Preface
Thanks to the PC-brigade, there are certain subjects that
are "taboo" to talk about outside of a private conversation. Say or write these in public, and you're bound
to get some backlash from the PC-brigade.
I am now going to do just that, and if people want to say
shit, then so be it....
Let's begin, shall we?
1. Sexual
harassment.
Yes, I begin my blog with SH. Now I will admit there are legit cases of SH,
but sadly the legit ones face an uphill battle in just being taken
seriously. The reason? Because of the high amount of bullshit ones. How high?
Each year, about half the SH complaints get thrown out or dismissed due
to "lack of merit," which is legal speak for "don't waste my
time with this frivolous crap."
Why so many bullshit SH complaints?
I blame the feminists and their brainwashing. In the not too distant past, you could pay a
polite (read: not lewd!) compliment to a female colleague, and you'll get a
thank you and a smile. Maybe even a kiss
on the cheek if you play your cards right. ;)
But now, if you compliment the wrong woman you might be
called into human resources only to find out said woman filed an SH complaint
against you. You probably thought,
"How could this happen?! I only
told her she looks pretty today!"
Simply put, a guy is almost always completely innocent
when he says "You look pretty/nice/whatever today." Feminists go around saying that men have no
business complimenting women on their appearance, that if a woman decides to
"doll herself up" for the workplace one day it's to make herself feel
"empowered," she doesn't need a man to validate her efforts to look
good, and the best way to "teach them a lesson" is to file an SH
complaint.
Please! I
shouldn't have to explain on how ridiculous this is. Makes me want to puke, actually.
Another thing that feminists have tried to brainwash
women on is when they say that an innocent, polite compliment is somehow a
coded message for sex. Bonus points if
they tell women to watch out for a "pattern." Yes, I actually heard a feminist say "If
you notice a pattern where a male colleague only compliments you when you wear
a certain outfit it means he has a 'thing' for that outfit and he wants to have
sex with you! File a sexual harassment
complaint as soon as you can!"
Ugh. Can I barf
now, please? This is why feminists get a
bad name, because of shit they say like this.
It's not just about compliments, either. It can also go for asking a female colleague
out on a date. Let's face it, if you
work for a large company for the majority of the week and you're not seeing
anyone, you're bound to find someone that you are attracted to and want to ask
out.
When Tom Brady won one his first super bowls, he appeared
as a host on Saturday Night Live. Where
he made this skit:
https://screen.yahoo.com/sexual-harassment-000000677.html
This is one those comedy bits that fall into the
"sad but true" category. Pretty much, many times the only difference
between getting a female colleague to say yes to a 1-on-1 offer for dinner/
coffee or getting hauled into HR for sexual harassment is looking
unattractive.... and looking like Tom Brady.
Again, I blame the feminists. Many of whom would say "If a man has no
business asking you out, best to teach him a lesson by filing a sexual
harassment complaint!" Only problem
is, in this instance "no business asking you out" is translation for
"he is not properly hunky enough."
However, I must admit that it's not always
feminists. Sometimes women are just
stuck up and believe that only a certain type of man should dare approach them,
and might get so offended that a "regular guy" asked her out that she
goes an files an SH complaint against him.
Coincidentally, these same women are always complaining to their
girlfriends that they can't seem to find a man.
Go figure....
What really gets me is when guys are hauled into HR for
sexual harassment simply for making general commentary that is in no way sexual
at all. Case in point? I was reading somewhere that a man was hauled
into HR on an SH complaint for seeing a women's tennis match playing on the TV
in his workplace's breakroom, and saying to one of his colleagues, "Tennis
is only fun to watch if it's two hot babes playing like on TV right now,
otherwise it's as exciting as watching paint dry." What.... the.... hell? (To him getting an SH complaint, not his
comment)
---
2. Rape/sexual
assault, or really the sympathy perks....
Okay, rape and sexual assault is a serious thing, and it
is a horrible crime that needs to be punished accordingly. Yet, this is another category where the legit
cases have a tough time in getting taken seriously thanks to a lot of bullshit
ones.
Cases in point?
In New York many years ago (When I was still living
there, that's how long ago it was), a high school teacher, very popular I might
add, was arrested for sexually assaulting 3 girls that were part of his
class. They gave such damaging testimony
that the jury unanimously convicted him of rape, even though he vigorously maintained his
innocence. The girls got money and also
full college scholarships as part of a settlement. Poor guy sat in jail for 3 years before the
girls admitted that they made the whole thing up because they were pissed that
he flunked them on a test that was going to affect their chances of getting
into some fancy college. Never bothered
finding out what happened to the girls, but I hope that their scholarships were
revoked.
Brian Banks was convicted of rape by a fellow high school
student and spent years in jail that he could have spent on the football
field. The rape victim sued the school
and won, claiming millions of dollars.
Years later, she admitted she lied about the whole thing. Banks was released, and after trying
unsuccessfully to make an NFL team is actually now working for the NFL's main
offices. Good for him! The woman?
Statute of limitations prevented her from being charged with filing a
false claim, but she was ordered to give all the money back that she won....
which is rather hard when she spent most of it.
Recently here in South Florida, a taxi driver was
arrested after a female passenger claimed he lured her to a motel and raped
her. He sat in jail for over a month
before she admitted the sex was consensual, but cried rape so she should stay
in the country. You may be thinking,
"huh?" Apparently, there is a
state law in the books in Florida that states victims of sexual assault that
are here illegally are granted a stay in the country and cannot be
deported. Thanks to this, I bet a lot of
guys down here are going to be afraid of having sex with a woman who is not a
US citizen!
What is the common denominator here? Two words: Sympathy Perks.
I am going to just come out and say something that will
probably cause a lot of feminists to want to throw something at me: Get rid of
those fucking sympathy perks.
Would it hurt legit victims? Probably.
But if you remove a rape victim's right to sue (Or limit how much money
they can get meaning they can get something, just not into the millions), don't
give them free scholarships, or don't give them temporary Visas, or surely one
of the many other sympathy perks, I have a feeling the amount of life-ruining
false claims will drop significantly and make it easier for the legit ones to
come forward.
---
Now for people who are thinking that I'm hating on women,
allow me to bash my gender for a moment....
3a. Men who
complain they can't get a girl because they are "nice."
I'm not going to go full court press on the topic of
"Nice Guys," as I sure you can just do a little google-fu and find
plenty of answers to whatever questions you have. Urban Dictionary and Heartless Bitches
International (A site ran by women)
are a good place to start.
The simple truth is that Nice Guys do ridiculous favors
for a woman that they would never do for a male friend in hopes that she is
going to have sex with him. NEWS FLASH:
Women aren't vending machines where you insert a "niceness coin" and
a sexual favor comes out! Want to help a
female friend move, for example? Then do
it because you simply want to help her move, not because you're hoping that she
is going to rip your clothes off and hump you on that couch you just lugged up
to her apartment!
On that note...
3b. Men who think
that women should flock to them because they're "loaded." Or.... thinks a woman who is looking for
financial stability is a "gold digger."
I was reading an article by one of my favorite
relationship consultants and one of his readers asked this question:
"I have a
question I hope you can answer. 6 months
ago I received a huge uplift in my financial situation. One that many people
dream about but never actually hit. I
was able to buy my first home totally outright, I have a couple of nice cars
that are also completely paid for and due to smart investing I have a steady
stream of income that will last me for pretty much the rest of my life. Yet, I am still single. I don't hate it as much as I thought I would,
but it would be nice to meet someone.
However, recently a buddy of mine told me that one of my problems is
that I don't advertise the fact that I am financially secure. He said since I'm not the pinnacle of male
evolution, I should make the fact that I'll always have money coming in as my
top selling point. Only thing is, I
don't want a gold digger who is only going to like my bank account. Should I take my buddy's advice, or just keep
trying other things?"
This is a snippet of what the consultant wrote back:
"When you're
in sales trying to sell a product, it's best to list that item's top selling
point as it's best feature. Well in the
dating world when that product is YOU, it's best to list your greatest selling
point. In this case, you didn't list how
you got this 'financial uplift' and I am not going to speculate, but
regardless, if a woman knows right away that there is not going to be a problem
with being able to put food on the table or how she is going to make the next
mortgage payment, then that is automatically a major plus right away in her
eyes. However, keep in mind that once
you 'sold' her on this selling point, you have to know how to keep her with
your other qualities. Money is not the
final answer in a long, healthy relationship.
Take Donald Trump for example. He
is one of the richest men in the world but can't seem to make a marriage
last. Why? Because his wives discovered over time that
his money wasn't just his biggest selling point, it was his ONLY selling
point.
Now, about your
line about not wanting a gold digger.
That's fine, but keep this in mind: While some women do want a sugar
daddy, when most women say they want a man who is financially secure, what they
mean is a man who is smart with his money so if god forbid he gets sick and
loses his job, for example, they won't have to move into a homeless shelter or
an efficiency apartment. Back to what
your buddy said, if you're not the pinnacle of male evolution then by all means
go ahead and use your financial stability as a selling point. Just make sure that it isn't your only
selling point, otherwise the money you have is going to be seeped away in
divorce court. Good luck!"
The consultant hit it right on the head with his
gold-digger response and nearly all other points, BUT.... there is something
that he fails to mention in his response to the guy on using wealth as your top
"selling point," and that is....
IT DOES NOT WORK!
Reason? I blame
Elliot Rodger, the maniac who did a series of vlogs complaining that girls
wouldn't go near him even though he wore designer clothes, wore Gucci
sunglasses and "drove a bitchin' BMW".... then proceeded to kill a
bunch of people, mostly females.
Side note: Bitchin' BMW?
Please, his BMW was a 1 series!
Much like a low-rung BMW 3 Series, Mercedes CLA class or Audi A3, that
is the car that someone gets when he
or she has a false sense of self-importance and only cares about being noticed! If he really arrived he'd be driving around
in an upper-end 5 series or 7 series!
Back to the blog, the reason why I blame Elliot Rodger is
because ever since his murderous rampage, women are very weary of guys who try
to list any sort of wealth as the top reason why women should date them. Weary because the first thought they probably
have is, "What is this guy trying to cover up with his money?" Granted, I'm sure a woman will be more attracted
to someone that isn't living in a cardboard box, has a car and has some sort of
steady income. However, "screaming
from the rooftops" so to speak that women should go for you because your
car is a fancy foreign make and your house was paid for with lottery money
(It's obvious that was the "financial uplift" the dude writing to the
relationship consultant was talking about) is a quick way for you to be looked
at as the next possible Elliot Rodger.... and then you're screwed, and not in a
good way.
That is why it
doesn't work.
----
4a. The LGBT
community.
Let's start this section by saying something: I do not
care if someone is gay. I know plenty of
gay people who are awesome. I also fully
support same-sex marriage, because if they want to bet half their stuff that
they can live with the same person for the rest of their lives then by all
means, let them!
But this isn't about same-sex marriage. This is about the number one reason why so
many members of the LGBT community catch so much flak from the members of the
straight community:
That many of them are just as much, if not more intolerant than the people they claim
are discriminating against them.
This is due to one reason: They can't fathom the idea
that you are never going to get 100%
of the straight community to be fully accepting of people who are LGBT. You just cannot. End of story.
Biggest example: Gay couples suing businesses for
refusing to serve them because the owners of said business object to homosexuality. Now, don't get me wrong, I think the owners
of the business are stupid because their money is just as green as a straight
couple's. They're basically turning away
money due to their allegiance to a glorified fairy tale aka religion.
Now with that out of the way, if a business was to turn a
couple away because of who they are clashes with their religion, here is what I
and so many other people want to know:
HOW HARD IS IT TO
GO TO ANOTHER BUSINESS?!
You know, one that is
willing to take their money? Instead of
suing, say, a bakery out of business for not wanting to bake them a cake, why
not just go to another bakery that doesn't care if they're gay?
Now, the pundits will say that "just going to
another business" is just "lying down and accepting
discrimination." If you really
want to get technical, it's not, and here is why:
Homosexuality is not a "protected class," not
yet anyway (Thanks to all the conservatives in office who still think it's a
choice, which it's not - more on that later).
When a person does not fall into a "protected class," that
business has a legal right to refuse service to him/her.
It sucks, but to be honest a gay couple would be better
off leaving the establishment a bad Yelp review than suing the place. If the LGBT community wants to end some of
the perception issues that they have with the straight community, that would be
a start.
There is another example of this:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/canadian-jeweler-threatened-for-offering-great-service-to-gay-couple-while-supporting-traditional-marriage/
If you want me to save you a click, here's the short
synopsis: Jeweler makes a ring for a lesbian couple, as said jeweler has my mentality: Doesn't matter
if you agree with who they love, their money is just as green as the next
person. Couple then finds out that the
jeweler has a PERSONAL OPINION that they don't believe in same sex
marriage. Couple then demands that they
take back the ring and give them a refund because they said that it would be
"tainted" by the jeweler's PERSONAL OPINION. Other people find out about the jeweler's
PERSONAL OPINION and harass, bully him, make threats and demand they shut their
business down because, again, of their PERSONAL OPINION.
They way I see it, I see no intolerance and good business
sense on the part of the jeweler. I see
total INTOLERANCE on the part of the couple in question.
This is why the
LGBT community takes so much flak from the straight community. Not
because of who they love or who they want to be.
While we're on the subject of LGBT....
----
4b. Idiots who
think homosexuality is a choice....
Do you want to know why LGBT is not a protected class
yet? Because of all those conservatives
that people voted for who think that LGBT is a choice and therefore not
eligible to be a protected class.
Homosexuality is not a choice and has been debunked as
such by just about every scientific entity out there.
I have my one opinion on this: If it was a choice, no one
would be gay. If it was, why would those
people choose a road so difficult to travel down, one where they face hardships
from every corner which include being shunned by their own family and
friends? Think about it.
Of course, you have people that offer their
"experience" to try and counter this.
One such example is a guy that was a member of a political debate forum I was on
years ago. He said that his
step-daughter was perfectly straight until she befriended a lesbian at college,
then a short time later came home from school announcing she was gay and had a
girlfriend. People had to break it to
him that his step-daughter was not "perfectly straight," but more
than likely "afraid to come out."
----
5. Section 8 and
the problems it causes.
For a perfect example of the problems section 8 causes, I
urge you to take a look into the south Florida town of Coral Springs.
It used to be a very nice area, on par with some of south
Florida's best areas. Then it started
changing. What was once a city you never
heard of on the local news now has stories running every week of some sort of
crime.
When did it change?
Owners of rental properties in Coral Springs for years refused to allow
section 8, because they know what happens when you do. Then City Hall told them that if they
continue to refuse it the city will sue them for "housing
discrimination."
So they started to allow section 8, and shortly after it
caused problems. As in crime
problems. The classy people who lived in
the surrounding areas moved to places like Parkland and Weston or totally out
of Broward County, and the area started slowly changing.
The reason for this is quite simple: Only 10% of people
on section 8 are legitimately good people.
The rest are low-lifes, criminals and drug addled losers who either
can't get a job or can't hold down a job, and do nothing but bring riff-raff
and cause the surrounding neighbors nothing but trouble.
Recently on TV, I saw a report that said that areas like
PARKLAND are going to eventually be pressured to start accepting section 8. For those that don't know, Parkland is one of
the nicest cities in South Florida. If
money was no object and I wanted to stay in broward county, Parkland would be
"the" place. I'm just going to
come right out and say it: If I was a Parkland resident, I would not want
section 8'ers invading my beautiful city!
Now I know some people are
going to read this and want to say to me, "Studies have shown that section
8 does not increase crime.... and you're being a little racist."
Bullshit! I firmly think that those studies were
manipulated into saying that to avoid sounding racist....
....Which is ridiculous in
itself as the majority of people on assistance like section 8 are Caucasian. So how am I being racist here?
If I was a property owner in Parkland, I would point City
Hall and HUD to Coral Springs as to why it is not a good idea to make me start
accepting section 8. To be honest, if I
was threatened with a lawsuit, I would say "bring it on. Sue me."
I wish that Coral Springs property owners had the guts to
tell the City Hall and HUD to go fuck themselves. If they did that, maybe Coral Springs would
still be an A+ place to live!
----
6. The
glorification and normalization of obesity.
Remember when that fitness mom Maria Kang took a picture
with her three kids that said, "What's your excuse?"
Sensible people recognized what she meant: That just
because you have a child doesn't mean you should get lazy and become a
fatass. To the PC-brigade, it was
"fat shaming."
Then she ranted on a promo by "curvy girl
lingerie" where the company had its customers take selfies wearing their
products, calling it "glorifying obesity."
Well to be honest, Maria Kang was correct. None of those women were curvy. Just fat.
These are women that you want to tell them to cover up, not strip
down! There is no easy way to say
it. Like Maria Kang, I will probably be
accused of fat shaming!
By the way, about the word "curvy." It used to mean something universal by both
men and women: A woman who has a nice hourglass figure, that has at least a
C-cup bust, a nice butt and in general does not look like she is going to fall
over and die any minute due to lack of nourishment. Somehow, within the last 10-15 years, that
universal meaning soon became just the man's definition of "curvy." When a woman says "curvy," it is a
cover up to downplay the fact that she is fat.
That's why when I'm on a dating site and see that a woman has only face
pics and calls herself "curvy," I close her profile and move onto the
next one.
But back to this topic: It seems that the PC-brigade has
made it nearly impossible to criticize and "call out" the simple fact
that an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle is being promoted as normal and glamorous
when it's not.
The most recent and biggest example (no pun intended) is
when a "plus size" model named Tess Holliday became the first such
model to be signed to Vogue. Now, I have
seen plenty of gorgeous plus size models that are way more attractive than
those skinny wenches that normally walk the runways. Tess is not one of them. She's just FAT. She's one of those people that when you see
her trying to prance around in lingerie, you just want to tell her "sheesh
put your clothes back on!" Which means one thing: That thanks to the
PC-Brigade, Vogue was probably too scared to say "You don't fit the image
our demographic is looking for," which translates to "You're just a
bit too big to be a model for our company." It makes me wonder why Vogue chose to sign
her over the many other plus size models out there that are actually nice to
look at.
Just to end this: Until the media stops listening to the
PC-Brigade that the people calling out an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle is
"fat shaming," then we're going to have this continue.
Oh, and for the people who are thinking that I'm hating
on females again, let's face it, you don't see a heavyset dude trying to get a
modeling job for Abercrombie & Fitch, and if one did I would have the same
response as I did for the curvy girl lingerie selfies: no one wants to see that
shit, cover up!
----
7. Dress codes in
schools for the wrong reason: to shame buys for having naughty thoughts.
Dress codes in schools are nothing new. They have been in most schools pretty much
forever.
Lately though, girls getting punished for
"violating" dress codes left and right are constantly making the
news. You may be thinking, "they
violated the dress code, why is this news?"
It's because of the reason for the dress codes....
It would be fine if the stated reasons for the dress
codes were to prepare them for what they can expect in the real world; after
all most workplaces have a dress code.
Except it's NOT.
The stated reasons most of these schools have is that
they don't want to distract their male classmates and give them naughty
thoughts. Oh my god, give a teenage boy
naughty thoughts? The horror!
I was a teenage boy once, so let me tell you this: If I
found a girl attractive, she could be wearing a potato sack, and I would still have naughty thoughts.
Here are some links:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/04/mom-upset-school-forced-daughter-to-wear-shame-suit/15058923/
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Teen-Girls-Dress-Gets-Her-Kicked-Out-of-Prom-259225501.html
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/331187-honor-student-wore-award-speech-got-title-taken-away/
If you do some google-fu, you'll find a lot more links
that are of basically identical stories.
But nearly all of them had this commentary:
"Instead of
punishing girls for wearing something with, say, spaghetti straps, how about we
teach boys at an early enough age to respect women and understand that girls
are not objects to leer at and stare at, and also teach them that just because she
is wearing something that shows a little skin it should not be an automatic
signal to start fantasizing about her!"
The first part of that commentary made sense. Women should be respected and I totally
agree. The second part is where they
lost me.
Trying to teach boys that it's somehow wrong or shameful
to fantasize or have naughty thoughts about a girl that they find attractive is
more damaging long-term than taking a girl's award away for wearing spaghetti
straps, or kicking a girl out of prom for wearing a dress that was deemed
"too short," and the reason why is going to be in the form of a
question to all parents of a son:
DON'T YOU WANT TO
SEE YOUR SON GETTING MARRIED AND HAVING CHILDREN SOMEDAY??
Well that's not going to happen if he is indoctrinated to
think that fantasizing or naughty thoughts are bad, or shameful. In order to get married, he has to get
engaged to a girl. In order to get
engaged, he has to be in a relationship.
In order to get into that relationship, he has to date her. In order to date her, he has to ask her
out. Naughty thoughts are one of the
building blocks to actually building up the courage to ask a girl out on a
date. Take it away, and there's a high
chance your son is going to be perpetually single.
Now, about the having children part: Let's just say that
babies don't come from storks. They come
from having sex. The largest building
block to wanting to have sex are.... naughty
thoughts. Again, if you ever want your
son to have sex and get his wife/girlfriend pregnant, then schools
indoctrinating him into thinking that naughty thoughts are bad or shameful is,
well, a bad idea.
Let's delve a little into that, shall we? Boys, from adolescence on, begin to develop "naughty
thought triggers," and they don't know what triggers them until they see
something that, well, does trigger
them.
One of the complaints about the prudish dress codes is
that "they sexualize non-sexual body parts like a girl's shoulders." I always find it humorous when these news
articles mention that.
Allow me to reveal one of my naughty thought triggers....
I didn't know it at the time, but I developed a naughty
thought trigger to a woman's bare shoulders.... if she lets her straps to her
top/dress/whatever fall off her shoulders or converts it to strapless.
How did I realize it?
I was in high school, and became acquainted with this new girl who was
really good looking. She was wearing a
spaghetti-strap tank, and for some reason, I blurted out "If someone like
a photographer paid you just to slip your straps off your shoulders, would you
do it?" I don't know why I said it,
but I said it. She looks at me and says,
"You mean like this?" She lets
her top and bra strap fall down her shoulder, and that's when it subconsciously
"hit" me. I asked her without
hesitation, "Can you do that again?
Because that's pretty hot."
She did, and I knew I was onto something about myself.
Whenever my last girlfriend wore something like a tank
top or dress, she knew the one thing that could get me "revved up" so
to speak was let her straps fall off her shoulders and teasing with them or
maybe even convert the dress or top she was wearing to strapless. She said I was a "cheap date" so to speak because of this, haha!
But that's the thing, and that's how I am going to
conclude this part with: Having a dress code for prudish reasons is damaging
for girls because schools and other institutions are punishing them for something they have no control over
(boy's thoughts) and damaging to boys when the "solution" is to shame
boys into thinking that a perfectly natural thing is bad and needs to be
repressed. Long term it's bad overall
for everyone involved.
Now for the people that have questions on my naughty
thought trigger...
----
7b. People who
think it's "weird" and/or ask silly or ask downright stupid questions to
someone who has a "niche"/uncommon fetish or naughty thought
trigger.
Now granted, I'm sure many of you have questions on my
"naughty thought trigger."
Some might even call it a fetish. The PC-brigade tend to publicly call anyone that says they have a
fetish "perverts," but I am willing to bet my lunch money that they
have something that revs their motor just as much so to speak, so they really
shouldn't be talking!
Now to the questions that I
have been asked, or I know that people are going to be thinking of asking....
"What do your
dates/girlfriends etc think of this 'fetish' you have?"
I never had a woman that thought
it was weird or anything. Why would
they? If they did it would be hugely
judgmental on their part. Personally, I
think any woman would like it if all they had to do was show some shoulder to
push my buttons and start the engine!
"You know
what? I think your 'fetish' is kind of
weird."
One should never call something that revs a person's
motor "weird." Some people are
into big butts. I personally never was,
but I'm not going to poke fun at someone who does. Some guys have a foot fetish. I personally never got that myself, but I am
certainly not going to judge anyone who does have it. Some guys are into bondage. Again, never thought it was attractive but
again, I am not one to judge what gets another person's motor revving. See a pattern here? I never called any of those things
"weird." They like what they
like, who am I to tell them differently?
"So if you see
a hot actress/model on TV wearing a dress/top that's off-the-shoulder or
strapless, are you telling me you're pitching tent just by the sight of
that?"
No. An already
off-the-shoulder or strapless dress/top takes the fun out of it for me 99% of
the time.
"So if you see
a cute girl wearing a top or dress with straps, are you tempted to go over to
her and pull her straps down her shoulders?"
Yep, someone actually asked me this. The answer is NO, because it's sexual assault and also creepy!
And one that leads back to the prudish dress code and the
reason I brought all these up in the first place:
"You do
realize developing a 'fetish' like yours is why many schools banned anything
that bares a girl's shoulders, right?"
Some guys develop a naughty thought trigger to a girl's
tummy. Some develop one to a girl's
legs. Some develop one to a girl's
hair. So let's just make girls dress up
in burka-like clothing with hijabs to make sure that NONE of them are showing anything for fear that a boy might
develop something that is perfectly natural and okay to have! Holy shit, you're so right! *Note sarcasm*
Now with that out of the way....
----
8. Child
Protective Services.
Over the last few years, you may have seen news reports
of CPS trying to take kids away from their parents for completely baffling
reasons.
These parents are not the type that you imagine CPS to be
targeting, but here are some things that CPS has tried to take kids away for:
1. The famous case of parents in Maryland letting their
kids walk home from school by themselves.
CPS says that the parents put their kids in great danger.
2. Recently, a couple decided to go camping with their
kids on a piece of property that they recently bought. CPS argued that the parents put the kids in
unsafe conditions.
3. A woman's young daughter was acting like a brat in a
store, so as soon as they got back to the car she spanked her - once.
CPS argued that witnesses saw the mom "beating her daughter." In reality the "witnesses" was one
anti-spanking crusader idiot.
4. Years ago, a couple appeared on a talk show to talk
how CPS nearly ruined her family's life.
What happened? The couple's young
son was choking on a french fry, so they called 911. CPS tied to sell a story that the couple
shoved the french fry down his throat because they were upset at him for
getting a bad report card.
There are MANY more instances of stories like these of CPS
turning families lives upside down. But
why do this in the first place? For
starters, I see many stories of kids living in deplorable conditions, that are
actually abused, or born drug addicted, or so traumatized that they are screwed
up for life, that CPS doesn't seem to go near.
You know, ones that actually do deserve to be taken away but seem to be
ignored while CPS seems to go after good families for completely bogus
reasons. But why is that?
Well, I did some research. And as usual, it's money.
See, when a CPS worker takes a child away from his/her
parents and places him/her into foster care, that child becomes eligible for
adoption a short time later.
And if you're a
prospective parent looking to adopt a child, what child would be more appealing
to you:
A beautiful blue eyed girl who was taken from her mother
because an anti-spanking crusader nut job saw her and called the cops on her
for spanking her kid once, or a boy who was born to a woman who liked to smoke
crack, had a different man in her house every week and treated him like shit?
If you guessed the former, you would be correct. That's where the money comes into place. I found out that when a child is finally
adopted out of foster care, the CPS worker who put him/her there gets a bonus. The more "adoptable" the children
are, the more money they make when the kids are finally adopted out of foster
care.
Here is what I want to know....
WHY THE FUCK IS A
BONUS EVEN GIVEN OUT FOR THIS?!
Money should not be a factor in this! There are many jobs where a bonus is
appropriate. Selling cars. Selling stocks. Selling phones. Definitely not this. It makes me want to puke!
Once I found out about the bonuses, it all makes sense
now. In my view, CPS is a corrupt
alphabet agency that likes to destroy the lives of innocent, loving families to
pad their wallets. That's really all
there is to it.
----
9. Pro-lifers who
complain about aborting a fetus with down syndrome.
On the wikipedia page for down syndrome, it says that
over 70% of fetuses that test positive for down syndrome are aborted.
Pro-lifers, obviously, frown on this. Their favorite saying is, "So if the
child isn't your definition of perfect, you're going to kill it?"
Nobody is perfect, so that is just a generally stupid
question. But there is a reason the
majority of fetuses with down syndrome are aborted.
One look at the aforementioned wikipedia page (And other medical journals) shows the
litany of health problems people born with down syndrome face. Not only that, but people with down syndrome
have shortened lifespans and thanks to the low IQ levels, with very few
exceptions the biggest career ambition they have.... is supermarket
bagger. They never get a chance to fall
in love, be the cool person, and are constantly made fun of. Not to mention hearing the constant reminder
that their parents get of "you should have aborted when you had the
chance."
In short, a fucked up shitty life. Why should any human being have to go through
that?
Children don't ask to be born into this world. When a fetus tests positive for down syndrome
and you decide to carry the pregnancy to term, you are intentionally and
knowingly inflicting said fucked up shitty life on that person before it even
gets a chance to come into this world.
You're being more cruel than the abortion itself!
Pro-lifers don't like hearing that.
To try and prove their point, they will resort to
insults, as in the case of a political discussion forum I used to lurk on. There was a guy who had the same viewpoint as
me on this, and one pro-lifer had this to say:
"You had drug
problems and run-ins with the law when you were younger. During that period you couldn't hold down a
job, couldn't make any relationship last to save your life, and thanks to your
parents kicking you out your residences consisted of crashing at friends'
couches. By all accounts your life was
fucked up and shitty, should your mom have aborted you?"
See.... they cannot come up with a point without
insulting people. That's because they
have no point. The man she insulted was
able to bounce back and is living a great, quality life now with a wife and kids. People with down syndrome are not able to
bounce back, and that's why most fetuses with the condition are aborted.
----
10. You can be
anything you want to be.... not exactly.
When I was criticizing that fat model that Vogue signed
when her TV segment aired on "The Insider," my father told me that I
shouldn't make fun of her, that "people can be anything they want to
be."
I had to tell him very nicely, "sorry but that's a
line of PC junk that is not true."
Sorry, but in the real world, you cannot be anything you
want to be. This phrase has been around
way longer than there ever was a PC-brigade.
It is just one of a long line of bullshit sayings that people will tell
others where the only thing it accomplishes is falsely raising their self
esteem and causes people to misread their skill set.
If it was, I would be in the Computer Aided Design field
by day and playing guitar tribute to Stevie Ray Vaughan by night. But alas, I was simply not cut out to do CAD
or play guitar.
That's the thing: some people are not designed or simply
cut out to do what they want to do. Even
if they excel at a similar field, they may simply not be cut out to do what
they have their eye on doing.
Now, no one knows if they are going to suck at something
until they actually try it. No one says,
"Don't bother doing that, you may suck at it." But when you do fail at something, you
quickly realize that statement of "you can be anything you want to
be" was only good for one thing - making you feel good in the short
term. It does not mean shit when it
comes to your actual skills or abilities.
I could list mine, or people I know, but the biggest name
I can think of that illustrates why this statement is bullshit is....
Michael Jordan.
Yep, that Michael
Jordan. One of the best basketball
players to ever set foot on the court, if not the best ever had an ambition to
play baseball to fulfill his late father's wishes to see his son play in the
major leagues. So how did he do? Well, not that great. If not for the baseball strike he probably
would have either got cut or been a bench warmer, so he returned to basketball
a year later. Where he resumed his
stellar career. Nowadays, only Jordan
die-hards mention anything about his baseball "career."
I bring this up because the phrase "you can be
anything you want to be" is what causes people to pull a Michael Jordan: just
because you may excel in one field does not mean you'll be good in
another. It causes people to have false
ambitions with in turn causes wasted time and maybe even wasted money.
Here is what I say: Find your "niche,"
something that fits within your skill set and possibly financial/travel limits,
and excel at it. Just don't listen to
phrases like the one above, otherwise it'll lead you to disappointment. Remember,
if this statement was true, there would be a lot more astronauts and a lot less
janitors.
----
Well that ends this very non-PC blog. Over and out!
