You date a girl for 6 months in which turns into a sexual relationship/partnership eventually. She get's pregnant and decides to abort the child. Under the law the woman has no legal responsibility to notify you of the pregnancy nor abortion. Nor do you have any legal argument to prevent the abortion.
You enter into a sexual relationship/partnership with a woman that indicates that she is taking birth control pills. 6 months into the relationship she decides to stop taking birth control pills and fails to notify you. Consequently later in the relationship she get's pregnant and sue's for child support.
A male police officer is teamed up with a female officer for patrol. The 2 are involved in a physical altercation with 2 drug suspects. One drug suspect overwhelms the woman officer takes her gun and shoots and kills the male officer. Why isn't the police department, city and state liable?
What legal right or argument does a woman have to custody of your 11, 13 and 15 year-old children?
A pregnant mother of 2 months is shot and killed. The individual responsible for the shooting is charged with double homicide yet the law doesn't recognize the 2 month old fetus as a life.
A man is convicted of rape because while during consensual sexual intercourse the female say's no and the man doesn't stop the sexual action until 5 seconds later.
A 24 year-old female teacher convicted of raping a 15 year-old male student receives a sentence of 3 years house arrest. A 24 year-old male teacher is convicted of raping a 15 year-old female student and receives a sentence of 15 years.
A 19 year-old female sues a prominent all male military academy for denying her student application based on the fact that she is a woman applying to an all male school. 2 years later the same female sue's the military academy for sexual harassment and the failure to address sexual harassment.
Female professional tennis players now share equal prize money as there male counterparts yet attract less of an audience, play less games and play at a level inferior to male professional tennis players.
Does anyone know of a case where a male applied to an all female school?
In closing,
Equal right's my ass. This list could go on and on. Women right's has turned into such a miscarriage of justice that it's no freaken wonder why the people and legal system in this country are so screwed up.
What makes natural sense is no longer a road map for males to follow hence, gender role quagmire. We make laws that are in direct conflict with natural laws and often in conflict how society normally functions.
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
Blogs by LongRanger278:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Why is it Legal........... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Godless
|
May 26 @ 9:34PM
|
|
I can agree with a lot of this but...
You date a girl for 6 months in which turns into a sexual relationship/partnership eventually. She get's pregnant and decides to abort the child. Under the law the woman has no legal responsibility to notify you of the pregnancy nor abortion. Nor do you have any legal argument to prevent the abortion.
A man that cares about a woman doesn't have sex with her (the natural consequence being babies) unless he is willing to take the responsibility of a baby and trust the woman he is with to have the same goals and morals as he. Besides, the ones against 1st trimester abortion are usually religious whackos, what are they doing having sex out of wedlock with a woman who has the potential to do this anyway?
You enter into a sexual relationship/partnership with a woman that indicates that she is taking birth control pills. 6 months into the relationship she decides to stop taking birth control pills and fails to notify you. Consequently later in the relationship she get's pregnant and sue's for child support.
Same thing... if you don't trust the woman you're with, even if you do and are not willing to accept the natural consequences of sex, take responsibility for birth control. Male condoms are readily available at your local convenience store and way cheaper than a baby.
A male police officer is teamed up with a female officer for patrol. The 2 are involved in a physical altercation with 2 drug suspects. One drug suspect overwhelms the woman officer takes her gun and shoots and kills the male officer. Why isn't the police department, city and state liable?
For the same reason the government isn't responsible for dead soldiers... they volunteered.
|
|
jadedbtch
|
May 26 @ 9:41PM
|
|
|
You know for once I agree with you, there are no equal rights for anybody- male or female, black or white, asian or indian. In every situitaion there are no like cases. I dont understand the system when it comes to that either. I have worked in a male dominated field before and yes woman are treated much different. I didn't like it but I was one of those women that admited I could not do everything the men could do. They were much stronger and much quicker. I never wanted to be compared to a man, I am a woman but did enjoy the hardy days work that I did and at the end of the day: I was proud of my self because I gave it my all! But I dont think it is correct that one gets the bad end of a bad deal whats good for the goose is also good for the gander. Men and women are not created equal there are noticable differences and I think we should be treated as the different entities we are..............
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 26 @ 9:52PM
|
|
Godless,
Better watch yourself. Your making a moral arguement not a legal one. Don't want to tarnish that image now do you...... 
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 26 @ 10:07PM
|
|
|
I dont understand the system when it comes to that either.
You have to go back to when our Constitution and Bill of Rights were created and by what thought. What most scholars won't tell or seldom do is that the Consitution of the United States, Amendments and Bill of Rights were constructed mostly if not entirely of natural laws. What are natural laws? Natural laws are or can be those which we see in nature of which would be naturally afforded.
Example: Natural laws are what freed the slaves.
I doubt anyone can argue that our country is in decline. Part of the problem is you can draw a straight line from time we started legislating unatural law.
Just an example: Abortion. The law side steps defining a fetus as life because of the conflict with abortion law yet prosecutes an individual for taking the life of a mother an unborn child as a double homicide. Well if the fetus is not defined as a life how can you legally charge someone with double homicide.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 26 @ 10:12PM
|
|
|
Forgot, If anyone wants to post more then one comment just email it to me I'll post it.
|
|
ttomtarr
|
May 26 @ 10:47PM
|
|
Find your Birth Certificate.
Read the front, flip it over, and read the back.
There is no guarentee about things being fair or just. Get used to reality as it is, and learn to succeed in life as it is.
Disliking reality is neurosis, denying reality is psychosis.
Google for the fine old song "Keep on the Sunny Side of Life" , learn the words and tune, and sing it to yourself every morning when you get up, Live by it.
There are more things to make you happy than there are to make you angry.
|
|
imlost2
|
May 26 @ 10:49PM
|
|
|
Not all states accept the theory that if a pregnant woman is shot the fetus is a baby, it depends on the state laws that were put into place by the majority. All these laws are basically written and put into law by majority, so since this is a democracy where majority still rules (or is suppose to), I guess we have to live with the outcome whether we agree personally or not. I'm not saying it's all fair, just that if something is to be done, then the majority needs to vote differently or write their senators, which btw, no one hardly ever does. Most just sit back and complain and don't do anything about the things they are upset about. So how is change going to happen? Just another idea............ tc Lost
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 12:21AM
|
|
|
Not all states accept the theory that if a pregnant woman is shot the fetus is a baby, it depends on the state laws that were put into place by the majority. All these laws are basically written and put into law by majority, so since this is a democracy where majority still rules (or is suppose to)
True States do make their own law but they still have to follow Federal Law. Since the Federal Government fails to define a fetus as life the States are able to legislate laws in regards of in any manner they wish. As far as the majority. Abortion law wasn't voter approved by the people of this country. Most laws are created, amended, etc. by legislature. Did you vote on the Patriot Act?
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 12:52AM
|
|
|
There is no guarentee about things being fair or just. Get used to reality as it is, and learn to succeed in life as it is.
Disliking reality is neurosis, denying reality is psychosis.
Yeah, then a person(s) and company(s) who dislike getting robbed, extorted, blackmailed, threatened, etc. suffer from a kind of neurosis do they. Can't deal with reality huh. I guess that explains somethings such as company's packing their bags and moving the hell out of the country and taking jobs with them, their sick huh or maybe people who are forced to stand by and watch their personal property stolen only to call their insurance company. Then one month later you get
your insurance bill and it's a few bucks higher.
The fact is your not talking about reality, your talking about a fantasy world that our liberal bleeding hearts have built which explains why car theft is now a multi-billion dollar business in this country.
|
|
nsane13
|
May 27 @ 4:00AM
|
|
|
YOUR A NEGATIVE MF....
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 5:55AM
|
|
|
YOUR A NEGATIVE MF....
I'm not negative at all. Simply stating the facts. You find anything untruthful in the blog point it out instead of making childish statements.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 12:07PM
|
|
Posted by Godless:
I'm not passing judgment. Unless you count pointing out the stupidity of whining about getting some woman pregnant when you don't want to accept the consequences. I know how you religious whackos tend to shy away from having your own morals pointed out to you when it's inconvenient for you to follow them.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 12:16PM
|
|
Godless:
I'm not whining your a prime example Godless. You assume thtat men don't want to accept consequences and yet in reality it's the women. It's the women that have all the outs. Read the blog again and ask yourself who's the least culpable.
These laws don't even make any legal sense nor can they be applied with any sense of fairness or rational. In no other part of law would see such an abomination
of legislation.
|
|
bardnsage
|
May 27 @ 4:47PM
|
|
You enter into a sexual relationship/partnership with a woman that indicates that she is taking birth control pills. 6 months into the relationship she decides to stop taking birth control pills and fails to notify you. Consequently later in the relationship she get's pregnant and sue's for child support. Same thing... if you don't trust the woman you're with, even if you do and are not willing to accept the natural consequences of sex, take responsibility for birth control. Male condoms are readily available at your local convenience store and way cheaper than a baby.
When using this argument, it holds that the woman ALSO should have known who she was having sex with,,,,and condems,,,,male and female,,,,are availalbe. Of course, so are pills, IUD's, diaphrams, etc. etc. But all of that is a mute point. She also knows the consequences of sex, ie pregnancy. So unless it was rape,,,,any other AT RISK behavior could be legally classified as ASSUMPTION OF RISK. (you get a ball through the windsheild of your car at the ball park,,,,well, you parked at the ball park. The hitter and the stadium are not liabial.) (Descision,,,,DEFENDANT) Is that the position you would have us take.
Now that marriage is open to ANYBODY,,,,,just go down and file a paper,,,, let's change the Child Support Laws to only cover children conceived (or adopted) in marriage, by the person's covered by the marital contract. While at it, drop public assistance to children conceived out of wed-lock also. No marriage, no WIC.
While these arguments sound proposterious, and unfeeling, they are just as messed up as the current punitive awards for child support now given, and the laws to enforce them. My brother in law is still forced to pay Child Support in TX, despite DNA evidance that show's he is not the father. Why,,,,because since HE HAS BEEN PAYING IT, HE SHOULD CONTINUE TO PAY IT. Let's face it, the government really doesn't care if your babies are taken care of, they just want to push the cost out to another revenue stream.
The current laws have spawned a preditory response in some women. (IT IS THE MINORITY OF WOMEN, BUT,,,). I have actually heard women giving each other advice about what to do if they are pregnant,,,,and one of the new answers is,,,,,"go sleep with a nerd, and tell him it is his. He is bound to either have a job, or be getting one, so his support check will be more than that asshole you slept with last week." WTF.....
It's all a mess, and all very confusing, from both sides of the argument. It's alot of cost and legislation over a muscle spasim. 
Does anyone know of a case where a male applied to an all female school?
I did. Got turned down flat. Seemed like a target rich environment. So,,,,I guess they were right when they turned me down in the first place.
Female professional tennis players now share equal prize money as there male counterparts yet attract less of an audience, play less games and play at a level inferior to male professional tennis players.
It's not about attendance, it's about the ability to sell. Prize money is normally fronted by the mean, evil corporate world,,,,,, and a woman with a pair of nice legs in a short skirt will sell more cameras than a guy with nice legs in a short skirt. Of course, we can not mention the corporate dollars, as that would take away from the integrity of the sport.......(SPIT).
You date a girl for 6 months in which turns into a sexual relationship/partnership eventually. She get's pregnant and decides to abort the child. Under the law the woman has no legal responsibility to notify you of the pregnancy nor abortion. Nor do you have any legal argument to prevent the abortion.
You don't know about it,,,,,,so no sin on your part.
You don't have to pay for it,,,,,,
Shut the f**k up and count your blessings. You didn't want to married or made to negotiate with a person like this anyway.
OH, and by the way,,,,,,you are negative.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 7:38PM
|
|
|
Child Support in TX, despite DNA evidance that show's he is not the father.
Very true. Recently a court case in Michigan. The judge ruled even after it was found that the wife had lied about who the father that the current husband of 6 years was the "acting father " and that even though he wasn't the biological father he played a fatherly role hence, was still ordered to pay child support and they weren't even living together anymore.
This is how screwed up our legal system is. There is current legislation infornt of Congress introduced by a female Senator I believe that will make it illegal for person's out of wedlock to have children. Now this is a little to far but I would be in favor that person's would have to prove that they are able to support the child financially.
This leads to why abortion will never be overturned. Where will all these children and parents depend on if abortion is abolished? Welfare. If you abolish abortion the welfare programs will triple.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 7:47PM
|
|
|
It's not about attendance, it's about the ability to sell. Prize money is normally fronted by the mean, evil corporate world,,,,,, and a woman with a pair of nice legs in a short skirt will sell more cameras than a guy with nice legs in a short skirt. Of course, we can not mention the corporate dollars, as that would take away from the integrity of the sport.......(SPIT).
I rest my case. They let people like this vote, why? I don't know. Advertising dollars are based on the size of the viewing audience which women tennis players don't attract and the men players do. Should we pay female professional basketball players the same as the NBA just for shitz and giggles.
Shut the f**k up and count your blessings. You didn't want to married or made to negotiate with a person like this anyway
Ah the little people are upset. 44 are you? 44 going on 12. Probably on welfare
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 7:55PM
|
|
Godless comments:
One of the consequences is that it's her choice to have a baby or have an abortion because it's her body. I don't think men have enough rights to an unborn and have written about that in the past. However, it isn't the man's body that gets screwed up... it isn't the man who misses a bunch of work and possibly loses a job... it's not the man who suffers hormonal neurosis (though, I'll make an exception for you ;-))... and more often than not, it ISN'T the man whose physical freedoms are supressed by the responsibility of raising said child.
So, it's not enough to say that men should have a say in what happens to their sperm donation, if the situation is as you described above. He has made no effort to commit to family life with this woman and should have no right to tell her she can't correct an obvious mistake any more than a man can force her to because he thinks it is a mistake. The lion's share of consequence belongs to the woman in these situations and men SHOULD have some say, but only if the burden is equally shifted.
Now, give me some hoohah about the sanctity of life from your God Fearing view and I will say again, don't have sex outside wedlock and their most likely won't be this problem. It's a no-brainer.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 8:19PM
|
|
|
One of the consequences is that it's her choice to have a baby or have an abortion because it's her body. I don't think men have enough rights to an unborn and have written about that in the past. However, it isn't the man's body that gets screwed up... it isn't the man who misses a bunch of work and possibly loses a job... it's not the man who suffers hormonal neurosis
Again not a legal response but let's go with what you have here. It's the same old, same old. The women's has a right to set precedence. She has a right to determine that her body is more important that the unborn childs life. The woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy based on job and body. Let's apply that logic to another scenario. The man wants to terminate the preganacy of his wife because another child would cause undue financial hardship, mental stress and his ability to be a loving, productive father/ husband but his wife wants to keep the child. Tell me, how would the courts rule on that one Godless.
So, it's not enough to say that men should have a say in what happens to their sperm donation, if the situation is as you described above. He has made no effort to commit to family life with this woman and should have no right to tell her she can't correct an obvious mistake any more than a man can force her to because he thinks it is a mistake. The lion's share of consequence belongs to the woman in these situations and men SHOULD have some say, but only if the burden is equally shifted.
The lion's share? What you seemly want to paint is that men have it easy and women don't. I'm a father. I race from work, leave early, leave things on other peoples plates to attend my child's functions. I put the food on the table to feed hungry mouths, I discipline, I mentor, I entertain and I drive to his sports tournaments 4 hours away after working 12 hours. If you think we men have it easy it's because you never had one.
|
|
observed50
|
May 27 @ 8:35PM
|
|
LR> It is only in more modern history that your concept of 'natural order' has some sort of social reality. The most equitable societies have been, and are hunting and gathering societies, which are the dominant social order for most of human existence, and thus, would seemingly qualify for your 'natural order' label, but are in direct contrast to your sense of 'natural order'.
Law and natural order are only remotely linked. Why is it illegal for you to kill a neighbor, but not illegal for the state? What natural order does that fit? Might makes right?
If the species is going to play gods by saving life, why should the species not also play gods by not allowing life, as in abortion? Play gods, or get out of the kitchen?
If a drug suspect wrestles away a gun from a male officer, are you sensing the same liability should follow...or is this all about assuming the successful loss of the gun is because she was a woman???
Law's approach to female versus male roles in underage sex as in schools, has to do with two different dimensions of power...physical (male teachers have more explicit power) and social (male students are viewed as having more social power around their sexuality than female students) thus the sense among adult males of how lucky are the male victims in female teacher cases.
There is no 'society normally functions' but rather how given societies function in a moment or period of their evolving. Otherwise, I guess we could really go back to the 'normal function' that so many 'normal' people thought was the case when they believed normal was slavery, Jim Crow laws, land theft, and a million other similar normal things. Or maybe before that, when aristocracy had the right to first intercourse after marriage, or the Church could slaughter people because they didn't fall in line with the herd running over the cliff???
Which 'normal' sticks in your craw as to the 'right' normal that would best inform us of the oppression you wish to justify? Cuz isn't normal just one more silly appeal to an outside authority that we seek to hide behind when the world isn't as we wish?
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 10:33PM
|
|
Godless posted:
I appreciate you as a father, I really do. I don't know about your teaching of morals and consequences for your kids, though... you seem to get things mixed up quite a bit.
You originally posed a question about two uncommitted people making an oopsie in the course of getting what BOTH of you wanted and ending up with MORE than you intended. Talking about a committed family is a completely different ball game.
I don't have an answer to married people deciding who has more of a right to decide whether or not a child is born. All I know is that those types of things are things that normal people committed to a marriage and family talk about ahead of time, thus avoiding the whole conflict.
You are confusing a sexual relationship with a life bond.... it's not black and white, and no, I don't think men have enough rights in a marriage. Let me rephrase that, since I was the main breadwinner and caretaker in my marriage... the person who provides financially and emotionally for the family never has enough rights in a marriage... especially when it comes to divorce.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 10:49PM
|
|
|
You originally posed a question about two uncommitted people making an oopsie in the course of getting what BOTH of you wanted and ending up with MORE than you intended. Talking about a committed family is a completely different ball game.
Again, whether you are a committed couple or not has no bearing under the law.
The blog is not about your opinion. It's about the law. For some reason you can't get that through your godless head.
You are confusing a sexual relationship with a life bond
Again, there is no legal argument nor law that distinguishes between the 2. The law is absolute in this area. You continue along this route only to try an attempt to avoid the issue.
In what cases in the above blog would you feel that the idea of " equal rights " is
intended? The law was designed for equal representation or equality purposes.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 11:14PM
|
|
Godless post:
The law may be black and white in this area, true. It is for the better though. People don't have the right to boss each other around. Suppose a woman didn't want to have more children or have to decide whether a child she conceives gets born or not. She has the right to refuse sex, as does a man who doesn't want children - but she doesn't have a legal right to sterilize her boyfriend/husband/whatever. Why is that legal? Because it's his body, not hers.
Now, if you were able to spit out kids, would you want some law telling you that you had to bend to the will of your partner (however equal or inequal you might be, depending on your relationship) on whether or not you should or shouldn't spit it?
I seriously doubt your ability to put yourself in that position. You are not objective enough... which is why you are not a lawmaker or a judge.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 27 @ 11:16PM
|
|
Answer me this Godless,
Has equal rights as of today created more equality or more inequality?
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 28 @ 12:35AM
|
|
Bardnsage posts:
Read slowly, and pay very close attention. You got so excited that you thought a liberal was attacking you,,,,,you forgot to think. 1. You are correct, when all other things are equal, advertising is based on market share. 2. When other things are not equal, advertising is based on historical success of like ad campaigns.
Now, this is where it gets kind of complicated,,,,slow down,,,take a valium,,,,
In tennis - the sport you used as example - advertising campaings using men have been far less succesful than those using women. There are only a HANDFUL of succesful pitch men that have come from tennis. The list of succusful women (heaven help me for using this term) - pitch women is emmence. SO, I don't care how many Elf Cameras you think your male tennis star can sell,,,,,,he has a captured audiance and historically, the adds do not equal a jump in sales that would equal some hotty-totty blond female tennis star used as a spokes person. The advantage of using the women, and their overall thrashing of the men in the advertising department is that a good looking chick reaches a larger demographic than some dude who plays tennis. Find me a person who does not play tennis, show them 5 pictures of the top male tennis players,,,,,they don't have clue. Ask them to put the face with the names below,,,,, they can't. They won't even realize that these are the top 10 male tennis players in the world. Now, without looking,,,,without googling,,,,, can they name the products they pitch. I doubt it.
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Nikolay Davydenko
David Ferrer
Andy Roddick
David Nalbandian
James Blake
Richard Gasquet
Stanislas Wawrinka
Now look at this list,,,,,
Maria Sharapova
Ana Ivanovic
Jelena Jankovic
Svetlana Kuznetsova
Serena Williams
Anna Chakvetadze
Venus Williams
Elena Dementieva
Marion Bartoli
Daniela Hantuchova
Do you recognize at least a one or two names on the list? Do you think the general public would recongnize more names on this list than the other? Do you think they would remember that some of the items sold are from Nike, Canon, Colgate-Palmolive, Motorola, Gatorade, Land Rover, Tropicana,,,,,eh,,, maybe.
Now, how do you explain the difference between the two lists, if the men have all the market share and attendance. The difference is, when Maria Sharapova and her cute little white dog endorse Cannon Camera's,,,people remember, and purchase. Since the ladies can do that,,,,, the corporations that pony up the prizes at the tournaments are able to offer a higher prize in relation to market share of the actual tennis match.
Use your business mind,,,,, You don't care who knows about your company,,,,you are interested in the ones that buy, or make your money. Capitolism at it's best....
Now for,,,
Shut the f**k up and count your blessings. You didn't want to married or made to negotiate with a person like this anyway
Ah the little people are upset. 44 are you? 44 going on 12. Probably on welfare
If you would like to marry and or negiotiate child care and support with a women who has the charector to get pregnant and have an abortion without your knowledge,,,,,be my guest. I'm a little surpised at the name calling, as that is normally the tag line of liberals. But I guess, anyone can use it when their arguments are weak.
As for welfare,,,,,, well,,,,since I don't live in MI,,,,it's not that much of an issue. Besides, running two businesses is keeping me very busy at the moment, and I don't have time to run down and apply.
Now why don't you hop back on the fuel truck, and go gas up that whirly-gig, and leave the dangerous stuff to people who have been trained for it..... instead of just supporting the meat wagons for the scoop and go's.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 28 @ 12:50AM
|
|
Maria Sharapova, she's hot.................. 
Serena Williams, American good female tennis player.
Other then those 2 the other Williams sister.
So your point sex sells but your missing the point. Achievement, ability, level of game. Let's take normal pay comparisons and we'll use sales as an example. Do you know of any sales persons that sells less product but earns as much money as the top sales person? If the female winner of Wimbledon was to play the male
winner of Wimbledon who would obviously win?
What's next on the liberal agenda, runner up makes as much money as the winner?
On what Athletic basis does a female tennis player deserve equal winnings to the male winner? they play less games, they attract less attendance and viewing audience. So what's the basis? better yet, how did the thought even come into mind?
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 28 @ 5:24PM
|
|
Bardnsage posts:
You are getting closer. Sex does sale,,,,you got that....
Now hear this.....
The PRIZE MONEY FOR THE TOURNAMENT IS PAID BY THE SPONSERS OF THE EVENT.
Cannon does not care if the woman can hit a ball faster than a man,,,,,they only care that the woman can sell their products better.
The only people interested in who can hit the ball faster, are those in the WTA, and they don't pay for the prize money.
As far as the sponser is concerned,,,,, #1 bitch = #1 bitch - good for sales. #1 bastard = +1 bastard - OK for sales, but more tennis fans watch these guys.
It's about bang for the buck.
As hard as it is for a Yankee do to,,,,,think about Nascar. Why would you keep putting your logo on car that never wins. Answer,,,,because their is a direct corrilation between that logo on even a loosing car, and sales.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 28 @ 5:44PM
|
|
Well sex must not be selling to much because as I said before men players have a hell of alot more attendance, viewers and more games to play. Your point about sponsorship is what? more company sponsors selling female or using female athelete's products equates to equal prize money for women? Humm, let's analysis that one.
Let's say Maria Sharapova apperars in a camera commercial. She is paid for that appearence or endorsement as any other spokesmen would be. Has nothing to do with the tournament winnings. Dah.
This is what happen. Women's rights groups pressured and threatened these company's, sponsorships and tournaments with boycott's if they didn't pay women player's equal to men. That's exactly what happened. You seem to do alot dancing bardnsage. Perhaps you would better off on Dacing with the Stars
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 28 @ 8:42PM
|
|
Godless posts:
Were you able to bear children with your own body, would you want a law in place that denies you the right to bear or not bear as you see fit?
|
|
LongRanger278
|
May 28 @ 9:05PM
|
|
|
Were you able to bear children with your own body, would you want a law in place that denies you the right to bear or not bear as you see fit?
You see Godless your about me, me, me. The problem goes beyond you in which people like you fail or refuse to see. At no time do you ever point to or consider the living being, the fetus. It's as if you have no recognition and total disregard of.
You can go and murder your baby but if I shoot and kill someone stealing my car they are throwing my ass in jail. Now out of the 2 scenario's above what makes me guilty and you not?
Your failure to see beyond you is grossly irresponsible as most people like you are. That's why we have abortion. Abortion is not just about you. It's about a civilized society murdering at a tune of over a million lives a year.
|
|
|