This was a fun and greatly contested debate. You are one tough contestant. I wanted to get your juices flowing and I wanted to get you thinking. I know that you would love a challenge in where I had an answer to just about everything you threw at me. Answers that were new to you, answers that’ll make you think even more. I wanted to show you the lies and corrupt nature of these femma fascists that has corroded the minds of so many people.

I loved it when you made me a little angry with some of the things you said throughout the debate, and I think there was a secret part of you that loved the competitive nature of me when I said some things that set you off as well. Throughout the course of the days in which we had our debate, our conversation would rest somewhere in my mind, thinking about how you would respond to me, and at the very same time I had to think about how I was going to respond to that. I had to think two steps ahead of time with you.

And because we were on different ends on the debate, I had the feeling that we would rather hang out with each other even though we did could not stand each other. It was a love-hate thing that had us drawn to each other. We would always come here, with our hearts pumping more rapidly than it should when we saw that there was a response. It was an addicting experience, Jenny.

Out of curiosity, how old are you? I’m 29.

I asked if you lived in NYC because of the article you showed and because I was born and raised in NYC, but moved to London. I’m going back to NY next month, and this time I’m going to stay there.

I read your personal experience when applying for that job. Dish washing, huh? Was this your first step into becoming a manager of a restaurant one day, or was it something that would’ve made you some money before looking for work elsewhere? I’m going to ask you a question that just popped into me head, so forgive me if it sounds offensive. When the guy on the other end of the phone declined you because you were very attractive? Perhaps he didn’t want you there because it lowers his chances of being sued for sexual harassment. That must’ve been a minor concern of his. Add that to the fact that he was blunt with you and felt that you couldn’t lift a load of heavy dishes. Other than that, I’m left to guess why he didn’t give you the chance.

Are you working now? If so, what kind of job is it? And another question. If you applied for the job, then I wonder why it wasn’t brought to your attention that that was a male-only job? That would’ve saved you a lot of time. Instead, you wound up wasting time in hoping that you would land that spot.

No, never did it cross my mind that you were carpet muncher, that you prefer women over men as sexual partners. (Did I ever ask you if you were a lesbian?) I always knew that you preferred men to fill your sexual desires in ways that a woman can’t do for you.

It was nice talking to you, Jenny. I enjoyed every minute of it, even though some of it was stressful. Who knew that a conversation that started about Megan Fox and Brian eating cheesecake would end up turning into a issue that involved feminists?

This was such an intense battle. And after a bout of angry sex between us, we can now go to sleep happy.

I’ll end it right here, and I’ll see you around.

I have shown you links to back up my stories (or if I didn’t provide a link, I still made a ton of sense), yet you alwasys find a counter argument. You also get a high in fighting back and you are addicted to the challenge.

I must take a deep breath and try to figure out a way to reconfigure my words so that you can understand this better. That glass ceiling rebuttal you had really struck a chord with me (which I’m pretty sure that’s the type of reaction you were hoping from me). And so I must come back with a rebuttal to that in order to get my “high” again. I love to pin you up against the wall, and I need my fix to do that again.

First off, Megan Fox. I had to laugh a little bit because I don’t think mastopexy was the solution to her problem. Correct me if I’m wrong: if a woman (say, Megan Fox) elects to have mastopexy done, wouldn’t her breasts start to sag as she grows older. Aren’t mastopexies temporary? I don’t think Megan will have that problem as she gets older. I think they’ll stay that way forever. Not all women who go for breast augmentation go from a size A to a size H, for example. I think it was just a small increase. In other words, not big enough so that it is obvious to everyone that she had something done.

That’s all I have to say about that.

Secondly, that article you posted about the female construction worker. My first question to you is somewhat unrelated to the story, but I noticed that that story happened in New York City. Just out of curiosity, do you live in NYC?

Now, back to the story. Are you trying to say that glass celings don’t exist because one female was a construction worker? This is the type of job where finding a female worker is like literally trying to find a needle in the haystack. Women who work in that industry are dykes (if that word offended you, then oh well). In her case, though, he had daughters. That meant that she liked men. Hetrosexual women wouldn’t want to do jobs like that, and you know that. They would much rather prefer that a man do it (as well as he should). She is the extreme rare exception to the rule and norm.

I do think her house was intentionally set on fire. If it wasn’t intentionally set, then JP Morgan REALLY lucked themselves out of that one.

Now for more on the glass ceiling.

So listen carefully, Jenny. And listen good.

There is, apparently, an invisible barrier in the workplace that prevents women from rising to the higher echelons of their workplace. They say this barrier is bult, maintained, and jealously gaurded by men who don’t want women in top jobs because they feel threatened by women and want to keep women down.

All the glass ceilings and all the professions where there are hardly any women involved, and vast numbers of the most senior professions where there are very few women (law, politics, industry, economics, diplomacy, all those leading industries), women are very far and few in those professions. Therefore, you can say it is a male-dominated society.

We live in a society in where males are dominating. But of course if you look around, men have all the best jobs. They are the presidents of countries and CEOs of big-time companies. When people talk about male-female equality, what they’re really talking about is that women should be equal with those men at the top. So, yes, men are at the top, but they’re also at the bottom. They tend to die earlier, they have all the shittiest jobs. Ninety-five percent of all workplace fatalities are male (in other words, fatal injuries to women are too small to reliably compute a rate), men also have have the riskiest, most unpleasant jobs such as the loggers, the contruction workers. So there are a lot of men at the bottom, too. So you have men at the bottom, men at the top, and women in the middle. So when people talk about male domination, people tend to forget that the winners (the male winners) are not only “dominating” the women, but they’re also dominating the other males, too.

Here’s a quote from Sarah Palin referring to the 18 million votes Hilary Clinton received in the primaries: “Hilary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass celing in America. But it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.”

So why did John McCain pick a woman as his running mate in 2008? Was she really the best candidate? No. He put her on his ticket not because they shared the same views, but because they don’t share the same gender. There was no need for people to take the moral high ground on McCain’s choice because they should’ve known how the game was played.

Glass Celings and Old Boys’ Networks, undoubtly, do exist. And they affect many people for many reasons, certainly not just women (for example, a person might be affected because he/she is African American). Some glass ceilings are there due to ability (or lack of it) in an individual. Sometimes, it can be due to social class or ethnic backround. Sometimes, the glass ceiling is there for religous and political beliefs. Sometimes, it’s even something as minor as an accent.

Here are some examples of what I’m talking about:
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090711-taller-money.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265300/Tall-womens-salaries-leave-short-girls-shade.html
http://www.lovemoney.com/news/make-your-money-go-further/your-job/beautiful-people-earn-more-money-4498.aspx

Slim women, as a group, have better wages than overweight women.

In fact, there are so many reasons (valid or otherwise) that some people rise in an organization while others don’t. It becomes ludicrous to single out women as a special case. (Other reasons why people are prevented from going up the ladder can be dur to bad teeth, too short, bad breath, too young, kinda funny looking.) Chris Rock even joked about John McCain’s age at the time he was running against Obama, saying that he’s too old to be the leader of the country at 72 years old, and, in fact, how he was too old to run for president 10 years ago, if he had the chance to do it.

But one thing is generally true: people who rise to the top of the business, are those who are generally better served for that business. Businesses want to make money. And if you are the best person to do that, then you’ll rise.

But it is a fact that women don’t make it to the board room of companies. But why is this happening?

The answer: Compare two workers with the same educational backround. Why would a woman not acheive the same level of promotion as a man? The only differences in their careers is the six-month maternity leave she took for her first child, and another six months she took for her second child, and the weekly time off she takes on Thursdays when she can’t find a babysitter. This woman cannot spend time away from the workplace becaue of the children, and continues to work shorter days for the same reason. However, she can’t understand why HE’S been promoted ahead of her (**rolling my eyes**), and has to file a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commision.

This story, with myriad variations, is repeated with all kinds of jobs in the U.S. and U.K. The plain and simple fact that women and government seem hell bent on avoiding is that women have babies. And because women have babies, there always comes a choice in a woman’s career where she has to make a choice between children at home and her advancements at work. And at that same point, companies must make a decision between a man who’s at work and a woman who isn’t. While some women have babies, others (meaning women) get promotions.

While women think that they can do it all and have it all, having children and having a career is an “either/or” situation. If she does both, then both jobs suffer. The woman, the children, and the company all lose.

The glass CLIFF is a different situation in where women are promoted to the top jobs, and then proceed to run the company into the ground, and then claim that they were deliberately promoted into risky jobs in order for them to fail.

We can see the pattern here: If women are sacked, it’s because they’re female. Not because they’re rubbish. If they’re not promoted, it’s because they’re female. Not because they’re not qualified. Now with the glass cliff, if they are promoted and do badly, suddenly it’s NOT because they’re female. It’s a cunning plan by men. So however you slice it, Jenny, it seems like a recipe for trouble everyone involved.

In my last post, I talked about Warren Farrell. He’s famous for talking about the glass cellar. This referrs to the huge number of jobs in which you’ll (almost) never see women working. There are no expense accounts, personal assistance, or air conditioning. These jobs include sewage workers, refuge collectors, construction workers. And it includes all jobs that have the highest rates of work place injuries and deaths. Women never seem to mention these jobs when complaining about equality at work. And neither did you, Jenny. Women seem to be concerned about the top jobs. It seems that women only want equality when it suits them. I’ll believe that women want equality NOT when I see the first female president, but when I see enough women who are refuge collectors. In fact, in all my life, I have yet to see one woman who collects garbage for a living.

Twently-four of twenty-five of the worse jobs are male dominated. Almost 100% of work place injuries happen to men. Almost 100% of work place fatalities are male. In 2001, two men were burned to death in an industrial bread oven while they were trying to repair it. You can read about it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1443939.stm

What would we say about women treated in our times if it were two FEMALES who were sent into such danger and baked alive?

Women are protected from doing these kinds of jobs, and they’re veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerry quiet about it. You certainly won’t find women protesting about why more female are not sewage workers, or more females are not losing more fingers and hands in industrial accidents. But they will protest about why there aren’t more women MP’s, or more women company directors.

You don’t often see women protesters saying “Equal Workplace Fatalities for Women.”

If male-dominated professions are signs that women are oppressed, then women should seek parity in all these jobs (sewage worker, window cleaner, roofer, farmer labor, etc.) and not just the nice ones. The BBC has a lot to say about the glass ceiling, and the glass cliff on its news website. But despite the incredible scarcity of women in dangerous jobs, they choose not to mention the glass cellar.

(Go see for BBC’s news website and see for yourself if you don’t believe me.)

Onto a different topic. As far as the article concerning the thrid-world countries, it sucks that the women have to go through all of that for almost no pay at all. The big reality that people need to take from that is that nothing is going to change for those people. They have been with everyone else since the human species evolved, and at this present day, they are still way behind the developed countries in industrialized advancements. Otherwise, these things wouldn’t be happening. I guess they’re trying to balance out the fact that even though men work these much tougher jobs, that they need the rest, whereas women who work the easier jobs should not get as many breaks because they are not expected to get hurt or die in the male jobs. 100 years from now, they will still face the same problems.

Now for the Afgahn wife starving. Again, it goes to show how people living in these under-developed countries are looking for ways to invent rules and traditions that’ll help them (men) get by. Even way back when in the history of America, rules were never that extreme for women. Some women think that there was a time in the U.S. or U.K. where the husband had a right to beat or rape his wife and not have any authority figure do anything about it. Let me tell you right now that that’s complete rubbish. Such rules never existed. However, someone did try to implement that right for men, but that was quickly abolished by all the other men who though that was ridiculous. So even in our histories, Jenny, rules like that were never the norm. In a world where men are trained to kill people and blow stuff up at the ages younger than 18 (like in the Middle East), in a world where those boys are not finishing schools because they have to be the sole providers and protectors and be trained to kill without a heart in their bodies, rules like the starving one we’re talking about are practices in which they see nothing wrong with it. These people are convinced that 72 virgins will be awaiting them as soon as they die, weather it be by natural causes or if they kill others in the name of Allah. If they are that delusional to think that 72 women are waiting for them from the skies above, and if they believe that America is the evil of all the world, then starving your wife if she doesn’t comply to the guy’s sexual needs is part of their everyday routine of sorts.

Reading that article was the first time I’ve come across such a case, Jenny. So I extend my apologies to you if my thoughts on this subject is not what you were hoping for. I will say, though, that as long as they train men and boys to become suicide bombers, then things don’t promising for anyone involved. And this is also another point about how men are the ones who have to live through more extreme conditions than women do. The boys are the ones doing the more dangerous, life-threatening things to themselves and other men. Although women have it tough there, I don’t think it’s worse than what the men are going through with regards to war, blowing themselves up, and everything else.

Jenny, it’s time for me to go. Our conversations and arguments goes to show that opposites do attract.

You can take a look at the article here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OmQzSs5raugC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=state+of+the+world+linking+population,+women,+biodiversity&source=bl&ots=jvwFU0-s5s&sig=D2Tl4-Jve2H6aOYqo0-9SJx7xMo&hl=en&ei=5TVrTPOCLYTksQOt2I1I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=state%20of%20the%20world%20linking%20population%2C%20women%2C%20biodiversity&f=false

On the last point, I wanted to ask you what you think of the wife starving law in Afghanistan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8204207.stm

Megan’s breasts are not being supported by bras, yet look at how much better they look compared to those 2007 pictures. The difference in size could not have happened naturally. Like I said, they are gravity defying.

Yes, in our arguments, we have fed off of each other with the goal of coming to a better understanding of what’s going on in the world. That’s the nature of things when two opposing sides are competitive. It’s quite addicting, actually. It’s a little high you get when you post your arguments, thinking that the other person cannot possibly out-do what you just said. I also get a high when I have you up against a wall with something I said. The stronger high kicks in when you come back with a counter argument and I feel as if I have to put your back up against the wall again and make sure that you’re constrained there. All in the name of playful banter. It’s fun to see you try to fight out of the grip and free yourself from the wall.

Now, it’s time for me to make some fantastic points in regard to the pay gap issue. It’s now time for another episode of the Biggest Secrets FINALLY Revealed.

Before I get to the pay gap thing, let’s talk Megan for a minute. Jenny, I will go as far as to say that I’m just about 100% convinced that she had her breasts tampered with. Jenny, the pictures I showed were taken a year apart. Those pictures in the photoshoot were taken in 2008. To me, there’s a noticeable difference in size. The reason people are in denial about this is because Megan didn’t go from a size A to a size H after one appointment with the doctor. She had a little upgrade. And you know, Jenny, they say that the smallest things can make a huge difference. I say that because if you look at those 2007 pics where she was at the MTV Movie Awards, her breasts are sagging. If she stayed with that look, there’s NO WAY that FHM would’ve named her the Sexiest Woman in the World. No guy will look at those pictures and think she’s the hottest thing going, or at least someone who has the potential of topping that list.

Hollywood is competition. Some actresses will have to get under the knife to keep young and/or to upgrade their looks. Trust me, Jenny, Megan had something done to her face at least twice before the Jonah Hex premiere, her lips are made to look more dick suckable. Nobody can sit there and tell me with a straight face that Megan never had anything done to any part of her body. The people who say this are like the referees in professional wrestling who argue that if they didn’t see it, then it never happened. In essence, this is what’s happening here. Just because Megan never admitted to it doesn’t mean that she never did it. And let’s remember, Megan has yet to deny any rumors that she’s had breast implants.

In my last post, I also took the fact that she didn’t have a bra in that 2007 event into consideration. Jenny, you must look at the pictures I posted in my last post when I compared Megan in those two settings. In the photoshoot, if Megan took that top off, her tits will not sag to the floor in the way you see in the 2007 pictures. Remember, these pictures were taken a year apart from each other. There’s no way that any girl is going to go from point A to point B in a year’s time all naturally. When breasts look like Megan’s in the 2007 pics, they’re going to stay sagging forever, unless you go under the knife.

The smallest things can make a world of difference because had it not been for that procedure, she would not have been named Sexiest Woman in the World. No woman who has breasts like the ones you see in those 2007 pics can be named the world’s sexiest. No way, Jenny. If Megan undressed in front of me and her tits sag at her age of 24 (if that’s how old she is), I will be disgusted! No girl with tits like that can be named the sexiest woman on the planet. Also, had she not gone under the knife, she would easily be looked over for parts in movies. The directors will replace her with someone who has firmer breasts.

I checked your site, Jenny. The two pictures you have of Megan ( http://mfoxpictures.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=95155946 ). These comparisons further make my point that she had something done. In the top picture, if Megan took her top off, there is no way on Earth that they will sag like the way you see it in the bottom pic. If Megan at the bottom picture had put on a top, it will never look as good as you see it in the top pic. Megan’s tits are round, firm, and gravity defying. Not that I have a problem with that. What I have a problem is the people who are in denial about this.

Her career depends on how hot she looks. There’s no way that she would survive or be as popular as she is today had it not been for that doctor’s appointment.

It was a small increase, but it made a world of difference.

Now onto the pay gap. Get ready to get your panties dripping wet because I’m about to blow the lid off this thing.

Jenny, when it comes to this issue, you have been deliberately deceived and made angry for your vote.

All the fighting is predicated on the notion that women earn less than men do for the same work. Depending on who you listen to, the actual numbers vary. Back in the 70′s, feminists wore “59 Cents” pins to protest the fact that women earn 59 cents for every dollar earned by a man. They also protested the glass ceiling, claiming that women were shut off from the highest rungs of the professional ladder. The stats are ALMOST right. Men do earn more than women. But that surface reality is clarified when you take a deeper look into the pond. The numbers are based on a raw average of men’s and women’s income. Thus, a female receptionist who works 40 hours a week has her income averaged in with the male CEO of the company she works for, who works 70 hours a week.

Different? Yes.

Sex-based discrimination? Hardly.

But that is the implication people are given when the faulty methodology that the wage studies use to reach faulty conclusions is intentionally hidden. That is what happened in the 60′s and 70′s. And that is what is happening now.

In April 2007, the feminists’ American Association of University Women released a study with the following conclusion: “One year out of college, women working full time earned 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earned. Ten years after graduation, women fall further behind, earning 69 percent as much as men earned.” So according the AAUW, women have gone from a 59 percent wage gap to a 69 percent wage gap. But there remains one fundamental problem: the methodology hasn’t changed.

Please note the very next line from the executive summary: “Controlling for hours, education, parenthood, and other factors normally associated with pay, college-educated women STILL earn less than their male peers.” Note that they did not say that controlling for hours and other factors that women earned 69 cents, but that they earn LESS. In other words, they presented their conclusion so that unsubstantiated statistics will be remembered and passed on to others. It was a clear act of deception, a distortion, fabricated and marketed in order to pursure an invalid political agenda.

It is deception, and a set of bogus figures that are repeated in legislators in most first world countries by Harriet Harmon in the UK, and Jullian Gillard in Australia, for instance. And Nacny Pelosi in the United States. These are POWERFUL political feminist women who have NEVER experienced the glass ceiling in their fucking lives, and are paid FAR MORE than 99 percent of men. They are on the higest rungs that they claim women are prevented from reaching.

Lies seem to fly easly from their lips into the other women’s ears for deceptively-garnered votes. They have dirty hands, but not from hard work.

Naturally, the question arises that if feminist studies are distorting the facts, then what is the truth? June O’Neill, former director of the United States Congressional Budget Office, conducted a study of the wage gap allegations. She found that after controlling for experience, education, and number of hours, and years on the job, that women earn NINETY-EIGHT percent for every dollar that their male counterparts earned. That is a wage gap of 98 cents on the dollar, or what most of statisticians would say is statistically INSIGNIFICANT or within a suitable margin of error to call equal. This is what the feminst University Women SHOULD’VE concluded, and would have, if they were in the slightest interest in disseminating accurate information. But the truth of the wage gap myth undermines the feminst agenda: to paint women as victims to the male-dominated workplace.

Understand that the AAUW, and other similar feminst organizations, use these results to raise funds and put themselves in the media limelight.

IF there is no problem (and there isn’t), then there is no reason to give them money, or even to pay attention to them.

While feminist maintain that feminism is about empowering women, we are to see that way too often that their agenda depends on making VICTIMS of them, even if those victims need to be fabricated.

We can (and should) dig into this some more. It is important to understand much more about WHY studies indicate wage gaps before the statistics are clairified by considering the variables that affect the outcome. Dr. Warren Farrell Ph.D, the only man ever elected to the National Organization for Women’s National Board of Directors three times, was one of the early feminsits incensed at the alleged pay gap. Dr. Farrel dedicated a great deal of his life to challenging the culture to address this injustice. (Here’s the link to his profile on wikipedia in case curisority gets the best of you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell) Then one day he asked himself questions that would change the course of his life, which eventually convinced him to leave that oranization, reportedly to the relief of his feminist peers. He thought, “Wait a minute. If women actually earned 59 cents for every dollar earned by a man for the same work, why wouldn’t companies only hire women? Wouldn’t they be able to produce products much cheaper than companies that only employed men, and put the competition out of business?” He spent the next several years in painstaking reasearch of the subject, and came to the conclusion that has been verified many times as it has been ignored: Women make less money because of their choices. Not because of discrimination. When given more money or a better quality of life, women are much more likely than men to choose quality of life. Women work fewer hours per week (on average) than men, take more time off, and frequently choose to put family and personal life ahead of their jobs. “This speaks to women’s intelligence, empathy and nurture,” he said, “much more to their alleged status as victims.” Men not only work longer and harder, they are more likely to choose work that puts them in physical danger. Those jobs exposes them to the elements, shortens their life span, and increses the levels of job-related stress. These jobs, as a rule, pay better. The increased wages comes with risk and hardship. And the fact that more men than women choose to do these jobs, is not a matter of discrimination, except to the extent that we still socialize men as much more than women to put themselves on a chopping block for a paycheck. And this illustrates the concept of Farrell’s arguments when comes to matters of pay, inequity and glass ceilings: the glass cellar. At the very bottom of the employment ladder are the death work such as policemen, firefighters, construction, truck driving, commercial fishing, manual labor, and other jobs that form the backbone of our civilization. They are also the most dangerous and life-diminishing professions imaginable. These jobs point to something that many would not want to hear: pay equity for women is found not in boardrooms and corner offices, but behind the wheels of a semi, driving 40 tons of steel through icy weather in winter. Inclusion in parity is in the blistering hands that hold shovels and hammers while digging through mines. In oceans and sea, laboring like dogs in unthinkably cold weather and 50-foot swells to bring the fish home to the table. In chasing down sociopaths with knives in the dark and back alleys in our bad and decaying cities.

These realities call upon us to examine the truth that many don’t want to utter into today’s politically correct culture. But it is the truth nonetheless. If you want to get paid like a man, then you have to work like one.

That’s all I have to say for now. In case you don’t want to take my word for it, there here’s a link to a site that backs me up 100%.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HSP/is_1_4/ai_66678566/?tag=content;col1

Okay, Jenny. Now I have you up against a wall, looking into your eyes, daring you to do something about it. The question I have for you is this: Are you going to surrender?

Once again, Jenny, a pleasure talking to you. I’ll be waiting for your response.

Being a female, I know how bustiers can alter the change of your breasts dramatically. The picture of her in the pink dress lacks any bustier backing from underneath the breast line, therefore I don’t know if it’s fair to compare her breast size over the years to a picture that was taken in 2007. I’ve included pictures of Lady Gaga that demonstrate the same point. The first pic. shows Lady Gaga (sorry if it’s disturbing!) of Lady Gaga’s sagging boobs without any bustier( this is a picture taken a few days ago) and then the latter picture shows Lady Gaga’s boobs with a bustier( taken about a month ago) and notice the difference in breast size.
I’ve read the whole article you’ve linked to, and yes, it is possible that Brown might be hiding beneath his speech. The article though has reminded me of other countries like China and I believe Japan, which have discussed various bills concerning Climate Change, yet failed to live up to their vigourous carbon cut stances.
What I meant by developing nations failing to adopt the cuts was that after the U.S backing out of the Kyoto Protocol, developed nations only voluntary aimed to cutting carbon emissions.
Ok, Paul, I will be waiting for you to discuss the pay gap issue. Please take your time! :)

I’m glad to learn that you have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. As much as we were at each other’s throat throughout the entire thing, I know that you have grown into giving me a lot of respect for really challenging you and pushing you to the limit by giving your side of the argument a run for its money. It turned into some sort of drug addiction for you to shut me up, only to find that I kept coming back, pushing you some more to bring out the best in you.

First on Megan. The closest anyone has come to questioning her on what she might’ve had done, was on the issue of W(?) magazine. The same issue in which she graced the front cover. She was asked what advice she has for young women who are thinking about getting plastic surgery. She said something along the lines of advising the girls to consult with the doctor to see if it’s the right move to make. Again, I’m paraphrasing her. That issue came out a few months ago.

I have two sets of pictures to show you (in the same link). The first set of pictures are of Megan at the 2007 MTV Movie Awards. The other is from a photoshoot that she as a part of in 2008. Examine closely at her tits. You’ll see that the 2007 pics show her tits that are sagging, almost flat chested, I suppose. In the photoshoot, you can tell that there’s a change in her cup size.

http://www.imagebam.com/gallery/dcvkx99quivshl6xqt7balvh2k3j9rxn/

Just look at the first picture from the photoshoot, compare it to picture to its left, as an example. If Megan Fox on the left picture can push up her tits in a way as to seduce a man, there’s NO WAY it’s going to look as firm and round as you see in the picture of the right. I don’t want to hear anyone say that her breasts grew naturally. If your breasts are like the ones from the award show, it’s going to stay that way unless you have a doctor to fix that problem for you.

I’m going to give credit to a member of this forum who showed these pictures as comparisons to someone else during a little argument he has with a female as to whether she (Megan) had breast implants. He didn’t show as many pictures as I did, but they were from the same settings.

Even if Megan from 2007 had a push-up bra on, they still won’t look as round and nice as you see them in the photoshoot.

So tell me, Jennifer, I’m curious as to what these pictures tell you?

You asked a good question regarding why females haven’t completely abandoned men if feminists poison the female mind to hate men. I think it’s because a lot of people just want to get married because it’s the “right” thing to do. If you plan on going skydiving, and an expert tells you that in the history of skydiving, only half of the parachutes have been known to not open, you say, “Fuck that shit, I’m not doing it!” The divorce rate is right around the 50% point. But, there’s something about marriage that makes people want to do it.

Despite what feminists say, women love men, and they love hot sex from men, right Jenny? But for many couples, things can go wrong and the couple splits up.

On the issue of global warming, you said, “Perhaps, the only reason, for the silencing on the issue of marriage and cohabiting is because the right of being divorced and not being tied down to only 1 person in a relationship or/marriage is undergoing social expansion similarly to the social expansion of rights regarding voting, minorities, gays..?”

Great points to make. They are ideas that are not far fetched, not beyond the realms of reason. But what tops those reason is one word: feminism. Here’s something that I want to make as simple as possible.

1. We are told that global warming is the most important issue of our times. The entire well-being of the planet is dependent upon how much effort we put into reducing our carbon emissions. This global warming is, allegedly, so important that billions of dollars and a huge amount of human energy must now be expended every year in order to counter it.

2. One of the very best ways to reduce our carbon emissions is to live together rather than to live apart. By living together people can save on heating, transport, wastage and living space. Traffic congestion and pollution would be reduced enormously and time spent travelling would be cut. And so on.

Like I said in my last post, 1.5 million new houses need to be built in the UK just because of the tendency for people to live alone these days.

3. So why is it that whenever the global warming issue is discussed in the mainstream you never hear the politicians talking about policies that would encourage people to live together? We hear talk about just about everything else to do with cutting our carbon emissions, but not about policies designed to encourage people to get married or to live together.

If global warming is the most important issue of our times, then why, in connection with this issue, are the mainstream media and the government not promoting polices that would encourage marriage?

It doesn’t make sense – until, that is, you realize that there is a very powerful group of dysfunctional people – feminists – whose main aim is to encourage family breakdown. No way are they going to allow politicians to encourage marriage; specifically heterosexual marriage.

I know that it sounds crazy, but it is true.

For example, the feminists will say, “Oh no, you must not encourage marriage – because “marriage oppresses women” – and what about those poor vulnerable women who are forever being abused? We must not do anything that reduces their chances of escaping.”

And the politicians and the media know this feminist tactic very well. And if they upset the media feminists by suggesting that marriage should be encouraged, they will be hit very hard by them via the media.

The politicians are terrified of these selfish dysfunctional man-hating women, because they have learned over the years just how nasty they can be.

If you look at the following speech by Gordon Brown on global warming, you will see him talking about introducing a whole raft of measures to try to reduce it – all the way from plastic bags, to windfarms, loft insulation, efficient biofuels; in fact, loads and loads of complicated things and numerous laws to encourage people and businesses to be greener.

But he says absolutely nothing when it comes to encouraging people to get married or to live together.

Nothing.

Here’s the link: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page13791

(I don’t expect you to read the whole thing tonight, or if you ever read the entire thing at all. But if you do get a chance, you’ll see that he never made such a mention.)

How can it possible be that one of the best ways to reduce carbon emissions is not even mentioned?

After all, our whole planet is at stake!

Allegedly, at least.

Keep asking yourself why a policy that could help very significantly with such an allegedly important problem does not even get a mention by Gordon Brown.

Well, the main aims of feminists are to stir up hatred towards men and to break apart as much as possible people’s close relationships.

And they will allow nothing to get in the way of these main aims.

Indeed, the huge negative effects of family breakdown and fatherlessness on our societies and our children is also well-documented and very visible. But feminists will still fight viciously against anything that increases the chances of close heterosexual relationships forming and/or succeeding.

And, of course, pwople like Gordon Brown just love to promote as much crime and societal disharmony as possible, so no way are they going to recommend policies that might reduce such things.

In other words, as far as they are concerned, our children and our planet can go to Hell. Their Number One priority remains at the very top of the agenda; to encourage relationships to break down.

And now I have a question for you.

Do you really think that Gordon Brown and his communist friends in power cannot see the connections between carbon emissions, wastage, pollution, traffic congestion etc etc and the tendency for people to live apart?

Do you really think that they do not realize that family breakdown and fatherlessness cause a multitude of very serious problems to millions of people? – with so many of these damaging problems being lifelong for them.

Do you really think that they remain unaware of the hundreds of billions of dollars and of the huge resources that the country has had to expend over the years in order to try to counter all these problems?

Of course they can see these things.

So why do they say and do nothing about them?

And the answer is this.

They benefit from all these problems.

And this is why they are also forever promoting policies that both cause and exacerbate these problems.

Gordon Brown and his cronies are no different from all those financiers and bankers who have caused a worldwide economic crisis. They are just as greedy and just as morally corrupt. They are of the same ilk. They do not care two hoots how much harm they cause to others so long as they, themselves, benefit.

And this is why Gordon Brown will say that global warming is the most important issue of our times but, yet, he will not introduce certain policies that could address this issue very significantly.

What he will do, however, is to use the issue of global warming to increase the power of the state – i.e. his own power and that of his cronies.

Look at his speech.

The US feels that the Kyoto Protocol isn’t necessary, or that it demands to much or that it does very little. They must feel that way since it’s the only country in the world to not ratify the deal (I *think* the other developed nations have signed in). I don’t think President Bush did much of anything to have the country lend a supporting hand into this protocol. I think the effects of the lack of support while George was in power is still being carried over into the current administration.

Switching topics real quick, I must promise myself to address the pay gap issue with you again in the very near future. I don’t have the time right now. You talked about it recently, and I feel that I must answer your comments on them.

In all, I can see us coming to a truce. It has been a heated and highly contested debate. I wanted to give you the other side of the story as a way to get you thinking and to get your juices flowing. I wanted to provoke you, and get under your skin a little bit.

Jenny, in the comments I made, I made you do something that not a lot of kids do when someone tells them a story. I made you question it. I told you things that, at first, you did not want to take at face value. Because these went against the things you believed in, and the things that have been reminded to you over and over throughout the course of your life. When feminism told you that you of how men were oppressing women, you bought into it WITHOUT questioning it because what they said seemed to make a whole lot of sense. But getting a better understanding of how THEY are the onces deceiving the female gender, made you question and challenge me. I love that. And you provoked me by doing so. But it was all in the name of respecting coming to a better understanding of each other.

You keep questioning, you get answers. And that’s exactly what happened between the two of us.

I’ll get to the pay gap issue in a few days, as I will be busy doing other things. You should hear from me by Sunday. Until then, it was such a wonderful exercise challenging and pushing each other. I know you love a good challenge. And you are a better person for having met your match.

Enjoy your weekend!