How is # 1 sexist?
How is # 1 sexist?
So in other words, we haven’t needed to do shit like that since we learned it in 5th grade, and never will in the future. It was all just a waste of time to learn it. A frustrating….waste…of time.
They have the state flags at the walmarts in my state, but out of the two i’ve noticed have them, they are both displayed backwards! What are the chances? They must be doing it on purpose or something. Then again i’d believe they are really that stupid.
50 fucking dollars for 8 measly cookies? I don’t care how good they are, that is highway robbery. They’d better have a gold ring in each of them after charging that much. Same with most of the prices on this stuff. How do these people get away with it?!
Oops forgot this
Road Warrior, baby
“Hello darkness, my old friend” after livejournal. Holy shit i was choking i was laughing so hard.
So..using the tape deck to hold a phone?
Um, i believe we’re missing the best one here.
I’m far from sexist. It’s interesting how you automatically decry that anyone choosing their own gender is sexist. So i guess that the only reason anyone would ever choose their own gender is because they are sexist, never any other reason? Also, if anything, going by that ‘theory’ would be what is sexist. If people were to never choose their own gender and only chose the other, is that not sexist? In favoring your own sex, it’s not the fact that it’s *your* sex that makes it ‘sexist’, but the fact that you are preferring one sex over another in the first place. Furthermore, preference is just that. It shouldn’t be, and isn’t, wrong for someone to have preference for certain things. So technically the situation stated is not sexist, unless there is proof that the reason no women (save one) were invited (that’s if event was invintation-only, not open to all) was based on the inviter’s false-beliefs about them. It’s hard to believe, for numerous reasons, this would be the case over, say, that it was an open-meeting and only that woman wanted to attend. Or perhaps there are just a lot more men than women that work there, thus it is actually representing a rather accurate demographic of the ratio of men to women who would show up based on free-will. I’m sure the ‘leader’ wouldn’t go as far as putting the company at risk due to a lack of important input just so he could endulge in his fantasies of barring women from the meeting. On your second point, again, it goes with what i described. You’re only automatically assuming that not only he (or she..?) chose to have the meeting this way (with only one woman) but that he/she also believes women don’t look at things differently at all. Your 3rd point: I’m not totally sure what you are trying to say here. It sounds like either you are talking as if you are the author of this article, or that you are some sort of article-publisher/researcher/etc. yourself and that you like hearing differing opinions, which in that case is wonderful but has nothing to do with the conversation. The next comment about Ina Fried also, i don’t see what it exactly has to do to prove your ‘point’. As for your final comment, i don’t see why it’s relevant. Again, seems you’re assuming that genders (or atleast males) only/always defend ‘their own’. But it’s not true so i never assumed you were either sex over the other. Overall, rocking the boat over a most-likely non-issue does nothing to help and could actually make worse what ‘cause’ you are fighting for. (I mainly refer to the main article here). I’m not sure if you are assuming i’m just some ‘macho’ sexist guy that is just going around trying to deny that sexism to women exists, but i am not.
And? Where they all specifically chosen to attend this or was it free-will (or part of their job position)? If free-will, then well, apparently only that woman wanted to go to the meeting. If all were chosen like that, then still, what’s the big deal? Every meeting talking about something has to have an exact ratio of represented groups (gender, race, age, etc.)? Really think author of this article is making a big deal out of nothing.
While i don’t quite agree with his “cause”, i do agree with allowing him to wear it, as it is free speech. What i don’t agree with is the fact that free speech about certain things has a “special privilege”. It should be either all or nothing with free speech, but it never is. Try wearing an anti-religion, anti-black (or any specific race), pro-abortion, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, etc. Shirt and you practically get slapped with a hate crime. They let some things of free speech go, but then others (which are just the same amount of free speech, just on another topic) are horrible hate speech and banned. It really is unjust unconstitutional.
I’m kind of taken aback seeing how many people drive with two hands.Ithought the majority drove with one..?Ican’t imagine driving with two hands, it feels totally uncomfortable and wrong, like writing with both hands at the same time or something. Yeah, sometimes i’ll touch my left hand at the bottom of the wheel (drape fingertips over the inside) but always steering with right hand at 12’o’clock.Iactually think two-handed steering driving is more dangerous. If you need to swerve or turn really quick, especiallyabig rotation, it’s quicker to just maneuver the wheel inafluid motion. There’s really no quick way to ‘hand-over-hand’ the wheel (2-hand steering) in that situation, and it just ups the chance of slips and such. Just howisee it.