it’s to my advantage!)
Men often complain that women don’t know what they want. I do.

I only want to be considered "equal" when it's to my advantage.
On the job, if I do the same work, have the same credentials, and comparable tenure to my male peer, I want to be paid the same. Bottom line.


On a date with a guy, I reserve the right to have different “Standard Operating Procedures.” If he asks me out, I expect him to pay. If he wants to win me over, I expect to be wooed, whined and dined. Period.

Some folks might find my way of thinking to be contradictory or crazy.
So be it.

I figure if men don’t have to do the child birth thing, or suffer from P.M.S. , we as women ought to have some clear advantages too! And I’m not ashamed.

(When was the last time women were required to serve on the front lines of a war? When was the last time that a woman was called a "coward" for not showing heroism or doing what society wanted? When was the last time women did the dangerous jobs that no one else wanted? Wait a minute,women never did any of these things. IT WAS AND STILL IS MEN DOING THESE THINGS OR BEING FORCED TO DO THEM. Cry me a fucking river you fucking cunt.)

There are, however, some exceptions to my policy. I will treat a man to a meal--

A) If he just lost his job, and is able to provide proof.

B) If he’s celebrating a birthday, and is able to provide proof.

C) If we are in a steady, committed relationship, and his actions provide proof.

Otherwise, the ball is in his court. I see it as a "chivalry" thing.

I toppled upon this topic today, while watching THE VIEW. During their "Hot Topics" segment, Meredith Viera confessed that when she was on the dating scene, she would always go "dutch" to establish her independence.

Some of my girlfriends have stated that they “pitch in” as well. They argue that paying their own way prevents a guy from having any expectations of sex when the night comes to an end. I beg to differ! He can "expect" anything he wants to. That doesn’t mean it’s gonna’ happen!

For years I’ve "expected" thinner thighs, a drama free relationship, a Partridge Family reunion, and fame and fortune. I’m still waiting. Such is life!

I say that a guy has no right to expect me to give him "dessert" just because he gives me dinner. Or anything else. My affections can’t be bought. Now, placing them on lay-away… maybe?

Which begs the question — Is finance integral to romance? Should the two happily coexist? When dealing with the expenses of dating, who pays for what? And when?

The issue seems to get trickier these days as women become more liberated, and many earn more than their potential mates.

One thing's for sure, there needs to be more dialogue dealing with this issue, as misunderstandings typically cause blooming relationships to fizzle fast.

Such was the case with a friend of mine named "Jimmy". He was sharing with me how a two-week relationship he had with a very attractive and fun female came to a halt when she began to ask him for money for her bills and general primping. According to him, her expectations were extremely out of line and premature, since they were not yet in a relationship.

Her rationale was that since he benefited from her salon-fresh appearance, he shouldn’t mind forking over funds for weekly hair and nail appointments.

Unable to reach a happy medium, he stopped seeing her.

So here’s the deal. If you’re currently seeing someone that you’d like to continue seeing in the future, have the money talk.

According to Dr. Judy Kuriansky, author and relationship expert, here are a few things to consider and embrace:

» Attitudes about money stem from your experiences, cultural and religious backgrounds, personality traits, and what you learned from your parents.

» Accept, appreciate, and make arrangements about your individual style of handling money.

» Having ongoing discussions about money is essential to a healthy relationship and will prevent problems down the road.

» Count your blessings more than your bank accounts.

» Whether you come across a shortfall or windfall in your finances, keep level headed and even tempered with each other.

What are your views on romance and finance? I’d love to hear ‘em! Maybe your “words of wisdom” might be featured in a future column. Email me at Gemsjen@yahoo.com.

Source: here

She says that he can't buy her but isn't she putting herself up for the highest bidder? Yes she is. Can I get a raise of hands from the men interested in dating her? Nobody here raised their hands. Shows I have smart readers.

Another thing

I was listening to Tom Leykis on Friday when a female caller said that she was using a man to pay for her housing and the small kicker is that she doesn't love him but he's under the impression that she does because she gives him that impression. The big kicker is that his name is not on any legal paperwork concerning the house meaning he has no rights to it because of her deception. She had a ho-hum attitude and even laughed about it at some parts. This is clear evidence of the female heart and how evil it is.

Entitlement princess in the making

While waiting in line at the drug store I overheard the conversation between the female cashier and a female customer. The customer is describing her daughter,probably a teen-ager,as "boy crazy",that is she is described by her mom as letting men take her out with no reciprocation in terms of sex or something else in for the man she is only interested in what serves her. What she described as "boy crazy" I describe as "entitlement princess". She is letting men serve her and that is the only role they see for men. Apparently she has no problem letting men serve her but the moment it looks like she has to give back then she puts on the brakes. Her mother was laughing while describing her. Next to her was a boy,probably her son or nephew. If it was her son how is she going to feel when her son gets fucked over by one of these entitlement princesses in court; divorce,civil and/or criminal and bats her eyelids at a mangina or dyke judge. I wonder if she'll be laughing then or if she will give a fuck at all about him. That is the one thing about women you never know.