Feminism makes me throw up my testicles.

First of all, let me just say that I'm all for equal rights. EQUAL rights. If a woman applies for a job and is more qualified than anyone else who applied for the same job, she should get the opportunity to hold that job. If a woman applies for a job and is as qualified as everyone else who applied, she should get equal opportunity to prove herself in an interview and should not be discriminated against just because she's a woman. HOWEVER, if a woman applies for a job and is as qualified as everyone else who applied, she should NOT get the job solely because she is a woman. And even farther, if a woman applies for a job and is LESS qualified than some of the men who applied, she should NOT GET THE JOB.

If you disagree with anything I have said thus far, you are either a blind feminist or retarded. Probably both.

I was watching the US Open (tennis) this past weekend and at the beginning of the tournament the USTA honoured a women's tennis star named Billie Jean King by renaming the tennis centre the 'USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center'. Although there are thousands of players (mostly male) more worthy of this honour, that in and of itself is not the bone I have to pick.

Most people know Billie Jean King as the winner of tennis' Battle of the Sexes. She was loudly proclaiming that women deserve as much prize money from their matches as the men. Due to this, Billie Jean King faced off against Bobby Riggs: male tennis star. Most people know Billie Jean King won fairly handily. What some people don't know is that Bobby Riggs was 55 and far past his tennis prime. They also don't know that the main reason he played in this match was for money and publicity. He was accompanied to the court by female models wearing tight leather. If that doesn't scream "PUBLICITY", nothing does. To me, the victory would have been better deserved had she beaten a good male tennis player. Like Jimmy Connors or Rod Laver. Of course, had she played Jimmy or Rod, she would have been embarrassed.

Anyways, I was watching the Women's Final: Maria Sharapova (130lbs of paradise as Burnsy would say) vs. Justine Henin-Hardenne. Luckily, Sharapova won and was presented with the winner's cheque. 1.7-odd MILLION DOLLARS. Comparable to what the men make. Sharapova then began to thank Billie Jean for all she has done for women's tennis and for the extra $500,000 in her pocket.

I have 3 huge issues with this. First, while men play best of 5 sets (needing to win 3 sets to take a match), women play best of 3 sets (only needing to win 2 sets to take a match). Why is it that the women can play less but make the same amount of money? Secondly, there is no way in hell that the #1-seeded women's player (Amelie Mauresmo) could hold a candle to the #1-seeded men's player (Roger Federer). So why is it that they get paid the same for winning a watered-down version of men's tennis? It would be like Damon Allen in the CFL making the $10,000,000 per-year that Brett Favre does in Green Bay. And finally, not only do the women play less tennis and at a watered-down level, but they DON'T EVEN GENERATE THE FAN BASE THAT MEN'S TENNIS DOES. I could be more understanding if more people showed up to a 3rd round womens match than a mens match, but that doesn't happen. Tennis still makes it's money off of men. And it always will because men will always be better at sports than women. Deal with it. Don't tell me any of you would rather watch the WNBA. Unless you're a dyke.

I'm thinking about starting a "movement" called Masculinism. It's purpose will be to protect humankind from ridiculousness.