"Avoid women at all costs"- new Wall Street rule

[MisterBeale]

You are still mixing them up. I agree with a lot of things you've said about conditioning, though you blamed it on Hollywood when it has been going on much longer than that.

At the same time you said someone wouldn't say boo if the harasser was good looking and then you double down with your gif. This simply is not true. Harassment is always harassment and unwelcome no matter who is doing it.

Well, there you go.

Now you know the reason for the OP.


Men on Wall Street need to avoid women at all costs b/c they believe there is nuance. You sit there an tell us there is some, but got me what it is.



I seriously doubt there has ever been a woman that has been sexually harassed by a guy she has been attracted too and really wants, that has said, "listen, I am attracted to you, and like your overtures, but your attempts at flirting I find to be sexual harassment, and if they don't end, I will have to report you. I would prefer you just ask me out after work."


Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

I'd be surprised if a woman, or a man, would feel sexually harassed by someone they were attracted to that was flirting with them. Again, you don't seem to grasp the difference between harassment and flirtation.

Yes, if I was interested in someone who suddenly harassed me instead of flirting, that would be the end of my interest in him.

You would not be interested in someone that could possibly sexual harass you silly.

That's a silly statement.

In your opinion.

I fancy myself to be a pretty intuitive person. I have seen you post a lot.

I know you wouldn't be attracted to anyone that could possibly ever disrespect you. Let's not be disingenuous, shall we?

 

[evenflow1969]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

Some one tell me what exactly has changed? Have people been raped? The answer is yes likely since the begining of time. Do people lie? The answer is again since the begining of time. Do people lie about getting raped? Oh hell yes they will lie about litteraly any thing. How do we find out about rape? Through a witness or victim to start. Should one be able to lobby this acusation? The answer is yes other wise no investigation will happen. Can we find other ways to deal with this? Yes, we could submit to a big brother state and put cameras every where. I am against this. Are there rapists in jail that did the crime? The answer is yes, so these things must be investigated. Are there people in jail that did not do it? Again yes, so again it must be investigated, just investigated better. Also the trend over the past fifty sixtey years is to make prosecution easier for the prosecution. Maybe we should adjust that. My sister and my mother are both shrinks that specialize in abuse situations. They have had instances where the accuser was lying and proven so. You would not beleive how petty some of the motives were! People are petty. They get angry and some times do very bad things under this state of mind. Good people have done very bad things. We all know the motives fear, anger,greed and sex. People will lie about sex and lie to get it. This is a fact. Obviously avoid women at all costs is an over reaction. It will be dificult to keep up the population with out them. How ever limiting time with them in situations that can cause problems is prudent if you are a male and especially at work. The last thing I want to find out about is to have to employees banging at work. It always causes problems. One place I worked I had a guy and a gal that were messing around, both employees. They were out celebrating her birthday at a bar in the same town where they lived. Her cop husband came in and put several rounds into her and killed her. He put several rounds into him. He survived for a year after. You can imagine the toll on the work place. Not only were two employees gone fore ever but how it effected all those who worked with them. Consentual sex can be an awefull thing in the work place. Now lets have allegations of rape floating. There has to be some sort of policy in place. Does there not?

 

[Ame®icano]

You mean like you tending to side with women?

Why is it that the woman is assumed to be virtuous when we know men have been falsely accused of sexual harassment?

It's just like the birth control argument as far as I'm concerned \. No man should ever trust a woman to be in charge of birth control because some women will lie to a man about being on the pill so why wouldn't some women lie about being sexually harassed?

You perceive women as the "enemy" as much as any radical feminist may dislike men. But I'm not gonna let you have the last word in this thread, just so you know. We can keep it up forever, if you want.
You will not shut us down or shut us up, Skull Pilot.

Not at all.

I respect women and I love, adore and treat my wife like she is the single most important person in the world because to me, she is. But I do not trust a person simply because he or she is a woman or a man. I don't trust anyone and treat everyone with the exact same level of respect and trust. You obviously put more faith in a person b for no other reason than she is a woman

That you will not even entertain the fact that some women have falsely accused men of rape , lied about being on birth control, made false harassment allegations, etc tells me you cannot be taken seriously.

I will not condone the intent of this thread. If you have such a problem with trust, why is it that you have no problem believing a man who says "Aw, I never said that" or "I would never do that!" when a woman calls him out?
The intent of this thread is to silence women and you can go fuck yourself.

That doesn't appear to be the intent of this thread to me. Instead, the intent seems to be to point that false allegations have led many men who don't do things wrong to think twice about trusting women. And the reason for this is not because of the women who make false allegations, but because of the people who defend the women who make false allegations.

Do you not have any brothers, or sons, or grandsons, or even friends who are single men? If so, you do them a huge disservice when you defend the principle of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations.

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

"I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent;"

Just few months ago you did, remember Kavanaugh?

 

[Ame®icano]

I will not condone the intent of this thread. If you have such a problem with trust, why is it that you have no problem believing a man who says "Aw, I never said that" or "I would never do that!" when a woman calls him out?
The intent of this thread is to silence women and you can go fuck yourself.

That doesn't appear to be the intent of this thread to me. Instead, the intent seems to be to point that false allegations have led many men who don't do things wrong to think twice about trusting women. And the reason for this is not because of the women who make false allegations, but because of the people who defend the women who make false allegations.

Do you not have any brothers, or sons, or grandsons, or even friends who are single men? If so, you do them a huge disservice when you defend the principle of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations.

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

Don't take her word for it, go and read her posts. She's lying.

 

[Ame®icano]

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

I'm not going to get into the Kavanaugh/Ford thing again. I did it for long enough.

What I am interested in is, what kind of evidence do you expect there to be? As far as sexual harassment, it is going to be her word against his, and the strongest support would be other women who had been treated similarly. Patterns matter. Without that, what kind of evidence should there be, say... against a Harvey Weinstein?

Harvey Weinstein wasn't even a secret! Women knew to offer him sex and he would wrangle a part for them. Many many did.

Then it became his fault.

Apparently he also raped a few. That was his fault.

I am not defending Weinstein, guy is a scum. However, many women in acting field, but not all, are ready to do anything to get a movie role. I wouldn't take their word for granted.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

I'm not going to get into the Kavanaugh/Ford thing again. I did it for long enough.

What I am interested in is, what kind of evidence do you expect there to be? As far as sexual harassment, it is going to be her word against his, and the strongest support would be other women who had been treated similarly. Patterns matter. Without that, what kind of evidence should there be, say... against a Harvey Weinstein?

Harvey Weinstein wasn't even a secret! Women knew to offer him sex and he would wrangle a part for them. Many many did.

Then it became his fault.

Apparently he also raped a few. That was his fault.

I am not defending Weinstein, guy is a scum. However, many women in acting field, but not all, are ready to do anything to get a movie role. I wouldn't take their word for granted.

Kate McGowan who started the complaints against Weinstein going admitted that she made the initial offer.

The entire line of complaints against Sylvester Stallone and Steven Seagal were dismissed as none of them were true.

Women are destroying themselves like this.

 

[Ame®icano]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

Feminist men haters support this, cause they realize that sharia law is really just common sense.

 

[Ame®icano]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

Guys are respectful and professional, but man... those gold diggers can't waste any opportunity that pops up.

The "rules" like this become necessary when inside a culture of widespread distrust and short-sighted backstabbing. Sure it's not a manifestation of a healthy populace by any means, similar to how people who live in crime-riddled areas put up walls and gates, and people like you just call them racists.

 

[Ame®icano]

Blowback sucks, dunnit?

I think it's hilarious. It backfired at all those roasties so bad that they even regret it.

 

[candycorn]

Can’t avoid these women....

 

[Ame®icano]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

The concern isn't that Wall St. men can't be respectful to broads, but that the gals are making up things and ruining the men's careers.

That's what the people learned with the Bret Kavanaugh situation. Even though the man was found to be totally innocent of Gang Rape and Sexual Harassment, the broad who made the accusation made a big score and Kav's life and career were almost ruined by just 2 votes.

Better to be safe and just avoid broads or follow the Hallowed Mike Pence rule.

That would be great…If men could avoid asking people out whom you work with, dating co-workers, arranging to meet in conspicuous places such as bars and hotel rooms to conduct business. Avoidance is better than the alternative.

As for the thread, the bullshit premise is that some woman who is intellectually equal to their male counterparts will make things up because she somehow wants the glitz and glamor that comes along with being a sexual assault victim (and your echoing of it) shows why the blob and his followers are thought of as pond scum.

Your premise is that some women are intellectually equal. Those who are don't need to make shit up to advance their careers.

We're not talking about them. We're talking about women like you.

 

[candycorn]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

The concern isn't that Wall St. men can't be respectful to broads, but that the gals are making up things and ruining the men's careers.

That's what the people learned with the Bret Kavanaugh situation. Even though the man was found to be totally innocent of Gang Rape and Sexual Harassment, the broad who made the accusation made a big score and Kav's life and career were almost ruined by just 2 votes.

Better to be safe and just avoid broads or follow the Hallowed Mike Pence rule.

That would be great…If men could avoid asking people out whom you work with, dating co-workers, arranging to meet in conspicuous places such as bars and hotel rooms to conduct business. Avoidance is better than the alternative.

As for the thread, the bullshit premise is that some woman who is intellectually equal to their male counterparts will make things up because she somehow wants the glitz and glamor that comes along with being a sexual assault victim (and your echoing of it) shows why the blob and his followers are thought of as pond scum.

Your premise is that some women are intellectually equal. Those who are don't need to make shit up to advance their careers.

We're not talking about them. We're talking about women like you.

Equal? No. Superior. Yes. You’re exhibit A

 

[Ame®icano]

Wait until women stop getting promotions because of these fears.....Besides, nobody is talking about ugly butch-ass lezbos.

It's not harassment if face is pretty.

 

[Ame®icano]

Some men are videotaping consents when they ask a woman on a date.

If that would make her rethink carrying the mattress anywhere she goes, who could blame them?

 

[mudwhistle]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

It's not that simple.
These days, a woman can make a false accusation and have someone fired from their job.
This is nothing but fascism.

 

[Ame®icano]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

That's pretty much what it boils down to......they can't be respectful and professional.....so they avoid women.

Wrong women too easily burn men with false accusarions

#MeToo movement is getting women out of the workforce.

Anyone who didn't see the handmaid's tale backdooring its way into reality with this #MeToo shit clearly wasn't paying attention.

RIP being able to talk to a female without getting jailed.

 

[bodecea]

You perceive women as the "enemy" as much as any radical feminist may dislike men. But I'm not gonna let you have the last word in this thread, just so you know. We can keep it up forever, if you want.
You will not shut us down or shut us up, Skull Pilot.

Not at all.

I respect women and I love, adore and treat my wife like she is the single most important person in the world because to me, she is. But I do not trust a person simply because he or she is a woman or a man. I don't trust anyone and treat everyone with the exact same level of respect and trust. You obviously put more faith in a person b for no other reason than she is a woman

That you will not even entertain the fact that some women have falsely accused men of rape , lied about being on birth control, made false harassment allegations, etc tells me you cannot be taken seriously.

I will not condone the intent of this thread. If you have such a problem with trust, why is it that you have no problem believing a man who says "Aw, I never said that" or "I would never do that!" when a woman calls him out?
The intent of this thread is to silence women and you can go fuck yourself.

That doesn't appear to be the intent of this thread to me. Instead, the intent seems to be to point that false allegations have led many men who don't do things wrong to think twice about trusting women. And the reason for this is not because of the women who make false allegations, but because of the people who defend the women who make false allegations.

Do you not have any brothers, or sons, or grandsons, or even friends who are single men? If so, you do them a huge disservice when you defend the principle of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations.

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

"I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent;"

Just few months ago you did, remember Kavanaugh?

I remember that Kavanaugh was not a court of law.

 

[bodecea]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

That's pretty much what it boils down to......they can't be respectful and professional.....so they avoid women.

Wrong women too easily burn men with false accusarions

#MeToo movement is getting women out of the workforce.

Anyone who didn't see the handmaid's tale backdooring its way into reality with this #MeToo shit clearly wasn't paying attention.

RIP being able to talk to a female without getting jailed.

I know that males are upset that women are finally fighting back against sexual assault in this country.

 

[OldLady]

Well, there you go.

Now you know the reason for the OP.


Men on Wall Street need to avoid women at all costs b/c they believe there is nuance. You sit there an tell us there is some, but got me what it is.



I seriously doubt there has ever been a woman that has been sexually harassed by a guy she has been attracted too and really wants, that has said, "listen, I am attracted to you, and like your overtures, but your attempts at flirting I find to be sexual harassment, and if they don't end, I will have to report you. I would prefer you just ask me out after work."


Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

I'd be surprised if a woman, or a man, would feel sexually harassed by someone they were attracted to that was flirting with them. Again, you don't seem to grasp the difference between harassment and flirtation.

Yes, if I was interested in someone who suddenly harassed me instead of flirting, that would be the end of my interest in him.

You would not be interested in someone that could possibly sexual harass you silly.

That's a silly statement.

In your opinion.

I fancy myself to be a pretty intuitive person. I have seen you post a lot.

I know you wouldn't be attracted to anyone that could possibly ever disrespect you. Let's not be disingenuous, shall we?

I'm not going to be rough on you, Mister Beale, because you have no clue what sexual harassment is. That does not surprise me, because I DO guess that is not the kind of guy you are. But as someone who has been on the receiving end of sexual harassment, it is not the same as some uncouth, belching guy with a dirty t-shirt walking up and saying something vulgar. You can predict that. But you can work next to someone, or in other ways interact with them, for months, years even and suddenly the Ugly comes out.

 

[mudwhistle]

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

The concern isn't that Wall St. men can't be respectful to broads, but that the gals are making up things and ruining the men's careers.

That's what the people learned with the Bret Kavanaugh situation. Even though the man was found to be totally innocent of Gang Rape and Sexual Harassment, the broad who made the accusation made a big score and Kav's life and career were almost ruined by just 2 votes.

Better to be safe and just avoid broads or follow the Hallowed Mike Pence rule.

"broads"? Well, we know where YOU are coming from...............

"Broads" is a slang word for the gals here on the East Coast.

I've tried to use it more since I moved to the Commonwealth of the Pennsylvanians.

That's just a silly thing to say. I've lived in Pennsylvania for most of my life, and I've only said "broads" MAYBE... four times a day.

I'm sure that the women around you have figured out your attitude towards women then.

Well let's discuss it: