Pleiades

If you tell a woman she's pretty then she'll give up on being a scientist? Well, we've been telling men that we're idiots and assholes but that doesn't stop us from being productive. Look, women aren't idiots. Men aren't idiots. We all observe the world around us and we all understand how biology works. Generally speaking men and women are both pursuing things that will either augment their value or status in either society or to the other sex. Little girls will notice that men give more attention to the prettier girls. Young women will like attention from men. They will try to be pretty to get that attention. Also, women value social interactions more than men do. Little boys will notice that women care about what a man has, and that he's athletic. Young men will work to acquire resources or skills to be competitive to get attention from women. I've worked in analytic fields with banks, insurers, and marketing firms. The women who go into analysis and computers and technology won't stop pursuing those things because someone says they are pretty. They are driven women. They have career goals. I call BS. I'm not sure how much I agree with this statement. I think what's more accurate is that white men are assigned agency. We are assumed to be responsible for our actions. When we fail, it is our fault. When we succeed, it is our success (and oppression). We aren't celebrated because we are expected to earn our own ends, but non-white non-men are believed to be unfairly disadvantaged so when they succeed it is more of a spectacle. When a woman fails, well society has been keeping her down. It's not her fault. There's not much she can do to change it. Stefan said the same thing when describing his efforts to get out of poverty. If someone told him that it's just the system and he can't get through it and he believed him, then he wouldn't have become the type of leader that he has become.

Thank you so much for posting this video. A friend of mine is on this diet and I am forwarding the information to her so that she can make a decision if it's healthy for her or not.

Suggestions for improvement. Be more specific with what you've learned and how it's relevant to the type of job that you're looking for. With your work experience, you should have three - five points or sentences about what you accomplished, what your responsibilities were and the type of clients you were handling (e.g. internal management, customer, etc.,). For your education you will have taken courses or worked on projects that could relate the job that you will expected to perform. Mention them. The current description that you have for your work experience could use a rework (also you spelled "concoles" wrong in the description). This may be irrelevant, but in my region there's no reason to put an uppercase "T" on televisions since it's not a proper noun. "Stocking" is also spelled incorrectly. You must proof read your own work because if you come across as a poor communicator on paper then they will not give you the opportunity to show them how good you are at communicating in person. -Sold consumer electronics such as televisions, video game consoles, cameras, and accessories. -Upsold purchases with extended warrantees, additional peripherals, and other similar services. -Processes consumer transactions as a cashier. Being an eager learner isn't a skill, but it's definitely a great trait to mention. Add a section for "Professioanl profile" and talk more about your work ethic with some examples (e.g. I am an eager learner as demonstrated by teaching myself object oriented programming, etc., etc.,). Mention how you work in a team, whether you lead, you support, you are creative, etc., give them an idea of whom they are hiring. I would remove the "What can I do for you?" section and put in more about your skills and abilities. For example you say that you have a passion for mobile app development, but nothing on your resume currently supports that. Tell them what you're learning for mobile app developement (languages, suites, packages, etc.,) These are my suggestions. I hope that they help!

Hee ho. My recommendations! 1. Don't eat out. Don't go to fast food restaurants. Don't buy ready made meals (like the instant microwave stuffs, those are terrible for you). 2. Find an exercise that you love. For example. I love swimming. So I want to swim and I do it. 3. If there isn't really an exercise that you love then grab a gym buddy! You should keep each other mutually motivated! 4. Breakfast: your breakfast should basically consist of yogurt (go for non flavoured with as low fat % as you want for protein, improved metabolism, etc.,), fruit (for energy, fibre, and deliciousness) and a grain (I go between shredded wheat, oats, flax, etc.,) 5. Analyze why you gained weight in the first place. Think of when you first started to put on weight. There was a reason. Were you shamed? Were your maltreated? Were you sexually abused? There is a cause. If you put on weight in response to eating food then the food you ate was replacing something else that you needed. Stay positive! Keep at it! Find a support group! You can do it with effort and dedication!

I have some theories on this. These are not mutually exclusive. Confirmation Bias: So, there are people who "know" what the outcome is before they even begin their research or do any type of survey. These people will only identify or recognize data and results which confirm their beliefs. No other data exists to them. Ideology: Our society has been vagina praising for a while. Everything early, spiritual and good is feminie. Everything else is masculine and evil. When they are looking for or conducting research they don't even think to look for data about female abuse and male victimization because it doesn't exist. It can't exist for their world view to persist and be valid. Rationalization: This is the "Women only hit in response to men's violence". It's even to the point that I've heard feminists refer to female initiated violence as pre-emptive self defense and; therefore, not domestic violence, but physical abuse. I read an article about a woman who shot her husband in his sleep and claimed self defense and had all charges dropped. Being Absolutely Fucking Stupid: A "researcher" in Ottawa published an article with false statistics. In her article she converted male victims into female victims and quoted a Statistics Canada data source. The numbers were about 1.2 million victims in the past (I think it was year, but please don't quote me). About 620K female, 580K male (the numbers are not exact and may deviated by approximately 20K). There's no way you can make that mistake unless you're an idiot (in which case how did you get to publish articles) or you're dishonest. I'm not sure which. Another survey was insulted by one of my textbooks in university. The survey concluded over 90% of wives were beaten by their husbands. The sample was based off of women in a battered woman's shelter. No mention of sample bias. There's so much dishonesty with academic feminism and flat out rationalization with feminism that it's insulting and makes me wonder how anyone can take it seriously.

Ladies, I can vouch for this man, he is good and virtuous!

I find this to be a particularly interesting comment. The guys I see on OKCupid very frequently answer "No" to the rape fantasy question as in, they would not be willing to enact a rape fantasy. So this leads me to two questions: 1. What type of woman would want a rape fantasy? I theorize that bitches are crazy women do respond positively to assertive and aggressive men. In an emotionally unhealthy women this can manifest as a forceful sexual encounter; whereas, an emotionally healthy woman would probably prefer the sweep-me-off-my-feet approach of strength. In essence, unhealthy women want men's force used on them, and healthy women want men's force used for them. 2. Why are most men uncomfortable with this? It seems that even emotionally unhealthy men (except the extreme cases of sociopathy) are adamantly against this, even if they just recognize that they shouldn't admit to it openly. This translates to emotionally unhealthy men want to use their force on women (in this case rape, but in the more likely case them being physically controlling), whereas emotionally healthy men want to use their force for women (white knighting).

I understand some necessity for the term "Transgender" because it describes as very specific and rare type of gender (born to one sex physically and born to the opposite either spiritually or emotionally), and represents approx. 0.3% of the total population. Now, the term "Cisgender" is rather troublesome. Previous to its creation when one would observe a male or female you would associate their body with their internal gender. To date, this is accurate with over 99.7% of the population, and is universally understood in dialogue. So to make 0.3% of the population feel special they came with a special term to describe the "rule" and not the "exception". Basically, they want to change the universally understood dialogue to suite their needs and make them feel like less than a statistically insignificant minority. There may be a shame aspect to with the whole "cis privilege" ad hominem that I hear periodically. In short: in 99.7% of cases a male is a cismale, and a female is cisfemale. And in 0.3% of cases a male is transmale, and a female is transfemale. Why change dialogue that everyone already understands? Well... because when it comes to making a very small number of people not feel sad, liberal hippies would rather the entire world change their views instead of letting people realize that they are numerous enough to justify changing the world's dialogue.

League of Legends ID: Pleiades Battle.Net ID: Pleiades#1509 Both on the North American servers.

Sure. I can use my brain and body to assist.

Feminists have been using death threats for a long, long time. Longer than I've been alive. When Erin Pizzey was trying to garner attention to the fact that men were also victims of domestic violence in the 1970s she was blacklisted from publications, received bomb and death threats, had to have her mail sent directly to the police and it all accumulated until someone shot her family's dog (no evidence on who did it, as far as I know). I don't think it's a good sign. It's just the status quo.

After watching Stefan's video: I have spent some time looking at the economic situations of some other cities, states and countries. One that has caught my interest is the state of California, where there is a very prominent tech industry, but there doesn't appear to be anything else and the state continues to get worse (I think it had the second highest probability of five-year default of all US states). I've heard stories about the regulations, taxes and increasing crime, and since I have a lot of friends in the tech industry, this state has caught my interest.

I just started reading this. I'll get to it in a second, but I just want to offer you a hug and compassion before continuing reading. Please don't apologize for your writing. Please don't apologize for reaching out to someone. You need help and you will find it. This is a very supportive community here. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I try to be there. Have you considered calling into Stefan's show? He is very good at offering advice. What worked for me is I found a few very good friends. They constantly support me, encourage me and we talk about things that are important to us. That's what worked for me. I was very fortunate to find people I can trust. It requires me to be there for them and support them back.

There is an event being hosted by the Canadian Association for Equality in down town Toronto for any humans or human-like creatures who may be interested in attending. Next weekend they will be hosting a music festival on the Toronto islands. http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-1915786.htm I will likely exist in or/and around this event for some period of time.

I have to agree with Stefan, there are rare cases where circumstances change, but for the most part people should know if they are poor before they have children. If you can barely afford to feed yourself then I don't know why you think you can also support a child. We also have resources that are either no or little direct cost to the mother if she becomes pregnant to prevent her from committing financially to being a mother. Who is really hurting the children here? Also, how difficult is it to understand that if you can't afford something then you don't get it? Everyone wants a great paying job with benefits, vacation, good work-life balance, and flex-time, but so few people understand how valuable you have to be before that becomes even close to cost efficient for the employer who pays for it all.

Honestly, that's just a front as far as I can tell. The dictionary definition of feminist relates to equality between the sexes. Especially women. Feminism is founded on the principal of Patriarchy theory, which states that men designed systems of power to exclusively benefit men at the expense of women.

So the Santa Barbara shootings have apparently sparked another feminist "feel sorry for us" hashtag... meme... whatever. Please feel free to call me out on my bitterness here if it is clouding my judgment. These twits are attacking and demonizing all men for the actions of one sociopathic man. They are looking at any action taken by men and treating is are force and a crime against all women. One link out of far too many: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/05/24/everyone-needs-read-yesallwomen/32V2F014mn9LX8qRsF6vKL/story.html Some of the twits posted: POST: Because every single woman I know has a story about a man feeling entitled to access to her body. Every. Single. One. RESPONSE: Is this really something that you go around asking your single friends? Have you bothered asking your single guy friends if they've been groped by women? Or if women felt entitled to their wallets and resources? I've been felt up by more women than I have been by men and I'm a homosexual. I think it happens to everyone. Not just women. I'm not sure if she's talking about women not presently dating or referring to every woman she knows. The latter seems like hyperbole to me. POST: Girls grow up knowing that it's safer to give a fake phone number than to turn a guy down. RESPONSE: How many times have you been assaulted or hit? My guess is 0. Most guys are not assholes, but you're content to project that onto us. Boys grow up feeling sorry for being boys. We're bombarded with guilt about how our sexuality is toxic and how we need to change our naturally awful ways. I personally would argue that if you were more upfront with your disinterest then you wouldn't need to worry about men getting angry. What I've seen in clubs and bars are women will let men pay for several drinks, feign interest and then when it comes to reciprocating the they say they aren't interested. I know this isn't every encounter, but I think both men and women need to be have more open communication POST: Because young men learn about sexuality from sources that portray women as objects, not fellow humans RESPONSE: Because young men learn that to be sexually attractive to women it means that we need to be rich, good looking or powerful. Not good human beings. Oh, and even then we're still potential rapists. POST: Because I get in an elevator with a guy and think "what's my escape plan going to be?" RESPONSE: How often do you get assaulted in elevators? Why do you assume that every man is going to assault you? POST: Because you get to a point where you can't remember not being aware, alert, poised, keys between your knuckles. RESPONSE: Must make showering difficult with keys between your knuckles. You never know when a man is going to break into your home, enter the bathroom, pull back the curtains and forcibly nestle his face in your chest. I really don't believe this. Anyone this paranoid would probably never leave their home. POST: Because when we say "no", we have to consider the repercussions of that. In every context. RESPONSE: Because when you say "yes", we have to constantly make sure that you meant "yes". Even years after. Or else we go to jail and have our lives ruined. Or even if sex doesn't even happen. Just point your finger at us and shout "rape". POST: I've spent 19 yrs teaching my daughter how not to be raped. How long have you spent teaching your son not to rape? RESPONSE: I bet you didn't teach your daughter how not to rape men. He had an erection so he must have wanted it. He ejaculated so he clearly enjoyed it. Did you teach your daughter to respect men or to fear them? POST: Imagine the creative energy we would release if half of humanity didn't have to devote so much time to fear of the other half. RESPONSE: Oh, the irony... POST: #yesallwomen because entering a male dominated industry should not be a deterring realization steering you away from achieving your wants RESPONSE: Because entering a female-dominated industry should not be a risk of being called a rapist, sexual molester, pervert or child molestor. POST: In college, a police officer told us to scream FIRE if we were in danger of being assaulted otherwise people won't get involved. RESPONSE: This applies to all violent crime. Not just sexual assault, but I can understand you not wanting to care about when men are getting hurt. Then you can't feel sorry about yourself being a poor, defenseless woman. POST: Because we're prudes when we don't sleep with you and whores when we do. RESPONSE: Because we're sexists when we want to sleep with you and we're faggots when we don't. Also a key that opens many locks is valuable; whereas, a lock that opens for any key isn't ;D The Santa Barbara tragedy was not caused by men. It was caused by a man. A man who needed love when he was younger and help when he was older. Let's focus on the source of the problem, and not attribute the horrendous actions of a single man with all men. Let's give everyone compassion unless they start to use it as a weapon.

Do we know the hair colour of his mother? Would this be relevant?

I would like someone's thoughts on this: When I see on online dating sites that someone is an Early Childhood Educator I tend to get very cautious about them. My reason behind them is that I find the education system around preparing people to enter the field is heavily influenced by liberal politics, but the more toxic kind. Is this a valid thought? Think it should make a blip on this list?

Are you a male? Check your privilege! Are you white? Check your privilege! Are you heterosexual? Check your privilege! There. Now that you've shut up the world has become a better place for the "disadvantaged". I'm not sure how prevelant the "Check your Privilege" ad hominem retort still is, but it's aggravatingly flawed, as most ad hominem attacks are. I'm going to ignore the major problems with it (such as how insultingly dismissive it is, how it ignores counter evidence, and stimies intelligent conversation) and I'm going to focus on the attitude of the people who use this approach. Checking privilege doesn't help anyone, but the people who spout this act like it does. They actively ignore contributing factors to success, and eliminate responsibility and agency from failing groups. Success is generally a combination of work, luck and determination. You can be successful without one of those three, but it may not be sustainable or long-term success. When you focus on the symptons of failure without looking at the cures or causes then you're guaranteed to perpetuate failues in those groups. Then there's a false dichotomy of privileged groups and non-privileged groups. There are privileged whites and non-privileged whites. The same goes for males and heterosexuals. And privilege can be earned. But instead of grouping based on skin colour, gender or sexual orientation, why don't we base our comparisons on the privileged versus the non-privileged (as per Dr. Thomas Sowell's comments). Then we can truly help people. For added fun: Translation: when you judge people based on their skin colour then you're a racist. When you don't judge people based on their skin colour then you're a racist.

Sorry, but me first. Preferences be damned.

Don't apologize. I keep forgetting that it's not inherently obvious. Thanks for the advice!

I think using facebook is counter productive. Half the joy in meeting someone is discovering them. Their joys, their passions, their flaws, etc., As good as knowing if your date is a potential threat is, it's far more likely that they aren't. If you pay attention to them then you can actually pick up on dangerous traits. It's far more rewarding to try and fail than to guarantee failure like this. However, if there are traits that you know you don't like, I don't see harm in saying it, but it seems excessive to demand access to someone's personal facebook history before you agree to date them long-term.

Howdy, There seems to be some contradictory criteria in your job descriptions. There are two relating to distance to the state as good "Relatively far removed from state influence (legislation etc.) and thus more experienced with free markets:" "Relatively great exposure to undesirable effects of statist systems (thus likely understanding critique of the statist system) and encouraged to think on their own:" But then you also list some jobs where there is heavy state intervention (and possibly some regulation, but I'm not too familiar with that): "Some understanding of childhood development and psychology: · Teacher, kindergarten worker" How do you resolve this? Or am I misinterpreting what was meant?