Feminist Hypocracy

I remember going on a date with a girl a few years back. She was nearly a diehard feminist. Women had to have equal rights; women are just as capable of anything that men are; equality should be shared by men and women.

She later gave me a rant about how I didn’t hold the door for her when we went into the restaurant, and how I never opened the car door for her. Apparently I wasn’t “gentleman” enough for her.

So much for equality. I suppose some stone age traditions aren’t in need of reform according to some feminists. They still enjoy clinging onto the “poor helpless woman” ideology from the dark ages, when it’s most convenient for them.

More examples of hypocracy. I bolded certain sentences simply to point you in the right direction, and past some pointless rubbish.

from: albertahumanrights.ab.ca/pub … _accom.asp

The Meiorin test helps employers determine if particular occupational requirements are reasonable and justifiable

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision that provides direction to employers as to whether a particular occupational requirement is reasonable and justifiable.[1] The Government of British Columbia had brought in minimum fitness standards that applied to forest firefighters. A female firefighter did not meet the requirements of a running test designed to measure aerobic fitness. Consequently, even though she had worked as a forest firefighter for three years, her employment was terminated. In grieving her dismissal, the firefighter argued that the aerobic standard discriminated against women because women generally have lower aerobic capacity than men.

In its decision, the Supreme Court outlined a new three-part test. The Meiorin test, named after the female firefighter, sets out an analysis for determining if an occupational requirement is justified. Once the complainant has shown the standard or requirement is prima facie (at first view) discriminatory, the employer must prove that, on a balance of probabilities, the standard:

was adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to job performance
was adopted in an honest and good faith belief that the standard is necessary for the fulfillment of that legitimate purpose
is reasonably necessary to accomplish that legitimate purpose—This requires the employer to demonstrate that it is impossible to accommodate the employee without the employer suffering undue hardship.

The test requires employers to accommodate or consider the capabilities of different members of society before adopting a bona fide occupational requirement. For example, women typically have lower aerobic capacity than men. Before setting a fitness standard so high that the vast majority of women would not be able to achieve it, an employer must be certain that such a high level of fitness is necessary to do the job. This does not mean that the employer cannot set standards, but it does mean that the standards should reflect the requirements of the job.

Shouldn’t firefighting be a man’s job if women can’t hack it? Think of yourself being the one in need of rescue during a fire.

Hey Rrados it’s not hypo-CRACY (which denontes a form of government) it’s hypo-CRISY

… on second thoughts… ignore this post.


According to Nietzsche, the real purpose of feminists was not so much to give women equal rights to men, but to give lower women (like themselves) equal rights to higher women (ladies). A small elite of women did not need rights, because they were given privileges anyway. The knight was courtly towards ladies, whereas he was completely indifferent towards ordinary women, treating these as he pleased. With women rights, knightlihood, the duty of knightlihood, has theoretically ended.

It was not Feminists that fought for and died for womens rights, it was Suffragettes, feminists did not arrive until much, much later, they had no part in aquiring the original womens rights. The women that fought for rights were ladies, proud wives, mothers, daughters and sisters. The two parties are totally different, totally different politics. Take a closer look at your history you can find detailed data on both, here on the net, you will see the difference.

and the feminists that fought for stone or marble countertops were the rockettes?


Women can have way more orgasms then you, get cramps every month and can’t lift up as heavy of objects as you can. :laughing: It’s a sort of strange trade-off that I don’t fully understand.

Ofcourse there is another sentance between those lines. :wink:

That’s a myth dan~.

Remember the story about why nobody broke the 4 minute mile for ages? Because everyone knew it was impossible until one day, someone broke it and then there was a flood of runners who suddenly found they could go faster. (no sex puns please)

This is what’s happening to men today re sex. We’re constantly told men can’t have multiple orgasms. Bollocks!!

Without wanting to sound crude (or showing off :sunglasses: ) my record is between 5-7 orgasms/ejaculations in less than ten minutes without losing an erection. (I say 5-7 because I was in no mood to count accurately.)

It’s time masculinists claimed their equal rights – to an equal number of quality orgasms per session. :evilfun:



Damn you km!


:astonished: I thought you/women would be happy to hear that?

What’s the matter? You still struggling to make 2? :laughing:


I just saw Jett Li’s movie Fearless on Saturday.

There was a scene where he was invited to tea by a Japanese fighter. The Japanese began to explain all about different types of tea to Li’s character. Li broke in and explained that tea is just tea and that it’s man that looks to micromanage it.

Let everyone’s body function.

Nooooooooo you don’t understand!

Damn you again!



Women aren’t hypocrites…they just pretend to be.

Dan~ can’t agree. Eventually you’ll go dry, whilst the female unit’s only limitation is the physical endurance of the muscle groups.

Also if your sexing is excitement-based instead of love-peace-based, then ofcourse you are going to go off allot right away like some kind of roller-coaster that has allot of ups and downs, but there are people who can go for 6 hours or more if they are more relaxed and train themself. Either way, I must believe that girlies can go bang more times in a row then mr.man.

Yes or no?

Sexual capacity is fairly genetic. Some people can feel and do way more then others. Also, things like pain tolerance are genetic. Some people can tolerate far more pain because they literally feel less of it in any given situation.

Where did everyone go?

If you’re referring to me, then there’s nothing more to say.

I voiced what I experienced and believe because of that (and other) experiences and you said you “must” believe the girlies can orgasm more time then men. I get more bang per buck and you can win this argument. We’re both happy :smiley:

Now back to the OP about feminism and hypocrisy.


No because I’m senseless right now.

Have you met girls who could go on for hours or not?

1 friend of mine said he lost could with a certain guest he was entertaining.