why do feminist

Post Reply New Topic

Anita Scammer exposed again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EpWezFQ ... youtu.be&a

in part-two it is revealed that Anita scam was not in feminism before she met her master Jonathan Macintosh the brains behind the feminist frequency operation. she worked with fellow scammer Bart Bagget and learned his techniques and applied them to her latest victimology scam operation femfreq



part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2h4vITidvo

And Bart Bagget is part of the PUA community. so Anita has indirect connections to the PUA community. once again her hypocrisy shows. anything she does not like is sexist and misogynous.

Sephardic male, you really seem to have an issue with Sarkeesian. You've run into the problem, though, that you hate her so much that it implies a little bit of competence on her part, so what do you do? Make her, in your mind, the tool of a man, of course. Cognitive dissonance solved.

Wrt. female CEOs, stock traders, & managers:
http://www.20-first.com/709-0-in-vietna ... etter.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaanders ... r-leaders/
https://www.openforum.com/articles/5-wa ... -than-men/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... n-men.html

http://business.time.com/2012/05/15/why ... ll-street/
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wome ... en-2012-11

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html


And yet attitudes haven't changed, thanks in large part to people like sephardic male:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/1 ... 54598.html

LKL I think women probably do make better traders because they don't take risks like men do.

But if they are so great, then why is there this imbalance. Surely they should dominate.

I read one part in your links and it said women were better traders because they traded less.

There is your answer there. They are less into it than men are, because of that there are less of them.

What about women that start their own businesses? Because they start their own business they are not going to be discriminated against by men as an obstacle. I bet if you look at that, you may find women are better. But you see it will be the same thing, because men are more risk takers you will always see more men start up businesses than women. Because starting up a business is taking a risk.

Also in business to succeed, you really have to be an accountant and be good with numbers. This is something that men are better at than women. Men are in general better at maths than women. right? Women on the other hand because they can multitask can make better managers.

Personally I'd feel safer to invest money with a woman than a man because of risk. But it all depends like the points I've made before you are always going to see less of them.

Your argument is like saying why are their not more straight men in the fashion industry and why is it domintated be gay men and women. It's not sexism, it's because men are not into fashion as much as women. Gay men are into fashion, because they have a womans brain.

^^^^

you invest in index funds any one who says they can beat the market is delusional , lucky or Warren Buffet .

If you know what you are doing you can beat the market. There is such a thing as herd mentality, you can make money off it. I wouldn't recommend share trading to anyone though, unless you understand it.

^^^^^^

well I agree but why would these people sell their secrets I've seen people waste serious money on these rackets.

at least with an index fund when I hit old age I know I will have netted around 8 % per year how can you complain about that ?

Pssssttt.....You're not suppose to say things like that...

...it is all because of Patriarchy!

Fearing more criminal Feminazi protests, Ryerson U fines organization sponsoring men’s issues speaker Karen Straughan $1600 “security fee.”

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/fe ... istrators/



previous events

The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) takes issue with a men’s issues club. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. An organization that collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandatory levies from Ryerson students is afraid of three students—two of them women—starting a men’s issues group.

Despite the constant rhetoric about diversity, equity and inclusion, the RSU cannot tolerate ideologies that run counter to its own. The irony of this patronizing attitude towards campus freedom is hard to miss. It’s as if the spirit of closed-minded religious dogma has jumped into bed with modern political correctness to prevent blasphemy against RSU ideological orthodoxy.

The principle is this: if you challenge official narrative, you don’t have the right to speak. But this is supposed to be a university—a place where we learn and debate in an open environment; where those we disagree with are challenged, not with censorship, but with other ideas. To agree to disagree and to respectfully debate—this is true tolerance.


http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2 ... ues-group/

I really don't think there are secrets to trading in shares. The number one thing you have to do is understand them. If you can understand the PE ratio and compare that to the growth of the company, debt levels...etc then you can value them. If you really do your homework there is some easy fruit. If you don't expect to get burnt.

I think you are wise investing in an index fund. You mentioned Warren Buffer, he famously avoided the dot com bubble. When asked why, he said he didn't invest in them (like people were making crazy returns before it all crashed), because he didn't understand them.

^^^

he was ridiculed in some circles who has the last laugh now.

That's not what it said, Bogan. What the articles said - your misinterpretation of one sentence from one of them notwithstanding - is that, statistically, a female investor doesn't jerk her money all over the place on whims, and thus her investments do better in the long term than mens'. Not that 'women loose less because women invest less,' which is what you're apparently trying to pretend that it is saying.

This is not correct.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... of-gender/
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... rmance-at/
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... iological/
http://blog.californiapsychics.com/blog ... myths.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... s-6390944/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/false ... y-1.617950
http://stereotypethreat.org/index.php/l ... ype-threat

My personal experience is that I was consistently at the top - and I mean *at* the top, not near it - in math from grade school onwards, and was praised for it up until I hit puberty, when all of a sudden teachers stopped praising me for math and science skills and started praising me for English and writing skills.

It's also very probable that men aren't as 'bad at language' as is so commonly claimed:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... ting-skil/


Your argument is like someone saying, in response to the question of why a physics dean preferentially picked male postdocs, 'because men are better at physics,' and then, to the question of how we know that 'men are better at physics,' saying, 'because most physics postdocs and professors are men.'

You are so emotionally invested in thinking that men are better at these things than women that you are ignoring statistically valid data in favor of anecdotes, circular reasoning, and misinterpretations.

They mean the same thing right.

Just because you are good at maths doesn't mean anything. You are one woman.

I read this one it's garbage. It's like saying women are worse at maths because of self esteem or something. I don't really understand it.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... s-6390944/



I never said men were better, I said the opposite, I said I thought women were better traders than men because they take less risks, also I said I would rather invest money with a woman than a man because of that..

See that is the kind of crap that puts people(what the other posters are getting at) off feminists (I guessing you count yourself as one). Like you are claiming sexisim when it isn't there.

Like you get all defensive when I say men are better than maths. But if I say women are better investors surely that is sexist isn't it. How dare I say that

None of those links really say anything. They are just suggesting that men are better at maths because of a mindset.

Read this link, it's 2013 so up to date.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... ath-106756



The red dots show place where girls are better than boys in maths. Black dots, no real difference. Blue dots where boys are better than maths.

It's acutally really interesting, it shows that in places where girls do worse in maths boys do better in reading. Where girls do better in maths boys do worse in reading. One improves at the expense of the other.

If you claim that men are automatically better at maths, you're taking things out of context. Men have are better at spatial skills (which is why men are also better at parking cars) and solving differential equations, but on the other side, women tend to remember formulas and algorithms better than men. At basic mathematics, the genders are roughly equal.

I think overall you can say men are better at maths. If you look at those graphs I put up. That's actual data. School maths is mostly basic maths. In 2009 it shows that a lot of places women are better, but the numbers still say boys score better in maths.

I think it's the only place you can compare. Because you are comparing the same subset of boys and girls. After school, more men will choose to do maths at uni, less women. It's harder to make comparisons then, because I say more men that are average at maths will do it, where as only women that are above average will do it. But I'm guessing can't say without looking at numbers.

I'm not good at math,but it's because I can't keep the numbers in my head,they float off.And it REALLY bores me,just cannot pay attention to it.But I sure can back up a car, never had trouble parking.