Gynocentrism Sucks
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
These bad habits do not impress us
Nobody's perfect and not all bad habits are deal-breakers. That said, any man honing his seduction skills will do well to avoid:
ARROGANCE
The dangerous delusion that your needs, desires or opinions are, without exception, more important than the next man's is the No 1 turn-off for women. Arrogance should never be confused with confidence. If you're boasting to impress us, it is likely to have the opposite effect. Ladies know that quality is discreet. We wouldn't pick a handbag that shouts too hard and we won't pick you.
BEING DRUNK
Drink is a great disinhibitor. The snag is that it disinhibits only the drinker. Once you are disinhibited to the point of declaring your love for barmaids/bus drivers/lampposts, we will be less than receptive to any more advances. If getting oiled is part of the night's fun, gauge it carefully so you are never drunker than we are. We do not want to be responsible for getting you home.
TANTRUMS
Losing your temper, particularly in public, shows a worrying lack of self-control. Shouting at people you don't know and who are not in a position to shout back (eg, waiting staff, juniors) is particularly unattractive, as is any degree of physical aggression.
SMOKING
If you smoke and we don't, we will mind the smell. We'll mind it on your clothes and your hair and we'll mind it even more on ours. Crucially, we will never want to slip between your malodorous sheets.
PATRONISING BEHAVIOUR
Modern women do not take well to being "corrected" in their dress, speech or opinions. You may see yourself as Pygmalion. We just see the pig.
AUGUST 15--In a pathetic end to the Mike Nifong saga, the disgraced North Carolina prosecutor who handled the Duke rape investigation has turned in his law license, noting that he never framed or displayed the document because it had been damaged "by a puppy in her chewing stage."
Additionally, in an August 7 letter to the North Carolina State Bar, Nifong noted that the law license also contained a misspelling of his middle name (which is Byron). A copy of Nifong's "the dog ate my law license" letter can be found below.
Nifong was stripped of his license as a result of his unethical stewardship of the Duke probe, which resulted in felony charges being dropped against three students who had been charged with the sexual assault of a stripper who had performed at a March 2006 off-campus party attended by members of the school's lacrosse team. (1 page)
But is the hatchet of widespread discrimination against men and their institutionalised civil violations to be burried with Niffong ONLY.
Mike Nifong has lost his law license and his seat as Durham County district attorney. And he could lose more than that in the months ahead.
Criminal charges are possible, and civil lawsuits are a virtual certainty for the disgraced former attorney.
Nifong, who brought charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, was disbarred Saturday for unethical conduct in his handling of the case. But attorneys for the falsely accused players say there's more in store, saying there are plans to file a motion this week asking Durham County Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith to consider additional punishment.
Smith presided over pretrial hearings in the Duke lacrosse case. As part of its decision to revoke his license, the North Carolina Bar found Nifong guilty of lying to Smith about the existence of exculpatory DNA evidence, evidence that he had not handed over to the defense in a clear report. The players' attorneys say Nifong buried information about unidentified male DNA found on the accuser's body and clothing in hundreds of pages of raw data.
In their motion defense, the attorneys plan to ask Smith for further sanctions against Nifong, punishment that could include fines and contempt of court. A ruling of contempt could come with jail time.
Nifong could also face lawsuits from the exonerated players and their families. Joe Cheshire, an attorney for former Duke lacrosse captain David Evans, one of the three exonerated players, said he expects "excessive civil action" against Nifong.
"Some people will take that as being mean-spirited and kicking somebody when they're down," Cheshire said Sunday to The Associated Press. "But we believe that this issue is enormously important and it carries significant precedent, and (the judge) ought to be the one to make that decision because it happened in his court."
The families are seeking an independent investigation into Nifong's conduct -- an inquiry that could determine whether he committed any criminal violations in prosecuting the Duke players. Prosecutors are normally immune from criminal charges, but attorneys for the lacrosse players say Nifong went beyond his role as a prosecutor by actively investigating the case alongside the Durham Police Department.
Requests for a federal investigation have also been made by several members of Congress, including Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla. The lawmakers believe Nifong violated the players' constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
Nifong accepted his punishment from the North Carolina Bar, saying that disbarment was an "appropriate" penalty for his actions and that he would waive any right to an appeal. Over the course of his five-day ethics hearing he admitted to making major mistakes during the case but said he did not do anything intentionally unethical. Instead, he cited his lack of experience with high-profile cases and said that he got "carried away" by the national press coverage the case.
Matt Heck, president of the National District Attorneys Association, told ABC News that disbarment for conduct during a specific prosecution is "very, very rare.'' He added that his organization "agrees with the North Carolina State Bar committee, its decisions and its conclusions.''
Still, Heck said that Nifong is living "a prosecutor's worst nightmare -- to think of prosecuting and convicting an innocent person.''
Nifong's disbarment ended his three-decade run as a Durham County prosecutor and a lifelong career as a public servant. Nifong was a social worker before getting his law degree and worked as an assistant district attorney.
As part of its decision, a Bar panel cited his years of service and lack of prior disciplinary issues as points in Nifong's favor. But ultimately the Bar found that there was no counterweight to Nifong's conduct on the Duke lacrosse case.
Everyone from economists and sociologists to Oprah knows that women work more than men. Their longer combined hours, at the home and at the office, stop men from taking afternoon naps on the couch and cause fights that end with men spending nights on the couch. And yet according to new study, those longer hours are a myth, because it's just not true that women carry a heavier load. [But chauvenist societies as ours need misandric myths and sperstitions to maintain its bigoted world. Then again, so much order depends on widely accepted official lies anyway]
Throughout the world, men spend more time on market work, while women spend more time on homework [...No kidding ]. In the United States and other rich countries, men average 5.2 hours of market work a day and 2.7 hours of homework each day, while women average 3.4 hours of market work and 4.5 hours of homework per day. Adding these up, men work an average of 7.9 hours per day, while women work an average of--drum roll, please--7.9 hours per day. This is the first major finding of the new study. Whatever you may have heard on The View, when these economists accounted for market work and homework, men and women spent about the same amount of time each day working. The averages sound low because they include weekends and are based on a sample of adults that included stay-at-home parents as well as working ones, and other adults.
Using time-diary data from 25 countries, we demonstrate that there is a negative relationship between real GDP per capita and the female-male difference in total work time per day -- the sum of work for pay and work at home. In rich northern countries on four continents, including the United States, there is no difference -- men and women do the same amount of total work. This latter fact has been presented before by several sociologists for a few rich countries; but our survey results show that labor economists, macroeconomists, the general public and sociologists are unaware of it and instead believe that women perform more total work. [...Our propagander machine is just as efficient as our peoples are obstinately chauvenist?] The facts do not arise from gender differences in the price of time (as measured by market wages), as women's total work is further below men's where their relative wages are lower. Additional tests using U.S. and German data show that they do not arise from differences in marital bargaining, as gender equality is not associated with marital status; nor do they stem from family norms, since most of the variance in the gender total work difference is due to within-couple differences. We offer a theory of social norms to explain the facts. The social-norm explanation is better able to account for within-education group and within-region gender differences in total work being smaller than inter-group differences. It is consistent with evidence using the World Values Surveys that female total work is relatively greater than men's where both men and women believe that scarce jobs should be offered to men first.
Three girls who were imprisoned by their mother in a house, of indescribable filth, for seven years, may never recover from the ordeal, experts said last night.
The girls were shut away from the outside world, existing in almost complete darkness, playing only with mice and communicating in their own language.
When they were discovered, their home in a smart, upper middle-class suburb had no running water and was filled with waste and excrement a metre high. The floor was corroded by mice urine.
...The girls' ordeal was apparently sparked by their parents' divorce, after which their mother, a 53-year-old lawyer, suffered a breakdown. But she won custody of the girls -- then aged 7, 11 and 13 -- and withdrew them from school ...
...Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Upper Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them once, despite his claims for access reaching court nine times.
... The mother was said to have been summoned to court nine times during the seven years after complaints by the father and neighbours, but officials never found a reason to investigate the case more closely.
...Waltraud Kubelka, a therapist who is now treating the three girls, said that their psychosocial and physical development was "catastrophic". "The oldest one is doing very badly and has no prospects of recovery. She was severely undernourished and practically anorexic after her release. The two younger ones will need years to come to terms with their horrific childhood.