I know this is half-joking, but it's a pretty impossible thing to mandate. It's sort of like mandating a business to have a legitimate reason to fire employees. You can do it, but it doesn't make much difference because it's incredibly easy for an employer to come up with a reason even if for some weird reason they don't have already have a pretty obvious one. You just end up paying people to oversee the process with no significant benefit.

You can mandate preferential treatment of groups that are behind in big picture statistics, but by doing that you are just doing what you want not to be done, which is discriminating against people based on their sex, race, etc. It's especially unfair to young people who had no part whatsoever in creating any inequities in our society that still exist today.

The good news is that, for the most part, people get paid what they are worth, because businesses like money.

p.s. most people should get tax credits for not having kids and not the other way around.

On the plus side a lot of the work women do is unpaid and therefore untaxed. So, you've got that going for ya

Without men spermz, da women eggz dont work

So theres that craziness

Considering the fact that there is no where near enough gold in the world for it to ever be used as currency, I would say gold investment for that purpose would be dumb. But Im gonna guess you already know this.

Or maybe you should read more Michael Savage, and less Dan Savage?? The confusion might be real.

Also, >21k posts in 8 years? Lulz irony..maybe you should be asking yourself this question? What do I know.

Opps. I guess I backed into that one

I thought I was clear, I definitely am in favor of preferential treatment...as long as it is for women.


I lol'd.


We've frozen enough to make penises a pretty obsolete technology.