They nominated him for what?!…. ….Would you give it to him?



Absolutely not. This is where I draw the line. Personally, I think there is no way that Trump would be awarded that award.

Obama got the 2009 award and many debates, even today if it was justified.

Why are they saying Trump should get it?

Since North and South Korea shook hands and declared; that they had started the journey of peace and to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, the Republicans are already hailing that Trump’s initial pressure and then quick U-turn gamble in accepting North Korea’s invitation was a remarkable albeit risky victory.  

Trump hasn’t even met Kim yet, but Fox News is already repeating the words “De-Nuke”. Watch the latest video at

But he isn’t going to get a prize. Should the meeting happen; he will portray it as a success over the failings of his predecessors. A success which will help him in his campaign for re-election but no more than that.

What’s are the real reason Trump won’t get it.

Well, one possibility is that it would be a PR issue that they wouldn’t recover from. Just imagine. People boycotting the Nobel Prize because they awarded it to Trump. The prestige of the various parties involved in choosing Trump would be tarnished in the eyes of too many. 

So will they take that risk?….No

The result is, of course, is that many people who support him display their outrage. Capture

Societies are constantly becoming more polarised and divisive despite calls for co-operation. Due to this, I think that it’s safe to say that just like the USA, a lot of westernized countries will soon follow the same road and this will mean a sudden rise in conservatism.  I don’t think the wave will spill over into a hard right perspective but it will need to be watched and managed very carefully.

If the Democrats want to get back into the driver seat, then they are going to have to sit down and wait a bit. Trump will present a very difficult challenge in 2020 but after that will no longer be an issue. That’s their window. 


If the pay gap against women is real, businesses would become sexist towards men.


Let me explain what I’m saying…and then you can go nuts.
Now we’ve all heard about the Gender Pay Gap…. so no need to go into too much detail about it.
But here is a quick summary for those who aren’t too familiar:
Quick Wikipedia search the phrase Gender pay gap and the introductory paragraph is as follows:

The gender pay gap is the average difference between a man’s and a woman’s remuneration.

There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap:
Unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. For example, someone who takes time off (e.g. maternity leave) will likely not earn as much as someone who does not take time off from work. Factors like this contribute to lower yearly earnings for women; while the pay gap has narrowed over time, a gender pay gap still exists, even when controlling for these external factors. Unadjusted pay gaps are much higher.
In the United States, for example the unadjusted average female’s annual salary has commonly been cited as being 78% of the average male salary, compared to 88-93% for the adjusted average salary for college graduates.

Source : Wikipedia

So, the summary provided… onward then.

I have to point out that the points provided by the movement against the gender pay gap, actually would result in businesses acting in a sexist way towards men, rather than women.
The biggest claim(or as the opposing side call it; the myth) being, that:

Businesses will pay a man more than women, for the exact same job.

With just a bit of reasoning, it’s easy to see why that doesn’t make sense; the following being aside from it being against the law in most countries where this issue is protested.
Ask around for what the purpose of a business is and the easiest answer is :

…to make a profit…

Expand it ever so slightly and you can get an easy formula like this: Gross Sales minus Expenses = Profit.
That translates into; the more money your business generates while reducing more of its expenses; the more profit it can yield.
So let’s apply the myth to a real-life scenario…
Bob has a company and he needs an employee. He gets two applications, from a man and woman respectively.
Let’s call them John and Jane.
According to many feminist movements, if John and Jane are of equal qualification; then John gets the job.
Woah, WHAT?!…*Said my internal dialogue*
This isn’t going to hold, and here’s why:
If a company attempts to act in a sexist way, it would only do so towards its own detriment. If both applicants, are of equal qualification but it would cost the business less to employ the female applicant; then the only way that the business would employ the man would mean that it is prepared to go against its very purpose for the sake of sexism.
This is impossible. The reason being that as a whole and in the profit intended running, a business doesn’t allow itself to make a sexist decision like that because; it would make less profit for no logical reason.
If the myth is true we can go a bit further and say, women would get hired more and that would result in an active discrimination towards men.
How? It would eventually mean that the average of earnings(this is by using the myth supporter’s methods of calculation no less) of both genders, should reflect that women would be earning more as a whole; while men will get less as a whole. Resulting in the original statement that women earn less, shattering; because men wouldn’t be hired, resulting in men not even earning enough to compete on the same graph as a collective against women.
Let me go back to the quote for a second.

Unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience.

If the latter, mentioned in the above is not properly adjusted for; then the facts provided by the myth supporters is actually fiction from the start. Real life scenario’s take the above mentioned into account.

I wish someone would explain to me, why feminists are pushing to debating an issue that:

  • doesn’t happen in the legally correct job environment,
  • is not a concept that society finds fair or acceptable,
  • would actually lead to women dominating the job market in the future.

Just because there are situations where wrongdoing is committed it doesn’t mean that the collective is bad.

People must stop condemning the barrel, because of a few bad apples.