Gender Inequality, can be summed up into one Short Paragraph

(version 5)

Basically, Women are not required to follow a 'code of ethics'.
They don't have to abide by a given set of rules.

This does not necessarily suggest that she's a bad person.
However, the options are always there for her.

This idea also includes the lesser aspects of our everyday life.
For example:
During casual conversations, she's allowed to speak 'out-of-turn'.
Nobody would ever condemn her for interrupting.
In fact, she's freely entitled to make others listen,
whenever she's got something to say.

Additionally, she's permitted to lash-out against him, if so desired.

****************************************
(2) "QEAUMONTS THEORY: THE CONTROVERSY"
****************************************

Now, let's discuss the more controversial notion.

Quite simply: "She doesn't have to play by the rules".
That basic statement happens to be true.
IT doesn't suggest that she's a bad person, in any way.
So,
the purpose of this Article is to merely establish that such privileges exist.

And, as I've already stated:
Certain opportunities are freely available to her.
Thus, it doesn't matter whether or not,
she actually decides to exercise these liberties.

***************************************
(3) QEAUMONTS THEORY GOVERNS DAILY ACCEPTANCE
**************************************

So, These are the basic principles which govern our lives:
'Qeaumont's Law' is very real.
It's burned into our souls, and, into the hearts of everyone.
Man or woman, Girl or boy.
Everyone is permanently affected by this basic standard.


And, most men don't really mind, either.


THE END




***********************************
(4) Qeaumont's Theory, tested into law:
***********************************


A FEW EXAMPLES:

Let's suppose:
there's a conversation between a man & a woman.
and, suddenly,
she overreacts to a simple comment which he's made.
This woman might feel entitled to take full action against him.

This opportunity is freely given to her.
In all likelihood, she will not pursue disciplinary action.
However, the option is always available.
And, the potential to create havoc in my life.

disclaimer:
this article was not designed as a judgment of one's character.
But instead,
to define an overall standard of social acceptance.
One that clearly exists within typical relationships.





If a woman decides to become vindictive,
she's given the potential to cause havoc upon someone's life.
And, the law tends to stand behind her 100%.
Here's an actual case where a woman decided to seek excessive action:

two colleagues were good friends, for over a decade.
And, during coffee-break one day,
the male employee briefly mentioned a television program which he'd watched during the previous night.
The T.V. episode featured suggestive language which seemed too racy for primetime networks.
She asked him to explain precisely what was said, the previous evening.
The man was too shy to recite the suggestive word in question.

However, he mentioned that it rhymed with "Dolores".
(In which case, he was replacing the actual word, "Clitoris")

An hour later, this man went to a Cafe for lunch.
And, by the time he'd returned,
this colleague had already gotten him fired.

Plus, she had involved Law Enforcement, for prosecution.
As well as, the threat of a fullscale Monetary Legal Suit.

********************************************
(5) QEAUMONTS LAW: THE POSSIBILITIES ABOUND
********************************************

Here's a few points to consider:
Why would this woman take such extreme measures against the man?
Also, What makes her so damned sure, that,
she can take legal action against him?
It's rather interesting how she automatically assumes that her employers will fully comply with her demands.
Plus,
she might be able to earn a 'million Dollar' Law Suit, along the way.

Obviously, this woman realizes how greatly the system works to her favor.

She learns this from the Media.

Another interesting point involves the issue of Gender Inequality.

She clearly became more concerned whenever foul language is directed toward the female anatomy.

Most importantly, why would she bother push matters to such extremes?

That's Qeaumont's Theory. Ruthless & severe. And, without guidelines.

And, even though women generally don't practice these extreme measures,
the threat always remains.
She's given the fundemental right to seek zji

(disclaimer: this article is not designed to attack the female character)


***********************
Secondary Information:
***********************

Here's another example:

At the age of 13, I was taking a shower.

And, my sister, along with her friends, casually pushed the door open.

They needed to retrieve cosmetics from the medicine cabinet.

There was no hesitation on their part.

I then asked if they could wait a few minutes, until I'm finished.

But, they were going out, that evening. So, "there wasn't time".

In fact, the girls actually became angry with me, for suggesting they wait outside.

They kept asking 'what's the big deal'.

Needless to say, I could've never made such an audacious move, by casually walking in, while she's using the rest room.
Even if she was brushing her hair, she might have scolded me for entering.

Additionally, it's also a matter of social guidelines.

Plus, there's always the fear of legal action.



I normally maintain a family rating on my blogs.
However, it's necessary to make an exception with the following example:

I went to a party, at the age of 15.

And, a girl began chatting with me, for a while.

I was quite interested in establishing a "long-term" relationship.

(Honestly speaking, I was also "marriage-minded" at an early age.)

Anyway, there were people seated everywhere.

Thus, it was necessary to remain standing along side the couch.

So, she stepped close to me.

And, I was expecting her to meet my "chin & cheeks".

But, instead, she began kissing my entire body.

I quickly became quite alarmed, especially because many people were nearby watching.

However, I did not express hatred toward her, even though, I was somewhat upset & shocked.

Instead, my reaction was quite rational and Libertarian.
I realized, there was a simple misunderstanding.

Basically, I was seeking a serious relationship, while she primarily wanted to experiment.

But, of course, I simply let this matter go.

Okay, Big Deal! Big Deal.

It certainly shouldn't be a 'life ending' incident for her.

There was obviously no reason to take any action against her.

'I got over it'! Do ya catch my drift?

I didn't try to send her to prison for 25 years.,,,,, or, anything of that nature.


The male always reacts in a level-headed manner, even during extreme cases.

*************************




Ironically, if I had even flirted with a girl who was disinterested in me, the High-Courts might've sentenced me to jail, for it.

And, heaven forbid, One can only speculate the penalty if I had slapped her buttock.

Perhaps, 25 years-to-life.

Does this sound silly? Well, guess what?

It just so happens, our laws are deliberately vague enough to reach any possible interpretation.

In fact, in Italy, a man was jailed, just for staring at a woman.

I do admit: he was immediately released within 48 hours. But, the outcome might be far worse, in the future.

You'll notice, men are pardoned for various offenses. (Such as, when a 19 year old male is dating a 16 year old female. He will not be punished, despite legal provisions.)

However, the threat of legal recourse always exists.



Here's an example of 'poor ethics' which is truly sickening.
A 2008 study in Sweden determined the percentage of teenage girls experimenting with homosexual acts.
And, it was concluded, that the number of girls was 7 times higher than the number of teenage boys experimenting, in that country.
This is despite the fact, that, males are readily available, anytime she desires.

Plus, Sweden is supposed to subscribe to ideals which promote gender neutrality.

Sweden is notorious for promoting quotas regarding equal professional representation. Yet, the worst inequities remain fully in tact.

More disturbingly, the Swedish teenage girls expect boys to behave in a non-sexual & gentlemanly manner.
And, she often waits a considerable time, before sleeping with her boyfriend.
But, it's supposedly okay to experiment with other members of the same sex.
This is a typical example of females lacking ethics.
Sorry for such a crude interpretation.
But, such offenses deserve harsh criticism.

------
ALSO, ask yourselves why parents Never teach these girls to avoid this practice?

Certainly, one conversation with your daughter would definitely prevent this from happening.

------

PLUS, it leads to wonder why these studies are performed in the first place.


*******************************************************************
Hey, so much for their views regarding so-called "equality", right?
*******************************************************************



Most people could easily list hundreds of varying examples of Qeaumont's law, in our daily lives.

This represents a primary social advantage which can be applied to infinite circumstances.

I've only given a few brief examples.




Basically, women yield tremendous Legal Power.
While, at the same time, they are often immune to penal consequences.


Once again, I remind everyone: this article is NOT an attack on her character.

---The End.

**************

this is a separate issue...

I haven't gotten into the issue of Maternal Privilege.
They've always been given certain advantages, to invade the privacy of every male.

For example: Adult women from decades ago could often walk into the shower rooms of boys ages 12 and under. Ironically, this practice included organizations and clubs which did not permit the inclusion of women. yet, she still felt inclined.

In some cases, several mothers & female guardians would observe, while in the presence of these naked boys. One person laughed and speculated, if it would ever be acceptable for The fathers to all watch each-others daughters while she's undressed. Yet, people often feel it's okay for any woman to gawk at another ladies boy.
But, that's a surely a separate issue, altogether.
------------


This Article;
In recognition to the 17th Century Austro-Hungarian poet:
Fredrick Heindrich Qeaumonte III.


.....oh, Who the hell am I kidding?
This was actually My idea.
But, in many ways, it's really EVERYONE's IDEA.

The inspiration has passed through my hands.
But, the general rule applies to us all...

****************
ENDING #3


One final thought to mention:
Her position is above the law. Case closed.




another blog from Men's Rights: social Awareness.