The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Men and Women are different! C'mon, men are (Naturally stronger than women, but women have abilities better than men (no not ironing or any other crappy joke of the same theme))
A few years back Women were'nt allowed in the fireservice, now some of them had a sh!tfit and eventually the goverment said yes, now women can be firefighters, only problem, mens natural ability to be taller therefor stronger, made them better than MOST women, therefor, women failed the tests and couldnt become firefighters. Fair enough, we have these tests to make sure people are capable of saving and protecting lives...the goverment make the test ALOT easier for women, giving them a pass rate, therefor, more women are now firefighters, therefor my life is to be saved when a 5ft 5" woman carrys me out of a window ever her shoulder...?
Well then, that seems a little unfair, but get this, the women were demanding EQUAL rights! EQUAL. So, what do they do? They go out and make 'Diamond', the only car insurance JUST for women. That doesnt seem fantastically equal to me. But, men, we keep schtoomp, because we cant be bothered to argue. Woman howerever, if this was an advert saying 'Male onyl car insurance' or in other words 'Because its women who cause crashes and raise the rates', would get it banned. Now I dont mind the service, all I'm saying is Ladies, for god's sakes make up your mind, which is it you want, equal rights or privilages for different sexes?
Your veiws?
A few years back Women were'nt allowed in the fireservice, now some of them had a sh!tfit and eventually the goverment said yes, now women can be firefighters, only problem, mens natural ability to be taller therefor stronger, made them better than MOST women, therefor, women failed the tests and couldnt become firefighters. Fair enough, we have these tests to make sure people are capable of saving and protecting lives...the goverment make the test ALOT easier for women, giving them a pass rate, therefor, more women are now firefighters, therefor my life is to be saved when a 5ft 5" woman carrys me out of a window ever her shoulder...?
Well then, that seems a little unfair, but get this, the women were demanding EQUAL rights! EQUAL. So, what do they do? They go out and make 'Diamond', the only car insurance JUST for women. That doesnt seem fantastically equal to me. But, men, we keep schtoomp, because we cant be bothered to argue. Woman howerever, if this was an advert saying 'Male onyl car insurance' or in other words 'Because its women who cause crashes and raise the rates', would get it banned. Now I dont mind the service, all I'm saying is Ladies, for god's sakes make up your mind, which is it you want, equal rights or privilages for different sexes?
Your veiws?
Page:
"What's wrong with being sexy?"
(Sorry ? I hit the wrong button before)
Simon Says wrote:
> If it means that my life is in the hands of some 82 year old
> five foot nothing dear old lady, just because she was the only one
> who applied then yes. I do have a problem.
Don't worry - I didn't get the job as there was no room on the fire engine for my walking frame and they feared my catheter would melt.
Mr Pínk wrote:
> therefore my life is to be saved when a 5ft 5" woman carrys me
> out of a window ever her shoulder...?
Not sure how this works but I don?t think firefighters go into dangerous situations singularly so you probably would be okay. Anyway when I set fire to my kitchen a couple of the firefighters that turned up didn?t seem much over this height but as I was looking up from my five foot two inch height this may not be good judgement.
> dont mind the service, all I'm saying is Ladies, for god's sakes make
> up your mind, which is it you want, equal rights or privilages for
> different sexes?
There is room for both. What seems to be missing in most instances is a healthy dollop of common sense.
Simon Says wrote:
> If it means that my life is in the hands of some 82 year old
> five foot nothing dear old lady, just because she was the only one
> who applied then yes. I do have a problem.
Don't worry - I didn't get the job as there was no room on the fire engine for my walking frame and they feared my catheter would melt.
Mr Pínk wrote:
> therefore my life is to be saved when a 5ft 5" woman carrys me
> out of a window ever her shoulder...?
Not sure how this works but I don?t think firefighters go into dangerous situations singularly so you probably would be okay. Anyway when I set fire to my kitchen a couple of the firefighters that turned up didn?t seem much over this height but as I was looking up from my five foot two inch height this may not be good judgement.
> dont mind the service, all I'm saying is Ladies, for god's sakes make
> up your mind, which is it you want, equal rights or privilages for
> different sexes?
There is room for both. What seems to be missing in most instances is a healthy dollop of common sense.
Rosalind wrote:
> Only women got to vote for it.
For the homosexuals act? :0|
> Only women got to vote for it.
For the homosexuals act? :0|
Mr Pínk wrote:
> therefor my life is to be saved when a 5ft 5" woman carrys me
> out of a window ever her shoulder...?
> dont mind the service, all I'm saying is Ladies, for god's sakes make
> up your mind, which is it you want, equal rights or privilages for
> different sexes?
>
> Your veiws?
> therefor my life is to be saved when a 5ft 5" woman carrys me
> out of a window ever her shoulder...?
> dont mind the service, all I'm saying is Ladies, for god's sakes make
> up your mind, which is it you want, equal rights or privilages for
> different sexes?
>
> Your veiws?
To the fleece mobile!
Only women got to vote for it.
Unbeliever wrote:
> In December new laws will be passed giving homosexual/lesbians the
> same legal footing that heterosexuals receive in the workplace. Just
> thought I'd mention it even though it has no real bearing on the
> thrust of the debate.
And rightly so. I don't see why it should even be an issue. It should be accepted by everyone, such as gay marriages etc.
> In December new laws will be passed giving homosexual/lesbians the
> same legal footing that heterosexuals receive in the workplace. Just
> thought I'd mention it even though it has no real bearing on the
> thrust of the debate.
And rightly so. I don't see why it should even be an issue. It should be accepted by everyone, such as gay marriages etc.
Rosalind wrote:
>
> Well the sabatical place as head of the Womens Comittee was a Women
> only place. Which I always thought was wrong. Either allow Men to
> apply, or have a Mens Sabatical too
well, that's in direct conflict with the University Union Equal Opportunities policy, and you could probably fleece them for it if you really wanted to.
Do only women get to vote for this only women's place, or do guys have a say too?
>
> Well the sabatical place as head of the Womens Comittee was a Women
> only place. Which I always thought was wrong. Either allow Men to
> apply, or have a Mens Sabatical too
well, that's in direct conflict with the University Union Equal Opportunities policy, and you could probably fleece them for it if you really wanted to.
Do only women get to vote for this only women's place, or do guys have a say too?
Mr Pínk wrote:
>
> Yes, but if we had a Mens only car insurance system, some Women would
> percieve it as saying 'Women cause accidents, men are better drivers,
> get cheap rates by not dealing with them' and eventually have it
> banned, atleast thats what i think.
That's what the women's only car insurance says, but that's based on research that shows women are safer drivers, which is why you can afford to invest money into the business.
The bottom line is it is sexist, it is saying women are better drivers, but that's because women and men are different and generally research shows women are better drivers, or at least they make fewer and less expensive claims.
>
> Yes, but if we had a Mens only car insurance system, some Women would
> percieve it as saying 'Women cause accidents, men are better drivers,
> get cheap rates by not dealing with them' and eventually have it
> banned, atleast thats what i think.
That's what the women's only car insurance says, but that's based on research that shows women are safer drivers, which is why you can afford to invest money into the business.
The bottom line is it is sexist, it is saying women are better drivers, but that's because women and men are different and generally research shows women are better drivers, or at least they make fewer and less expensive claims.
I once wanted to be a cheerleader. Didn't plan on doing anything other than standing around looking at the rest of the squad but they didin't know that when they said no.
I understand what you are saying Pink, but it is just positive discrimination. Women still earn less generally than men, even for comparable jobs.
Your right, there would be no chance of "rock" insurance taking off. The simple reason is that it doesn't target a minority.
I understand what you are saying Pink, but it is just positive discrimination. Women still earn less generally than men, even for comparable jobs.
Your right, there would be no chance of "rock" insurance taking off. The simple reason is that it doesn't target a minority.
Page: