A 50-year marriage will run you a cool $590,400. Make it count.
But first, our sources:
National Greeting Card Association
National Restaurant Association
Forbes.com
Broadway.com
CNNmoney.com
TravelDailyNews.com
Unity Marketing
Mintel
Hotelinteractive.com
American Pet Products Manufacturers Association
Planned Parenthood
National Retail Federation
National Association of Theater Owners
What You'll Give Her: Flowers
Cost in a Year: $300
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $15,000
What You'll Give Her: Cards for all the usual reasons
Cost in a Year: $21
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $1,050
What You'll Give Her: Dinners out
Cost in a Year: $2,526
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $126,300
What You'll Give Her: Expensive dinners to apologize
Cost in a Year: $700
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $35,000
What You'll Give Her: Theater, movie, concert tickets
Cost in a Year: $752
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $37,600
What You'll Give Her: Vacations
Cost in a Year: $2,913
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $145,650
What You'll Give Her: Jewelry
Cost in a Year: $1,336
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $66,800
What You'll Give Her: Lingerie
Cost in a Year: $122
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $6,100
What You'll Give Her: Trips to the spa
Cost in a Year: $275
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $13,750
What You'll Give Her: Haircuts, grooming products for you
Cost in a Year: $1,000
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $50,000
What You'll Give Her: Vasectomy after the kids are born
Cost in a Year: $1,000
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $1,000
What You'll Give Her: Caring for the dog she loves so much
Cost in a Year: $1,266
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $63,300
What You'll Give Her: Valentine's Day
Cost in a Year: $86
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $4,300
What You'll Give Her: Mother's Day
Cost in a Year: $70
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $3,500
What You'll Give Her: Holiday, anniversary, birthday gifts
Cost in a Year: $421
Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $21,050
TOTAL Cost in a Year: $12,788
TOTAL Cost Over a 50-Year Marriage: $590,400
Source: here
This sounds like a one way street to me. What does the guy get?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Videos of women misbehaving
Lending a brother a hand or a bat in this case.
Why should women be exempt?
Suspicious female gets tased
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The wage gap from a different angle
Thanks to John Gisogod for this one:
The reasons why is that, statistically speaking, women earn less than men. There is nothing sinister about this, for the figures simply demonstrate the consequences of women's biology and the choices that they make.
Men, on average, earn more than women during the course of their lifetimes, but this is no
terrible injustice done to women. They pay more in taxes than do women. In other words, the average man puts more into the pot than does an average women. Your average man is therefore supporting women!
When it comes to benefits, such as health, pensions and income support, a whopping 70% of the budget is actually spent on women's needs; it is absolutely clear that the support given by men to women is phenomenal, and it shows just how much men truly hand over to women via the government coffers. Further, men also hand money over directly to women when they stay at home to look after the kids. Why should feminists try to make women go out and earn the same as their partners?
Men put a lot more into the pot, and they take a lot less out of it. And it is still the case that while men die seven years earlier than women, they are still expected to work for five more years before receiving their pension. But do notice that, working for five years longer and receiving seven years less of pension, adds up to a massive twelve years of financial injustice. A truly blatant, ongoing act of sex discrimination. An enormous act of discrimination.
However, statistically speaking, compared to men, women just don’t value winning the marathon that much. Therefore, they get paid less. And quite right too, because they work fewer hours and they achieve less. It is also pointless for women to keep moaning about the fact that employers are reluctant to give them special consideration when they have children, and to demand exactly the same pay when they don't actually put in the same number of hours. Why should anybody who works full time (man or woman) have to subsidise other women in the workplace, just because they choose to have children?
Feminists tell us that women who have children should not be disadvantaged in the employment sphere. But, as with everything else, feminists think that the world should cater exclusively for their own selfish needs. They believe that women who have children should not in any way have to curtail their employment prospects or their incomes.
Thus, despite the fact that such women will take leave from work (for years, perhaps) and that they will not be able to put in the same number of hours that their colleagues do, feminists argue that they should be paid the same and be given the same status!
The reasons why is that, statistically speaking, women earn less than men. There is nothing sinister about this, for the figures simply demonstrate the consequences of women's biology and the choices that they make.
Men, on average, earn more than women during the course of their lifetimes, but this is no
terrible injustice done to women. They pay more in taxes than do women. In other words, the average man puts more into the pot than does an average women. Your average man is therefore supporting women!
When it comes to benefits, such as health, pensions and income support, a whopping 70% of the budget is actually spent on women's needs; it is absolutely clear that the support given by men to women is phenomenal, and it shows just how much men truly hand over to women via the government coffers. Further, men also hand money over directly to women when they stay at home to look after the kids. Why should feminists try to make women go out and earn the same as their partners?
Men put a lot more into the pot, and they take a lot less out of it. And it is still the case that while men die seven years earlier than women, they are still expected to work for five more years before receiving their pension. But do notice that, working for five years longer and receiving seven years less of pension, adds up to a massive twelve years of financial injustice. A truly blatant, ongoing act of sex discrimination. An enormous act of discrimination.
However, statistically speaking, compared to men, women just don’t value winning the marathon that much. Therefore, they get paid less. And quite right too, because they work fewer hours and they achieve less. It is also pointless for women to keep moaning about the fact that employers are reluctant to give them special consideration when they have children, and to demand exactly the same pay when they don't actually put in the same number of hours. Why should anybody who works full time (man or woman) have to subsidise other women in the workplace, just because they choose to have children?
Feminists tell us that women who have children should not be disadvantaged in the employment sphere. But, as with everything else, feminists think that the world should cater exclusively for their own selfish needs. They believe that women who have children should not in any way have to curtail their employment prospects or their incomes.
Thus, despite the fact that such women will take leave from work (for years, perhaps) and that they will not be able to put in the same number of hours that their colleagues do, feminists argue that they should be paid the same and be given the same status!
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Isiah Thomas
I generally agree with the article,unless otherwise noted.
Isiah Thomas: Guilt by genitalia
By Bernard Chapinweb posted October 15, 2007
Slowly but self-righteously America continues its descent into becoming a land debilitated by political correctness. Today there are more parameters for what constitutes acceptable speech than ever before while the trendy troika of race, class, and sex trump truth on a daily basis. Isms, more than knowledge, fuel our university curriculums and public policy decisions.
One of PC's most essential precepts is that women are morally, vocationally, and intellectually superior to men. The spheres of government have internalized this outlook and their belief in women being an oppressed group colors numerous laws. The bias against men in criminal and civil matters has effectively made female privilege as much a part of our nation as baseball, unfettered immigration, and the media's perpetual frenzy over the comings and goings of celebrities.
In the hopes of "empowering" the fair sex [1] (calling women the "fair sex" is like calling a big guy "tiny") , the state has melded half of the population into sacred cows; mammals now bestowed with rights and advantages wholly unearned (and of which men can only dream). As evidenced by the lynching of the Duke lacrosse players, the word of a woman can even effectively reverse presumption in criminal cases.
Integral to crimes like domestic violence is the concept of male guilt even though, "…contrary to the predictions of feminist theory, domestic abuse (verbal, psychological, and physical) occurs significantly more often among lesbian couples than among heterosexual pairs." [2] Truth has no dominion in a culture paralyzed by dogma.
Nowhere is female privilege more evident than within the star-chamber like confines of the "Sexual Harassment Industry." In this arena, feminist lobbyists have erected a charnel house to exterminate the expression of random, unscripted male behavior in the workplace. It has even created a ludicrous female right not to be offended…by anything said or done in their proximity. This right can be brandished upon men who accidentally forget to don their automaton costumes before punching the clock.
As Daphne Patai explains in her exquisite book, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism: "At the present moment, ‘sexual harassment' seems often to be little more than a label for excoriating men…Its real function at this moment, in addition to keeping feminist passions at fever pitch, is to serve as the conduit by which some extreme feminist tenets about the relations between the sexes enter everyday enter everyday life with minimum challenge." [3] The recently concluded Isiah Thomas sexual harassment trial again illustrates the tremendous partiality with which our nation treats women. Allegedly, Mr. Thomas subjected former employee, Anucha Browne Sanders, to crude language—such as the occasional use of the b-word and h-word—while also making sexual advances toward her. As a means to redress his wrongs, the court awarded her over $11.6 million dollars. She may receive more than that though. As of yet, no decision has been made concerning her request for another $9.6 million in compensatory damages.
Luckily for Mr. Thomas, the Madison Square Garden corporation will be the ones required to enrich this young lady as they allowed her "her to work in a hostile environment."
In tears Ms. Sanders stated that her windfall was for "the women who don't have the means and couldn't possibly have done what I was able to do." Oh but here she is very wrong. Her victory was for every woman in America. Many of whom have long known that the law provides a way for them to receive payola in exchange for being subjected to unfiltered speech. A myriad of lawyers would take their cases on a contingency basis as their chances of winning are as likely as the Cubs never appearing in another World Series.
There is no way of knowing—as is the case in all "he said/she said" situations—if there is any truth to her allegations. Yet, even if we accept her version of the story as being valid, it does little more than highlight the tremendous disparity in terms of status and opportunity between the sexes. The right that Mr. Thomas violated—the right not to be insulted—is one our courts have not, and will not, extend to men.
The attempt on the part of the government to protect women from the vagaries of life has launched a juridical theatre of the absurd. Soon our robed masters might add a couple more punch lines by creating offshoots of legal doctrine revolving around "tortuous teasing" or "cacophonous criticism." The state's efforts have only managed to free some women from the burden of becoming well-adjusted, reliable adults. Infantilizing the hardiest members of the population—as female lifespans always surpass those of men—is an assault on reason from which no good can come. Regarding citizens as fragile icicles whose psychological integrity shatters with a light touch benefits no one.
That we are occasionally subjected to the insults of others is part of the human condition and a byproduct of vocalization. It is not one in need of the Leviathan's intervention. Our politically correct culture has even gone so far as to uniquely outlaw the words you can use to describe a woman. Calling them "b's, h's" or "c's" is strictly verboten. Yet no similar censure has been initiated in regards to men. With what words can you not use to impugn a man? There are none.
A man is expected to take it and endure…which is how it should be.(typical conservative blind spot. The author rallies against chivilary or gives that impression and then turns around and practices it. This is also denying men equal access to the law. At first he addresses it then says men shouldn't have the same right but instead "take it like a man". This is a case where conservatives are just as stupid as their liberal counterparts.) Play a weak victim long enough and you will eventually become one. During my daily commute I am occasionally the recipient of demeaning gestures and verbiage from my fellow motorists. This is regrettable but should not give me the right to sue the Illinois Department of Transportation or the Illinois State Police as a means of redress. When I play poker at a casino and a nearby rounder ridicules my play I should not have the right to institute proceedings against the Harrah's Corporation either. What this country needs is equality as opposed to chivalry justice. (I have heard of cases where female employees have ganged up on male employees and created a hostile work enviroment and this guy is comparing it to traffic difficulties? First of all,traffic situations involve strangers you are most like never going to see again meanwhile the anti-male work place is filled with people you see day in and day out. Second,traffic situations last mere SECONDS while the hostile work place lasts HOURS which gives the anti-male torturers who torture men because they are MEN longer than some other motorist is mad at you because you violated a rule of the road they don't care what you look like. Unlike this guy I say courts should definitely look out for male victims.)
Hearing slurs is the side effect of living around other people. It is not invigorating but it is entirely predictable. Sympathy is not the proper response for Ms. Sanders or anyone else who claims that heated syllables produce deep-seated emotional trauma. We should acknowledge the bizarre privilege that such individuals possess. Happily, most of us are not incapacitated by huge egos which become destabilized upon hearing others express non-affirming views. Ms. Sanders must have led an ornate, bejeweled existence, and empathy for the multi-millionaire is totally misplaced.
Ms. Sanders's position "earned" her $260,000 in salary last year. This figure…ah, is not the norm. The 2006 median annual household income was $48,201, so here, oppressed is to plaintiff as non-controversial is to George W. Bush. There are no words, phrases, names, or finger salutations for which 99 percent of the male population would not endure in exchange for such a bounty. Personally, for that sum, this commentator would put up with being called every name in the Devil's Dictionary. At the end of each pay period I would then thank my oppressors and respond to their taunts by calculating the exact weekly worth of each insult I absorbed.
Yet overcoming obstacles and enduring pain are now deemed archaic notions. A mandate of our therapeutic age is that the process of making money should never require one to put the needs of your employer above your own. Even drudgery equates with dehumanization. "Work" is no longer considered work as it really seems to be more of a personal fulfillment scheme.
Women, in particular, have bought into the idea that labor is more about self-esteem and achievement than getting paid for the completion of tasks. As Ann Coulter noted, "Men always had ‘jobs,' women have ‘careers.'" [4] Apart from those fortunate enough to finagle state financed position at college Women's Studies programs in which projecting personal pathologies onto the backs of others (men, Caucasians, and the United States of America) is considered good form, most of us find work banal and routine. We work in order to survive. Making ends meet is an end in itself. One does not set their alarm for 4:45 am and drive off into a January frost in the hopes of feeling good about oneself.
Of course, the New York Times believed every word of the plaintiff's claims. This is not surprising as the paper consistently advocates for female empowerment. They concluded that "Reality had no voice until Anucha Browne Sanders took the stand. Truth had no visuals until she provided them in court." Remember, they were not there and have no idea if her version of the affair was true or not. What will they say should the decision get overturned? Don't bet on a retraction.
They also suggest that "Thomas added to the Garden's creepy vibe by dismissively treating Browne Sanders as if she were nothing more than a groupie he once charmed during his playing days." What if he did treat her in that fashion? Ms. Sanders was not there to be Mr. Thomas's equal. She was there to work for him. A position of subservience should have been assumed the moment she signed her contract.
Thomas had this to say: "I want to say it as loud as I possibly can. I'm innocent. I'm very innocent. I did not do the things that she accused me in the courtroom of doing. I'm extremely disappointed that the jury could not see the facts ... and I will appeal." Alas, I fear The Times may never have to reconfigure their support for Ms. Sanders because the judiciary and the general population are soundly steeped in the edicts of women's privilege. Fairness is not a consideration should a woman claim to be wronged. If you can show she's been insulted or had her feelings hurt then the only question left is to determine the award sum.
How any man can have faith in our legal system is perplexing. The courts uphold inequity whenever possible and reflexively debase men in the hopes of elevating women. Until corrected, this malignant phenomenon has permanently dispelled justice from the land.
Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
Footnotes:
[1] Some writers may dislike using the term "fair sex" but I am always ready to concede that women are physically more appealing, hence fairer, than are men. As for the other nuances of the idiom, I will not extend judgment here.
[2] Carlson, Allan C. and Mero, Paul T. The Natural Family: A Manifesto. (Dallas: Spence, 2007). Pp. 157-158.
[3] Patai, Daphne. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998). P.11.
[4] Coulter, Ann. Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. (New York: Crown, 2002). p.39.
Source:here
Isiah Thomas: Guilt by genitalia
By Bernard Chapinweb posted October 15, 2007
Slowly but self-righteously America continues its descent into becoming a land debilitated by political correctness. Today there are more parameters for what constitutes acceptable speech than ever before while the trendy troika of race, class, and sex trump truth on a daily basis. Isms, more than knowledge, fuel our university curriculums and public policy decisions.
One of PC's most essential precepts is that women are morally, vocationally, and intellectually superior to men. The spheres of government have internalized this outlook and their belief in women being an oppressed group colors numerous laws. The bias against men in criminal and civil matters has effectively made female privilege as much a part of our nation as baseball, unfettered immigration, and the media's perpetual frenzy over the comings and goings of celebrities.
In the hopes of "empowering" the fair sex [1] (calling women the "fair sex" is like calling a big guy "tiny") , the state has melded half of the population into sacred cows; mammals now bestowed with rights and advantages wholly unearned (and of which men can only dream). As evidenced by the lynching of the Duke lacrosse players, the word of a woman can even effectively reverse presumption in criminal cases.
Integral to crimes like domestic violence is the concept of male guilt even though, "…contrary to the predictions of feminist theory, domestic abuse (verbal, psychological, and physical) occurs significantly more often among lesbian couples than among heterosexual pairs." [2] Truth has no dominion in a culture paralyzed by dogma.
Nowhere is female privilege more evident than within the star-chamber like confines of the "Sexual Harassment Industry." In this arena, feminist lobbyists have erected a charnel house to exterminate the expression of random, unscripted male behavior in the workplace. It has even created a ludicrous female right not to be offended…by anything said or done in their proximity. This right can be brandished upon men who accidentally forget to don their automaton costumes before punching the clock.
As Daphne Patai explains in her exquisite book, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism: "At the present moment, ‘sexual harassment' seems often to be little more than a label for excoriating men…Its real function at this moment, in addition to keeping feminist passions at fever pitch, is to serve as the conduit by which some extreme feminist tenets about the relations between the sexes enter everyday enter everyday life with minimum challenge." [3] The recently concluded Isiah Thomas sexual harassment trial again illustrates the tremendous partiality with which our nation treats women. Allegedly, Mr. Thomas subjected former employee, Anucha Browne Sanders, to crude language—such as the occasional use of the b-word and h-word—while also making sexual advances toward her. As a means to redress his wrongs, the court awarded her over $11.6 million dollars. She may receive more than that though. As of yet, no decision has been made concerning her request for another $9.6 million in compensatory damages.
Luckily for Mr. Thomas, the Madison Square Garden corporation will be the ones required to enrich this young lady as they allowed her "her to work in a hostile environment."
In tears Ms. Sanders stated that her windfall was for "the women who don't have the means and couldn't possibly have done what I was able to do." Oh but here she is very wrong. Her victory was for every woman in America. Many of whom have long known that the law provides a way for them to receive payola in exchange for being subjected to unfiltered speech. A myriad of lawyers would take their cases on a contingency basis as their chances of winning are as likely as the Cubs never appearing in another World Series.
There is no way of knowing—as is the case in all "he said/she said" situations—if there is any truth to her allegations. Yet, even if we accept her version of the story as being valid, it does little more than highlight the tremendous disparity in terms of status and opportunity between the sexes. The right that Mr. Thomas violated—the right not to be insulted—is one our courts have not, and will not, extend to men.
The attempt on the part of the government to protect women from the vagaries of life has launched a juridical theatre of the absurd. Soon our robed masters might add a couple more punch lines by creating offshoots of legal doctrine revolving around "tortuous teasing" or "cacophonous criticism." The state's efforts have only managed to free some women from the burden of becoming well-adjusted, reliable adults. Infantilizing the hardiest members of the population—as female lifespans always surpass those of men—is an assault on reason from which no good can come. Regarding citizens as fragile icicles whose psychological integrity shatters with a light touch benefits no one.
That we are occasionally subjected to the insults of others is part of the human condition and a byproduct of vocalization. It is not one in need of the Leviathan's intervention. Our politically correct culture has even gone so far as to uniquely outlaw the words you can use to describe a woman. Calling them "b's, h's" or "c's" is strictly verboten. Yet no similar censure has been initiated in regards to men. With what words can you not use to impugn a man? There are none.
A man is expected to take it and endure…which is how it should be.(typical conservative blind spot. The author rallies against chivilary or gives that impression and then turns around and practices it. This is also denying men equal access to the law. At first he addresses it then says men shouldn't have the same right but instead "take it like a man". This is a case where conservatives are just as stupid as their liberal counterparts.) Play a weak victim long enough and you will eventually become one. During my daily commute I am occasionally the recipient of demeaning gestures and verbiage from my fellow motorists. This is regrettable but should not give me the right to sue the Illinois Department of Transportation or the Illinois State Police as a means of redress. When I play poker at a casino and a nearby rounder ridicules my play I should not have the right to institute proceedings against the Harrah's Corporation either. What this country needs is equality as opposed to chivalry justice. (I have heard of cases where female employees have ganged up on male employees and created a hostile work enviroment and this guy is comparing it to traffic difficulties? First of all,traffic situations involve strangers you are most like never going to see again meanwhile the anti-male work place is filled with people you see day in and day out. Second,traffic situations last mere SECONDS while the hostile work place lasts HOURS which gives the anti-male torturers who torture men because they are MEN longer than some other motorist is mad at you because you violated a rule of the road they don't care what you look like. Unlike this guy I say courts should definitely look out for male victims.)
Hearing slurs is the side effect of living around other people. It is not invigorating but it is entirely predictable. Sympathy is not the proper response for Ms. Sanders or anyone else who claims that heated syllables produce deep-seated emotional trauma. We should acknowledge the bizarre privilege that such individuals possess. Happily, most of us are not incapacitated by huge egos which become destabilized upon hearing others express non-affirming views. Ms. Sanders must have led an ornate, bejeweled existence, and empathy for the multi-millionaire is totally misplaced.
Ms. Sanders's position "earned" her $260,000 in salary last year. This figure…ah, is not the norm. The 2006 median annual household income was $48,201, so here, oppressed is to plaintiff as non-controversial is to George W. Bush. There are no words, phrases, names, or finger salutations for which 99 percent of the male population would not endure in exchange for such a bounty. Personally, for that sum, this commentator would put up with being called every name in the Devil's Dictionary. At the end of each pay period I would then thank my oppressors and respond to their taunts by calculating the exact weekly worth of each insult I absorbed.
Yet overcoming obstacles and enduring pain are now deemed archaic notions. A mandate of our therapeutic age is that the process of making money should never require one to put the needs of your employer above your own. Even drudgery equates with dehumanization. "Work" is no longer considered work as it really seems to be more of a personal fulfillment scheme.
Women, in particular, have bought into the idea that labor is more about self-esteem and achievement than getting paid for the completion of tasks. As Ann Coulter noted, "Men always had ‘jobs,' women have ‘careers.'" [4] Apart from those fortunate enough to finagle state financed position at college Women's Studies programs in which projecting personal pathologies onto the backs of others (men, Caucasians, and the United States of America) is considered good form, most of us find work banal and routine. We work in order to survive. Making ends meet is an end in itself. One does not set their alarm for 4:45 am and drive off into a January frost in the hopes of feeling good about oneself.
Of course, the New York Times believed every word of the plaintiff's claims. This is not surprising as the paper consistently advocates for female empowerment. They concluded that "Reality had no voice until Anucha Browne Sanders took the stand. Truth had no visuals until she provided them in court." Remember, they were not there and have no idea if her version of the affair was true or not. What will they say should the decision get overturned? Don't bet on a retraction.
They also suggest that "Thomas added to the Garden's creepy vibe by dismissively treating Browne Sanders as if she were nothing more than a groupie he once charmed during his playing days." What if he did treat her in that fashion? Ms. Sanders was not there to be Mr. Thomas's equal. She was there to work for him. A position of subservience should have been assumed the moment she signed her contract.
Thomas had this to say: "I want to say it as loud as I possibly can. I'm innocent. I'm very innocent. I did not do the things that she accused me in the courtroom of doing. I'm extremely disappointed that the jury could not see the facts ... and I will appeal." Alas, I fear The Times may never have to reconfigure their support for Ms. Sanders because the judiciary and the general population are soundly steeped in the edicts of women's privilege. Fairness is not a consideration should a woman claim to be wronged. If you can show she's been insulted or had her feelings hurt then the only question left is to determine the award sum.
How any man can have faith in our legal system is perplexing. The courts uphold inequity whenever possible and reflexively debase men in the hopes of elevating women. Until corrected, this malignant phenomenon has permanently dispelled justice from the land.
Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
Footnotes:
[1] Some writers may dislike using the term "fair sex" but I am always ready to concede that women are physically more appealing, hence fairer, than are men. As for the other nuances of the idiom, I will not extend judgment here.
[2] Carlson, Allan C. and Mero, Paul T. The Natural Family: A Manifesto. (Dallas: Spence, 2007). Pp. 157-158.
[3] Patai, Daphne. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998). P.11.
[4] Coulter, Ann. Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. (New York: Crown, 2002). p.39.
Source:here
Public Service Announcement
If it wasn't for affirmative action these female IT experts wouldn't exist so please look at the picture and realize the true importance of affirmative action.
So please dump support affirmative action because it is the only way lazy parasitic cunts who offer no use to society women can succeed. In fact one executive told his female IT expert,I want to come in your face." "I respect your abilities as a woman."
So thankfuck you for supporting affirmative action.
So thank
The golddigger and the wise man
I want to thank Raider67 for posting this on Chris Key's site and I want to promote it here,check it out:
What am I doing wrong?
Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful
(spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy.
I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at
least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind
that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think
I'm overreaching at all.
Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could
you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around
200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get
me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married
to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as
I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I
get to her level?
Here are my questions specifically:
- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars,
restaurants, gyms
-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my
feelings
-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?
- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east
side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have
nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead
gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story
there?
- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment
banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they
hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for
MARRIAGE ONLY
Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest
way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front
about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't
able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a
nice home and hearth.
* it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
And of course a response but not one she hoped for:
PostingID: 432279810
THE ANSWER
Dear Pers-431649184:
I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I
see it.
Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a
cr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you
suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring
my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my
money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely
that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't
be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!
So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy
and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense
to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case
you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were
to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's
as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.
Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So,
I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful"
as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to
believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K
hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then
we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.
With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease agreement,
Please, let me know.
Don Blakeney
(206) 399-8194
don.blakeney@gmail.com
What am I doing wrong?
Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful
(spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy.
I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at
least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind
that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think
I'm overreaching at all.
Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could
you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around
200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get
me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married
to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as
I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I
get to her level?
Here are my questions specifically:
- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars,
restaurants, gyms
-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my
feelings
-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?
- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east
side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have
nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead
gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story
there?
- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment
banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they
hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for
MARRIAGE ONLY
Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest
way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front
about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't
able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a
nice home and hearth.
* it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
And of course a response but not one she hoped for:
PostingID: 432279810
THE ANSWER
Dear Pers-431649184:
I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I
see it.
Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a
cr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you
suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring
my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my
money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely
that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't
be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!
So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy
and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense
to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case
you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were
to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's
as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.
Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So,
I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful"
as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to
believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K
hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then
we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.
With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease agreement,
Please, let me know.
Don Blakeney
(206) 399-8194
don.blakeney@gmail.com
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The undertold facts of domestic violence
Men often victims of sexual assault
Ashley Oliver, CT News Reporter
Tuesday, October 2; 10:45 PM
In a May 2007 study, the Centers for Disease Control found that more than 800,000 males in the United States are raped or physically assaulted by their female partners every year.
The National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM) is expressing concern during domestic violence awareness month this October that this study has been unfairly ignored because of the media's gender stereotyping.
The organization looks at the way sex discrimination affects both boys and men and focuses on a number of different issues, including male victims of domestic violence.
"The media has been misframing domestic violence for too long and there is just not enough awareness about male victims," said Marc Angelucci, President of the Los Angeles chapter of NCFM. "The media tends to use unreliable crime data and ignore sociological data which is much more accurate."
Because the media has been accused of distorting the general publics' view of domestic violence, the NCFM is worried that men won't come forward when they are the victims of violence by their intimate partner.
"We need to educate the public that male victims are not alone and are not wimps, and that they need to seek help and report it," Angelucci said. "They are in more danger than they think."
NCFM is concerned that male victims will maintain their silence and that the problem will continue and add to the overall cycle of domestic violence.
"They have no outreach and few services, and they continue to just 'take it like men' until someone gets hurt," Angelucci said.
This year's CDC report counters any ideas about men not being assaulted by female partners or injured because of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). The NCFM is determined to make people aware of this in hopes of dissolving the stereotype that females almost always fall victim to male criminals.
"It's important that the public is aware that domestic violence is happening in both directions and at significant levels; that it is not just a male crime, and that it is damaging no matter what gender commits it," Angelucci said.
CDC studies show the gravity of IPV for men and women alike. In the year 2004, IPV resulted in 1,544 deaths with 25 percent being men. Updated in 2003, the corporate cost of IPV in the United States was $8.3 million from medical care, mental health services and lost productivity.
"Children are damaged just by witnessing (domestic violence) regardless of the severity," Angelucci said.
Experts from various domestic violence organizations agree that children who live in an environ-ment where IPV is present are more likely to carry it into their own family than children who grow up with parents in a healthy relationship.
In order to prevent IPV altogether, it's important to prevent a physical, emotional, threatening, or sexual issue from even emerging between couples in the first place.
According to the CDC fact sheet on domestic violence reports, "Strategies that promote healthy dating relationships are important. These strategies should focus on young people when they are learning skills for dating."
Source: here
Ashley Oliver, CT News Reporter
Tuesday, October 2; 10:45 PM
In a May 2007 study, the Centers for Disease Control found that more than 800,000 males in the United States are raped or physically assaulted by their female partners every year.
The National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM) is expressing concern during domestic violence awareness month this October that this study has been unfairly ignored because of the media's gender stereotyping.
The organization looks at the way sex discrimination affects both boys and men and focuses on a number of different issues, including male victims of domestic violence.
"The media has been misframing domestic violence for too long and there is just not enough awareness about male victims," said Marc Angelucci, President of the Los Angeles chapter of NCFM. "The media tends to use unreliable crime data and ignore sociological data which is much more accurate."
Because the media has been accused of distorting the general publics' view of domestic violence, the NCFM is worried that men won't come forward when they are the victims of violence by their intimate partner.
"We need to educate the public that male victims are not alone and are not wimps, and that they need to seek help and report it," Angelucci said. "They are in more danger than they think."
NCFM is concerned that male victims will maintain their silence and that the problem will continue and add to the overall cycle of domestic violence.
"They have no outreach and few services, and they continue to just 'take it like men' until someone gets hurt," Angelucci said.
This year's CDC report counters any ideas about men not being assaulted by female partners or injured because of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). The NCFM is determined to make people aware of this in hopes of dissolving the stereotype that females almost always fall victim to male criminals.
"It's important that the public is aware that domestic violence is happening in both directions and at significant levels; that it is not just a male crime, and that it is damaging no matter what gender commits it," Angelucci said.
CDC studies show the gravity of IPV for men and women alike. In the year 2004, IPV resulted in 1,544 deaths with 25 percent being men. Updated in 2003, the corporate cost of IPV in the United States was $8.3 million from medical care, mental health services and lost productivity.
"Children are damaged just by witnessing (domestic violence) regardless of the severity," Angelucci said.
Experts from various domestic violence organizations agree that children who live in an environ-ment where IPV is present are more likely to carry it into their own family than children who grow up with parents in a healthy relationship.
In order to prevent IPV altogether, it's important to prevent a physical, emotional, threatening, or sexual issue from even emerging between couples in the first place.
According to the CDC fact sheet on domestic violence reports, "Strategies that promote healthy dating relationships are important. These strategies should focus on young people when they are learning skills for dating."
Source: here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)