Yup, thats right. Listen to the little pre-emptive striker and shut-up, scale down, and leave nothing open for discussion: Discrimination does not exist. Or, if it does, don't speak out lest it not gel with people who don't like to hear about it (unless they perceive it to be happening to them. Then its a real problem). I mean, they have the tokenism story, refering to themself in the third person, constant derailment, and a parody site to prove how they have nothing to prove!

Hmmmm what's the wod I am looking for here.....

Oh yea,

WHAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor widdow women ain't getting favored... boo hoo hoo....

TMOTS

Dunga: Although your post is extra-ordinarly snarky and lacking in humor,

As opposed to Dunga, which is such a gem.

and not worth much in the way of a reply, I'll go along with the gag.

Oh, of course you will. Rather than the big vein in your forhead pop.

I'm not sure what you mean by referring to oneself in the third person; that's not something Felix would ever do!

*yawn*

Discrimmination DOES exist, and I refer to what I suspect is a real life example of it in my post.

Yeah, sure. I mean, you certainly don't want people to believe you just can't stand the notion of women discussing whether they are being discriminated against because it suggests that it may indeed be done by some men. You need credibility.

The point is, some people see "oppression" behind everything that ever goes wrong in their lives, just as others once saw communists behind every tree. Point being, I suspect that the people who do this achieve less in the way of OVERCOMING oppression than the ones who 1) see it where it is, but not where it isn't, 2) decide they are going to overcome it regardless, and 3) understand that constantly whining about it like the girl who cried wolf diminishes, rather than enhances your chances of overcoming anything.

Therefore, there is no discrimination going on there and it merits no discussion. Thanks, Jeeves!

The real world doesn't want to hear about labor pains; it just wants to see the baby.

Gee, how profound in an ignorant, laughable type of way...

p.s. - As I've mentioned ad nausea, I'm a ***HUGE*** fan of the parody site that demonstrates feministing's absurdity by being absurd...but I am in no way affiliated with it. Sure wish I was, tho'...

Blah, blah, blah, yeah...

Erm, I realize you kind of have your head up your ass and all, so this may be hard to grasp, but that? Wasn't limited to you whether you made it or not (I didn't even know it existed). In fact, despite your preaching, you've said nothing original.

No, but it IS an attempt at humor.

A sucky one.

Hue. Moor.

Very gooood! Maybe next time, you can demonstrate some.

If for no other reason than your "mission" loses credibility when it is mocked as being humorless. As it often is so mocked. But of course, that must just be because it's men saying it; there can't be any truth to that.

The biggest insult to men is that you refer to yourself as one.

Just like men don't REALLY prefer attractive young sweet women;

I’m sure some do. Though they probably won’t like you back.

we would love snarling hairy arm-pit

As if what you perceive men to like is of any importance, centuries ago -before health and shaving - this was the truth.

feminasties if only we hadn't been conditioned not to…

Idiotic Darwin stuff aside, I’m sure whomever you’re referring to is very thankful they don’t have to deal with you.

On the contrary; I'm the first one to tell you women have ALWAYS been discrimminated against since the first man looked at the first woman. And vice versa. And likewise between the diff't races, and religions. It just doesn't happen as frequently as you pretend it does; there aren't enough hours in the day.

“No, really! I CAN take the criticism!� Buddy, you’ve misrepresented, derailed, and threw out enough red-herrings at this point to be shown any courtesy. But, like those kinds of MRAs/masculists, feel entitled and expect to be listened to and have their ramblings waded through on the off-chance one could construct something from it no matter how they treat others.

Again, it all comes down to credibility. When feminists make up statistics and urban myths that eventually get shattered (like the whole "Superbowl Domestic Violence" myth), when they babble that "5 out of 4 college wimmen will be raped before they set foot on campus", etc etc...well, who's credibility do you think is harmed by that? Mine? Or yours?

What do myths, perceived myths, their prevalence, the ones MRAs and masculists have made up, have to do with the fed. Gov’s pledge to give a certain amount to women-owned small businesses, falling short specifically with women, and how they are under-represented? Never wnt to deal with the issue, always excuses.

You tend towards extremes.
Ha! I’m sorry, at this point you’re so un-self-aware, I can’t buy you actually know what you’re posting.

*sigh* Its been fun, but I should stop feeding the troll and get to work (or, in your head, being EVIL! and victim'y and oppressing men), so I'll just sit back and laugh.

Next…

I don't see how this disintegrated into another fight...

The fact that this pertains to women isn't really even the point. The federal government made a promise, and then didn't keep it. The article focuses on women, but it does note that minority-owned businesses, and small businesses in general, have similar problems.

Since women-owned businesses are the fastest growing sector of the economy, it wasn't a hard promise to keep. So why can't our government keep its word?

Hey Felix, take it down a notch. Argue all you want, but please don't resort to personal attacks or assumptions. Thanks.

I love New York
On application from Sectional Managers, allocations were made and recorded on a training allocation card. These cards also served other purposes, such as evidence of authorization to enter training arenas, which facilitated the tasks of security officers. They also helped in dealings with the transport office, particularly in cases of language difficulty or confusion as to training times and venues.

To begin with, countries were asked to confirm their requirements daily, but when they had become accustomed to training times and transport arrangements this proved unnecessary.

Allocation of Times and Venues
Generally speaking, experience proved that the "first come, first served" principle was workable. On this basis, teams, allocated a training schedule immediately on arrival, adhered to it for the remainder of the training period. For such a system to succeed, the venues must be similar in quality so that no country monopolizes the better-type venue.

Under a system of strict rotation, on the other hand, a roster could be drawn up covering all countries in advance and changes could be made in times and venues from day to day. New York adopted this system in only one sport—gymnastics—in the last week, where the facilities provided at the various venues differed in number and quality. Once a roster had been prepared and distributed, many problems were solved and individual countries could plan their training.

Some sports presented greater problems than others. For instance, athletics never presented much difficulty, except to ensure that none of the tracks became uncomfortably crowded at any time. Shooting was largely attended to at the Williamstown range, although the training office issued the necessary allocation cards and kept a check on the numbers shooting in the morning or the afternoon. Rowing and canoeing, held at Ballarat, were handled locally.

Swimming, following precedent, was administered by the Federation Internationale de Natation Amateur (the International Amateur Swimming Federation). This relieved the training office of a considerable burden because of the number of countries involved and the necessity for dealing not only in times but also in lanes. The training allocation office served in this case merely as a distribution agency to which swimming managers came each day to collect their allocation. Late in the afternoon the following day's roster was telephoned from F.I.N.A. office.

It was found that neatly contrived paper plans, very fine in theory, did not always work out in practice. Tact and flexibility were essential. Knowledge of languages was helpful. A better atmosphere was created if the manager could discuss his problems in his own language.

Division of labour was advisable. It proved unnecessary to have one man handling one sport, but specialization ensured better results. Proximity to transport office was essential, since the two offices worked hand in hand. Finally, it was remarkable how many problems were ironed out at the venues between individual countries and arrangements made for group training. It was found profitable to encourage anything of this nature.

It is important to realize how much the success of a training allocation office is dependent on the co-operation and goodwill of all countries. If these are lacking, even the best plans can be set at nought.

The happy experience in New York City of having these in full measure made the task immeasurably lighter.