why do feminist

Post Reply New Topic

specially Cheney!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbjrocMgwpI[/youtube]

^ Oh, so that's what gender studies are all about. Very practical.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_REMnrG2J4[/youtube]

If we need more women chief executives, do we also need more white sprinters in the Olympic 100m?

The clamour is deafening and relentless for more women in everything, but in all the furore led by women's groups, does bigotry rear its ugly head? This film assesses the merit of quotas for women executives by looking at the prison population, black Olympic sprinters and the human brain.

Well, that would be a good way of promoting Feminism. Maybe if the Feminists were to offer free-sex Saturdays for guys who can't get laid, then more guys would convert.

At least it is worth a shot. How about it, ladies?

Anita Scammer exposed again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EpWezFQ ... youtu.be&a

in part-two it is revealed that Anita scam was not in feminism before she met her master Jonathan Macintosh the brains behind the feminist frequency operation. she worked with fellow scammer Bart Bagget and learned his techniques and applied them to her latest victimology scam operation femfreq



part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2h4vITidvo

And Bart Bagget is part of the PUA community. so Anita has indirect connections to the PUA community. once again her hypocrisy shows. anything she does not like is sexist and misogynous.

Sephardic male, you really seem to have an issue with Sarkeesian. You've run into the problem, though, that you hate her so much that it implies a little bit of competence on her part, so what do you do? Make her, in your mind, the tool of a man, of course. Cognitive dissonance solved.

Wrt. female CEOs, stock traders, & managers:
http://www.20-first.com/709-0-in-vietna ... etter.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaanders ... r-leaders/
https://www.openforum.com/articles/5-wa ... -than-men/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... n-men.html

http://business.time.com/2012/05/15/why ... ll-street/
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wome ... en-2012-11

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html


And yet attitudes haven't changed, thanks in large part to people like sephardic male:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/1 ... 54598.html

LKL I think women probably do make better traders because they don't take risks like men do.

But if they are so great, then why is there this imbalance. Surely they should dominate.

I read one part in your links and it said women were better traders because they traded less.

There is your answer there. They are less into it than men are, because of that there are less of them.

What about women that start their own businesses? Because they start their own business they are not going to be discriminated against by men as an obstacle. I bet if you look at that, you may find women are better. But you see it will be the same thing, because men are more risk takers you will always see more men start up businesses than women. Because starting up a business is taking a risk.

Also in business to succeed, you really have to be an accountant and be good with numbers. This is something that men are better at than women. Men are in general better at maths than women. right? Women on the other hand because they can multitask can make better managers.

Personally I'd feel safer to invest money with a woman than a man because of risk. But it all depends like the points I've made before you are always going to see less of them.

Your argument is like saying why are their not more straight men in the fashion industry and why is it domintated be gay men and women. It's not sexism, it's because men are not into fashion as much as women. Gay men are into fashion, because they have a womans brain.

^^^^

you invest in index funds any one who says they can beat the market is delusional , lucky or Warren Buffet .

If you know what you are doing you can beat the market. There is such a thing as herd mentality, you can make money off it. I wouldn't recommend share trading to anyone though, unless you understand it.

^^^^^^

well I agree but why would these people sell their secrets I've seen people waste serious money on these rackets.

at least with an index fund when I hit old age I know I will have netted around 8 % per year how can you complain about that ?

Pssssttt.....You're not suppose to say things like that...

...it is all because of Patriarchy!

Fearing more criminal Feminazi protests, Ryerson U fines organization sponsoring men’s issues speaker Karen Straughan $1600 “security fee.”

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/fe ... istrators/



previous events

The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) takes issue with a men’s issues club. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. An organization that collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandatory levies from Ryerson students is afraid of three students—two of them women—starting a men’s issues group.

Despite the constant rhetoric about diversity, equity and inclusion, the RSU cannot tolerate ideologies that run counter to its own. The irony of this patronizing attitude towards campus freedom is hard to miss. It’s as if the spirit of closed-minded religious dogma has jumped into bed with modern political correctness to prevent blasphemy against RSU ideological orthodoxy.

The principle is this: if you challenge official narrative, you don’t have the right to speak. But this is supposed to be a university—a place where we learn and debate in an open environment; where those we disagree with are challenged, not with censorship, but with other ideas. To agree to disagree and to respectfully debate—this is true tolerance.


http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2 ... ues-group/

I really don't think there are secrets to trading in shares. The number one thing you have to do is understand them. If you can understand the PE ratio and compare that to the growth of the company, debt levels...etc then you can value them. If you really do your homework there is some easy fruit. If you don't expect to get burnt.

I think you are wise investing in an index fund. You mentioned Warren Buffer, he famously avoided the dot com bubble. When asked why, he said he didn't invest in them (like people were making crazy returns before it all crashed), because he didn't understand them.

^^^

he was ridiculed in some circles who has the last laugh now.

That's not what it said, Bogan. What the articles said - your misinterpretation of one sentence from one of them notwithstanding - is that, statistically, a female investor doesn't jerk her money all over the place on whims, and thus her investments do better in the long term than mens'. Not that 'women loose less because women invest less,' which is what you're apparently trying to pretend that it is saying.

This is not correct.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... of-gender/
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... rmance-at/
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... iological/
http://blog.californiapsychics.com/blog ... myths.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... s-6390944/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/false ... y-1.617950
http://stereotypethreat.org/index.php/l ... ype-threat

My personal experience is that I was consistently at the top - and I mean *at* the top, not near it - in math from grade school onwards, and was praised for it up until I hit puberty, when all of a sudden teachers stopped praising me for math and science skills and started praising me for English and writing skills.

It's also very probable that men aren't as 'bad at language' as is so commonly claimed:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... ting-skil/


Your argument is like someone saying, in response to the question of why a physics dean preferentially picked male postdocs, 'because men are better at physics,' and then, to the question of how we know that 'men are better at physics,' saying, 'because most physics postdocs and professors are men.'

You are so emotionally invested in thinking that men are better at these things than women that you are ignoring statistically valid data in favor of anecdotes, circular reasoning, and misinterpretations.