If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Star)   'Men only' ski days found to discriminate against women in court ruling that is seen as a slippery slope   (thestar.com) divider line 47
    More: Obvious, Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Sheryl McConaghie, employee handbook, employment contracts, Ontario Human Rights  
•       •       •

972 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Jun 2014 at 2:00 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-22 12:30:41 PM  
If the case were reversed, that is: if there was a business that catered to women only, then it would be "misogyny" to even hint that the business is discriminatory.
 
2014-06-22 12:51:27 PM  
Oh, Canada...
 
2014-06-22 01:16:20 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: If the case were reversed, that is: if there was a business that catered to women only, then it would be "misogyny" to even hint that the business is discriminatory.


Christ, you can't wait to leap on that, can you? Never miss a chance.......sorry you can't deal with women. They don't like you either.
 
2014-06-22 01:36:51 PM  

cryinoutloud: Christ, you can't wait to leap on that, can you? Never miss a chance.......sorry you can't deal with women. They don't like you either.


There are really two ways to go with this. Either businesses can discriminate or they can't. I simply showed that other businesses can  and do discriminate with impunity.

Congratulations for finding the third way which is: "agree with me or I won't like you." Hopefully my tears won't short out my keyboard.

Newsflash: one can be pro-equal rights and not hate women as you accuse me of. You just can't think rationally enough to make a convincing argument so it's the same old b.s.
 
2014-06-22 02:15:13 PM  
I think this is indicative of a trend towards the marginalization of men in modern society. The particular issue here is one that should absolutely have been brought up, as "men only" or "women only" days are, by their very nature, discriminatory. There really ought not be any room in a modern society for discrimination, whether it is in favor of a minority or an oppressed class or not.

But the flip side to this is that so-called oppressed classes seem to want a comeuppance against whites and men rather than equal footing. A man, for example, will always be held as incompetent when it comes to child-rearing, and as such judges are more likely to turn a child over to its drug-addled, sexually promiscuous mother than a stable home with its father. Likewise, a man will be required to pay alimony to a do-nothing wife after a divorce.

The tendency of society to assume that men are always strong and superhuman capability to withstand whatever discrimination is applied to us. A man can survive on half his salary while supporting his ex-wife's and her new boyfriend. A man is emotionally capable of handling having his children torn from him and given to his ex-wife. A man is capable of bending to irrationality when faced with it during spousal arguments.

Men hurt too. It's really time we try, as a society, to overcome discrimination in any of its forms. So absolutely, let's get rid of "Men Only" days at the ski resort. But let's also stop treating men like second-class citizens.
 
2014-06-22 02:16:24 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: If the case were reversed, that is: if there was a business that catered to women only, then it would be "misogyny" to even hint that the business is discriminatory.


DNRTFA?
 
2014-06-22 02:18:18 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: cryinoutloud: Christ, you can't wait to leap on that, can you? Never miss a chance.......sorry you can't deal with women. They don't like you either.

There are really two ways to go with this. Either businesses can discriminate or they can't. I simply showed that other businesses can  and do discriminate with impunity.

Congratulations for finding the third way which is: "agree with me or I won't like you." Hopefully my tears won't short out my keyboard.

Newsflash: one can be pro-equal rights and not hate women as you accuse me of. You just can't think rationally enough to make a convincing argument so it's the same old b.s.


I think you missed the point.  It wasn't that you can have a company that caters exclusively to a specific gender.  It's when a company (with male and female employees and customers) has a function that is open to only one gender.
 
2014-06-22 02:20:13 PM  
CoughCough*SnowJob*CoughCough


i65.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-22 02:23:59 PM  

Target Builder: DNRTFA?


Yup. Someone doesn't like it when men have the lifts to themselves and are served Hooter's wings at the lodge. Where's the discrimination and who cares?

No seriously, if clubs could have entire "only women" nights - why shouldn't men too?

I'm actually against both, that is -no public business should have exclusive gender nights or days. However, that being said -this "human right" is only being enforced when businesses exclude women and not vice-versa.

A lot of women actually agree with me.

37.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-22 02:30:30 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: No seriously, if clubs could have entire "only women" nights - why shouldn't men too?


I'm guessing you DNRTFA for that one either.
 
2014-06-22 02:32:04 PM  

BizarreMan: Because People in power are Stupid: cryinoutloud: Christ, you can't wait to leap on that, can you? Never miss a chance.......sorry you can't deal with women. They don't like you either.

There are really two ways to go with this. Either businesses can discriminate or they can't. I simply showed that other businesses can  and do discriminate with impunity.

Congratulations for finding the third way which is: "agree with me or I won't like you." Hopefully my tears won't short out my keyboard.

Newsflash: one can be pro-equal rights and not hate women as you accuse me of. You just can't think rationally enough to make a convincing argument so it's the same old b.s.

I think you missed the point.  It wasn't that you can have a company that caters exclusively to a specific gender.  It's when a company (with male and female employees and customers) has a function that is open to only one gender.


What if this was a male-only software consultant agency that took this male-only function?

Can you legally have a male-only software consultant agency?

What if a there's company that caters only to a certain gender, but employs people of both genders  They have a staff appreciation day, free use of their own facility, that is gender specific?  Like, could the ski resort invite its staff to a male-only day that they are hosting?
 
2014-06-22 02:33:34 PM  

BizarreMan: I think you missed the point.  It wasn't that you can have a company that caters exclusively to a specific gender.  It's when a company (with male and female employees and customers) has a function that is open to only one gender


If I missed the point then you did too. It was actually because someone got fired because she wouldn't stop complaining. When I was fired shortly after filing a grievance against my boss -the HR droid wanted me to know that it wasn't retaliatory. In fact she made a point of stating this without me having to bring it up... which indicated that it was indeed retaliation.

So the Canadian resort probably couldv'e fired her for "something else" and not made it for the reason that she is a (synonym for "someone that complains too much").
 
2014-06-22 02:33:46 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Target Builder: DNRTFA?

Yup. Someone doesn't like it when men have the lifts to themselves and are served Hooter's wings at the lodge. Where's the discrimination and who cares?

No seriously, if clubs could have entire "only women" nights - why shouldn't men too?

I'm actually against both, that is -no public business should have exclusive gender nights or days. However, that being said -this "human right" is only being enforced when businesses exclude women and not vice-versa.

A lot of women actually agree with me.

[37.media.tumblr.com image 500x667]


Because you can discriminate against women if your business model requires it. How many women play in the CFL?

Also, if you had RTFA you would have seen that the discrimination was in the loss of business opportunity for the women employee, not the ski vacation itself, since customers were going to be at the event.

"Since the purpose of the customer appreciation event was to strengthen client relationships, she concluded the event sexually discriminated against McConaghie by undermining her ability to compete on the same playing field as her male peers."
 
2014-06-22 02:36:51 PM  

Tman144: if your business model requires it


How do you prove that?

Oh, I have a male only software consulting agency, because our customers want male software consultants!

If I, as a man, wanted to get a Brazilian wax and have my ovaries massaged, could a "womans" spa turn me away?
 
2014-06-22 02:38:32 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: If the case were reversed, that is: if there was a business that catered to women only, then it would be "misogyny" to even hint that the business is discriminatory.


If a housing development wouldn't let people over 55 move in, it would be age discrimination.
 
2014-06-22 02:41:22 PM  

cryinoutloud: Because People in power are Stupid: If the case were reversed, that is: if there was a business that catered to women only, then it would be "misogyny" to even hint that the business is discriminatory.

Christ, you can't wait to leap on that, can you? Never miss a chance.......sorry you can't deal with women. They don't like you either.


Hope you didn't sprain any ligaments when your knee jerked like that.
 
2014-06-22 02:43:22 PM  

sendtodave: Tman144: if your business model requires it

How do you prove that?

Oh, I have a male only software consulting agency, because our customers want male software consultants!

If I, as a man, wanted to get a Brazilian wax and have my ovaries massaged, could a "womans" spa turn me away?


You convince a judge that it's necessary.
 
2014-06-22 02:45:22 PM  

Tman144: Also, if you had RTFA you would have seen that the discrimination was in the loss of business opportunity for the women employee, not the ski vacation itself, since customers were going to be at the event.


I know that nobody actually clicks the links I provide but here:

No boys allowed: the rise of single-sex clubs and societies
 http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jan/04/rise-single-sex -cl ubs-societies

KC Gates is interesting on the subject of her new restaurant's identity - she doesn't want it to be a "lesbian" bar at all, even though she namechecks the  a lot as a role model ("we'll have men at designated times, and in certain amounts - the Candybar lets in one man for every three women, so we may do it like that")

What this is saying is that it's only okay if women do it.
 
2014-06-22 02:47:06 PM  
$18,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect.

Man, I wish my dignity, feelings, and self-respect were worth that much.
 
2014-06-22 02:50:13 PM  
Today I learned that conventional Navy missiles cost $1.5m each.
 
2014-06-22 02:54:42 PM  

sendtodave: Today I learned that conventional Navy missiles cost $1.5m each.


Today I posted in the wrong thread.
 
2014-06-22 02:54:42 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Tman144: Also, if you had RTFA you would have seen that the discrimination was in the loss of business opportunity for the women employee, not the ski vacation itself, since customers were going to be at the event.

I know that nobody actually clicks the links I provide but here:

No boys allowed: the rise of single-sex clubs and societies
 http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jan/04/rise-single-sex -cl ubs-societies

KC Gates is interesting on the subject of her new restaurant's identity - she doesn't want it to be a "lesbian" bar at all, even though she namechecks the  a lot as a role model ("we'll have men at designated times, and in certain amounts - the Candybar lets in one man for every three women, so we may do it like that")

What this is saying is that it's only okay if women do it.


Did you even read the article you posted? The second paragraph says that there are also men only clubs in London.
 
2014-06-22 02:55:48 PM  

Tman144: The second paragraph says that there are also men only clubs in London


Because People in power are Stupid: I'm actually against both, that is -no public business should have exclusive gender nights or days.

 
2014-06-22 03:06:40 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Tman144: The second paragraph says that there are also men only clubs in London

Because People in power are Stupid: I'm actually against both, that is -no public business should have exclusive gender nights or days.


OK, but you also said "However, that being said -this "human right" is only being enforced when businesses exclude women and not vice-versa." Which is not true and was the point I was trying to make.
 
2014-06-22 03:19:33 PM  

Tman144: Because People in power are Stupid: Tman144: The second paragraph says that there are also men only clubs in London

Because People in power are Stupid: I'm actually against both, that is -no public business should have exclusive gender nights or days.

OK, but you also said "However, that being said -this "human right" is only being enforced when businesses exclude women and not vice-versa." Which is not true and was the point I was trying to make.


RTFA
 
2014-06-22 03:35:04 PM  

Tman144: Because you can discriminate against women if your business model requires it. How many women play in the CFL?


Actually, I'm pretty sure the CFL doesn't discriminate against women. Find a woman that can perform at the level the rest of the players do, and they'd likely have little problem signing with a team.

/I admit that I know little about the CFL, but I'm just spitballing here
 
2014-06-22 03:41:49 PM  

Tman144: Because People in power are Stupid: Tman144: The second paragraph says that there are also men only clubs in London

Because People in power are Stupid: I'm actually against both, that is -no public business should have exclusive gender nights or days.

OK, but you also said "However, that being said -this "human right" is only being enforced when businesses exclude women and not vice-versa." Which is not true and was the point I was trying to make.


You shouldn't expect MRS's to burden themselves with the chains of consistency.
 
2014-06-22 03:56:48 PM  

Target Builder: Tman144: Because People in power are Stupid: Tman144: The second paragraph says that there are also men only clubs in London

Because People in power are Stupid: I'm actually against both, that is -no public business should have exclusive gender nights or days.

OK, but you also said "However, that being said -this "human right" is only being enforced when businesses exclude women and not vice-versa." Which is not true and was the point I was trying to make.

You shouldn't expect MRS's to burden themselves with the chains of consistency.


MRAs, even.
 
2014-06-22 04:17:23 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Tman144: Because you can discriminate against women if your business model requires it. How many women play in the CFL?

Actually, I'm pretty sure the CFL doesn't discriminate against women. Find a woman that can perform at the level the rest of the players do, and they'd likely have little problem signing with a team.

/I admit that I know little about the CFL, but I'm just spitballing here


You're probably right. I don't really know anything about the CFL, however, counter point, the  Canada men's national soccer team probably doesn't allow women. I also found this:http://www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca/hr_topics/public-services-and-fac ilities /scc-upholds-right-club-refuse-membership-women
 
2014-06-22 04:49:23 PM  
I'm with her on this one.  A salesperson-customer get-together where she's specifically excluded because she's a woman?  And then she gets fired because she complains about it?  I'd have filed suit too.

Yeah, those weren't the smartest moves on the part of the company.
 
2014-06-22 05:11:03 PM  

Target Builder: Tman144: Because People in power are Stupid: Tman144: The second paragraph says that there are also men only clubs in London

Because People in power are Stupid: I'm actually against both, that is -no public business should have exclusive gender nights or days.

OK, but you also said "However, that being said -this "human right" is only being enforced when businesses exclude women and not vice-versa." Which is not true and was the point I was trying to make.


You shouldn't expect MRS's to burden themselves with the chains of consistency.


Target Builder: MRAs, even.


Mrs, MRA? How inconsistent of you.
 
2014-06-22 05:18:07 PM  

serial_crusher: $18,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect.

Man, I wish my dignity, feelings, and self-respect were worth that much.


You're probably the wrong gender or sexual orientation.  Equality only goes one way.
 
2014-06-22 05:24:58 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: BizarreMan: I think you missed the point.  It wasn't that you can have a company that caters exclusively to a specific gender.  It's when a company (with male and female employees and customers) has a function that is open to only one gender

If I missed the point then you did too. It was actually because someone got fired because she wouldn't stop complaining. When I was fired shortly after filing a grievance against my boss -the HR droid wanted me to know that it wasn't retaliatory. In fact she made a point of stating this without me having to bring it up... which indicated that it was indeed retaliation.

So the Canadian resort probably couldv'e fired her for "something else" and not made it for the reason that she is a (synonym for "someone that complains too much").


The resort did not fire her, which should have been obvious because she did not work for the resort. This is also why the issue is not that a business had a "men-only" day, but that another business choose to make that the location of a work function.

Seriously, it's painfully clear you didn't read, or at least comprehend, the article; I suggest you quit while you're behind.
 
2014-06-22 05:29:30 PM  

WayToBlue: I suggest you quit while you're behind.


So you are quibbling about a non-point not central to anything that I said and then claim that I'm losing the argument because of it? How feminist of you.
 
2014-06-22 07:25:20 PM  
Simple. Allow women in on Men's only day.

That way they could clean up on tickets sales when it is Women's only day.
 
2014-06-23 01:48:56 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: If the case were reversed, that is: if there was a business that catered to women only, then it would be "misogyny" to even hint that the business is discriminatory.


Damn right.

"Women Only" = empowering

"Men Only" = discrimiatory
 
2014-06-23 05:10:01 AM  
Because People in power are Stupid

WayToBlue: I suggest you quit while you're behind.

So you are quibbling about a non-point not central to anything that I said and then claim that I'm losing the argument because of it? How feminist of you.


I didn't say you lost the argument, I said you should quit while you're behind, but clearly reading comprehension is not your strongest area. You managed to miss the entire point of the article, and the suit it is about, in favor of derping all over yourself. Some examples:

2014-06-22 12:30:41 PM : Because People in power are Stupid - If the case were reversed, that is: if there was a business that catered to women only, then it would be "misogyny" to even hint that the business is discriminatory.

Again, that's not what happened, your imagined slight has nothing to do with this case. Here's another after someone else noticed that you aren't talking about anything that happened here:

2014-06-22 02:23:59 PM : Because People in power are Stupid -

Target Builder: DNRTFA?

Yup. Someone doesn't like it when men have the lifts to themselves and are served Hooter's wings at the lodge.

No seriously, if clubs could have entire "only women" nights - why shouldn't men too?


I don't even have the heart to post the rest, or to post the hilarity that is you complaining that others aren't reading the articles you post. How annoying that must be for you.

I'm curious, no fewer than three people before me called you out for not reading the article based on the irrelevant nonsense you were continuing to spew, and a couple even spelled out where you were off base, did you go back and AGAIN fail to understand the article after being called out, or did you just plow ahead steadfast that your 15 second keyword search had given you all you needed to know. Perhaps you never even read it the first time?

To your assertion that I believe you are "losing the argument," I'm not really sure how to judge what constitutes winning or losing when someone's yelling at clouds, my point is you're stupid for doing it.

I realize you had tripled down on your windmill tilting by that point, and sometimes inertia and pride can push you to just continue on despite the realities of the situation, but you might consider next time just taking a deep breath, man'ing up, and admitting that you farked up. People will respect you more for it.
 
2014-06-23 08:15:19 AM  

Tman144: Pokey.Clyde: Tman144: Because you can discriminate against women if your business model requires it. How many women play in the CFL?

Actually, I'm pretty sure the CFL doesn't discriminate against women. Find a woman that can perform at the level the rest of the players do, and they'd likely have little problem signing with a team.

/I admit that I know little about the CFL, but I'm just spitballing here

You're probably right. I don't really know anything about the CFL, however, counter point, the  Canada men's national soccer team probably doesn't allow women. I also found this:http://www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca/hr_topics/public-services-and-fac ilities /scc-upholds-right-club-refuse-membership-women


That's probably because, like the men's hockey team, there isn't a woman that can 'survive' with them. FFS the Canadian female hockey team is beaten (regularly) by boys High School teams.

The Boobieser may not have read the article, but the point made by him stands:

Male only schools, businesses, et al. = bad

Female only schools, businesses, et al. = just fine

At least in the eyes of the legal system in the USA.
 
2014-06-23 12:47:58 PM  

WayToBlue: did you just plow ahead steadfast that your 15 second keyword search had given you all you needed to know. Perhaps you never even read it the first time?


Spittle, pure unadulterated spittle.

Be sure to clean off the monitor before the next library patron taps you on your shoulder and tells you that your time is up. What I find in the library of life that sometimes it's not necessary to read every line from every book. Sometimes, Mrs. Johnston is waiting to use the terminal and you just need to finish your screed before the next patron gets to it. Sometimes, you have an excess of saliva and the only way to vent it is through the lips and at the monitor.

I can't always use my hanky to clean up the mess on the monitor because sometimes it's still wet from my alone-time in the public stalls of life.

WayToBlue: I suggest you quit while you're behind.


Is in contradiction with

WayToBlue: consider next time just taking a deep breath, man'ing up, and admitting that you farked up.


So which is it quit or not quit? I think you mean quit-quit which is different from admitting things.
 
2014-06-23 01:29:46 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Tman144: Also, if you had RTFA you would have seen that the discrimination was in the loss of business opportunity for the women employee, not the ski vacation itself, since customers were going to be at the event.

I know that nobody actually clicks the links I provide but here:

No boys allowed: the rise of single-sex clubs and societies
 http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jan/04/rise-single-sex -cl ubs-societies

KC Gates is interesting on the subject of her new restaurant's identity - she doesn't want it to be a "lesbian" bar at all, even though she namechecks the  a lot as a role model ("we'll have men at designated times, and in certain amounts - the Candybar lets in one man for every three women, so we may do it like that")

What this is saying is that it's only okay if women do it.


You're turning down a 3:1 vag to penis ratio?
 
2014-06-23 01:50:35 PM  

pueblonative: You're turning down a 3:1 vag to penis ratio?


They wouldn't let my fat ass in. So for me it's a 0:1 ratio.
 
2014-06-23 04:04:50 PM  

Tman144: Because People in power are Stupid: Target Builder: DNRTFA?

Yup. Someone doesn't like it when men have the lifts to themselves and are served Hooter's wings at the lodge. Where's the discrimination and who cares?

No seriously, if clubs could have entire "only women" nights - why shouldn't men too?

I'm actually against both, that is -no public business should have exclusive gender nights or days. However, that being said -this "human right" is only being enforced when businesses exclude women and not vice-versa.

A lot of women actually agree with me.

[37.media.tumblr.com image 500x667]

Because you can discriminate against women if your business model requires it. How many women play in the CFL?

Also, if you had RTFA you would have seen that the discrimination was in the loss of business opportunity for the women employee, not the ski vacation itself, since customers were going to be at the event.

"Since the purpose of the customer appreciation event was to strengthen client relationships, she concluded the event sexually discriminated against McConaghie by undermining her ability to compete on the same playing field as her male peers."


oh I see...so if a woman could compete on the same level as even the lowliest CFL athlete you don't think they would be hired. Or do you argue that that women should be shoehorned into professional sports at lower abilities to satisfy a quota. I just want to understand your thinking.
 
2014-06-23 04:25:57 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I think this is indicative of a trend towards the marginalization of men in modern society. The particular issue here is one that should absolutely have been brought up, as "men only" or "women only" days are, by their very nature, discriminatory. There really ought not be any room in a modern society for discrimination, whether it is in favor of a minority or an oppressed class or not.

But the flip side to this is that so-called oppressed classes seem to want a comeuppance against whites and men rather than equal footing. A man, for example, will always be held as incompetent when it comes to child-rearing, and as such judges are more likely to turn a child over to its drug-addled, sexually promiscuous mother than a stable home with its father. Likewise, a man will be required to pay alimony to a do-nothing wife after a divorce.

The tendency of society to assume that men are always strong and superhuman capability to withstand whatever discrimination is applied to us. A man can survive on half his salary while supporting his ex-wife's and her new boyfriend. A man is emotionally capable of handling having his children torn from him and given to his ex-wife. A man is capable of bending to irrationality when faced with it during spousal arguments.

Men hurt too. It's really time we try, as a society, to overcome discrimination in any of its forms. So absolutely, let's get rid of "Men Only" days at the ski resort. But let's also stop treating men like second-class citizens.


I've found that the only people who really give a shiat about the average white male are the people that want to sell us stuff.

As far as everyone else is concerned, we've done enough damage, we can fark off.

/True to an extent.
 
2014-06-23 05:53:56 PM  

Tman144: Did you even read the article you posted? The second paragraph says that there are also men only clubs in London.


At least in the English speaking countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), it's been my impression that 'men only clubs' exist mostly as historical artifacts - You'd be absolutely reamed if you tried to open one today, and ala golf, you're still looking at lawsuits looking to force you to open your doors to women.

Meanwhile it's perfectly fine to open a business that serves only to women, such as the various female-only gyms.

A lesbian bar can mostly sidestep problems simply by advertising itself as such.  No need to legally ban men, simply don't advertise where they're likely to see it.  Outside of the 'asshole' crowd visiting for the hell of it(and to be disruptive) most men(and straight women) will avoid it, and you can kick the assholes out for being assholes.  As a result you'd only get the occasional guy there who's probably visiting with a regular customer for some reason.

It might seem strange to some, but if you want equality you need to take the responsibilities/downsides along with the benefits.  That means registering for the draft as far as I'm concerned.
 
2014-06-23 09:09:56 PM  
Then I demand the right to use the ladies' room if necessary.
 
2014-06-24 12:20:41 AM  
Because People in power are Stupid

WayToBlue: did you just plow ahead steadfast that your 15 second keyword search had given you all you needed to know. Perhaps you never even read it the first time?

What I find in the library of life that sometimes it's not necessary to read every line from every book.


It's not necessary at all as long as you don't mind being called out on it when you turn in your book report on the symbolism of Mowgli's journey in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."


WayToBlue: I suggest you quit while you're behind.

Is in contradiction with

WayToBlue: consider next time just taking a deep breath, man'ing up, and admitting that you farked up.

So which is it quit or not quit? I think you mean quit-quit which is different from admitting things.


I gave up on the first tact after noticing that you are responsible for 20-25% of the posts in this thread, now i'm just recommending the second.
 
2014-06-24 02:19:16 AM  

WayToBlue: It's not necessary at all as long as you don't mind being called out on it when you turn in your book report on the symbolism of Mowgli's journey in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."


I think you can sum it up in two words: Hakuna Matata.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report