Over the past few months, there has been speculation on the world stage as to what the future of trade currency will look like. Today we have a clearer look at the direction the world is going. It was only a year ago that secret meetings were held by the finance ministers and central bank governors of Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on a scheme with a goal that oil will no longer be priced in dollars. Countries are talking, and the talk is—“how can we jump ship from this dollar problem?”
The international community is concerned, and as a whole are considering a move away from the dollar to protect their own economies. Iran even announced in September of 2009 that its foreign currency reserves will be held in Euros rather than dollars. The last Middle Eastern country to sell oil in Euros rather than dollars was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. After Sadam announced his intentions, it was only a few months before Iraq was invaded by the US and England. I wonder if we can expect an invasion of Iran in the coming months—should history repeat itself.
Today, it is official. China and Russia have said officially that they will renounce the US dollar and use their domestic currencies in bilateral trade. They are saying that the move is not aimed at challenging the dollar, but at protecting their economies. What impact does that have on us? To give you an idea, bilateral trade between Russia and China just within the next month will reach $50 billion, a major chunk of which is normally transacted in US dollars. Don’t be surprised over the next few months if you see other countries following suit and stepping away from the US Dollar. In a recent article entitled “The Demise of the Dollar” by Robert Fisk, it is mentioned that, according to Chinese banking sources, the transitional currency in the move away from dollars may well be gold. Over the past year, there has been a major move by these countries to dump dollars and purchase gold and other commodities. The result for our good ol’ currency… a steady and sure devaluation followed by a probable collapse.
I do have one major question though—why isn’t this in the news? I looked at CNN this morning, no report. I looked at CNN Money, and still no report on this development. Then I check FOX, no report. I looked at FOX World News for Asia, and not even a report there? MSNBC, still no luck. This is some of the biggest news in the world right now, especially affecting our own currency and economy, and not even a mention? I had to look to the International Business Times, the Asian Times, and other World News Agencies to get details of the agreement. In my opinion, there is a reason for this—I believe the wool is being drawn, and it is being drawn thick over the eyes of the average American. My advice, if you haven’t already, is to move away from dollar-based assets. You see other countries doing it, be assured—they aren’t stupid. Take your personal savings and diversify with commodities until the dust settles. Those that hold their savings in US Dollars are taking on major risk.
Holy God. You are the epitome of gross in my book. How horrendously, horrifically, shallow. To each their own, but paragraph upon paragraph of the 2% of Seattle's women you have seen? You do realize at any given moment you are seeing less than 2% of women in Seattle...right? And not everyone is as superficial as you, thank god. Please, PLEASE, stay in Vegas. PS turtlenecks are really lame, you're mean, and though you didn't ruin my day you've made me want to kick you in the balls and I'm not usually violent. I'd make an exception for you :)
but paragraph upon paragraph of the 2% of Seattle’s women you have seen?
I lived here over 10 years before I moved to Vegas. I’m quite familiar with the quality of women in this city. They are simply awful.
Please, PLEASE, stay in Vegas.
Oh, believe me, you do not have to worry about that. I come here maybe once a year. The rest of the time, I’m more than happy to stay in a city of beautiful people.
PS turtlenecks are really lame
Ha, I thought for sure it would take at least 5-6 angry reblogs before some angry offended Seattleite tried to capitalize on that gimme—but instead, you played that card on the very first post in a poor attempt at an insult.
You kind of ruined it for the rest of them. There’s much better insults that I gave you the opportunity for. Hmm, I guess they’re ugly AND slow-witted up here. Sad.
I am painfully reminded of how incredibly ugly the women are in this city. I mean, yes, that’s obviously a generalization—but contrasted with Vegas, it’s so glaring that one can’t help but be cognizant of it. In Vegas, it’s beautiful people abound. Yes, Vegas has its share of fatties and uggos—but god, not like Seattle does. In Seattle, they’re everywhere.
I decided to accompany my mother on errands yesterday. No, not Black Friday stuff (only suckers do Black Friday shopping)—just a trip to a grocery store, the post office, the library (I picked up a really cool book that I’m already about 50 pages into, that I think I’m going to have to end up mailing back), things of that nature. And, I have to say, I think I look pretty darn good today. I was kind of admiring how good I look in winter ensembles—given that I rarely am afforded the opportunity to really break out my winter gear in Vegas. A lot of people laugh at me for it, but I’m a big fan of the turtleneck. I always have been. I just love the way I look in them. That, plus a pair of dark blue jeans, and my calfskin jacket (that’s right suckas—forget leather, I wear the skin of baby cows), tightly coordinated with my simple black casual (but not TOO casual) Sketchers. Freshly clean-shaven, and having a fantastic hair day—I have to say, I looked good.
But enough about me.
So, as is my nature, as I’m wandering around in these places I’m checking out all the tail that I see in the room. And god, you know, I can’t even call it “tail” with a straight face. Because for pete’s sake, Seattle chicks have such fat asses and such disgustingly huge thighs. It’s more like looking at the ass end of a rhinoceros. In fact, that’s what I’m going to call it: rhinoceros butt. I’m certain that if you peeled their pants off, they’d have the kind of backsides where there’s no clear definition from the ass to the leg. It’s all just kind of one big blob of nastiness. How is that attractive? It’s awful. I just want to grab these women by the shoulders and shout, “TREADMILL! GET ON A FREAKIN’ TREADMILL!” Even on a relatively good looking upper-body, this can be a deathstroke for them. I mean, you really get a first-hand understanding of what it means when you hear the term “pear-shaped” after looking at these people.
But it doesn’t end there. Their faces are… god, what’s the word for it? Homely? I mean, it’s plain—but not the kind of cute, endearing, girl-next-door plain. The kind of blah plain that is almost kind of dumpy-looking androgynous in a lot of ways. Bad haircuts, unkept eyebrows, and a general lack of makeup. Now, I’m not one of those types that seeks makeup as an absolute necessity—but in a lot of women, it does have a way of transforming them from a mediocre four into a stunning 7 or 8, assuming it’s properly applied. Even the features are unattractive. Big and sloping foreheads; noses that beg for rhinoplasty; beady, downcast eyes; unattractive, uninviting mouths. They’re just awful. I mean, to whatever little credit I can give them, they’re not like “gasp in horror and disgust” ugly—I mean, you can stand to physically look at them—they’re just not pretty. Now, in fairness: how dressed up should a chick get to go to the freakin’ grocery store? But that’s not the point. Even in plain, everyday clothes, a naturally attractive person looks good. Like me. I’m not all fancied up or anything, I’m just wearing what any casual, somewhat upscale person in the winter season would wear. But I make it look good because I am a generally handsome man by nature. That, and the way I carry myself, of course.
But that’s what Seattle women lack. They lack that natural beauty that shines through in, generally, any given circumstance. They’re not even ordinary. They swing to the other side of the pendulum, and almost towards intentionally unattractive. That, and they all seem to have this downcast look like they’re trying to avoid having to be looked at. You know what I’m talking about? How you can kind of tell by looking how they have this kind of… attitude of being dumpy rejects? It’s like they just look miserable. It’s terribly unattractive.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, they have absolutely no style whatsoever. I mean, there’s no one “style” that appeals to every single person or anything. I found mine and I make it work all kinds of ways. But Seattle women don’t seem to know a thing about style. And I don’t know if it’s just because it’s wintertime and their options are more limited (though you’d think in Seattle that wouldn’t be the case). But even the apparel these women were wearing was awful. It’s… I don’t know what it is. Their pants, obviously, were all kinds of wrong for their bodies—and only made their horrifically fat asses and oversized thighs all the more visible. Which, trust me, ain’t helping them. But it’s like they’re “ironically” trying to clash everything. From top, to shoes (well, boots, mostly) to coats, to hat. It just… none of it made any sense. It was like this chaotic mishmash of fashion that made them even worse looking.
You know, there’s rarely a time in Vegas when I’m at a grocery store or a Walmart or a social venue where I’m just casually looking around and don’t come across some female that’s jaw-droppingly gorgeous. But in Seattle—even when I intentionally try to look for them, they are simply not there.
I’ve lived all over this country. I’m sorry Seattle, but you have—hands down—the ugliest women around.
a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
a) A parasite is an invading organism — coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg — the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote — the first cell of the new human being.
a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host’s tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother’s uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) Evidence presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, “The Embryo as a Transplant” (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast — the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo — blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host’s capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species). A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
i am not a teenager, again. i would assume someone *~WHO'S A LAYWER & PHILOSOPHER~* would be able to concoct a better retort to a proven fact than "Of course you are. Look at that last sentence. I suspect you may actually still be in middle school."
speaking of teenager's, however, i see that you sent one of yours after me to white knight it up. she really is breaking the glass ceiling on that issue, so kudos to her for attempting to form coherent thoughts & replies to actual things being discussed in the moment. the problem, though, is that my example IS gender specific. studies have been done & have determined that the stereotypes of men being unemotional & generally detached from deep thinking are stereotypes because they have a basis in fact. you know.. fact.. the thing you continue to evade by alluding to some mystery point you are pathetically attempting to spin out of your original bitchfest. men have problems using the right part of their brain. they don't consistently, as a gender, have the ability to use that part of their mind the same way women consistently do. why do you avoid this very simple proven fact that negates your irrelevant point, anyway? not only have you not refuted anything i have said, but you've actually made it a point to dwell on the most off-your-implied-topic sentences i type. i thought this issue - according to your friend - was not about women or men being any which way, but instead about focusing on individual worth? if that is your point, then why do you keep pushing for an answer to this? shouldn't we have already moved past that point in this conversation & began focusing on your actual attempted meaning to your original reply?
so moving forward, let's talk about the implied meaning.
the original video was very specific in it's defense of women - as a gender. whatever in your mind causes you to believe that you can deny an entire gender the right to feel however they would like to feel on any particular issue is in need of repair. that is like the wear purple issue everyone had not to long ago. i assume you would then be on the side of the anti-purple wearing people & say that we should remember all of those who have killed themselves & not just the gay ones. it's just a very stupid way to spin the issue into something that it never had anything to do with. you can't just pick & choose what you feel individually to be proper replies to the questions in that video & then expect people not to assume you are attacking those questions. women have every fucking right to feel demeaned & belittled on a daily basis because it happens ALL THE TIME. men, on the other hand, don't have that problem. you can't just deny a group of people their ability to care about an issue because YOU want the world to concentrate more on individualism & FURTHERMORE IF YOU DO you should state your stance more obviously & articulate your point in a more obvious manner so as not to bait people into confrontations. are you really black, or were you just using a little racist humor to divert attention from your actual point, again? if you are black, how do you feel about people who think affirmative action is a race-driven conspiracy used to prop the unworthy black man up to better positions because they never "got over" racism? i want a real answer to that.
like i said to your female friend, your inability to properly make your point in one post for all to read in one sitting not only demonstrates how off base your comments were in comparison to your implied theory behind them, but it also shows that you wanted someone like me to argue with you. the problem you are facing now is that you thought everyone would reply with the Marie Curie response & i didn't. i threw off your whole argument because i don't agree that anyone - male or female - should be valued for their sexual availability. if you truly are an individualist, you could easily understand where i am coming from in that respect. you really believe all human beings are only worth their sexual availability? men & women alike are only deemed valuable if they have redeeming sexual qualities to someone else, whomever that might be? there are plenty of asexual & sexually disinterested people who would disagree completely with that thought. people who put their work before their relationships. people who don't need a partner to make them feel special or valuable or whatever "sexually available" actually means. i wonder why you can't identify with that considering how prudish you seemed to react to my dick jokes?
maybe you don't understand the definition of "sexual availability"? that would be the only way i could take any of what you said in the way you claim to be saying it... is if you could admit that this whole thing is based off of selfish privilege denial & that you really, from the get go, ran into this with your anti-feminism blinders on & without any real idea of what the subject matter you were discrediting because it doesn't make you feel special enough was.
studies have been done & have determined that the stereotypes of men being unemotional & generally detached from deep thinking are stereotypes because they have a basis in fact.
Yeah, and black guys steal your tv and women make a mean pot roast. Uh huh.
why do you avoid this very simple proven fact
Because you have in no way substantiated it.
i thought this issue - according to your friend - was not about women or men being any which way, but instead about focusing on individual worth?
Well that’s because you’re not very smart. The issue is clearly NOT about individual worth. It’s about worth as a gender—a notion which was purported by the guy in the youtube video, which I have since challenged the women here (who, by their response, presumably agree with him) to explain.
Quote: “Stop assuming our only conceivable worth is in our sexual availability.” “Our” meaning “women”. So what is it that “WOMEN” have, as a conceivable worth, outside of their sexual availability?
that is like the wear purple issue everyone had not to long ago. i assume you would then be on the side of the anti-purple wearing people
What the hell are you talking about? I have no idea what it is you’re saying to me here.
women have every fucking right to feel demeaned & belittled on a daily basis because it happens ALL THE TIME. men, on the other hand, don’t have that problem.
Bull. I wrote about this awhile back: “I dare you to find a television show (hell, a commercial) in the last… 10 years that doesn’t paint men as a simpering weakling, a braindead idiot, a simpleton fool, a lazy fatass, an immature drunk, or an over-the-top aggressive brute—in which the male character is clearly not an antagonist that we’re supposed to dislike. And you’ll notice that in all those same shows, the woman is a loudmouthed sarcastic bitch that puts the man down in every scene she has with him. Or, she’s a whore that sleeps with anyone and is proud of it.”
Women act like such pathetic little victims. Oooh, the whole world is against them because they have a vagina. Bullshit. This whole SOCIETY has been hellbent on demeaning and belittling men ever since women got the right to vote. But unlike you bitches we don’t sit around and whine about it. And we certainly don’t pretend like we’re deserving of some unearned respect simply because of our chromosonal makeup.
you can’t just deny a group of people their ability to care about an issue
The hell I can’t. All I have to do is exactly what I did here: challenge them to defend it, and ridicule them when they completely and utterly fail to.
how do you feel about people who think affirmative action is a race-driven conspiracy used to prop the unworthy black man up to better positions because they never “got over” racism?
I think they’re failing to see the true malevolence of affirmative action, and being suckered into thinking it’s some kind of “conspiracy”—when, in fact, affirmative action is the kind of thing that is born of total ignorance and stupidity and that has unintended consequences that actually harm the people it was meant to “help.”
like i said to your female friend
I’m sure I have no idea what you are talking about.
but it also shows that you wanted someone like me to argue with you.
To be frank, I truly wish people “like you” would shut your fucking mouths and never open them again. Because honestly, every time people “like you” post, this is the response you should get.
because i don’t agree that anyone - male or female - should be valued for their sexual availability.
So, then, you disagree with our tranny youtube poster then? Well gosh young lady, you could have just said that and spared yourself an hour of typing.
you have the worst conversational argument skills of anyone i have ever come across via the internet. i am not a teenager, anyway, but you didn't even reply to anything i said you just picked 2 random sentences that had nothing to do with my point & made comments on them that you cannot prove. how do you know you'd score higher than me on some fantasy test you have concocted in your mind? you could never know that. that wouldn't even prove anything, anyway, considering we are talking about the entirety of a gender & not specific people within that gender. i have a feeling the reason why it took you several days to respond has less to do with your "job" or "busy social life" & more to do with how long it takes you to read something, process it, then form a mildly coherent thought as a reply. multiple people have replied to your original post with valid responses, you just overlook them because you have no answer.
i want to know what your value is beyond your sexual availability, though. i want to know how big (or small) your dick is & how long you can last in bed. i want to know your BMI, if your family has any history of male patterned baldness, the genetic tallness of your family that could potentially be passed on if you ever made the unfortunate decision to create a spawn somehow (i don't know how, as clearly no real woman would ever date you).. i need to know these things immediately as they further prove my point that you are only responding to random sentences contained within my overall point that don't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
the whole internet is laughing at your inability to properly back & defend up your ignorant theory. have fun with your hand for the rest of your life. you should go back to facebook, that's where bros belong.
i am not a teenager
Of course you are. Look at that last sentence. I suspect you may actually still be in middle school.
you could never know that. that wouldn’t even prove anything, anyway, considering we are talking about the entirety of a gender & not specific people within that gender.
Exactly. And what you posted as an example is not gender-specific. So, that is not some “conceiveable worth” you have by sheer virtue of being a woman. Care to try again?
multiple people have replied to your original post with valid responses
No, they THINK they replied with valid answers, and I systematically illustrated why they did not. No matter how many times or how many different ways you try to call a tail a leg, it’s not going to make a dog have five legs.
.. i need to know these things immediately
No, you need to know them in order to try and steer the conversation away from the point you can’t defend: that women have any conceivable worth outside of their sexual availability. You’ve been harassing me HOW many days, and you have yet to point out one thing—that I haven’t been able to refute—that women bring to the table that’s worthwhile by simple virtue of them being women.
"I didn’t base anyone’s self worth on sexuality and gender alone. I simply challenged people to tell me what “conceivable worth” it is they think they have outside of their sexual availability.
Why is it that you women are incapable of saying what your worth, as a gender, is?" So...you don't base anyone's self worth on sexuality and gender alone but you want to know women's self worth in their gender is. You sound like another white priviledged man.
So…you don’t base anyone’s self worth on sexuality and gender alone but you want to know women’s self worth in their gender is.
Yes. Dude in the youtube video implied that there was some worth, as a gender, outside of your sexual availability. I want to know what it is. Why do you keep refusing to answer that?
Here’s a little clue, FuckNoLiberals YOU EXPLAIN TO ME YOUR WORTH. Why are you necessary?
I asked first. This cat on the youtube video was purportedly speaking for women—and, in fact, by his comments, many many women share his sentiments. By your hostility to this post, one can only assume that you do as well—so, if you agree with this guy, that women have “conceivable worth” outside of your “sexual availability,” then by all means: tell me what it is.
it actually has the capacity to allow a woman to communicate more effectively than a man.
OK, so, basically, your argument is some vague notion that your brain chemistry is different and allows for different things. Yeah, um, the fact that women are (allegedly) “better problem solvers” is not a trait exclusive to women. In fact, I’m willing to bet that given a test of direct and lateral problem solving, I’d finish it faster and more accurately than you. Because I’ve been trained to do so.
So, yeah, assuming this “better problem solving” was gender-exclusive, clearly the fact that it can be replicated (with study) does not make it a “female” worth. Care to try again?
So you see, without women you men would not only not even exist as you would have no means of procreation,
That’s fucking idiocy. Without men, you women would not exist and have no means of procreation.
all is quiet on the douche bag front... wonder why a little boy with so much to say just days ago has all of a sudden become shy? is it because you are coming to the realization that you're a disgusting excuse for a man & you're ready to change, or are you trying to get the right angle on that dick picture to make it look sort of big? hint: lighting from the bottom makes things appear taller ;)
You’re just this annoying little twerp of a high school kid, so you probably don’t know—but grown-ups have these things called “jobs” and “responsibilities” and sometimes even “a social life.” Sometimes we’re busy, and don’t have time to log onto Tumblr to smack around some dumbass child who doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
I can’t even believe that someone has this ideology in this day and age.
1. No, I am not your god damn eye candy. If I look nice, it’s because I have taken the time to present myself as such, not for you, but for me.
Well, I’m glad you’re doing it for yourself—but just because it’s not your intention to be eye candy doesn’t mean that’s not what happens.
Did you understand what I meant when I conditioned that first statement with, “In a way?” It was to say that, from a certain perspective, that you do have that quality to you. Men like something they can look at, men like someone they can show off, men like how a gorgeous woman on his arm reflects on him. So yes, in that regard, you are his wallpaper and his eye-candy.
It’s nothing to get upset about. In fact, it’s something women should find flattering. I guess they’re all just too hung up on their own preconceptions that there should be nothing shallow about a relationship.
2. Well, if all your relationships are based off of appearances,
I never said that. I said that physical attraction is, initially, the most important thing—but you don’t base a relationship solely off it. Appearances are just what get you in the door.
3. So, all women talk about are inane little conversations?
Nope. Like I explicitly said, if you have something meaningful to say—by all means. But if it’s just mindless female jabbering for the sake of hearing your own voices, please spare us already.
So, if I have to sit and listen to you blather and chatter about your inane trip to the mechanics and what happened in the last fifteen seconds of the football game,
Honestly, how many guys sit and try to have a conversation with you over fixing their car or the end of the game while you’re out having dinner? How many guys make this general conversation subject when they’re with their lady? I know very few. I have met, however, many women that will discuss their day at the nail salon, or what funny thing their coworker said, or any number of a million inane conversation pieces simply to fill the air with conversation rather than awkward silence.
4. If you don’t need her, then why are with her in the first place?
Like I said, were she someone of character and quality, I would want to be with her. Not be so out of some undefined compulsion to have companionship in my life.
Maybe you’re taking it for granted.
Maybe I am! That’s the big point of the question, though, isn’t it? What is it I’m supposedly taking for granted? What is that worth women have, by sole virtue of being women, that I am taking for granted? Explain it to me. Put it into words.
a relationship is self-sacrifice for the good and happiness of the other.
Haha, oh, you poor, naive little girl. Remember how earlier you said, “then I think you’re going to have an absolutely miserable love life”—if “self-sacrifice” is your idea of a relationship, trust me kitten, you’re going to be eating those words. And they will be bitter.
You’re treating it like a business
Isn’t it, though? What’s the point of two people coming together if not for mutual benefit exchange? That’s all a business relationship is, essentially. How is a personal/romantic relationship any different?
5. When did you ever earn the respect you’re given?
You would have to ask that of the people in my life that respect me. I’m sure they all have their own answers.
Women are trying to earn respect but it seems people like you are just too greedy to share it.
lol, the mewing victim syndrome.
6. We’re plenty good at other things and we have contributed a lot to society, but you fail to realize it because you’re too busy telling tell girls to shut the fuck up, bitch.
Payne, Curie, Roosevelt, Ross, Parks—their accomplishments, their worth was a result of their actions, not their gender. You, like so many others in who’ve messaged/reblogged me over the past few days (nearing 300 now), are confusing worthwhile things that happened to be done by a woman, with worth women have by virtue of being women.
They have as much worth as any man, they just have to work twice as hard to get it because no one wants to give them the opportunity.
Cue the violin.
It’s the 21st century. Women have all the opportunity they could possibly ask for. Don’t cry to me, Argentina.
"» Stop assuming our only conceivable worth is in our sexual availability.
I dare any woman reading this, right here and now, to name and substantiate any other worth women have in this day and age. With the advent of your post-modern feminism, your closing of the gender gap, your sexual liberation, and your general overall modern attitudes: what worth DO you have anymore, as a woman, to a man, in this day and age? I fucking dare you to name one other thing, and back it up." Someone sounds a bit jaded. Bad experience growing up? Probs. Who hurt you?
That’s quite a presumption based on absolutely no information whatsoever about me. How exactly did you come to that conclusion, and in what is it based?
You are an asshole. Women don't need men anymore to conceive/have a house/ survive/ be happy/ many other etceteras.
Why do you think women are so beneath you? Not just opinions, but some actual facts why you think we are so beneath you.
Did I ever say women needed men? Did I say they were beneath me?
“I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it’s legitimate for me to call them anti-human.”—Patrick Moore, co-founder Greenpeace
“It is medically possible to take the corneas of a man’s eyes immediately after his death and transplant them to the eyes of a living man who is blind, thus restoring his sight (in certain types of blindness). Now, according to collectivized ethics, this poses a social problem. Should we wait until a man’s death to cut out his eyes, when other men need them? Should we regard everybody’s eyes as public property and devise a ‘fair method of distribution’? Would you advocate cutting out a living man’s eye and giving it to a blind man, so as to ‘equalize’ them? No? Then don’t struggle any further with questions about ‘public projects’ in a free society. You know the answer. The principle is the same.”—