If you think it was ever about equality…

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

What follows below is a cut and paste from news website “The Daily Caller”. My apologies that I’m not tech savvy enough to know how to post a link. Maybe key master or one of the other tech savvy people here can followup with that.

In the event that you ever had any illusions about feminism being about ‘equality’, take a quick look at this article about comments made recently by Female American Supreme Court Judge Ruth Ginsburg. For those who are not American and may not be familiar with our system here, the American Supreme Court is a panel of nine judges who preside over the court that has final authority over what is, and is not, consistent with the American Constitution (the document written by the founders of our country that delineates how power is distributed to whom, and on what terms within our government). The original intended aim of that document was to distribute legal power of government essentially equally between the president (executive branch), the congress (legislative branch) and the courts (judicial branch). The Supreme Court is the ultimate power within that judicial branch. Among their powers is the ability to decide what civil rights of the citizenry are, and to whom and on what terms they are protected. What follows below is a cut and paste of the article. Pay particular attention to that last line:

The 81-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told law students at Georgetown University this week that she believes there will be “enough” women on the Supreme Court when “there are nine” justices.
“People ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine,” she said.
Mobile_Inline
Ginsburg is currently one of three women sitting on the United States Supreme Court. Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan. Ginsburg became the second female justice on the court when President Bill Clinton appointed her in 1993.
She told the crowd of Georgetown students about the challenges of finding a job in the legal profession as a woman in the early days of her career.
“Most judges wouldn’t hire women,” she explained. “And the excuse for not hiring women in the Criminal Division was they have to deal with all these tough types, and women aren’t up to that. And I was amazed. I said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are representing these tough types? They’re all women.”

Ginsburg revealed that if she had her choice of another career profession, she would want to be a “great diva.”

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Aside: to post a link, just copy the entire link (CTRL + C Keys) from your browsers address bar…. and paste it (CTRL + V Keys) into your post. However you usually copy and paste works, and the linking will be done automatically as long as it starts with http://

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

thanks key master,
when i used to use windows computers, I knew that this is how it worked. But I’m on a mac now and though some of it is easier, on the address bar for the safari browser, it just says mgtow.com. I know that every individual page on a site has its own unique address like that. On on windows computers that address in the address bar would change with every new page. But on this mac, it still says “mgtow.com” in the bar no matter what page I’m on. The same thing occurs going to from article to article on a news site. The name of the site in the address bar never changes. how can i get to the individual page address on mac running safari?

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

nevermind….figured it out. if I were any more tech-retarded, I would probably qualify for some kind of disability…:-)

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/07/ruth-bader-ginsburg-wants-an-all-female-supreme-court-video/

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[John DoeParticipant 743]

I think the best job to have in the current/future environment would be an illegal arms dealer. (I am not advocating it, just making a point)

With all the women that will be in charge, there will be continual conflict between groups.  Men will be run by their animal passions, because they will follow the example of their leaders, which will be women.  Men will continually clash with each other because of their inability to control themselves.  Mass violence will eventually take place and become the norm.  The gangs will need someone to supply them.  In turn the corruption will keep the women in power.

If women are to be in control it can only be in lower and mid levels of government.  Those who are really in control would have to be men, since women are not able to control themselves.  So if one day we wake up with a woman as president, I think we can safely assume that in the grand scheme of things, the national government is subject to some higher level of government that we do not know about.

Power is the grandest illusion of them all.

It is about equality for feminists.  Equality through destruction.

[Anonymous 11]

If this ever were to happen, I would move to the Amazonian jungles by whatever means necessary to accomplish that goal as well as officially renounce my US citizenship once I got there.

Imagine the feminist controlled media uproar if say, Clarence Thomas, said the inverse.  Ruth, Your Honoress Highest Maximus C~~~rix, I think it’s time you resign from your post as your creeping senility obviously is beginning to rot your feeble mind.

I f~~~ing hate double standards.

[Anonymous 42]

Now you’re in my neck of the woods…guns are simple machines, try making an engine, it fires faster then a machine gun, and never overheats… guns are just a hole in bar stock, bullets are pistons without connecting rods. A little salt peter and charcoal is simple to make, unlike gasoline. In the kind of world that you talk about, guns are loud, it’s stealth you need to survive, a X-bow with arrows you couldn’t live without! When turtles attack 100 to 1 chemical weapons are better than guns. a super soaker becomes a vile must…that’s all I’ll say, except I pray we’ll never see that day…..

[– Deleted on Request –Spectator 936]

BrainPilot:

 

Here in Canada, the head of the Supreme Court is the Right Honourable Madame Chief Justice McLachlin:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_McLachlin

 

Women have also held the position of Governor General, such as the Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve:

 

http://archive.gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/sauve_e.asp

 

She also had the distinction of having been the first woman Speaker of the House of Commons.  Other women have been Governor General but their terms were, in my opinion, less than stellar.

[Smitty the Great OneParticipant 1535]

I don’t, because equality is a chimera, it simply doesn’t exist….

Life is too long to play by someone elses rules....

[jack reacherParticipant 751]

Ginsburg states:

“And I was amazed. I said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are representing these tough types? They’re all women.”

The reason they are women is because the legal aid lawyers are generally entry level and the least competent, and their employer, the state, is obligated to fill quotas.

[Smitty the Great OneParticipant 1535]

legal aid lawyers are the dumbest f~~~ing lawyers on the planet….

Life is too long to play by someone elses rules....

[Smacktalk73Participant 296]

I’m a lawyer, and I can tell you that the reason legal aid attorneys tend to skew woman is NOT because of any lack of competence.  Rather, the bottom-line difference between males and females is that competent, intelligent women virtually NEVER let some pretty, cash-sucking succubus (or rather, the male version of that) voluntarily take over their lives.  Conversely, a huge number of male attorneys have trophy, stay-at-home wives who make the lawyer’s life goal pursuit of money.

And if you think you need money, being a legal aid attorney is not the job for you.  Most of the legal aid lawyers are in happy, low-stress lives where a spouse is the real breadwinner of the home, or they have no kids/spouse and live comfortably single.  Women are more likely to fall into one of these two groups, whereas if a guy is hardworking enough to pass the bar and become a lawyer, chances are he’s already got several women waiving the bait of ‘trophy wife’ in front of him, and it won’t be long before he’s working 60 hours a week to meet billable hours targets and get that annual bonus for helping make rich people richer.  All to keep the manicured harpy at home happy because she’s holding his kids and his home hostage.

[Smacktalk73Participant 296]

Also, I’m going to go out on a limb and say I understand what Ginsburg meant by her quote about there being 9 female justices.  She wasn’t saying there really should be 9 female justices.  She was pointing out that, in the past, there have been 9 male justices for a very long time, with nobody saying “hey look, there were enough males back when we had five out of nine … shouldn’t we get more females?”   It is a subtle point, illustrating that real “equality” for women will exist when nobody thinks there are “enough” women somewhere and we can go back to favoring men.

Of course  there are psycho man-bashing feminists who DO say there are “enough males” in certain places.  And those women are not to be reasoned with, because they’ve already checked out of the discussion.  But I don’t think Ginsburg is one of those.

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

Crap! Sorry, BP, I never read your topic until now and hence a few days ago posted a similar topic, except I used the old bat’s name in the header – I wouldn’t have bothered if I’d seen this. I’ve already started using the SEARCH feature to prevent this in the future.

@smacktalk73 – perhaps you haven’t yet seen some of the old bat’s quotes below and may not know of her radical feminist background, so here’s a few samplings …

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/ruth_bader_ginsburg.html

It is not women’s liberation, it is women’s and men’s liberation.

I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012.

Women will only have true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation. (as if they don’t now)

I said on the equality side of it, that it is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling.

Also from this link: http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/

Michelle Goldberg’s article about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “Feminism’s Last Line of Defense,” makes the point that she’s the last (and sadly, probably will remain the only) Supreme Court justice who was famous for her feminist work and who was present at the creation of Second-Wave feminism’s important revisions of American law.  (For more on Ginsburg, see this terrific interview with her in the New York Times last July.  What a savvy politician, too–do you see how she makes the points she wants to make, no matter what questions she was actually asked?)  Goldberg writes:

Also from this other link: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/040316

Ruth Ginsburg made the same assumption as the rest of the feminist movement. She accepted without question the Marxist claim that women’s role as mothers and wives is inherently oppressive (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html). And she believed that equality of opportunity should always translate into identical social roles.

In 1977, Ginsburg wrote a report for the Commission on Civil Rights titled “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” (http://dl.jctc.kctcs.edu/users/anne.kearney/Doc5.htm). This report demanded 800 changes to federal laws in order to eliminate any and all distinctions between men and women.  Then we are instructed to clean up our speech: “manmade” must be changed to “artificial,” “midshipman” to “midshipperson,” and so forth. Why the report fails to object to such obviously sexist terms as “mother tongue,” “Mother Nature,” “ladybug,” and “sister city,” I can’t possibly guess.

But page 206 of this report is where it all comes out. There we learn of Ginsburg’s grand vision to reshuffle the deck of the traditional family. She proposes to do away with the husband-as-primary-breadwinner concept:  “Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes — independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the Code if it is to reflect the equality principle.”  But we’re still not done. On page 214 Ginsburg urges us to adopt Communist-style day care services: “The increasingly common two-earner family pattern should impel development of a comprehensive program of government-supported child care.”

On January 29, Justice Bader appeared at a lecture sponsored by the National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund (www.nowldef.org). Over the years the NOW Legal Defense Fund has used the cover of gender equality to promote their agenda of destabilizing the family and promoting Marxist ideals (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0113roberts.html). Justice Ginsburg not only appeared at the meeting, she introduced the speaker for the 4th Annual Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law.

In that appearance, Ginsburg showed that she remains ever-faithful to the Sisterhood. Plus, she fostered the perception that she lacks judicial impartiality and objectivity. As Hofstra University law professor Monroe Freedman remarked, “I think this crosses the line.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s writings reveal the true intentions of radical feminism: achieve a gender-less society and impose totalitarian ideals on American society. And her recent appearance at a NOW conference reveals she still hews to the fem-socialist line.

 

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

I can sort of see how this feminism crap sells to women. The premise is that we are all equal and women have been unjustly oppressed and kept from having the opportunities for careers etc… that men have had historically, as though the male side of this equation is some sort of utopia from which women have been excluded.

My biggest problem, and most common default response to feminism is that historically, men have been producers and women have been consumers of resources. But since women have historically had the larger share of the responsibility for having and raising kids, demanding that they have en equal share of the responsibility for producing for them would have seemed oppressive of us to demand. So, men took on that producer role.

Women can complain that they’ve been unfairly ‘shut out’ of the producer role by men, and if they complain enough, they can get some of the artificially created things in place to allow for equality of opportunity. But equally of opportunity only produces equality at the start line. It does not guarantee equality of opportunity at the finish line. All the government sponsored day care in the world provided to women for free is going to produce equality of the results that men have had for centuries. The results that men have produced have required enormous effort and sacrifice behind that opportunity.

In the last century or two, men both individually and in large and small teams, have produced the steam engine, airplane, jet engine, gasoline engine, rocket engine, semiconductor, telephone, telegraph, television, lasers, radio, light bulb, penicillin, polio and small pox vaccines… etc etc etc… and put human footprints on the moon in a machine built with slide rules and run on 1960s technology. Over the same period of time, men have perfected mass production and produced gargantuan quantities of food, fuel and material in the building of a civilization and infrastructure that women now enjoy. Along the way, countless men have died from black lung, industrial accidents, asbestosis and other chemically induced cancers from occupational exposures to all kinds of industrial hazards.

Those are some of the results, and some of the sacrifices. We’ve had feminism for decades now. Women are getting more and more opportunity to do all these things.

WHERE ARE THE F~~~ING RESULTS???

What have they produced???

I just came up with that list of male results of the top of my head.

Someone make me a list of the female results that have come from all this equality of opportunity that women now have.

If there are feminist lurkers on this site, now’s your time to step up and speak.

If some feminist lurker does not speak up now, I’m going to make that list myself in a day or two and embarrass you when I do it (for you)…

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[Smacktalk73Participant 296]

It is important to understand and recognize the different reasons that men and women perform in the workplace, and in life in general.  I constantly am attacked by men and women alike for raising the following point, but it needs to be addressed:

Men and women are NOT BORN EQUAL.

Men are born with the life path of being men, as their only choice.

Women CAN BE men, if they want to.  All you have to be to be a “man” is to be completely responsible and accountable for your own life.  That’s what being a “man” is — nobody but you is responsible for your life, whether you are a CEO of a company, or lying in the gutter.

Women, on the other hand, are everyone’s responsibility.  If you want to absolve yourself of responsibility for your own life, and be viewed as an “object” to be treasured, lusted after, protected, shuffled around from “support” to “support” then, if you’re a woman, congratulations!  This is the easiest thing you can possibly do.

Now, it is understandable that women feel suffocated, frequently, by this default role.  But an awful lot of women’s appeal for “equality” is NOT about being equal to men.  If it was, they could just go out and f~~~ing do it.  Want to be a man?  Go do it.  It is incredibly simple.

What women want is SUPPORT for being “independent” so they can then FEEL independent.  But they also want to keep the cushion of, whenever something goes south, being able to run back to the arms of society, which always says “Poor girl.  The world has let you down, hasn’t it? Let me help you, you precious potential child-bearer. ”

This “support” from society comes with a cost.  Men will want to f~~~ you and make you pregnant.  Society will want you to shut up as much as possible and just “be a lady.”  It is a stifling hassle.  But IT IS SAFE.  And women do not ever really give up that option of SAFETY when they seek out equality.

Men, on the other hand, have two options.  Succeed or fail.  There is no support.  If they fail, they are just a failure.  There is no “Ok, I want to be a WOMAN now,” to fall back on.   If you fail, you are a homeless loser, and everyone is going to just shrug and say “well, there’s something obviously WRONG with that guy” as they step over your stinking, homeless form huddled in the gutter.

Men absolutely crave the feeling of being NEEDED in ways that women cannot begin to understand, because women are ALWAYS needed.  That’s their fall-back — they can always say “Oh, but I’m a woman! Help me!”  And society will rally around her — because we NEED women, or no babies, no new citizens, and we all die old and alone.

That’s why equality doesn’t work.  Because we aren’t equal.

[johnny314Participant 7]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

-Edmund Burke.

And NOW, we are finally doing something about it and very commendable, I must say!

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

@brainpilot – I’ll start the list off with one of the most important things evah for women, especially those with something to hide (hint: it’s hydrophobic with long chain organic acids). I’ve highlighted some items for chuckles, but in all seriousness the incredible importance of this product and its significance in the long history of mankind cannot be overestimated …

1. Spanx (note – according to Forbes, Sara pictured below was worth $1 billion in 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanx

Spanx, Inc. is an American hosiery company founded in 2000 that is based in Atlanta, Georgia, United States (U.S.). The company mainly manufactures pantyhose and other undergarments for women and, since 2010, produces male garments. Spanx specializes in foundation garments, including undergarments and bodysuit shapewear, which are intended to give the wearer a slim and shapely appearance.

Following her graduation from Florida State University (FSU), Walt Disney World Resort employee Sara Blakely joined local stationery company Danka to sell fax machines door-to-door. In the heat and humidity of Florida, she tried unsuccessfully to find pantyhose that didn’t have seamed toes, and that didn’t roll up the leg after she cut them (oh, the horror!!!). Investing her life-savings of $5,000, she moved to Atlanta at the age of 27, where she researched and developed a hosiery concept predominantly on her own. The creation of the initial product prototype was completed over the course of a year and involved Blakey, her mother and her friends personally testing the garments—this was innovative at the time, as the industry did not test products with people. Requiring a brand name for her product, Blakely was frustrated after not being able to settle on a title she was satisfied with after about a year-and-a-half of ideation. At the time of finalizing a brand name, Blakely knew that Coca-Cola and Kodak were the two most recognized brand names in the world, with both containing a strong “k” sound. Blakely read that the founder of Kodak liked the sound so much that he used it as the beginning and end of his brand name and then proceeded to create a functioning word based upon this foundation. The name “Spanks” eventually came to Blakely and she decided that she would replace the “ks” with an “x”, as her research had shown that constructed names were more successful and were also easier to register as a trademark. Blakely then used her credit card to purchase the “Spanx” trademark on the USPTO website for US$350.

Following the establishment of the company, Blakely’s then-boyfriend eventually became Spanx’s chief operating officer (COO) and met Laurie Ann Goldman at the Saks Fifth Avenue in Atlanta in 2001, while she was on maternity leave from her employer at the time, Coca-Cola.

During the inception of Spanx, Blakely was contacting friends and acquaintances, including those from her past, and asking them to seek out her products at select department stores in exchange for a check that she would send to them by mail as a token of appreciation. However, Spanx received a marketing boost shortly afterwards, when Oprah Winfrey endorsed the product as one of her “Favorite Things” on her television show in 2000. Prior to officially establishing the company, Blakely sent a basket of Spanx products to Winfrey’s television program, with a gift card that explained what she was attempting to develop, and this garnered Winfrey’s attention.

[…Spectator 1165]

@smacktalk73: great information in your posts on this thread. apologize for not seeing it sooner but the posts,members, trolls, and the information are growing so fast here that I’m sure I miss a lot of s~~~ I would find interesting. and I do get caught up in the comedy threads because there is some very funny s~~~ going on over there. Anyway, I for one am always happy to see lawyers on here sharing information. Men need advice of self defense right now at a record pace as society and women are almost completely against us.

@brainpilot: it isn’t you that is dumb about links and posting, its f~~~ing APPLE. in the last two OS updates they made some very s~~~ty changes to it among them making it so you can’t see a full url while using Safari. You can fix that under preferences. The other thing they did is make the Spotlight search square in the middle of the screen on top of everything else you are doing, and you can’t move it the f~~~ out of the way any longer. Jobs must be turning over in his f~~~ing grave at how s~~~ty they have become……

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

And #2 through #18 … according to Buzzfeed, these 18 Inventions By Women Changed The World

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/inventions-by-women-that-changed-the-world#.yiDZ0kQ2v0

Among them are …

For her comfort:

The car heater

Residential solar heating

Central heating

 

For her safety:

The fire escape

The life raft

 

To make her life easier:

The modern electric refrigerator

The ice cream maker

The dishwasher

 

For gossipping and preventing crank calls:

More telecommunications technology than you could shake a stick at. The theoretical physicist Dr Shirley Jackson was the first black woman to receive a Ph.D. from MIT, in 1973. While working at Bell Laboratories, she conducted breakthrough basic scientific research that enabled others to invent the portable fax, touch tone telephone, solar cells, fiber optic cables, and the technology behind caller ID and call waiting (but she didn’t personally invent any of it).

 

For entrapping the man into impregnating her:

Beer, and The paper bag as you know it when beer wasn’t available (to put over her head)

 

[Author]

Posts