Might be. But I think this word is too subject-specific . The connection of 'female' and 'sexist' is IMHO better. Makes it clearer that women too can be sexists. This goes far too often under the radar.
Grovel in front of your Misstress.
Hitler was an atheist
Really? Why would an atheist seek to kill millions of people of very specific religious beliefs? Why would an atheist seek out religious relics?
No wonder you posted that AC, as you can't support it and plenty of informative sources plainly refute it.
In other words, I do not accuse you of lying; I demonstrate when you are saying something that is either plainly untrue or inconsistent with what you have said previously.
Sales, marketing, management, office staff (secretaries, janitors, repair workers, someone to water the plants)
This might be true, but it is irrelevant. Or do you think if there is again a complaint 'waaahhhh.... not enough women in IT' sales, marketing or office staff is meant?
That's what I thought. So it is practically impossible to do it and erase all traces. In that case it should be fairly easy to prove or disprove her claims.... if this is allowed and not sexist to doubt her word.
companies that allowed this kind of behavior would find them selves lacking in a very large section of the talent pool.
Oh, really? I constantly hear: Very few women in IT. Not enough women here, not enough women there...so, so deep can this talent pool not be.
And every business will be better off, the fewer women are employed. No company needs female hate mongers, who pull the reputation of the company down to further her own agenda.
Good for her, if she exists and actually did that. With all the lies and bullshit you have been willingly spouting I'm not sure if I should believe this statement.
Lately you have had no qualms against spouting off bullshit if it supports your worldview, and calling it fact. I actually have a good friend who completed his MPH recently, and I have known other MPH students as well. I know that there is a fair bit of diversity in study in that, and that there are plenty of very valid MPH courses of study that would not on their own add value to a discussion about how much of the American health care spending is wasted on insurance industry-driven bureaucracy.
You want him out at any cost, without concern for the law or what it could do to your own cause in the end if you removed him by force rather than using the law. You have been abundantly clear on that.
You have embraced a grocery list of over a dozen different conspiracies - many of which have already been thoroughly debunked as not being anywhere near as significant as you wish them to be - of reasons why you feel that Obama should be thrown out.
I gave you a fully rational explanation that, for all I harbor precisely 0 respect for BHO, the overarching concern is to restore the rule of law
There has been little, if any, rational explanation in your aims. You want to throw out the president with the cursed fourth letter after his name, you have made that abundantly clear. You just don't have a reasonable way to do that in accordance with the law.
Smitty, I and many others would absolutely love to see you present a rational defense for your goals. We know, of course, that you do not have one.
You can characterize behavior as cowardly, e.g. letting me under fire die
You cannot prove such a behavior to be cowardly, particularly from thousands of miles away. Sure you can retreat when on the battlefield - and apparently you would embrace the Soviet ideal of shooting retreating soldiers when they are fleeing - but you cannot show actions from a great distance to be cowardly. From a great distance you are talking about feelings and you cannot prove feelings.
It has been investigated and reported on more than once.
By what unpartisan source, pray?
We have gone over this. You have deliberately chosen not to read the reports. More so, you cannot possibly make an argument for your aspirations seeking an "unpartisan" investigation, when you clearly want an investigation that comes back calling for the immediate forcible sans trial removal of the POTUS.
Many who oppose homosexual behavior also oppose some of the items on your list, especially vasectomies and tubal ligation. Does the gender reassignment surgery really even need to be addressed in regards to this?
Actually the one I probably should have added to the list is oral sex. Many heterosexual couples engage in that for various reasons and it has a procreation rate of essentially 0.
In fact, the only one of interest that you mentioned was intercourse with post-menopausal with. IIRC, this is usually explained as being more or less a gift to the couple for being in a union
What kind of gift is that? If it is only acceptable to have sex to create children, then clearly sex with a post-menopausal woman should be banned under that logic. In fact, shouldn't men be required to divorce their wives after their last period by the same reasoning? Why do they get a free pass here?
There's a bit more to it, but you have to accept the postulation that marriage is a joining of man and woman under God.
I wasn't really discussing marriage here. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of people choosing to hate people who partake in sodomy when they try to justify the hatred with the method's inability to produce children. There are other sexual activities - including many that are available to heterosexual couples - that cannot produce offspring yet the people who embrace homophobia seldom encourage hatred of couples who practice those.
When drawing blood and getting covered in fecal matter is involved, I think it's not to be thought of as just "an alternative".
Have you ever had sex with a woman during her period? That often involves blood. I'm not aware of any place or organization that has tried to ban that activity. Granted, it doesn't involve fecal matter, but it does involve blood and generally is not productive if the goal is to conceive.
And if you have two partners where neither has a vagina, it isn't really much of an alternative when the traditional route is physiologically unavailable.
You really cannot procreate via sodomy.
And I gave you a list of several other methods by which you cannot procreate. So why do you obsess over only the one? And why don't you encourage hatred, fear, or oppresion of heterosexual couples who engage in the other methods?
Interesting. In other words a typical feministic parasite. Meritocracy really must be evil. Makes it obvious that women are underachiever.
That's a sexist remark, you know?
Much less than her claim.