RB

Who are they? Are you speaking of myself - I thank you for the vote - no thanks though. I already don't participate much. I try for once a week, well unless I have to defend/expand on what I post I think Greg is good at this, he'll figure something I am sure.

Well, to clarify my previous post on this thread. Firstly, as an observer and contributor of this forum, I didn't often agree with Mr Read's politics but I respected that he had a different take on issues. He was motivated, and eager like the politicians, and especially at times rather very creative in his thoughts, in his fluency of writing and imagery. I mean it forced curiosity and stimulated discussions. Plus he seem to be widely read i.e could easily expand ideas, was intellectual. I also felt that he respected others in the forum. Well he must have read the majority of contributions at that time because he had an opinion in many areas and he replied to as many posts. Read always insisted that he mostly attack ideas put forward by others and I agree with him. I find that the folks become very sensitive when they spend their enormous amounts of time to articulate their points only to have it shaken apart. I guess some of us weaver easily. Anyway, I felt the posting war we don't want at Mapleleaf. I mean its human nature and all, people feel like they are being attack, then they denounce and blame someone else for their lack of tact and exposing to them to say "new information", and further reducing the attack folks to live dangerously. What I can say though is I am of the opinion that Read was sincere in his politics, his write-ups and in what he contributed here however radical or "right" he may have been. That's all.

I was a fan of Craig thanks for the link

oh heck! i am on 3 weeks from now - i ain't going to make it...

Women are intelligent and smart and can take charge of their own lives. Its sad because women are mostly guided by what they believe is principles and are not motivated as men to seek power. I mean a man is motivated to enter into politics because of power. That’s the general difference. Women usually enter say politics because they seek to make some change, then they have to practice on how the change is made, they weaver their stand, then stand-up for their passion, then learn their lessons on how to articulate in a man's world but they can make it - even though very few do in politics.

Well, I must apologise that my writing is not accessible. So I will take the time to put it in layman’s language so that you can get the construct "My problem is how women cannot see that they belong to "inequality" and will allow men to dictate their dress code while the men prance around in far more comfortable attire. And I can further suggest that inequality belongs to a bottom of welfare ranges." The Islamic world is still largely patriarchal i.e. ruled by the male masters and brain. Wearing the veil/burka symbolizes a woman's submission to men. I mean why is it that only men would want to confront their sexual urges and for that reason the women must cover up. I mean women also have sexual urges, but the for some reason women must gaze on the men in entirety – why can't the men veil themselves also, and protect themselves. Women’s sexuality is constantly active, isn’t it? Most of the Muslim women I speak with are apologetic for their head gear, they wish to be identified as a Muslim. Now whether they understood the connotations of socio-political and economic stresses for themselves who knows but their wish to be observers instead of being observed certainly is not oppressed but more like “I am watching you”, is uncomfortable to say the least, what the heck!!. The advantage of the selected attire such as the burka usually means that they do not have to bother about making some fashion statement. But my assessment of Muslim women even if they were smart, the symbolism of their covering their heads give the indication that their brain must be covered up, this inertia extends and now their voice literally becomes incoherent and muffled with clothing over their mouths. I largely sympathise with these well intentional muffled voices, I don’t mean to distress anyone - I might as well put it in the same category of challenged folks: meaning they need accommodation. "I mean if both men and women were dressed as the above they are uniform and equal. If we were comparing these folks as in absolute equal, in this case both men and women were alike in a free and absolute equal. Means that men and women participates in equal or can make a claim for equal participation." Generally the above is a parallel and analogous to democracy. I infer to the beginning of time that there seem to be unequal systems of "justice" and that even now that a male child can claim that he is too good to be in the category of equality with women and because of this thought the falsity of what is equal can never exists. What I mean is that even though Islam might make a claim of equal participation of everything between men and women and women seem to "buy in" to what the Islam religion offers such as they are not oppressed by men, the fact remains that equality is exclusive in this instant to men. And unless women start regulating their share of equality such as "power" and function within themselves that they might very well cease to regulate their own stance and succumb to men as they do in their defiance currently to stand "tall". and so on .......

My problem is how women cannot see that they belong to "inequality" and will allow men to dictate their dress code while the men prance around in far more comfortable attire. And I can further suggest that inequality belongs to a bottom of welfare ranges. I mean if both men and women were dressed as the above they are uniform and equal. If we were comparing these folks as in absolute equal, in this case both men and women were alike in a free and absolute equal. Means that men and women participates in equal or can make a claim for equal participation. But men are women are not dressed alike and therefore there is a supposition from the beginning of the genders is absolutely unequal. What I mean is there are unequal parts and men are rewarded larger flexibility which means someone is having a larger share which means they are having more than equal. Look at this number difference 2-1=1 4-3=1 10-9=1 Men are always comparing themselves in the absolute, their numerical difference among each other is the same. Men are equal in all respect and all around. If women didn't realise this - here is my assessment: that if women continue to allow men to influence their choices they would be "nearer" to the internal stasis of acceptance of men median while they become voices of a few. In other words we can have voices of "that of the people" meaning men and voices of that of a "few" meaning women. Women are rather absurb and continue to demean themselves to their own demise.

This "dog" comment is rather embarrassing - first you put those in power thinking they are aware of something called diplomacy, respect, being articulate and tactful in thinking and speaking, and spilling out aloud - anyway Pete must still be a politician to some extent, the common phase used for the women regularly are "bitch" or "ex-bitches" but Pete tried to calm the usage to "dog" what diplomacy!! what finesse!

Well, because I am interested in women moving on with their career and education – I wanted to draw some attention to the fact that women might be even happier with their male partners. Look at it this way, with relationships it would definitely worry a man tremendously if he had self-doubt about his performance. Nevertheless, I feel that males still build their supremacy from the female reproductive systems. Anyway, Careers And Marriage Forbes.com article would have men rejecting career women, education and their demands for equality for the fear of some defeat. They would have men "marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career" usually also means they are educated. Sadly there is always onus and more burden on the women in their quest for what is equal. Here is what I am quisical about - Ok if a woman’s goal is to be on par with men, therefore their demands for orgasm (95% is a lot for men vs. women <30%), and because women are educated we can work in such demands and it would make freedom and achievement of women thinkable?. What I mean is it is now advisable to stay away from those educated types with their career. I mean most career women are very single. I just don’t get it. I mean there is something about raising the bar if men cannot cope with women who are smart and also wishing for careers and also wanting to be happy with their orgasm? Like can men be reorganised? The one question that arises is a pounce on women, do they “loose” themselves in the process of orgasm, meaning also they might want to their protect their “O” as a means of freedom and measure their stake of being free only along the axis of the sexual systems. Means we encourage men to participate and dominate us and our repoductive systems. I wanted to encourage this discussion because I cannot see how women who simply becomes free with their “O” measure it precisely by their lack of being free from men.

I think you are referring the pain endurance threshold of "labor" as in childbirth - well I am sure women will continue to develop this endurance - and for sure I will encourage it, and I definitely want to know of any advancement for my own sake. Coordinated effort by "team sports" and "firefighter" connotes different understanding Recall a time when you last saw the flashing lights of the fire truck, and heard a siren. It is an emergency, and you must have felt some immediate concern, because if you were driving, obviously you pulled off to the side of the road. The reason being that first, there is a safety issue for firefighters and the dangerous incident they are heading into, notice I am using they (they travel in groups all the time) to rescue people who are hurt, or they are going to preserve a building before it incurs more damage. Coordinated team sports are for amusement but obviously have same procedures as the firefighters - they have some standard system or pattern they will use and do have control over their direction. However, a firefighter has accountability. I mean if a team sport loses a game well "what a bummer" "losers", in a round-robin game they have another shot at some goal. The same is not true for the firefighters. I don't see the general public suing and holding a team sport accountable for the loss of a life if a team lose. Physical attribute is necessary for a firefighter - they have to stay up-to-date with their regiment training in order to perform on the job whether they are male or female. Now, women do exist as firefighters and I have not so far heard any stories of them being unable to perform their job because of lack of strength but are encouraged to join the fire services. Well, I can agree that there not be segregation in gender for sports. The point I am making is that women will fail to make it to the top even when given the optimal opportunity. They have a better chance to compete among themselves and established their own goals, and records and be "mighty women". My explanation for letting women play women sports is because they have only recently been made available to compete at various levels. And also recognize that males are indeed stronger, it is that nature construct. On a lighter side I can also mentioned that a paradigm shift in culture have already started to take men to salons to fix their nails, hair, eyebrows, etc. And that we could be building males tending to feminine traits and habits. Whether they have a lost of strenght, don't know, but I mean it’s not so difficult to see so call big men simply burst into tears.

765? How many begats are we talking here? well I wanted to justify the following: "Now, I am fairly sure that seniors are underrepresented online, with exceptions maybe of professionals who make heavy use of the internet, so my comparison will probably only show younger people compared to middle-aged people." According to the board I average 0.6 post per day so that figures my representation - choose young, middle-aged or senior If I had my way I would redefine the age group 25-30 - old 30-35 - older 35-40 - much older over 40 - very much older etc.

National Survey - Occurrence of Orgasm I mean men reach orgasm at 94.8% of the time. Prior reports always mentioned women are hardly satisfied and only about 30% of them ever reaches vaginal orgasm. So it is interested that this survey makes it official that those women with a graduate degree are enjoying themselves more than their less educated counterparts say those under 20. They also summarized for us that wealthy women also are likely to achieve the big O.

Probably not, but it can be customized for the couple's needs. Kids aren't the only reason people get married, and even those who do, may want to sign up for a longer (eg 20yr) term. For me it was. While I can understand that a marriage without children is as valid as one that is...for me the idea of marrying and not having kids is like getting a mortgage pre approved but never intending to buy a house. I mean how would you summarise the divorce then?

then the number of posts figures how old I am

Well more recently I read the last of the entirety of Grisham for fiction - I enjoyed them - its fun that the author gets to manipulate law, show flaws and twist The tipping point was provoking I am encouraged to read my kid's textbooks now-a-days, - I mean there is so much new information available for them to learn in science e.g. genes. I am still in school but not quite informed on everything I guess.

I mean you'd like to hang on to tradition of "'till death do we part" and "to honor and obey". Truth is that you'd be in the success stats if you make it 10 years with the same person My feeling is because most marriage vows are broken that folks are burden to redress of those vows & commitments they made years before. What it really amounts to is the stigmas of personal failure.

Granted. That was then. This is now. That was then and now - its why we have girls going to the courts to play with the boys - not much have change. If a boy wanted to enter into the boys league no problem eh.

What I don't understand RB, is that if you acknowledge that as far as strength, endurance and several other physical attributes that women are inferior to men, then does it not logically follow that professions which require strength and endurance would naturally give a preference to men? You say strength in an occupation such as a firefighter is a different issue. Why? It looks like the same issue to me, but with a double standard being applied. Little people such as: women and shorter folks have adapted useful techniques to handling heavy equipment, they don't have to be the "muscled man". For example: "many women firefighters have found that using a reverse grip on a ladder halyard (with the thumb edge of the hands facing downward) allows a more efficient use of strength. Hose-handling techniques that allow a single firefighter to control an 1-1/2" or 1-3/4" line by crossing it in front of the body and allowing the fire fighter's body weight to lean into it are often more effective for lighter-weight firefighters.)" Also, firefighters can always rely on a coordinated effort as in team work. The truth is that women who enter the firefighter occupation have strong academic background usually without mechanical knowledge and tools hands on where the firefighters training is geared for males based on tools and mechanics - this however should not preclude women from being a good fire fighter. There is an inherent cultural difference in the genders and how they respond to being a firefighter. For example: men will always want to appear confident, and women would always verbalise they did not understand. I believe being a fire fighter even though it is a requirement is less about strength and endurance and more about teaching a person to function hands on and keeping their skills up to date whether it means exercising and being fit, adapting to the right techniques of handling tools and being the best they can to serve the community. We need to get rid of the notion that only men are strong, and that fightfighters should be men and replace it firefighter being a rewarding career and an opportunity for civil service. Both men and women should have access to equal participation and to supply their labor for a worthy career choice. I mean a firefighter is more likely to die on the job than the sports person who only wishes to entertain us.

I would like to respond a bit to this gender segregation in sports - you'd be surprise to learn that I do believe we should keep the intersection of gender and sport separate. Women have historically been denied too many opportunities, participation in sports being one of them. According to the law women should not be discriminated in this instance, similar to other occupation requiring use of endurance. But, for argument I would downplay the law and suggest having strength such as occupation as a firefighter is a different issue. I would also say that men accessing a women's soccer team or any sports team for that matter is not the same as women accessing a men's team because of the female historical disadvantage. A man would always be a top player in the women team, whereas women would be very concentrated, and try much harder to be an average player on a men's team. So it would make sense for the law to deny a man trying for the women's team. I mean Hello, the court also recognise that you'd always end up with an all male team that we call "girls team" and most likely end up with identity crises. However hypocritical, I cannot deny that as much as women will try to fulfill their athletic abilities we cannot blame men that we are not as enduring or strong as they are. The guilt trip for keeping women in their place as being "weak" and discouraging them does not hold in sports. It is a reality check. What I mean is that if you currently put the best of male and female marathon runners to compete, the first women athlete to cross the finish line would be number 40 after all those males. However, there is room to change a culture of how men identify and separate themselves with sports. I'll give an example from the hospital: nurses are usually females. However males who are nurses who usually wish to distance themselves from the undervalue females will employ strategies of talking about "sports" to elevate and separate their genders hence perpetuating the male advantage. For this reason I would like to encourage women to compete among themselves and be the best they can at their game. The experience of being an outstanding athlete does not have to be standardise by a male performance. Women can build their skill, and competencies in any game with flair. Tennis is such a sport - the women play for only 3 sets since this is all the energies they can muster compare to the men's game of 5 sets. However, the ladies get the endorsements, comparable salary, audience on TV, higher ratings and attendance is higher compare to men. So it is my believe that women can surely neutralize sports and get rid of gender discrepancies in sports. Because as far as I am concern it is about power, lucrative monies, disparities in sports, and a conquest of this male obsession with sports. All we need folks is encourage sports for women to new heights and at our own level.

Fad sounds like a good explanation, but for ages women are dying their hair blonde. Blondes are of course very popular, hungry TV snap up these folks, pop music worship them and politics also have some major blonde players. I mean is Ann Coulter your it girl or Cinderella, they are blondes. The statistics indicates that 1 out of every 20 American is a true blonde and the same ration is applicable to White Northern Europeans. But if you take a look down the street probably 1 in every 3 white adult females are blondes. Well, the indication suggest, its not just youth following a fad. I allude to being bonde is to immerse oneself in some distinct imagery. First, babies to tend be fair, and everyone loves babies. Perhaps, blonde means being youthful and has association of being like babies, acting out the childish high pitched voices for attracting mates, besides being fair. Men are definitely attracted to youth and we know youth are signs of fertile success. Blondes are more inviting, get more smiles, radiate glows from their hair, other blondes acknowledges the a member of the "elite", there is preferential treatment. In fact, if a female dyed her hair and looked younger the circle of friends would rush off the do the same. So my major question is can we afford not to be blonde? Marilyn Monroe dyed her hair as Margaret Thatcher because being blonde is linked to being feminine, beauty and interestingly the preference of males. Thatcher definitely did it to soften her looks and flatter her features.

Well, the desire to be blonde by all types of folks is all too powerful to neglect some discussions. I am a bit weary though that sometimes these discussions do run along racial sensitivities and precludes the more intelligent debate. I sincerely hope this will not be the case here and no person is affronted about blondes being the "exciting interest". I mean if a blonde main construct is to lighten up this screwed up world and to be displayed as the illicit desire of the times, could this be the reason for many folks wanting to dye their hair and pretend blondness. Or, I wonder could I be wrong in my believe that the fundamental reasoning to get together with a blonde is to have blonde babies?

Would it read the same way if being a woman - I am younger and still had my teeth and original organs I would probably have got it on with Brad Pitt, Rupert Hill, Jude Law, Orlando Bloom, Johnny Depp, Matt Damon, David Beckham all at the same time - hope they are all heterosexual males. I was thinking about that article and it seems to me that the article should also point out that men are also willing for a divorce, will cheat on their wives more, if they have children - will have a stressful life and are very unhappy. Plus, I am told that the males are not contented with their lives until they have matured to say 56 years of age, then they accept some defeat or what is in store for them (even when the females come in all shapes and sizes) tsk! My question is if it is normal for men to have a career, and it is normal for the above to occur, and no one question men and their behaviors, why is there a controversy for women to have a career and also cheat, divorce and have less children. That article really is on men deportment but written in reverse for and about women.

Because the article is written and also published by Forbes, women...career women should take notice. I am not offended that men are going to be ill advised by their counterparts. They will simply rule out most of their chances for happiness that comes financially and morally equip, plus stable support system. I don't dispute that there are correlations of the career women, children and divorces. But reasons are more likely to point to women being able to manage financially their own monies that they contribute in a relation, using their smarts and planning for parenthood rather that having children haphazardly, and so on, they can address which stocks to play because it is also their money. Men in their pretence to be stronger of the sexes have not been able to adjust to the female independence and now counteracts their weakness in a childish display of boycott. This is what this article is about. Career women are likely to take action if a relation is not working in strive to be deservingly happier. My take is that women are striving for better because they deserve the better. Career women leaving the men have nothing to do with finances, children (a career is a minimum requirement for them to do well on their own, when the men turn out to be a disappointment), but the leaving actually falls in the irreconcilable differences. Usually it is intangibles such as love, support, wanting to be with each other, etc. . Even I admit that no amounts of money can buy women the happiness, romance and fairytale dreams they seek with men.

I had followed a bit of the media persuasion of implicating the parents of JonBenet. I have never understood why the parents never confessed to the bad. Parents surely can't live forever with the knowledge of a wrong that cannot be undone and so I was also quizzical when the folks appear, and appear all on the telly to deny this wrong. So you can imagine the turn around opinion since the recent confessions of school teacher, and how quickly one have revise and have a new opinion. Confession in JonBenet murder questioned Ahem, now I see that this is being discussed in the Moral threads

Firstly there is no agenda, nor emotional, nor emasculating loss in how to entertain women. This is just simply some deconstruction of the male position. Now, I would outright lie if I say it is impossible to underrate men. They are limitless in their accomplishments and show strength in tasks that they set off to accomplish and complete. So, we can all agree that there is a likely expectation that men can do as much as women if not better and is minuscule really. I mean women have been falling at men's beck and call in their entirety. So, I propose that men become fragile and submission to entertain us ladies. We certainly would like to see the power relation manifested in abandonment of being male and tilted in favor of the women. So for men, volunteer work is encouraged as a third shift, after you finished looking after the children of course, while going to work (you can also stay at home by choice after we have decided as partners that you should not work). Whether you decided on staying at home full time or not, you will make the time to greet us at the door (happy demeanour please), cook, indoor cleaning, including the washrooms - make rules as you go along for example whether to have the toilet seat up or down, and also reinforce these rules, do the laundry, shopping, chauffeur the children to baseball, hockey, dance lessons, soccer, attend parent night at school, shuffle, shuffling etc. You will need be very fit, requirement of the day is being sexy, attractive, ripples in the stomach, develop some breast, some defined muscles, persona to match, apply make-up to look pretty, and hairless otherwise you don't get introduced to my buddies. Yes, and get some pretty clothes while you are at it. Note: you cannot criticise the women if they develop a bigger stomach, become overweight from sitting about doing nothing or for just being lazy and being themselves, even when they have less regard for their hair and appearance - you will worship them regardless. The TV remote belongs to the lady, and you will serve drinks immediately if asked "honey get me a beer", and give in to each demand. Fridays and Saturdays is the lady free time, it is time to go out for a drink with the guys, so you have to take care of the kids. And oh, don't wait up usually we sit around goofing and having fun 'till early morning. Because you become so fatigue with work, house chores, child issues and more work you are encourage to visit your doctor constantly to unload and check up - we don't wish you to die on us, we have invested too much in this relationship. In return the lady will tell you daily that you are loved. We understand no one is perfect and so if chores remain unfinished you can be forgiven. We also understand about the PMS days men can have, and good news the ladies are more likely to say yes rather than no. We will listen to all your nagging and complains and we can sympathise, be contented, you will get a day off once a month. Best of all, because the ladies are no longer tired or worn out any longer, sex sounds appealing...everyday. We will actually initiate it. Did I get most of it in? You get the picture.