Men have more drive in the workplace NOT because of some mythical patriarchy, but because they are genetically built that way.
job = prestige = chance of family.
If we apply that to a woman.. its falls apart.
why? because a woman doesn't need prestige to have children. and so she doesn't have to earn the respect of it. and so she will never respect it like a man does.
If a man.. your man.. is happy giving attention to his hobby, congratulations! you have a good man. Don't belittle his hobby, in fact, give him attention for it and he might get better at it. If you are worried he is bored with you, he isn't. It's natural male behaviour, it how he learns how to teach your children.
He is not out cheating on you and you know where he is. He is not squandering money on drugs or gambling, as long as the bills get paid, he doesn't cheat or hit you or the children (within reason.. I mean if my son steals my wallet and crashes my car, he's goiny get a shock when I belt/punch him in the face.. but I'm scottish ymmv) and he spends at least an hour with you a night, DON'T cheat on him.
Women do NOT get paid less than men.
WHY? because it's ILLEGAL! you can sue for it.
Women don't chase higher paying jobs, as a NATIONAL AVERAGE. not per person.. per person yes women get paid less, because they take part time jobs because it suits them. it makes them happy.. while men KNOW they *must* take full time jobs for their wife to RESPECT them.
The same people who believe genetics determine our state of existence, also believe that we can break that state .. OKAY:
1. If you believe that state can be broken, then self determination can rule our interaction in society, with the human state being unavoidably fallible, and that you can never truly see from another person point of view:
Q: how can so few people shape society and be correct across all fields with all people.
A: You cannot.
And to all those who answered 'We're not monkeys now': fail. Come back when you have a non-monkey answer.
Wrestling with human fallibility is a huge subject that can't be answered with one liners.
A few months ago, 18th April 2016, I wrote on Phil Mason's Wikipedia talk page, on how valid a critic he was against the feminazi. The article was being discussed for deletion that he was not noteworthy enough. here is what I wrote:
"Phil Mason aka Thunderfoot, is Anita Sarkeesian's main opponent in Third Wave Feminism aka Feminazi .. If I were to go over to Anita's page and delete it.. how long until it was restored?? Phil Mason.. while I am Catholic and do not agree with all his views, is an important figure in 'Gender Balance' regardless of his other work or accomplishments.If Wikipedia allows her to have a page.. oh the irony! and not Phil Mason.. it's just another reproof of Gender inequality and that we in the West, are broken as a society. which in my humble opinion we are! Anita is well documented as having faulty research. Especially by Phil Mason. peace."
A user (I will not name) interfered with my comment, and so a 'edit war' began which was reported (by myself and I suspect him). The comment was deleted by a wikipedia administrator, and I assume employee as their name was in gold. Wikipedia, which strives to be 'unbiased' is in FACT BIAS! bias towards the evil propaganda that Anita Sarkeesian spouts.
Do YOU see the irony? in my comment I had complete confidence of wikipedia non-bias stance.
The other editor did not interact with my comment for reasons within the wikipedia guidelines, but because it bested his argument and beliefs. And A.S. gets her way like a spoilt child, with many white knights charging in body-shielding waving her banner of evil propaganda.
PUH-Lease!
Just because many were taken in by her does NOT mean we should be, and a valid open discussion on whether or not she should be allowed to represent ANY group of human beings should be established!
Think am done for now.. do you blame me?
flip!
