Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:53 am**

Because women now have equal ights they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society. Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.

About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it. We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.

Posted: **Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:11 pm**

Yeah.....hmmmm. As long as white men are included in that category, I dont see the fascist liberals coming out of the woodwork to take up this cause. I'd recommend: (except whites) at the end of the thread title.

Posted: **Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:46 pm**

brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society. Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.

About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it. We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.

seemingly you are confusing things like trying to fight for legal rights and economic oppertunity with things like being able to stand in lines and things like that. I also find it rather odd that in one sentence you complain about changing the names to policeman and fireman and then two sentences later claim that if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to a fair name for all people. I mean while at times it can go too far, if you were a woman would you like to have policeman as your job title? Its no the hardest thing in the world to call someone a police officer or a policewoman.

The fun thing about comparing apples to oranges is that you always going to be in the right because you arent actually giving your opponents the chance to debate you on level footing. They certainly arent the same thing, and using them as a straw man, when i dont even think you really care about whether or not someone is in line first (i can imagine most people dont) is perhaps less than the best way to argue.

Posted: **Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:44 pm**

got tonkaed wrote:
brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society. Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.

About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it. We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.

seemingly you are confusing things like trying to fight for legal rights and economic oppertunity with things like being able to stand in lines and things like that. I also find it rather odd that in one sentence you complain about changing the names to policeman and fireman and then two sentences later claim that if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to a fair name for all people. I mean while at times it can go too far, if you were a woman would you like to have policeman as your job title? Its no the hardest thing in the world to call someone a police officer or a policewoman.

The fun thing about comparing apples to oranges is that you always going to be in the right because you arent actually giving your opponents the chance to debate you on level footing. They certainly arent the same thing, and using them as a straw man, when i dont even think you really care about whether or not someone is in line first (i can imagine most people dont) is perhaps less than the best way to argue.

Police man is not a masculine title, call me a idiot but i don't exactly agree with what i'm saying but because we're living in a more politically correct society and i can't do much about it (apart from moan on sites) i have to "adapt" so yeah we should have the right to call a police man a police man and a police woman a police woman and not none of this police officer stuff, after years of calling a police man a police man sometimes you can't help saying police man, try telling a eighty year old man that....

Or why change the name? if there is a thousand police, only 50 is women why should we resort to having to call them police officers when the majority are men and you're basically addicted to calling them police men. Alright i'll keep to the term midwife because alot of them are women, a couple of years back in the UK we had community support officers launched "enabling" the police to be able to "mediate" with different cultures and groups. Alot of these are women and because the 1st word is not police it makes it alot easier to say community support officers, this may sound stupid and it is but i'm going to stick to using police man (and yes it is not a masculine title) but i'm fine with anyone else being able to use midspouse, or police officer, the right to free speech should be observed in this one, on both sides i guess.

It's not the rules of "not shooting a women civilian" but it is common ettiquette in our society, to allow political correctness to prevail we must scrap that type of ettiquette.

Posted: **Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:53 am**

brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights

Oh, you mean like STILL getting only 75% of what a man gets for the same job .. never mind any comparison between "pink collar" and "blue collar" jobs? You mean like women who marry STILL doing most of the housework and childcare ... on top of having fulltime jobs?

You mean the way that women who make more than their husbands are far more likely to end up divorced or in unhappy marriages?

brooksieb wrote:they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society.

Most of those "advantages" are either gone or irrelevant. Women AND children have been shot in war since Vietnam. Long distance warfare makes most evacuations more or less irrelevant. As for other evacuations ... it is not women, it is the elderly and children who go first. Women go with them to a greater extent because women are more likely to be caring for those folks.

Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.

Most people agree. However, life in the military for woman is NOT in any way equal. Women get raped and the men don't get prosecuted. Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are. They do not have the same rights to rank advancement and training that men do. They are excluded from certain positions and therefore are excluded from certain ranks and advancements.

About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it.

Sorry, but my husband is a fireMAN... but I was a fireFIGHTER. The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.

We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.

Mid spouses???? More to the point, it should not be a "wive" OR "spouse" because it has nothing to do with marriage. I agree with your point, but try again. Actually, other terms are used more and more frequently, though my mind is going blank right now.

Posted: **Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:25 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights

Oh, you mean like STILL getting only 75% of what a man gets for the same job .. never mind any comparison between "pink collar" and "blue collar" jobs? You mean like women who marry STILL doing most of the housework and childcare ... on top of having fulltime jobs?

You mean the way that women who make more than their husbands are far more likely to end up divorced or in unhappy marriages?

brooksieb wrote:they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society.

Most of those "advantages" are either gone or irrelevant. Women AND children have been shot in war since Vietnam. Long distance warfare makes most evacuations more or less irrelevant. As for other evacuations ... it is not women, it is the elderly and children who go first. Women go with them to a greater extent because women are more likely to be caring for those folks.

Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.

Most people agree. However, life in the military for woman is NOT in any way equal. Women get raped and the men don't get prosecuted. Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are. They do not have the same rights to rank advancement and training that men do. They are excluded from certain positions and therefore are excluded from certain ranks and advancements.

About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it.

Sorry, but my husband is a fireMAN... but I was a fireFIGHTER. The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.
We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.

Mid spouses???? More to the point, it should not be a "wive" OR "spouse" because it has nothing to do with marriage. I agree with your point, but try again. Actually, other terms are used more and more frequently, though my mind is going blank right now.

Hey now, what's going on here? Get back in the kitchen!

Posted: **Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:41 pm**

Men who feel discriminated against are not men. Sack up, Jack.
They can change all the titles they want, and promote equality from here to hell and back but in the end, men call the majority of the shots, and always will. I'll concede that there are many exceptions, but over all this is the world we live in and foster.

There is no such thing as equality, although we pretend and posture that this is what we are all working for. Reality is, when the shit hits the fan, the woman grabs the mop, but the man grabs the shit thrower and runs him though a wood chipper.

Take a good look around and say it aint' so.

Will we ever change and all end up equal? Perhaps in a Utopian world. But however as long as there is war, conflict and violence, the ones with the muscle mass and the testosterone have a distinct advantage.

J

Posted: **Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:47 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights

Oh, you mean like STILL getting only 75% of what a man gets for the same job .. never mind any comparison between "pink collar" and "blue collar" jobs? You mean like women who marry STILL doing most of the housework and childcare ... on top of having fulltime jobs?

You mean the way that women who make more than their husbands are far more likely to end up divorced or in unhappy marriages?

brooksieb wrote:they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society.

Most of those "advantages" are either gone or irrelevant. Women AND children have been shot in war since Vietnam. Long distance warfare makes most evacuations more or less irrelevant. As for other evacuations ... it is not women, it is the elderly and children who go first. Women go with them to a greater extent because women are more likely to be caring for those folks.

Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.

Most people agree. However, life in the military for woman is NOT in any way equal. Women get raped and the men don't get prosecuted. Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are. They do not have the same rights to rank advancement and training that men do. They are excluded from certain positions and therefore are excluded from certain ranks and advancements.

About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it.

Sorry, but my husband is a fireMAN... but I was a fireFIGHTER. The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.
We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.

Mid spouses???? More to the point, it should not be a "wive" OR "spouse" because it has nothing to do with marriage. I agree with your point, but try again. Actually, other terms are used more and more frequently, though my mind is going blank right now.

Hey now, what's going on here? Get back in the kitchen!

Get those women out of my effin kitchen!

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:19 am**

brooksieb wrote:Police man is not a masculine title, call me a idiot but i don't exactly agree with what i'm saying but because we're living in a more politically correct society and i can't do much about it (apart from moan on sites) i have to "adapt" so yeah we should have the right to call a police man a police man and a police woman a police woman and not none of this police officer stuff, after years of calling a police man a police man sometimes you can't help saying police man, try telling a eighty year old man that....

Or why change the name? if there is a thousand police, only 50 is women why should we resort to having to call them police officers when the majority are men and you're basically addicted to calling them police men. Alright i'll keep to the term midwife because alot of them are women, a couple of years back in the UK we had community support officers launched "enabling" the police to be able to "mediate" with different cultures and groups. Alot of these are women and because the 1st word is not police it makes it alot easier to say community support officers, this may sound stupid and it is but i'm going to stick to using police man (and yes it is not a masculine title) but i'm fine with anyone else being able to use midspouse, or police officer, the right to free speech should be observed in this one, on both sides i guess.

It's not the rules of "not shooting a women civilian" but it is common ettiquette in our society, to allow political correctness to prevail we must scrap that type of ettiquette.

I rest my case. Am I entitled to call you an idiot yet?

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:39 am**

I dunno, but there's still a bunch of women in my kitchen who don't know what they're doing. Can you get them out?
Maybe entice them out by promising you'll shoot them, just like a man?

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:10 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote: The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.

Besides, who doesn't like that?

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:03 am**

Snorri1234 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.

Besides, who doesn't like that?

Everyone likes that, especially the lumberjacks.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:08 am**

I work all day and I sleep all night.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:10 am**

I go to the lavatree.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:36 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights

Oh, you mean like STILL getting only 75% of what a man gets for the same job .. never mind any comparison between "pink collar" and "blue collar" jobs? You mean like women who marry STILL doing most of the housework and childcare ... on top of having fulltime jobs?

You mean the way that women who make more than their husbands are far more likely to end up divorced or in unhappy marriages?

brooksieb wrote:they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society.

Most of those "advantages" are either gone or irrelevant. Women AND children have been shot in war since Vietnam. Long distance warfare makes most evacuations more or less irrelevant. As for other evacuations ... it is not women, it is the elderly and children who go first. Women go with them to a greater extent because women are more likely to be caring for those folks.

Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.

Most people agree. However, life in the military for woman is NOT in any way equal. Women get raped and the men don't get prosecuted. Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are. They do not have the same rights to rank advancement and training that men do. They are excluded from certain positions and therefore are excluded from certain ranks and advancements.

About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it.

Sorry, but my husband is a fireMAN... but I was a fireFIGHTER. The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.
We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.

Mid spouses???? More to the point, it should not be a "wive" OR "spouse" because it has nothing to do with marriage. I agree with your point, but try again. Actually, other terms are used more and more frequently, though my mind is going blank right now.

Ok, is this the American military you're talking about? women getting raped? not in my camp it wasn't. When i was in the UK military i never heard of a women getting raped, there was not many women in the army at the late 70's, 80's and 90's when i was around, when i was on tour in the falklands (which was 1982) i came across a few women soldiers (one was a sargeant), Again in northern Ireland, a 30 year war there was quite a few women soldiers serving, we even had a women in our squad at one point and there was no rape there, we had pride in our work, the only thing discomforting for a woman in a male dominated camp is alot of porn used by the boy's.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:40 am**

MeDeFe wrote:
brooksieb wrote:Police man is not a masculine title, call me a idiot but i don't exactly agree with what i'm saying but because we're living in a more politically correct society and i can't do much about it (apart from moan on sites) i have to "adapt" so yeah we should have the right to call a police man a police man and a police woman a police woman and not none of this police officer stuff, after years of calling a police man a police man sometimes you can't help saying police man, try telling a eighty year old man that....

Or why change the name? if there is a thousand police, only 50 is women why should we resort to having to call them police officers when the majority are men and you're basically addicted to calling them police men. Alright i'll keep to the term midwife because alot of them are women, a couple of years back in the UK we had community support officers launched "enabling" the police to be able to "mediate" with different cultures and groups. Alot of these are women and because the 1st word is not police it makes it alot easier to say community support officers, this may sound stupid and it is but i'm going to stick to using police man (and yes it is not a masculine title) but i'm fine with anyone else being able to use midspouse, or police officer, the right to free speech should be observed in this one, on both sides i guess.

It's not the rules of "not shooting a women civilian" but it is common ettiquette in our society, to allow political correctness to prevail we must scrap that type of ettiquette.

I rest my case. Am I entitled to call you an idiot yet?

Not yet, i think i'm more laughing at you in a sence you'll find out soon whether it be a day, month or year.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:53 am**

Playboy wrote:In 2002 more women than men are attending college. At a like 65% to 35% ratio. So colleges have started to implement Affirmative Action for men. Cause their Anti-White-Male-Lets-Call-It-Affirmative-Action-But-It's-Really-Racism went too far.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:38 pm**

bedub1 wrote:
Playboy wrote:In 2002 more women than men are attending college. At a like 65% to 35% ratio. So colleges have started to implement Affirmative Action for men. Cause their Anti-White-Male-Lets-Call-It-Affirmative-Action-But-It's-Really-Racism went too far.

Honestly, my college career was great. I really can't complain. Bitches everywhere.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:18 pm**

bedub1 wrote:
Playboy wrote:In 2002 more women than men are attending college. At a like 65% to 35% ratio. So colleges have started to implement Affirmative Action for men. Cause their Anti-White-Male-Lets-Call-It-Affirmative-Action-But-It's-Really-Racism went too far.

If there's not enough guys in college of course you try to change the mix.
But I can't help but notice that the (six-years -old)story confuses sex with race.
How is having 2/3 women racist?

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:31 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
Playboy wrote:In 2002 more women than men are attending college. At a like 65% to 35% ratio. So colleges have started to implement Affirmative Action for men. Cause their Anti-White-Male-Lets-Call-It-Affirmative-Action-But-It's-Really-Racism went too far.

If there's not enough guys in college of course you try to change the mix.
But I can't help but notice that the (six-years -old)story confuses sex with race.
How is having 2/3 women racist?

How is it bad?

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:37 pm**

Actually, could be.

When I left school I worked for a bank. First thing they do is send you off to a college in London for 4 weeks to learn some basics. Turns out some ignorant English git thinks my rather celtic first name is a girl's name.

So I get put in a class of thirty, the only guy.

Heaven you might think - but I'm straight out of a boys-only school a week before, and only about six or eight months into the whole dating scene (yes, I was a late developer - I didn't hit puberty till I was sixteen, and left school a month after my seventeenth birthday due to being a clever bastard and doing my exams early).

I've never felt so awkward in my life.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:57 pm**

In the Greek System at my university, there were 3 times as many women in Sororities than men in Fraternities. Apparently the media/public has made all guys think it's bad to be a Fraternity man, but being a sluty Sorority girl is still okay. Oh, and we didn't mind. 3 girls for every 1 guy?

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:32 pm**

brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal rights they have to now sacrifice their' advantages

I fully agree.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh, you mean like STILL getting only 75% of what a man gets for the same job

They pay less for college; There are tons of all women college scholarships, but if they did an all male one, they'd get sued so fast. AND women are overrepresented in college.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Women get raped and the men don't get prosecuted.

You mean when 2 people in the military have sex when they aren't supposed to, so the man gets charged with rape and the women gets a $1,000,000 settlement out of the deal?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are.

Who in their right mind would want those opportunities?

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:33 am**

Simon Viavant wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are.

Who in their right mind would want those opportunities?

Who in their right mind would join the military? :lol:

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:49 am**

i really don't think words need a gender defining suffix.

the preceding words invariably identify gender and if we remove 'a' from the sentence it works perfectly.

He is a policeman!
becomes:
He is Police!

Even leave in the 'a' if you like. Do we discriminate all trades? course not:

"he is a Carpenterman",
"he is a Plumberman"
and
"he is an Electricienman!"

should only be uttered by a stoned hippy.. but then we would be none the wiser as to Gender.

Chivalry is good (women don't have even close to equality yet by the way)
i will often give up my seat for a lady on a tube... (more likely an older lady .. but then i would for an old gentleman too)
But that is a value judgement.. some women find it patronising. Shit! life's a minefield of behavioural empathy but nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.

If life is easy enough for us to be worried that holding a door open may undermine the fabric of male, female gender-hierarchy, then we must live in a pretty successful society.

Conquer Club

Lets stop discrimination against men

Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men

Re: Lets stop discrimination against men