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.

Topics - Tigerman


The alleged victim claims it shows her being raped by three boys in front of her screaming children, aged two and four, after being drugged.

But yesterday it was revealed that the 24-year-old woman has now been arrested on suspicion of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old and perverting the course of justice.

in YouTube 'rape' is arrested over underage sex allegations

In the charge m'lady that women never lie about rape I offer the above example and  rest my executive briefcase...   :laughing4:
A very interesting broadcast recording of F4J members being interviewed after the Lincoln Memorial statue protest.
F4J interview 8-19-07

See also Home Of F4J USA
Main / GLOAT...
Mar 23, 2008, 07:00 AM
GLOAT that a certain moron really is HISTORY thanks to DR E. Nice vintage shadenfreud - delicious!!  :toothy9:
Main / Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science
Mar 21, 2008, 07:29 AM
Well known "skeptic-on-the-net" - Robert Schaefer ( The "Difference Deniers") has a page on his website that deals with the feminist 'difference deniers' (i.e. those who insist that all behavioural differences between the sexes are soley due to socialisation) and sometimes what they will do to keep everyone else from discovering the truth. Here is an example:

The Difference Deniers score a Big Win: Science Magazine pulls an already-accepted article by a respected developmental biologist explaining innate male/female brain differences because it allegedly did not "lead to a clear strategy about how to deal with the gender issue." In other words: "feminists will kill us if we run this article." (And people still talk about an alleged 'Republican War on Science'!).

Here is that article that he spoke about in full (source Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science ) - you will note that there is no copyright on this article as long as the authors are quoted and it is not edited.  :toothy9:


Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science
Peter A. Lawrence

Citation: Lawrence PA (2006) Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science. PLoS Biol 4(1): e19 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040019

Published: January 17, 2006

Copyright: © 2006 Peter A. Lawrence. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Peter A. Lawrence is at Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]

At the current pace, European women are not expected to reach parity with men in academic science positions until 2050. --Gerlind Wallon [1]

Some have a dream that, one fine day, there will be equal numbers of men and women in all jobs, including those in scientific research. But I think this dream is Utopian; it assumes that if all doors were opened and all discrimination ended, the different sexes would be professionally indistinguishable. The dream is sustained by a cult of political correctness that ignores the facts of life--and thrives only because the human mind likes to bury experience as it builds beliefs. Here I will argue, as others have many times before, that men and women are born different. Yet even we scientists deny this, allowing us to identify the "best" candidates for jobs and promotions by subjecting men and women to the same tests. But since these tests favour predominantly male characteristics, such as self-confidence and aggression, we choose more men and we discourage women. Science would be better served if we gave more opportunity and power to the gentle, the reflective, and the creative individuals of both sexes. And if we did, more women would be selected, more would choose to stay in science, and more would get to the top.
A Taboo

It is not easy to write or talk about this subject. If you say, for example, that women are on average more understanding of others, this can be interpreted as misogyny in disguise. If you state that boys on average are much more likely than girls to become computer nerds, people may react as if you plan to ban all women from the trading rooms of merchant banks. The Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen published research on the "male brain" in a specialist journal in 1997, but did not dare to talk about his ideas in public for several years [2]. One reason for this absurd taboo is that we cannot think objectively because our minds are full of wayward beliefs and delusions--"ghosts" (Box 1). And one of these ghosts is the dogma that all groups of people, such as men and women, are on average the same, and any genetic distinctions must not be countenanced. Such ghosts bias our perceptions and censor our thoughts.
Boys and Girls Are Born Different and Remain So

The chance that a woman will mug you tonight on the way home is somewhere around nil. That is a quirk specific to my gender. --Michael Moore [4]

Baron-Cohen makes one point crystal clear: you cannot deduce the psychological characteristics of any person by knowing their sex. Arguing from the scientific literature that men and women typically have different types of brains, he nevertheless points out that "some women have the male brain, and some men have the female brain" [2]. Stereotyping is unscientific--"individuals are just that: individuals" [2]. Yet Baron-Cohen presents evidence that males on average are biologically predisposed to systemise, to analyse, and to be more forgetful of others, while females on average are innately designed to empathise, to communicate, and to care for others. Males tend to think narrowly and obsess, while females think broadly, taking into account balancing arguments. Classifying individuals in general terms, he concludes that among men, about 60% have a male brain, 20% have a balanced brain, and 20% have a female brain. Women show the inverse figures, with some 60% having a female brain. Many facts (see [2] for references) argue that these differences have their roots in biology and genetics. Here are some examples. First, it is hardly necessary to point out that distinguishing between the contributions of nature and nurture to animal or human behaviour has proved difficult. However, newborn infants (less than 24 hours old) have been shown a real human face and a mobile of the same size and similar colour. On average, boys looked longer at the mobile and girls looked longer at the face [5]. Second, such differences at birth must have developed earlier. One factor is the level of testosterone in the developing brain around three months of gestation, which is higher in males (due to the hormone being produced by the foetus itself). Many studies show that testosterone affects development and behaviour, not only in humans, but also in other mammals. Testosterone sponsors development of the male phenotype, and can influence behaviour even of animals of the same sex. For example, giving older men testosterone specifically improves their ability with those spatial tests on which males normally score higher than females [6].

Third, autism spectrum conditions are genetically based, and have been described in detail [2,7]. People with these problems communicate poorly; they are unable to put themselves in another's place, and have difficulties with empathising. They may treat others as objects. They often become obsessed and show repetitive behaviour. The less severely affected can become experts on recondite subjects, such as train timetables or ocean temperatures. Most relevant for our arguments is that autism spectrum conditions are largely sex-limited, being between four and nine times more frequent in males. From many studies, including psychology and neuroanatomy, Baron-Cohen argues convincingly that autism spectrum conditions are an extreme form of maleness [2,8].

It will not have escaped the notice of many scientists that some of their colleagues and maybe themselves have more than a hint of these "autistic" features. There is good evidence that this type of single-mindedness is particularly common in males [2]. Indeed, we might acknowledge that a limited amount of autistic behaviour can be useful to researchers and to society--for example, a lifetime's concentration on a family of beetles with more than 100,000 species may seem weird, but we need several such people in the world for each family. And most of these specialists will be men. (The Web pages of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington suggest that their systematists consist of about 30 women and 125 men.) It follows that if we search objectively for an obsessive knowledge, for a mastery of abstruse facts, or for mechanical understanding, we will select many more men than women. And if males on average are constitutionally better suited to be this kind of scientist, it seems silly to aim at strict gender parity.

However, in professions that rely on an ability to put oneself in another's place, at which women on average are far superior, we should expect and want a majority of women. For example, among current student members of the British Psychological Society, there are 5,806 women to 945 men; and among graduate psychologists, 23,324 women to 8,592 men. Of those who practice as chartered psychologists, the ratio has fallen further (7,369 women to 4,402 men). Yet among Fellows of the Society, honoured largely for their research, there are 428 men to only 106 women!
Representation of Men and Women in Science

Among biomedical students in Europe and in the United States, there are similar numbers of males and females, suggesting perhaps that this subject is equally well suited to both sexes. But with higher and higher rank, the proportion of women falls inexorably--full professors are only about 10% female [9]. Women drop out steadily, and many of them have demonstrated high ability. There is plenty of evidence for similar trends in different branches of science [9]. For example, at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, where I work, the gender ratio of graduate students is currently 43 male to 35 female, yet the ratio of group leaders is 56 male to 6 female.

Science would be better served if we gave more opportunity and power to the gentle, the reflective, and the creative individuals of both sexes.

Are there social or practical reasons why we would like to maintain a more equal balance, especially where scientists have power over others? The short answer is yes, and here are three reasons:

First, these top research jobs call for a mix of skills, which a mix of men and women can deliver best. Nowadays, holders of these jobs plan science projects, write grants and articles, and try to network their papers into the top journals. Their students and postdocs, mostly young and inexperienced, usually do all the bench work. These students need more than instructions; they also need mentors who are able to listen to them and teach them understandingly. Indeed, some individuals deserve freedom to work out their own ideas: for example, Einstein did not have his doctorate when he wrote four of six of his great papers. Not many students get such opportunities now--whatever their potential. Understanding individuals and working out how to make the best of their diverse abilities are, as we have seen, predominantly feminine qualities.

Second, if we had a balanced mix of men and women in charge of our institutes, I believe we would have more contented and productive workplaces. We should not forget that the motivation to work hard and solve problems can come from supportive colleagues, as well as from competitiveness.

Third, it is self-evident that scientific leaders should include a diversity of people from whom younger individuals can pick role models as they choose their careers. The present lack of top female scientists will divert young women from scientific ambition; it makes no sense to discourage a future Frances Crick.

Many have turned their attention to explaining the fall out of women from science; it is traditionally ascribed to a mixture of discrimination and choice [9]. Regarding overt discrimination, in a lifetime in science, I have seen only little, and it has been both for and against women. Surely, gender discrimination cannot explain more than a tiny part of this trend. However, choice is certainly a main factor. Some choices are unavoidable; if there are to be children, women must bear them. However, after about six months or so, there is no reason, in principle, why the main carer of the children should not be the father. Later on, it could just as well be the father who takes time off work to look after a sick child. Yet partly because of the different priorities that on average men and women have, a much higher proportion of women put the needs of their children first and climbing the career ladder second.

But there is a different kind of discrimination that particularly damages creative pursuits such as science. There is good psychological evidence that aggression and lack of empathy are on average male characteristics, and we may agree with Baron-Cohen that for both sexes, "nastiness.... gets you higher socially, and gets you more control or power" [2,10,11]. Science should not be a military or a business operation, but nowadays it increasingly resembles one--for most, it is a vicious struggle to survive. In this struggle, men climb higher because they are on average more ruthless, and many women, as well as a gentle minority of men, shy away from competing with them [12]. And I think that our selection methods exacerbate this tendency.
Job Searches in Academia

About 100 years ago, Ibsen shed light on the secrets of contemporary life, and in doing so, championed women's rights. But since then, the feminist campaign for equality has helped build the belief that men and women, on average, have exactly the same aptitudes. It is time we exorcised this particular ghost, and if we do, it will help put more of the less aggressive members of society, most of whom are women, into positions of power. For example, in job searches and in considering people for promotions, we have been asking women to take tests, largely devised by men, that tend to overvalue masculine characteristics. If men and women on average were identical, no one would see fault in this, but if it is agreed that they are not, these tests become discriminatory--for they favour those many men and those few women with masculine behaviour.

At present, in the competition for academic posts, we expect our candidates to go through a gruelling process of interview that demands self-confidence. We are impressed by bombast and self-advertising, especially if we don't know the field, and we may not notice annexation of credit from others, all of which on average are the preferred province of men. But we should also seek out able scientists who would care well for their groups, those who would mentor a distressed student and help her or him back into productive research. And if we did, we would choose more feminine women as well as more feminine men.

And most important of all, could we try to select for the one characteristic we need most, scientific originality? Originality and creativity are all too rare, and I know of no evidence that these traits are more frequent in one sex [13]. As we busily compare candidates, adding up their papers and calculating impact factors, do we remember to look for these qualities? Instead of reading the papers, we count them. Counting rewards those who have had many papers accepted, and those who have worked their names into the author list. But is the editorial process of selecting papers an objective one? Certainly not; in the jungle where we fight to publish, salesmanship and pushiness pay off [14], and these tend to be masculine characteristics. Thus, if we were to read the papers of candidates and search for originality and insight, I believe we would select more women, as well as more men with feminine qualities. So I am not advocating overt positive discrimination; instead, I suggest we consciously try to see through showmanship and select the qualities we actually need.

I have argued that reducing the premium we give to aggression would, in several different ways, lead to more women in science and also to better science. Even so, in this Utopia, I think that far less than 50% of top physicists would be women (and far less than 50% of top professors of literature would be men). But I don't think that would matter--we would be making better use of the diverse qualities of people. Both women and men might accept that although there is much overlap in the two populations, we are constitutionally different--a diversity we should be able to celebrate and discuss openly. Both women and men should be leading such discussions with pride.

I thank Birgitta Haraldson for teaching me about autism and Simon Baron-Cohen for advice.
Box 1. Ghosts

"Mrs. Alving: I almost think we are all ghosts-- all of us, Pastor Manders. It isn't just what we have inherited from the father and mother that walks in us. It is all kinds of dead ideas and all sorts of old and obsolete beliefs. They are not alive in us; but they remain with us none the less, and we can never rid ourselves of them. I only have to take a newspaper and read it, and I see ghosts between the lines. There must be ghosts all over the country. They lie as thick as grains of sand. And we're all so horribly afraid of the light" [3].

   1. Schubert C, Sinha G (2004) A lab of her own. Nat Med 10:114-115. Find this article online
   2. Baron-Cohen S (2003) The essential difference. Men, women and the extreme male brain. London: Allen Lane. 256 p.
   3. Ibsen H, Meyer M translator (2005) Ghosts. London: Methuen. 104 p.
   4. Moore M (2004) Dude where's my country. New York: Warner Books. 272 p.
   5. Connellan J, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Ba'tki A, Ahluwalia J (2001) Sex differences in human neonatal social perception. Infant Behav Dev 23:113-118. Find this article online
   6. Janowsky JS, Oviatt SK, Orwoll ES (1994) Testosterone influences spatial cognition in older men. Behav Neurosci 108:325-332. Find this article online
   7. Frith U (2003) Autism: Explaining the enigma (cognitive development). 2nd edition. Malden (Massachusetts): Blackwell Publishers. 288 p.
   8. Baron-Cohen S, Knickmeyer RC, Belmonte MK (2005) Implications for explaining autism. Science 310:819-823. Find this article online
   9. European Technology Assessment Network Working Group on Women and Science. (2000) Science policies in the European Union: Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality. Brussels: European Commission. Available: Accessed 16 November 2005.
  10. Savin-Williams RC (1987) Adolescence: An ethological perspective. New York: Springer Verlag. 249 p.
  11. Chekhov AP, Frayn M translator (1983) The three sisters. London: Methuen. 377 p.
  12. Babcock S, Laschever S (2004) Women don't ask: Negotiation and the gender Divide. Hoboken (New Jersey): Princeton University Press. 240 p.
  13. Alpaugh PK, Birren JE (1975) Are there sex differences in creativity across the adult life span? Hum Dev 18:461-465. Find this article online
  14. Lawrence PA (2003) The politics of publication. Nature 422:259-261

Child protection? No, ruination

All I can saw is WOW - the times online piece about this issue could have come straight from a number of mra blogs and\or forums!! The Times newspaper had over the last few decades become like most other mainstream publications and articles pointing the gross injustices and institutionalised bias against men were hardly even acknowledged let alone wrote about in their own seperate piece.  This is I hope part of positive new TREND and not merely a rare exception to the usual feminist inspired put downs etc.
I must have missed this topic when it came here before but anyway I just stumbled on this post from Dictionary misandry
Here is a copy of my feedback to admin:
To whom it concerns:

I am utterly disgusted, appalled and in a negative sense amazed that in this day and age of so called 'equality' and 'tolerance' that you have slandered an entire sex!! For example for the quick example verb definition of the word "Father" you have inscribed: "# verb:   make children (Example: "Men often father children but don't recognize them") ".[url =]Father Definition[/url] ) Of course when it comes to your Quick example verb definition of the word "Mother" you have simply stated it thus :"# verb:   make children ".
I am sending copies of this e-mail feedback to yourselves to a number of mens rights websites and organisations and so will be monitoring your response very closely. I hope you will bear this fact in mind and not be so foolish as to ignore this issue but rather see to it that this implied and unbalanced disparagement is ended immediately!!
Main / Get well soon Skipgrrrl
Mar 10, 2008, 07:44 PM
Okay it's just past 2.30am in the morning and I can't sleep. I just heard that the woman you all know here as 'skipgrrrl' was rushed into hospital a couple of hours ago. I keep in regular contact with skipgrrl mainly via skype and she told me earlier that she had a really bad migraine (she has been getting migraines on occasion) and would contact me later when she felt better. Later I checked my skype messages and learned that the migraine had worsened to the 'worst in my life' and that she had been rushed into hospital. Skipgrrrl is a wonderful woman when you get to know her (as I do) she is big hearted and has been genuinely affected by the way many men have been treated over custody and divorce issues etc. She had been witness to her own fathers harsh treatment so her empathy for other men is grounded in real experience. I don't normally 'pray' and do stuff like that but tonight (or this early morning I should say!) I am making an exception.  :sad5:
Just seen this on MND thought I would post a link here since we have just discussed Campus Rape Hysteria and now we have another example of the damage such hysteria causes : Cambridge Case a Good Example of Where Feminist Campus Rape Hysteria Can Lead

Quote from a reader:
"One used to fear for one's daughters. These days we fear for our sons. Their passage is through quite a daunting gauntlet and now there's the relatively safe passage given to women claiming assault. They are even encouraged at every turn to do so. Add this to the irresponsible 'I am never to blame' mindset and there's a recipe for injustice, grief, and ruined lives. I wonder how many students will breathe a sigh of relief and say, 'There but for the grace of God go I.'- Michael Walsh, Liverpool, UK

Politically Correct Primer
---------------------------- I Bleed for This? ------------------------------

                         Politically Correct Primer
                 Appreciated by Jason Farnon and Snarfblat

From: [email protected] (CAL AMYOTTE)
Subject: Politically Correct?

                                 PC PRIMER


PC stands for Politically Correct.  We of the Politically Correct
philosophy believe in increasing a tolerance for a DIVERSITY of cultures,
race, gender, ideology and alternate lifestyles.  Political Correctness
is the only social and morally acceptable outlook.  Anyone who disagrees
with this philosophy is bigoted, biased, sexist, and/or closed-minded.


Being PC is fun.  PCism is not just an attitude, it is a way of life! PC
offers the satisfaction of knowing that you are undoing the social
evils of centuries of oppression.


Sure.  You just have to feel very guilty.

Q:  WHY?

If you are a white male, your ancestors were responsible for practically
every injustice in the world- slavery, war, genocide and plaid sportscoats.
That means that YOU are partially responsible for these atrocities.  Now
it is time to balance the scales of justice for the descendants of those
individuals whose ancestors your ancestors pushed down.

Q:  HOW?

It's simple.  You've got to be careful what you say, what you think, and
what you do.  You just don't want to offend anyone.


That's right.  Being offensive is destructive, and will not make the world
a harmonious utopia, like in John Lennon's IMAGINE.


Oh, there are lots of ways.  For example, why buy regular ice cream when you
can buy "Rain Forest Crunch?"  Segrega..whoops..separate all of your garbage
into different containers:  glass, metal, white paper, blue paper, plastic,
etc.  Make sure that all your make-up has not been tested on animals. Try to
find at least sixty ways to use your water; when you take a shower, brush your
teeth at the same time.  Then don't let the water go down the drain, use it to
irrigate your lawn.  Or better yet, replace your lawn with a vegetable garden.
Don't use aerosol.  And by all means, don't burn or deface our flag. Remember,
as a citizen of Canada, your living in God's country.

If you are fortunate enough to know your ethnic heritage, dress the part!
Don't do drugs.  You should listen to at least one of the following PC
musicians:  U2, REM, Sinead O'Connor, Sting, or KD Lang.

Harrass people who wear fur coats.  Remind them that an innocent baby seal was
mercilessly clubbed.  Or just yell, "FUR."  They hate that.
And don't EVER eat meat.


Cows are animals, just like humans are animals.  That means that they have
rights.  When you eat meat, you're oppressing animals!


No, not always.  Sometimes killing can be justified, like in the Persian
Gulf.  You have to be able to tell when an animal has rights, and when
it doesn't.


The general rule is as follows:


Examine the following chart:

      RIGHTS                       NO RIGHTS
     --------                     -----------
      cows                         cockroaches
      cute bunnies                 flies
      dolphins in tuna nets        tuna in tuna nets
      whales                       sharks
      red squirrels                gray squirrels
      owls                         loggers
      harbor seals                 barnacles


Hug a tree.  Rejoice each day in our cultural differences, for they are what
gives flavour to our great country.  Get in touch with your sexual identity.
Check your refrigerator for freon leaks.  Subscribe to National Geographic.
Search it for neat non-Western cultural traditions and costumes.  After you
read it, use the paper as an alternate fuel source.


If you are feeling unsure about your motivation, just remember.  YOU ARE
RIGHT.  It's that simple.  You are right.


Good question.  It's important to know when someone is saying something
insensitive so that you can have that person removed from society.  The
guideline is as follows:

     Is the confrontation between two white people?
        Yes ->  The liberal is right.
        No  ->  The white person is oppressing the ethnic person.

Remember, many seemingly obvious issues, such as the railroading
of Mayor Marion Barry, the Clarence Thomas issue, and the Saint Mary's
University Carribean Society shut-down are really race issues.

Here's a fun practice drill for you:  See how many newspaper articles you can
make into race bias stories.  It's fun!  Some PCers are so good they can make
the weather report look like a KKK pamphlet!


It all depends on the situation.  If you are not in a position of authority,
by all means report this activity immediately to whomever is in charge. If
your school leader, employer, or superior is hip to the trend of the 90s,
she or he will take the necessary steps to have the insensitive offender


The Constitution never meant for racism, sexism and insensitivity to be
espoused by anyone.  That's not what free speech is about.  Some call it
censorship.  PCers call it "selective" speech.  Saying something negative
about a particular race or gender is just as damaging as, say, punching
them in the face.  We just can't allow that kind of verbal assault.


Yes.  That's part of the PC movement.  You see, part of the way we think
about people comes directly from the words we use to describe them. Take
"black" for instance.  Why should a person be judged by the color of
their skin?


No, I mean they should be judged by where their ancestors are from.  If your
great grandparents are from Africa, or Asia, or wherever, then you should
be identified by that fact.  You can even apply for special scholarships!

No, there are none offered to white males however, if you are a women
...oops... womyn, there should be plenty.


Technically, yes.  But that's not the kind of African-Canadian we mean.
That is, we're REALLY talking about skin color, but we're pretending that
we aren't.  Another example:  A white South-African immigrant is not
an African-Canadian or either.


For more help, see the PC LEXICON at the end of the handbook.


Well, for one thing, we should forcibly encourage students to volunteer
their time with philanthropies.  Also, we should re-emphasize non-Western
perspectives on history.  Finally, we should re-structure tests and quizzes
to reflect cultural biases.


Well, the way the system works now, "select" under-represented minorities
who tend to do worse on entrance tests have lower standards of admissions
at school and work and receive preferential treatment.  This is unfair
and wrong.

Q:  IT IS?

Yes.  The truly PC way to do it is to have a different grading scale for
different groups which gives or subtracts points from the final score,
depending on who is taking the test.  If you are white, then you have been
benefited by society during your life.  That means that you lose
ten to fifteen points to make the test fair to everyone else.


It IS right.  That's the beauty of PC.


Humor.  PC people take every comment VERY seriously.  We will not accept
any comment, joke, remark, or anything that sounds like it could be a
racial slur.


"What's black and white and red all over?" has been staple humor for
decades.  Not PC---it can be taken the wrong way.

In every day speech, try to use phrases like,
"Isn't that the pot calling the kettle African-Canadian."  Any racial
jokes or jokes even mentioning culture or gender should be omitted.  True,
this mostly limits comedy to the level of sitcoms, but that's the price you
pay for social equality.


Yes.  The Politically Correct belief is essentially a recognition that
people are diversely equal.  We rejoice in this equality by treating
people differently based on their equal individuality.  Hop aboard the
bandwagon...  Be PC.  Or you're an intolerant, racist, sexist insensitive

                                PC LEXICON

"Insensitive Term"                         "Preferred Term"
------------------                         ----------------

(PC people do not recognize the term, "race," as valid)

Black                           -   African-Canadian
                                    (NOTE:  DOES NOT INCLUDE
                                    LIBYANS, EGYPTIONS, WHITE
                                    DOES INCLUDE
                                    PEOPLE WITH DARK SKIN REGARDLESS OF
                                    WHERE THEY ARE FROM OR WHERE THEY LIVE.)

Oriental                        -   Asian-Canadian
                                    (NOTE:  NOT CONSIDERED "REAL" MINORITIES
                                    SINCE THEY TEND TO DO WELL)

Indian                          -   Native-Canadian
                                    (NOTE:  THE FOLLOWING TEAMS ARE NOT PC:
                                       Atlanta Braves
                                       Cleveland Indians
                                       Kansas City Chiefs
                                       Washington Redskins
                                     AVOID THESE CITIES!!!)

Chicano                         -   Hispanic
                                    (NOTE:  THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT PC:
                                       Cheech and Chong
                                       Chico and the Man episodes
                                       Cisco Kid
                                       Rosarita Salsa
                                       Speedy Gonzales
                                     AVOID!  AVOID!)

White Trash                     -   PC Unaware
                                    Rustically Inclined
WASP (white male)               -   Insensitive Cultural Oppressor (ICO)

->  GENDER  <-
(PC people don't like the word "sex" as it has confusing connotations)

Woman                           -   Womyn, Vaginal-Canadian

Girl                            -   Pre-Womyn

Housewife                       -   Domestic Engineer

Fireman                         -   Firefighter

Stewardess                      -   Flight Attendant

Meter Maid                      -   Parking Enforcement Aduciator

Post Man                        -   Post Person

Mail Man                        -   Person Person

Policeman                       -   Law Enforcement Officer
                                    Baton Boy
                                    Cal. Clubber

Prostitute                      -   Sex Surrogate
                                    (Teen Victim.  See:  Broken Home)

Mankind, Human                  -   Earth Children


Handicapped                     -   Physically Challenged
                                    Differently Abled

Blind                           -  Optically Darker
                                   Photonically Non-receptive

Deaf                            -  Visually Oriented

Poor                            -   Economically Unprepared

Bum                             -   Homeless Person
                                    Displaced Homeowner
                                    Philosophy Major

Hunter                          -   Animal Assassin
                                    Meat Mercenary
                                    Bambi Butcher

Whaler                          -   Blubber Lovers

Old Person / Elderly            -   4th-Dimentionally Extended
                                    Gerontologically Advanced

Conservative                    -   Right Wing Extremist Fascist Pig

Drug Addict                     -   Chemically Challenged

Bald                            -   Comb-Free

Bisexual                        -   Sexually Non-preferential

Midget, Dwarf                   -   Little People
                                    Vertically Challenged

Convict                         -   Socially Separated

Insane People                   -   Selectively Perceptive     
                                    Mental Explorers

(person with)                       (person with)
Learning Disability             -   Self-Paced Cognitive Ability

Tree-Hugger                     -   Environmental Activist

Logger                          -   Wood Weasel
                                    Paper Pirate

Dead People                     -   Dysfunctional Earth Children
                                    Biologically Challenged
                Metaphysically Challenged   

Broken Home                     -   Dysfunctional Family

HouseBroken                     -   Family Disfunction

Cattle Ranch                    -   Cattle Concentration Camp (CCC)

Senile Bag o' Bones             -   Alzheimer's Victim

Ghetto/Barrio                   -   (EHA) Ethnically Homogenous Area
                                    Pre-Integrated Pre-Nirvana

Hamburger                       -   Seared Mutilated Animal Flesh (SMAF)

Cheeseburger                    -   Adding Insult to Injury

Cheating (in School)            -   Academic Dishonesty

Used Books                      -   Recycled Books

Trees                           -   Oxygen Exchange Units

Gang                            -   Youth Group

Pimp-mobile, Low-rider          -   Culturally Responsive Transportation

Drunk/Trashed                   -   Spatially Perplexed

Slum                            -   (EOZ) Economic Oppression Zone

Delicatessen                    -   Corpse Farm
                                    Charnel House

Obese                           -  People of  Mass
                                   Gravitationally Challenged
In this video there it can be clearly seen that choking smoke is coming out of the window from where the father drops the child into the crowd where it is caught and its life is saved. A woman responds in a text commentary to the video thus:

bupkes (2 weeks ago) Had to have been the father. The mother would have sandwiched it between two big couch cushions first.

Seeing as this comment went unchallenged I decided to step in with my 'size 12's' and point out a few obvious flaws in her 'reasoning'. Anyway she is still arguing her case with me - anyone who wants to add their two cents is welcome too. here is the url Baby Tossed From Burning Building By Dad
Since equal pay for equal work has been enforced by most western nations for over thirty years now (equal pay for equal work in terms of it being illegal to discriminate against women by paying men more for doing the SAME job.). A NEW scam has been dreamt up by feminists in order to win extra privileges for women. This is called equal pay for equal WORTH and apparently this subtle twist has been tested under the existing equal pay act in the UK and found to be a 'correct' interpretation of the meaning of the act! The implication of this is a huge bill for taxpayers up and down the country because for example it has been successfully argued that 'dinner ladies' (people usually women who serve school meals to school children) street labourers and 'binmen'(i.e. rubbish collectors) are all jobs of 'equal worth'! No one in all this pc gone MAD  FIASCO seems to have had the sense to simply point out a very pertinent fact i.e. that it is already ILLEGAL to discriminate against an applicant on the basis of their sex. this being the case when those dinner ladies started their WHINING why weren't they simply shown the *ucking door and told in no uncertain terms that if those jobs are 'similar' and of 'equivalent worth' then why did they NOT apply for them??

some relevant links from the UK on this issue:
It is a matter of argument which is more usefull for example womens abílity to remember social data (such a faces met and things said in everyday conversations) OR men's ability to remember  'visio-spatial' and 'symbolic non linguistic information' data. In the latter case such an ability helps to explain why men are better at map reading as well as being less likely to get lost in the first place -  in the article it suggests that men would be better at finding their way out of some woods (as if that was all that their superior ability amounted to!!) - actually that ability is far more usefull than suggested for example I would far rather be a passenger with a male driver when going somewhere new than with a female driver. A male driver in my experience is far more likely to remember how he got to his destination (and therefore more likely to remember his way back) than a female driver. Anyway the article pissed me off because it hailed womens superior social based episodic memory (as opposed  to mens other superior abilitities) as if it TRUMPED mens abilities yet it offered no argument to support this case!  :angryfire:
here's the link ... Science Daily Belittles Mens ability whilst praising womens
"..wealthy men who helped her build shelters for women "wouldn't give a dime" to help men..."

Kind of sums up what were up against and why compared to womens groups men's causes get so little funding and support. Same quote is reproduced below in it's more detailed context...
Erin Pizzey On Supportive Men
She says that in the early days of the battered women's movement in England, it was men who stepped forward and gave her the support she needed to help battered women.

One of her earliest breaks came when a man bought a house in which she could house her shelter.  She said that the men she approached were very willing to help women.

She also said that later on, when she asked men to assist her in creating services for male victims of domestic violence, the wealthy men who helped her build shelters for women "wouldn't give a dime" to help men.

Main / A bit of Youtube activism ...
Feb 17, 2008, 03:14 PM
The cast :
MetalTiger777 = moi
Laramal666  = my aussie girlfriend who now posts here as skipgrrrl
foldedintobeauty = our poor unfortunate feminist 'prey' (lol)

Main / A simple question for N.O.W.
Feb 16, 2008, 04:44 AM
I know I may well be in line for the "futile gesture of the year" award for this but I just discovered that I could send an e-mail to N.O.W. even though I am not a member. Below is a verbatim copy - I also gave them a real e-mail address with my name should they wish to respond back - if I get any response I'll keep you guys posted. 

"Why do you not acknowledge your own inherent sexism and transform your yourselves into humanitarians.? That is what is needed not more divisive enacted viewpoints."

Main / Grrrrrrrrrrrr
Feb 14, 2008, 02:17 PM
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.  :BangHead:
...about unfair treatment of men in DV situations...