Woman without makeup, fired from her job!

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:09 am

Nomad;1193835 wrote: Hooters hires over sexed pretty young women and pours them into short shorts and lots of cleavage to serve a very specific clientele. This is their market, its their niche. Is this wrong ?

I've never been to Hooters and have no desire to go there. It's not a family restaurant in my opinion.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:10 am

Nomad;1194035 wrote: She is entering HIS establishment. He gets to decide the face he wishes to present to the public in order to fulfill his interests. She is employed by him meaning conditions and regulations will be applied to the agreement. In turn she will earn her wage. If the job required her to wear a clown suit then that is the job. the If the conditions are disagreeable to her she has every right to seek employment elsewhere. She had a choice. She chose not to comply. The consequences are dismissal. You seem to be dismissing his right to pursue his rights as owner of the establishment.

I am dismissing his right to discriminate under the pretence of owner rights, it stinks, she had been doing her job perfectly well for five years, she looks perfectly good but obviously not in his opinion, where is her right to stay in the job she has done perfectly well for five years, that's right, SHE has none!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:25 am

Betty Boop;1194037 wrote: I am dismissing his right to discriminate under the pretence of owner rights, it stinks, she had been doing her job perfectly well for five years, she looks perfectly good but obviously not in his opinion, where is her right to stay in the job she has done perfectly well for five years, that's right, SHE has none!

I disagree with all kinds of things at work. If I were the owner Id make some changes. But since Im not and the agreement is that I comply with their rules and regulations I comply.

I was fired from my last job because of failure to comply. While I disagreed with their methods it was well within their rights to eliminate that which prevented them from pursuing their business vision. That being me. I had a vision that conflicted with their business plan. Its not reasonable for me to expect them to comply with my rules.

Thats why Im starting my own business. I will enact a plan that suits me. You want to walk in and tell me no this is the way its going to be ?

Id tell you your not suited for employment with me.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:32 am

Nomad;1194045 wrote: I disagree with all kinds of things at work. If I were the owner Id make some changes. But since Im not and the agreement is that I comply with their rules and regulations I comply.

I was fired from my last job because of failure to comply. While I disagreed with their methods it was well within their rights to eliminate that which prevented them from pursuing their business vision. That being me. I had a vision that conflicted with their business plan. Its not reasonable for me to expect them to comply with my rules.

Thats why Im starting my own business. I will enact a plan that suits me. You want to walk in and tell me no this is the way its going to be ?

Id tell you your not suited for employment with me.

Nomad, this is over a face full of makeup mate.

Ok, I interview to work for you and I am the woman for the job, I am more than qualified, I share your passion to drive your business on, you know I will be efficient and punctual the only thing that bothers you is that I don't wear a face full of make up.

Will you go for the not so passionate, not so qualified girl with an orange face instead?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:41 am

Betty Boop;1193996 wrote: I'd worked out their uniform policy at a Hooters bar thanks. I guess Hooters are akin to some clubs we have here, to go and work there you would know what you are letting yourself in for well before your interview and you would obviously be more than willing to live up to those requirements.

I'm still flabbergasted that you guys think it's ok for the first woman in question to be sacked because she refused to wear make up. The mind boggles and thank christ that would never be allowed to happen here.

-Hooters is a place I would never go to, as its not for family's, its just for men to get their kicks.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:47 am

minks;1194018 wrote: Im with Boops on this one. Would he offer a wage increase so I could afford the freaking make up?? I bet not. I call BS to this... also what if this woman has allergies to make up eh? I think it is indeed sexist.

Here In Canadaland you can not hire or fire anyone for how they look. What crap. You know we have a bar here called cowboys and you know the bar pays the women servers to have breast implants.... what bullish *****. Pay our young women to be exploited, put them at possible health risks etc... all for the sake of a job... sick if you ask me.

yes you can fire employees here, from employer warnings of their attire, being to skimpy, not aloud to wear jeans etc. hair cuts, outrageous hair dye jobs, earrings.......etc.

Being an employer......yup, unfortunately you can fire for those reasons.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:02 am

Betty Boop;1194049 wrote: Nomad, this is over a face full of makeup mate.

Ok, I interview to work for you and I am the woman for the job, I am more than qualified, I share your passion to drive your business on, you know I will be efficient and punctual the only thing that bothers you is that I don't wear a face full of make up.

Will you go for the not so passionate, not so qualified girl with an orange face instead?

Of course Id take you. Thats me. Im only me. It would never occur to me to dictate others should do what I would do. Its their investment.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:09 am

Nomad;1194068 wrote: Of course Id take you. Thats me. Im only me. It would never occur to me to dictate others should do what I would do. Its their investment.

I simply cannot get my head round the fact that you would have employment laws over there that would allow someone to be fired for simply not wearing makeup.

I also realise and recognise that you don't all agree with these rules.

What really does completely baffle me, is all of your quiet acceptance of such laws that allows sexual discrimination to be a part of your everyday lives.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:12 am

Betty Boop;1194069 wrote: I simply cannot get my head round the fact that you would have employment laws over there that would allow someone to be fired for simply not wearing makeup.

I also realise and recognise that you don't all agree with these rules.

What really does completely baffle me, is all of your quiet acceptance of such laws that allows sexual discrimination to be a part of your everyday lives.

I also can't get my head around it either. I'm allergic to most makeup stuff anyway...eye infections, etc...would have to wear the expensive stuff...but I agree, what if she's allergic to the stuff? Will he bump up her pay to help pay the costs of makeup? IMO, he sounds like a jerk and yes, it is sexist.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:16 am

Betty Boop;1194069 wrote: I simply cannot get my head round the fact that you would have employment laws over there that would allow someone to be fired for simply not wearing makeup.

I also realise and recognise that you don't all agree with these rules.

What really does completely baffle me, is all of your quiet acceptance of such laws that allows sexual discrimination to be a part of your everyday lives.

Betty, we do not accept this quietly. We do try to fight things like this ALL the time. Sometimes, we just don't have the money to fight this legally. My job has a union so therefore things like this do not go on in many jobs. But, if there is no union you'd have to bring cases like to to court by yourself or with a group. AND, they are brought to court all the time.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:22 am

Kathy Ellen;1194072 wrote:

Betty, we do not accept this quietly. We do try to fight things like this ALL the time. Sometimes, we just don't have the money to fight this legally. My job has a union so therefore things like this do not go on in many jobs. But, if there is no union you'd have to bring cases like to to court by yourself or with a group. AND, they are brought to court all the time.

Well at least finally Obama passed the Equal Pay/Equal Work into law...hopefully that will end a bit of sexism. No us woman can't affort to stay quiet like men would like us to do...unfortunately it is still a masculine world out there but we do fight it and alot of times we win.

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:44 am

Betty Boop;1194037 wrote: I am dismissing his right to discriminate under the pretence of owner rights, it stinks, she had been doing her job perfectly well for five years, she looks perfectly good but obviously not in his opinion, where is her right to stay in the job she has done perfectly well for five years, that's right, SHE has none!
Since women's discrimination keeps being mentioned, where are the "men's" rights? Where establishments such as this "do not", & will not hire men, only women!? Is that not discrimination?

Yes, it was mentioned that the unpainted women did a good job for 5 years, but now the new owner wanted to "upscale" the place & try to bring in more affluent patrons. Therefore, if this women was smart, & abided by the rules & stayed there, "she" would have made much more lucrative tips, thus giving her a bigger paycheck!!! It would have been a win-win outcome!

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:47 am

cars;1194089 wrote: Since women's discrimination keeps being mentioned, where are the "men's" rights? Where establishments such as this "do not", & will not hire men, only women!? Is that not discrimination?

Yes, it was mentioned that the unpainted women did a good job for 5 years, but now the new owner wanted to "upscale" the place & try to bring in more affluent patrons. Therefore, if this women was smart, & abided by the rules & stayed there, "she" would have made much more lucrative tips, thus giving her a bigger paycheck!!! It would have been a win-win outcome!

yes it is discrimination.

so does that mean in your opinion "upscale" means you should wear make up? and if women are not wearing make up they are lower scale?

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon May 25, 2009 12:00 pm

cars;1194089 wrote: Since women's discrimination keeps being mentioned, where are the "men's" rights? Where establishments such as this "do not", & will not hire men, only women!? Is that not discrimination?

Yes, it was mentioned that the unpainted women did a good job for 5 years, but now the new owner wanted to "upscale" the place & try to bring in more affluent patrons. Therefore, if this women was smart, & abided by the rules & stayed there, "she" would have made much more lucrative tips, thus giving her a bigger paycheck!!! It would have been a win-win outcome!

kazalala;1194093 wrote: yes it is discrimination.

so does that mean in your opinion "upscale" means you should wear make up? and if women are not wearing make up they are lower scale?

IMO, I don't think peeps really look to see if the waitress is wearing makeup or not...the waitress is there to perform one duty...serve your food, be friendly, etc. That's what brings the tips in...not the makeup. It's the personality of the waitstaff that bring in the tips...I know...I used to be one and didn't wear makeup.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 12:12 pm

cars;1194089 wrote: Since women's discrimination keeps being mentioned, where are the "men's" rights? Where establishments such as this "do not", & will not hire men, only women!? Is that not discrimination?

Yes, it was mentioned that the unpainted women did a good job for 5 years, but now the new owner wanted to "upscale" the place & try to bring in more affluent patrons. Therefore, if this women was smart, & abided by the rules & stayed there, "she" would have made much more lucrative tips, thus giving her a bigger paycheck!!! It would have been a win-win outcome!

Yes, that is also discrimination.

The new owner wanting to upscale the place, have more upper class affluent patrons is also a form of discriminitaion against the lower classes.

minks · Post by **minks** » Mon May 25, 2009 12:22 pm

Nomad;1194035 wrote: She is entering HIS establishment. He gets to decide the face he wishes to present to the public in order to fulfill his interests. She is employed by him meaning conditions and regulations will be applied to the agreement. In turn she will earn her wage. If the job required her to wear a clown suit then that is the job. the If the conditions are disagreeable to her she has every right to seek employment elsewhere. She had a choice. She chose not to comply. The consequences are dismissal. You seem to be dismissing his right to pursue his rights as owner of the establishment.

um hello mister cranky pants, she was already employed at the corporation, she worked there for 5 years happily unadorned and obviously doing a good job. The dude who took over took her rights away. Just my opinion

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Mon May 25, 2009 12:22 pm

qsducks;1194099 wrote: IMO, I don't think peeps really look to see if the waitress is wearing makeup or not...the waitress is there to perform one duty...serve your food, be friendly, etc. That's what brings the tips in...not the makeup. It's the personality of the waitstaff that bring in the tips...I know...I used to be one and didn't wear makeup.

I do wear make up ducky, but i dont think it makes me upper class,,, or any better than someone who does not wear it

as long as you are smart and presentable,,, decent and clean ,, make should not be an issue in my opinion:)

minks · Post by **minks** » Mon May 25, 2009 12:28 pm

make up is an option as much as pink freakin panties are an option.

Sorry I do not mean to offend anyone here I know work can dictate our lives at times yes yes yes I get that... but i am bugged that this is over "make up" a frill, an option, to some a luxury... I would guess make up and facial cleanser and facial care products required when one wears make up would run you about $100 per month here in Canada.... Me personally I could not afford that unless i was given a raise. Now maybe they should deem it as a uniform and provide staff with an allowance to purchace and maintain said unifrorm.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon May 25, 2009 12:28 pm

kazalala;1194112 wrote: I do wear make up ducky, but i dont think it makes me upper class,,, or any better than someone who does not wear it

as long as you are smart and presentable,,, decent and clean ,, make should not be an issue in my opinion:)

I agree with you. It's everyone's perogative to wear or not wear makeup. I have worn it, but you can't tell...I never wear it in the summer...too hot.

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:28 pm

kazalala;1194093 wrote: yes it is discrimination.

so does that mean in your opinion "upscale" means you should wear make up? and if women are not wearing make up they are lower scale?
No, not my opinion, it is the new "owner's" opinion!

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:30 pm

qsducks;1194099 wrote: IMO, I don't think peeps really look to see if the waitress is wearing makeup or not...the waitress is there to perform one duty...serve your food, be friendly, etc. That's what brings the tips in...not the makeup. It's the personality of the waitstaff that bring in the tips...I know...I used to be one and didn't wear makeup.
You're right, most people would not have noticed, however, it seemed the new owner noticed.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:35 pm

qsducks;1194118 wrote: I agree with you. It's everyone's perogative to wear or not wear makeup. I have worn it, but you can't tell...I never wear it in the summer...too hot. I find some of the posts here hypocritical to be frank. Although I'm not Frank..... he's my mothers cousin and lives oop north. Anyway, it's all very well saying that the owner is in the right but i bet if it was any of us that were fired or our daughters..... we'd be screaming 'sexist tosser' and trying to sue him.

We also have sex discrimination policies in this country where it is illegal to favour either a man or a woman for a job. Anyone not complying will face a courtroom for sex discrimination. We also have 'agism' laws where an employer can not give a job to some-one just because they are younger. Thank God for British laws..... Barmy as some of them may be.

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:41 pm

Betty Boop;1194107 wrote: Yes, that is also discrimination.

The new owner wanting to upscale the place, have more upper class affluent patrons is also a form of discriminitaion against the lower classes.
Seems like discrimination can be found in anything, & everything one does!

Consider putting yourself in the new owner's place. You've invested all your worldly possesions into a new venture. Would you not do anything & everything that you thought in your own mind would secure that new ventures success! The man did in his own mind what he thought would make his business prosper, it's his right too, he has rights as well, doesn't he?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:45 pm

cars;1194178 wrote: Seems like discrimination can be found in anything, & everything one does!

Consider putting yourself in the new owner's place. You've invested all your worldly possesions into a new venture. Would you not do anything & everything that you thought in your own mind would secure that new ventures success! The man did in his own mind what he thought would make his business prosper, it's his right too, he has rights as well, doesn't he? The thing that seems to be over-looked here is that she did a damn fine job with no complaints for 5 years.

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:53 pm

oscar;1194181 wrote: The thing that seems to be over-looked here is that she did a damn fine job with no complaints for 5 years.
Yes you're right, but that was under different management, different employee rules, different standards. When a business changes hands, many times it affects the current employees personally! Had she put on a little lipstick, she could have did a damn good job for another 5 years, while even making more money at the same time!

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:56 pm

cars;1194178 wrote: Seems like discrimination can be found in anything, & everything one does!

Consider putting yourself in the new owner's place. You've invested all your worldly possesions into a new venture. Would you not do anything & everything that you thought in your own mind would secure that new ventures success! The man did in his own mind what he thought would make his business prosper, it's his right too, he has rights as well, doesn't he?

Oscar said it for me;

oscar;1194181 wrote: The thing that seems to be over-looked here is that she did a damn fine job with no complaints for 5 years.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:58 pm

cars;1194186 wrote: Yes you're right, but that was under different management, different employee rules, different standards. When a business changes hands, many times it affects the current employees personally! Had she put on a little lipstick, she could have did a damn good job for another 5 years, while even making more money at the same time!

That is so condescending!! Had she only behaved and done as she was told and put on a bit of lippy to suit her bosses whims she could have kept her job :rolleyes::-5

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 2:02 pm

Betty Boop;1194190 wrote: That is so condescending!! Had she only behaved and done as she was told and put on a bit of lippy to suit her bosses whims she could have kept her job :rolleyes::-5 Yeah..... then the following week a cat suit..... the following week, stilletto heels.....the following week, fishnet stockings.... the following week, lap dancing and finally selling herself to the customers.

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon May 25, 2009 2:04 pm

OK, the best that will come out of all of this is: We agree to disagree!

As it's now just becoming a "beating a dead horse" subject, repeating the same things over & over! (Last post for me on this dead horse)

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 2:05 pm

cars;1194186 wrote: Yes you're right, but that was under different management, different employee rules, different standards. When a business changes hands, many times it affects the current employees personally! Had she put on a little lipstick, she could have did a damn good job for another 5 years, while even making more money at the same time! So if your business changes hands and your new boss asks you to wear a bit of lippy..... your OK with that are you?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon May 25, 2009 3:34 pm

cars;1194170 wrote: No, not my opinion, it is the new "owner's" opinion!

amen.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 3:36 pm

Odie;1194238 wrote: amen.
How would you feel if it were you or your daughter who got fired for this reason?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon May 25, 2009 3:47 pm

my son was fired years and year ago, for wearing jeans to work.

-he had an employee handbook..........no jeans allowed.:rolleyes:

I can't ask you the same question.....as you don't have children.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:11 pm

cars;1194186 wrote: Yes you're right, but that was under different management, different employee rules, different standards. When a business changes hands, many times it affects the current employees personally! Had she put on a little lipstick, she could have did a damn good job for another 5 years, while even making more money at the same time!

So more money for more makeup...wtf is this about? She did her job great for 5 yrs...why does she suddenly have to change? To suit his needs or the upper clientale needs? I don't effing get it. Most peeps don't tip waitresses for their looks, they tip them for their personalities, how they treat the customer. Try standing in their shoes for a day Cars with the crap you have put up with, makeup or none.:-5

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:35 pm

Odie;1194245 wrote: my son was fired years and year ago, for wearing jeans to work.

-he had an employee handbook..........no jeans allowed.:rolleyes:

I can't ask you the same question.....as you don't have children. Sorr Odie........ your wrong........ we do.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:47 pm

Odie;1194245 wrote: my son was fired years and year ago, for wearing jeans to work.

-he had an employee handbook..........no jeans allowed.:rolleyes:

I can't ask you the same question.....as you don't have children.

Yes, she has children..obs you don't read back.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:53 pm

[QUOTE=qsducks;1194285]Yes, she has children..obs you don't read back.[/QUOTE :yh_rotfl

Back to topic...... I have the reverse thig with make-up when i look after the shop. I don't wear any at all due to health and safety regs working with food. What about these regs in the USA? I'm surprised the guy is allowed to run a food establishment with women caked in make-up....... we can't here.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:32 pm

oscar;1194288 wrote: [QUOTE=qsducks;1194285]Yes, she has children..obs you don't read back.[/QUOTE :yh_rotfl

Back to topic...... I have the reverse thig with make-up when i look after the shop. I don't wear any at all due to health and safety regs working with food. What about these regs in the USA? I'm surprised the guy is allowed to run a food establishment with women caked in make-up....... we can't here.

I totally agree there Oscar. What if you have an eye infection or pink eye from makeup? Yup, pass it on to the customer who's food your handling and delivering to the table...yes pink eye is that contagious.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 7:43 pm

qsducks;1194302 wrote: [QUOTE=oscar;1194288]

I totally agree there Oscar. What if you have an eye infection or pink eye from makeup? Yup, pass it on to the customer who's food your handling and delivering to the table...yes pink eye is that contagious. Also nail varnish.... that's a big no no working with food. You also have to tie your hair back here working with food. If health and safety officers walked in, the owner would be in big trouble. Some places, you even have to wear hair nets here.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:28 pm

Betty Boop;1194069 wrote: I simply cannot get my head round the fact that you would have employment laws over there that would allow someone to be fired for simply not wearing makeup.

I also realise and recognise that you don't all agree with these rules.

What really does completely baffle me, is all of your quiet acceptance of such laws that allows sexual discrimination to be a part of your everyday lives.

Sexual discrimination, I think thats overstating the reality of the situation. Its an accepted social standard that women wear makeup so what hes requiring is nothing more than what society already accepts as "normal"

Its her right to not wear makeup of course but she now faces the loss of her job.

As the job provider, risk taker, investor while not to undermine the importance of employment for all of us he has the most at stake. Its not her right to work there, its her agreement with the establishment to abide by his desires so long as no human rights violations are in practice which is a contract. New owner new contract.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:00 am

cars;1194170 wrote: No, not my opinion, it is the new "owner's" opinion!

ahh ok:) so what is your opinion of that then:sneaky:

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:39 am

Nomad;1194338 wrote: Sexual discrimination, I think thats overstating the reality of the situation. Its an accepted social standard that women wear makeup so what hes requiring is nothing more than what society already accepts as "normal"

Its her right to not wear makeup of course but she now faces the loss of her job.

As the job provider, risk taker, investor while not to undermine the importance of employment for all of us he has the most at stake. Its not her right to work there, its her agreement with the establishment to abide by his desires so long as no human rights violations are in practice which is a contract. New owner new contract.

It's not a social standard or the norm for me to be expected to wear makeup here thank god.

As I stated earlier, I cannot believe someone could get the sack purely because they choose not to wear makeup.

I don't think it's acceptable that an employer should have that much control over an employee.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:45 am

Betty Boop;1194512 wrote: It's not a social standard or the norm for me to be expected to wear makeup here thank god.

As I stated earlier, I cannot believe someone could get the sack purely because they choose not to wear makeup.

I don't think it's acceptable that an employer should have that much control over an employee.

I don't even think most peeps notice it your wearing or not wearing makeup. I go to a restaurant...all I want is good service and don't give a rats patoot if the waitress is painted...I expect good service...and the tip I give depends heavily on that alone.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:41 am

Betty Boop;1194512 wrote: It's not a social standard or the norm for me to be expected to wear makeup here thank god.

As I stated earlier, I cannot believe someone could get the sack purely because they choose not to wear makeup.

I don't think it's acceptable that an employer should have that much control over an employee.

Ok.

For the record I disagree with it too. I wouldnt do it.

We all have to do things at work we dont like though.

Also what I mean by social standard is most women wear makeup. Hes not really pulling a new idea out of the hat.

Also....after I told you I wouldnt hire you because you were a wild mustang Id take you out for lunch and probably give you my watch or something.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:47 am

Nomad;1194615 wrote: Ok.

For the record I disagree with it too. I wouldnt do it.

We all have to do things at work we dont like though.

Also what I mean by social standard is most women wear makeup. Hes not really pulling a new idea out of the hat.

Also....after I told you I wouldnt hire you because you were a wild mustang Id take you out for lunch and probably give you my watch or something.

Most women do not wear makeup Noms...christmas who can be bothered...it takes about an hour to put the stuff on.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:52 am

qsducks;1194621 wrote: Most women do not wear makeup Noms...christmas who can be bothered...it takes about an hour to put the stuff on.

I dont have statistics but I witness makeup on most of the women I see.

Anyway you live in Canada for Gods sake. The moose dont care. Although I was watching a new show Mananswers and apparently chickens will find the most attractive woman in the room as evidenced by the chicken the set loose in the room.

Something about mens and chickens brains being similar.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:56 am

Nomad;1194625 wrote: I dont have statistics but I witness makeup on most of the women I see.

Anyway you live in Canada for Gods sake. The moose dont care. Although I was watching a new show Mananswers and apparently chickens will find the most attractive woman in the room as evidenced by the chicken the set loose in the room.

Something about mens and chickens brains being similar.

I live in Philadelphia, PA you idiot:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:58 am

qsducks;1194628 wrote: I live in Philadelphia, PA you idiot:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

No Im pretty sure you live in Canada.

Women are notorious for bad map reading but this is over the top.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Tue May 26, 2009 12:05 pm

Nomad;1194632 wrote: No Im pretty sure you live in Canada.

Women are notorious for bad map reading but this is over the top.

What?

You guys can't be bothered to pull over and ask directions:yh_rotfl

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue May 26, 2009 12:11 pm

qsducks;1194634 wrote: What?

You guys can't be bothered to pull over and ask directions:yh_rotfl

At least we know what country we live in.