A defeat for WOMENS RIGHTS!!!

ravensteve1961 said:
Well if i was a CEO of a major company i want my secretary dress like this.
Or shes fired!
Click to expand...
CEOs don't have "secretaries" any more. They have "executive assistants". Sometimes they are men or older women.
 
Reba said:
CEOs don't have "secretaries" any more. They have "executive assistants". Sometimes they are men or older women.
Click to expand...


thats right reba.. he is so behind... where has he been all along? hmmm!!
 
ravensteve1961 said:
Well if i was a CEO of a major company i want my secretary dress like this.
pic_corporatewear.jpg

Or shes fired!
Click to expand...
Actually, these women look like professional terps. I own several black suits for terp work.
 
zesty said:
thats right reba.. he is so behind... where has he been all along? hmmm!!
Click to expand...
Behind? How? Im ahead of you. Look at donald trump's assistant.
62-42077-sm.jpg

Shes Carolyn Kepcher. Donalds secretary. If she doesnt dress nice SHES FIRED!
 
But

That isn't really a woman's attire.

I wouldn't wear that.
 
Raven, you are FIRED
if you're not wearing a dress right now !! :)
 
Im a guy..I wear suit & tie. Mel feit was wear a dress because of a protest that men are losing their rights because the ACLU wont take mens issues cases. When a black man feels volated of yeah the ACLU would take his case or a woman feels volated the ACLU would take her case too. But when a white man feels volated the ACLU wont take his case. Thats the reason why mel feit wears a dress.And mel feit has a website.
Mel Feit
 
This is why I don't agree with the ACLU. They used to be a good organization who did good things. Seems over the past few years they have developed an agenda and have turned down cases that needed to be heard. They have also taken unecessary cases.

What was his original case that caused him to dress like a woman on Mortons show. I know he said he was losing rights to women, but what was that all about?
 
Yes,, Mel Feit decided to chalenge the system after he heard the ACLU won the womans case because she didnt wear a dress to work as boss told her to. So he decided to wear a dress to work to chalenge the system. He was fired by his female supervisor. So he ran to the ACLU and they rejected his case.
 
zesty said:
thats right reba.. he is so behind... where has he been all along? hmmm!!
Click to expand...
must be literally living under a rock...
 
Reba said:
What about "Hooters" servers, "Playboy" Bunnies, and Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders? I don't think their bosses let them wear baggy sweatshirts and overalls.

Of course, it depends on the kind of business, and if the employee knows right from the beginning what is expected.
Click to expand...
hmmm....Hooters.

*drooling*
 
ravensteve1961 said:
Yes,, Mel Feit decided to chalenge the system after he heard the ACLU won the womans case because she didnt wear a dress to work as boss told her to. So he decided to wear a dress to work to chalenge the system. He was fired by his female supervisor. So he ran to the ACLU and they rejected his case.
Click to expand...
so....he's gay eh?
 
deafdyke said:
Huh? How is this a defeat for women's rights? >>>> Walks away confused.
Click to expand...

Hey Deafdyke, Please do NOT walk away
from this thread and just join the fight here
about women/men rights !!! It's gonna be
just for fun...Hope that everyone shouldn't take
this too personally about their Rights.

Raven: I learn something new about Mel Feit
and Choice for Men Thanks for the link !
Interesting....
Looks like there are so many organizations/groups
for women's rights, but I admit that
I never see anything like this for men's rights.

Let me enclose here a copy of only one paragraph from
that given website http://www.nas.com/c4m/what_can_I_do.html

Ask your political representatives to legalize
"Choice for Men" or to improve the
non-paternity laws like Ohio has recently done.
Now men in several states
who are tricked into raising children
that aren't really theirs can stop
paying child support.

Hmm....
 
ravensteve, take your trolling elsewhere. Wearing a dress to work to PROVOKE a response from management is offensive and disruptive to the workplace. That is reasonable grounds for employment termination.

The woman who was fired for "not wearing a dress and being sexy in the workplace" was not fired for disrupting the workplace, she was being sexually discriminated against by a manager. That manager would not have demanded a male worker to "dress sexy" in a male way for the job. When you threaten someone's job based on their gender, THAT becomes grounds for a lawsuit.

They are not the same kind of issue. I bet even you can see that, and has NOTHING to do with politics. Cut the trolling.
 
Dennis, it looks like we both hit
the transmit same time on this
thread I wish that you just posted
BEFORE I posted mine.. Sigh... oh well,
it's a good idea to let anyone have
freedom of speech here no matter
if he/she is right or wrong whatever.

Thats the purpose of this forum discussion
sharing etc (no need for you to tell anyone
to "take your trolling elsewhere") even though
you (Dennis) made good valid points and
please let others make their comments as well.
 
Dennis said:
ravensteve, take your trolling elsewhere. Wearing a dress to work to PROVOKE a response from management is offensive and disruptive to the workplace. That is reasonable grounds for employment termination.

The woman who was fired for "not wearing a dress and being sexy in the workplace" was not fired for disrupting the workplace, she was being sexually discriminated against by a manager. That manager would not have demanded a male worker to "dress sexy" in a male way for the job. When you threaten someone's job based on their gender, THAT becomes grounds for a lawsuit.

They are not the same kind of issue. I bet even you can see that, and has NOTHING to do with politics. Cut the trolling.
Click to expand...


:gpost: !!! KEEP IT UP!! :thumb: :cheers:
 
IMHO: Many different kind of issues could be
related to politics here. Yes, I'm afraid that
this does have ALOT to do with politics...
 
Y said:
Dennis, it looks like we both hit
the transmit same time on this
thread I wish that you just posted
BEFORE I posted mine.. Sigh... oh well,
it's a good idea to let anyone have
freedom of speech here no matter
if he/she is right or wrong whatever.

Thats the purpose of this forum discussion
sharing etc (no need for you to tell anyone
to "take your trolling elsewhere") even though
you (Dennis) made good valid points and
please let others make their comments as well.
Click to expand...

I've bolded the above. I disagree with that statement.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are allowed to make false, inflammatory, or misleading statements. ravensteve has made, to my perception, many posts with the sole purpose of getting people riled up. That is the very definition of a troll. Right or wrong, it's still inflammatory.

It will be entirely up to Alex to decide what is allowed on AllDeaf, but where I come from, blatantly racist, sexist, or bigoted posters are banned without question. All they do is rile up the posting population. Trolling with substance is still trolling. Trolls do not bother to explain their viewpoint beyond a general, "they're right and you're wrong" and thus discussion is moot.

AllDeaf has allowed everyone great latitude on what we're allowed to talk about. People who read and contribute without trolling won't continue to post if people continue to troll.
 
Well, since we all are being bold and opinionated, let me just say that I think the continued existence of the ACLU should be from the bottom of the ocean! LOL!
 
Back
Top