Everything evens out

Ever since studying the truth behind feminism, as well as researching into all of human history, I've been more n mrie awayre of how situations n cirvumstances in life kinda reach a cold harmony and even out.

**the wimn receivig 70c to every follar has been proven to be fasle.
**since this is the case, iv startes to ask morw n more quesrions about the woled around me. I've decided to extend this [[__method of__]]] examination/ analysis to all facts and figures.

there is mass hysteria everywhere
**this is my own theory. I've decided to extend this [[__method of__]]] examination/ anlysisnto rp. a careful horough stidy of the situstio demonstrates that rpp is not anywhere near as prevalent___. the genuinely sickenig ones, where a wmn really was just minding her iwn business like walking thorigb the woods n then a sick ahole grabs her n res her, are a small percent. the vast majorry of them, it seems, are night of rwally shtty decisons by both parties, invloving metric shttons of alcohol, snd culminating in an incident rhat both sides really regret. the fem regrets rigt awat, the male regrets in the aftermath.

on the oher side of the coin, are false rape accusations against men actually thst bad? hiw many false ro accus actuslly lead to aman's life being ruined? prbb only s tiny perfcent.

there are perhpas a handful of example wherein a guy si accused; noone knows yet whetehr falsely or not because it is very early in the criminal investigation. ____ the girl's family or other townspeeopke are undestandjly overcome wi rage n fury, rheir emotions take over n they lash out at trhe guy that is accused. n this happens.
this is horrifying. my immediate response to this was shock, nausea, disgust, horror, disbelief— same reaction that most everybody prbb had upon encountering this.

and it looks, I imagine, similae to a female that was brutally rp.

but then eventually my logic strated taking iver; just couldn help it. how often does an attack like this actually teuly happen agaisnt a boy that was accused of rp? I'm hust goig to throw a numver onto the dart board, n guess that it happens wi about the same frequency as rp victims that suffered violent attacks like this.

not to worry; my logic doesnt always [[[prevail]]]. some emotional things stay wi me long after the facts have been reveaed n confirmed. e.g., I hate chris beown n I always wil. ii do not carr that rihanna was hottinf him first or that they were scrwaming at eo. I teuly do not give a sht about the events that led up to the horrific busted face. i dont even like rihanna; she wasnt a particularly rwspectable eprosn to begin wi, n I lost what little repsct I had dor her when she went back to chris brown after the abuse. dont care. still hate chris brown. always will.

I can hear the lot of you piping up, infuriated with me,
(((___look I'm going to be 100% honest wi you, n youre going to get mad because I am am being this honest. i dont have time to look at evey single fewaking individualhuman being' experience in this green earth. alrighta? i raalt dont. loking at the big pictur is satisfctoey to me. I look at the world in large chnks of information, giant snapshots that conveniently summarize eveyrhting______
for my own life n those loved ones who are close ro me, i most defintiely look at detuals,,__ pore over individual conversations ___ because that is my own family and I love them. this is something my saubcins does, it is something my subc has made the decison for my conscis mind, to navigate my life in this mannerr. I dont have the capacity to extend that type of consideration to gant collectives of strangers out there.  nor do I wish to have that capacity; it's roo much work n frankly I dont care.
you're also mad because what I'm telling you is waht your subcoancious does, n your conscious coluntary mind has not yet picked up on the fact that his is whatvyur subc mind soes. a ton of you think you are so enligtened n libaerated n you teuly rhink that you dont se the world in bw. your conscious mind rhinks that you look at individual human beings n jusge people on their own merits n values n traits. ehh, no you dont. I can say this without ever having met you. you maga's n you sjw's, you are all the same. from my seat, there is no diff between you.

hoe many fals rpa ccc have led ro actusl convicton of the female, wher she eas hnaded a sentence by a judge n had to serve time? very few. that means thatbonly a tiny muniscule fraction of a percent were privrn beyong s readonable doubt in a court of law, that she really was making it up.
haonesrly, they are prbb about even. no, it's not the same people but who cares. i care so little that I didnt even go out of my way to out a question mark at the end of that sttm.
since I'm old I felel comf enof that I can say this now;. rp jokes are horrifying sure, so I make false rp acc jokes, which are prbb equally horrifying to som pel. ‘a wm rnp a man, then accused him of rp. if she made him a sandwich afterwards, you'd be fine wi it.'. ‘ehh wv. of it werent for fals r acc, nine of them would be having sess. so maybe we should just be thankful.'
next is not a joke it is an obsv. sparked a lawn-weeds infestation tuft of notallmen.
well whadya jnow, wimen in fact have the exact same rwsponse when men start talking sbt their complaints. men startt totalking about wmn gettingnnpreg by another guy even tho they were supp to be a comitted relationship, getting reamed n child support, getting divorce-raped, being forbidden from seeing their kids. most women respond to that with the extremly sensitive, tender, gentle, understanding, considerate response of ‘well, not all wmn do that.'
n bythe way womn do sezsss harass men also; it's just that men dont have any resaonbale platform upon ehichbthay can complain, meaning noone would lsuten to them of they tried to complain.
wmn also do have se lss wi minirs. it's jsut that women dont need to go on the internet n chat rooms, text messag groups, or any other place where conversations can be documented, and/or a place where undercover fbiis can be is disguise. women tend to work in jobs whre they arensurrounded by children, so they have very easy aceess.

** because of all these fascinsting [[__is there a term for rocky soil like by a volcano erosion or sum dunno,,, whre it all evens out]]] I have begun to look wi great interest at the notion that woman will not dont recev nearly the same criminal punishment for comkitjng the same crime that a man commits.
**there is annoft quoted stat on men's right sthatbwomen also recv a [[crime punishment discount. ]]] but do they really? or is this claim as soecious as the wages one?
are womn truly punished less for the same crime that a man does?
[[__mention stab— how many newtons of force was used in the plunging of the knife jnto thr flesh? how many footpounfs? how many newtons? how far deep into the frlsh did the mnife penetrate? how deep wasthe wound? also how wide was the wound? let's talk abiut the weapon. how large was the blade? what was the mass of the knife?
perh it was not a stabbing. perh she hit him in the head with a frying pan. i am nit trying to be funny.

— katens straugns's e.g.,
that definitely sounds liek it was provoked. orarteht, a grdual building-up of [[__abuse vciol-ece_]]] until it eventually ended in a dead body. this was not a murder that just popped up randomly out of thin air, out of asjbulte thin air. there eas a gradual progression to tthis.
but if that's the case, then we have to consider the possibilty that women that
— aha!! ring up the e.g., of his other woman's e.g., (canadian lady that is 'advocate for wrongly convicted peopl). it's horrifying, but that one also sounds provoked.
— link to the srticle. here is an article that looks into the so-called scientific study in extreme detail. [[_____]]]]____
this one shows that the vast manoriyt is not even violence, like when you think of the sord vuolnce, whatbdo yunpicture? that si nit what's haeppeng here.

the orig study, notice the glaring obvuoubsess of the factthat wmn that abuse their oartners is completely left out. this omission is conspicuous in its absense.

so because that's the case, then we also must cinsider that wmn who are abusive/violent towards theri oartners were prbb also provoked. (((hmm mebbe include that video about it that was made by an ind guy, remember that variety vid w like image cards?)). well, honestly, this [[ hypothesis, posit__]] is nothing new. people always, always make excuses for women's behaviors. pp always find a way not to hold emn repsonb for their actions. so wv.

so really what the hell are mens rights advicates __[[[ rallying nono campaiging]]] for? it all seems to reach equilibrium just fine.

**homeless people are 90% male. therefore homoess shelters are essentially men's sheleters.

Men are handbutlers

Men should not be forced, obligated, or coerced to support and subsidize a child that they never consented to bring into this world.  This should not be happening to men legally, financially, morally, nor philosophically.

Look at the facts, and you will see that legally and financially, women are under absolutely no such obligation to care for or support any child that they do not want to.

Let us suppose a woman is in a monogamous, sustained relationship with her boyfriend.  There is an emotional commitment which they both readily acknowledge.  Or perhaps a woman is in a casual, ongoing relationship with a man, which sometimes includes sex, sometimes doesn't.  It is very possible there is no definite commitment between these two people. Whatever; they are consenting adults and what they do is noone else's business.  This woman chooses to have sex later on in the day or maybe later in the week.  Let us say she has decided that she will definitely have sex later on.  Does this mean she automatically consents to becoming pregnant, carrying the pregnancy to term, and then childbirth?  I am asking sincerely, genuinely, n honestly.  I am not asking facetiously, I am not asking rhetorically, facetiously, sardonically, nor sarcastically.

Just because a woman might decide to have sex later on, does that mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?  And after that, keeping the child, then doing all the work of feeding, bathing, cleaning, and raising the child?

No, of course not.  That is why birth control pills, intrauterine devices, norplant arm implants, and depo-provera shots exist.

So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?

Let us suppose a woman is not on any type of regular, ongoing birth control and is not in any ongoing, casual or otherwise, sexual arrangement with any man.  Perhaps she wasn't planning to have sex earlier, she wasn't even thinking about it at all.  but then she sees a really hot guy in the club and immediately decides to hook up with him.  Let's say she made a spur-of-the-moment decision and now, boom, is currently having sex with said stranger, or this woman just had sex as in five minutes ago.  Let us say that neither she nor the dude she is having sex with utilized any form of birth control during sex or immediately preceding sex.

I am not asking rhetorically, facetiously, sardonically, sarcastically.  Just because a woman suddenly decided to have sex, does this mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?  And after that, keeping the child, then doing all the work of feeding, bathing, cleaning, and raising the child?

No, of course not.  That's why post-coitus conception inhibitor Plan B exists.  There is a small window of time, experts estimate 72 hours, AFTER a woman has sex during which she can still decide whether or not she wants to become pregnant.  She still has time during which she can prevent conception from happening.  After she has already had sex, she still fully has the option to prevent a zygote from forming.

So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?

Let us say a woman neglects to use any type of birth control prior to having sex, and also fails to use Plan B.  Let us say she is still within the first three weeks following conception.

Just because a woman neglected to use any type of pre-coitus birth control as well as post-coitus birth control, does that mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?

No, of course not.  That is why the abortion pill RU-486 exists.

So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Let us say a woman neglected to use any type of birth control prior to having sex, neglected to use any type of post-coitus birth control (Plan B), didn't bother to get an early-term pregnancy terminator such as the abortion pill, and allowed the pregnancy with the growing fetus to carry on for a few more weeks.

Just because a woman exhibited all that laziness, irresponsibility, callousness, and neglect, does this mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?

No, of course not.  That is why the typical surgical abortion procedure, dilation n curettage, exists.

So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?


Now, let us suppose the woman somehow didn't bother to do any of that.  She did not take any precautions to prevent pregnancy.  Nor could she be bothered take any steps to terminate the pregnancy to ensure that neither society nor she would be stuck with an unwanted infant.

none of this snuck up on her.  /ohmygod, the baby just sprung up!  it came out of nowhere!  it must have been hiding behind that bush the whole entire time!  then it just ran out into the street and oops, it's delivery time!//

__even though she had forty weeks to decide.  That is actually nine-and-one-half months; it is not actually nine months.

----
We know that a man has no control over a woman's body.  He has no right to dictate what she does with her body.  She might get rid of the pregnancy, she might keep the pregnancy but get rid of the baby to adoption, she might keep the baby and decide to raise it.  Her body, her choice, certainly.

But do you expect me to believe that just because a man randomly has sex with a woman, he automatically consents to monetarily supporting the grown adult woman who is allowing conception which is letting the haploid gametes fuse into one new diploid cell, allowing the zygote to germinate, allowing the zygote to implant to the uterus, making the unilateral decision to keep the pregnancy, making the unilateral decision to carry the pregnancy to term, making the unilateral decision to  who should be fully capable of making her own decisions and living her own life, by paying her rent, paying for her food, paying for her clothing, paying for her electricity usage, paying for her water usage, paying for her sewer usage, paying her cell phone bill, being legally and financially shackled and bound to her, being legally and financially shackled and bound to an offspring that he did not consent to have, paying for the offspring's food, paying for the offspring's clothing, paying for the offspring's electricity usage, paying for the offspring's water usage, paying for the offspring's sewer usage, paying the offspring's daycare, paying for the offspring's furniture and school supplies and toys and other household items?

Her body, her choice.  Yep.  And--

His livelihood, his choice.

His wages for his work are those that he earned with his body, with his hands, with his eyes, with his mind.  There is a technicality in that men do not physically get pregnant and therefore any decisions regarding the pregnancy are solely the female's.  But the court and police systems have effectively become jackbooted thugs that force men to metaphorically support a pregnancy for twenty-one years.

You expect me to believe that if the man doesn't agree, well, too bad, he has no choice, his livelihood and his earned living will be forcibly taken from him by way of what amounts to legalized theft?  Having his wages garnished for the next twenty-one years or face jail time?

All this just because the man had sex?

Men are ALREADY handmaidens

Men are ALREADY handmaidens.

I'm sure that by now we have all heard of the book, the movie, and the SNL parody clip, "The Handmaiden's Tale."

Let us start with the basics.  Do you support a woman's right to choose?  Legally, yes, absolutely.  No question.  Just like I fully and unconditionally support a man's right to choose.

Just because a woman has sex, does this mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?  And after that, keeping the child, then doing all the work of feeding, bathing, cleaning, and raising the child?

No, of course not.

Just because a man has sex, does that automatically mean he forfeits his earnings, his labor, his livelihood which he earns with his body and his mind, to support a child that he didn't consent to have in the first place?  Does this mean he automatically consents to having his wages garnished, that is, a large portion of his livelihood whisked away from his paycheque before he ever even sees it?  For the next twenty-one (21) years?

His only options are either pay up or go to jail.

There was a male birth control in the works.  But research on it was halted.  By feminists.

Let us try a little thought experiment.  let us suppsoe a woman gets an aboritoyn.  fair enough.  she denfietint had sex.  she may or may not have usedf birth control, or perh the birth control fialed.

she chooses not to carry this pregnancy to term, inste4ad choosin to abroth the fetus.  this is abosltuely wihtin her rights as an automnoumnys human being to do so.  she does not have to vbear the burden of an unwatnted pregnancy.  as is right; a woman should not and cannot be under any soical or moral obrliation to carry a prennagy to term if she does not want to. she does____

but she shoul dhave to pay a sset amount every motnth, to the state.  to commence from the date that the theoretical fetus would have been born.  this payment she makes commensurate with her pay rate from her job.

if she protests and objects to this payment, too bad.  it is not up to her. 
is she does not volutnarily [[__give up, sacrifce, relent?? relinquish ]]] a portion of her paycheck towards this payment to the state, her wages will be forcibly garnished.

well, don't lose hope.  maybe she might not have to.  ..erm so how do we find out if she does have to or does not have to?  eh, shrug.  eh, flip of a coin.  maybe she'll have to pay for the next eighteen years, maybe   the arbitray entity somehwer out thre will decide whether or not the woman has to pay for the next eighteen years and nine months.

at this point the owman might be thinking, '''what the hell??  I did not choose to do any of this.  what is this bullsht?!  I termintated it!  I got rid of it!  this is mysogyny!  I got rid of the pregnancy, as was withing my rights to do so.  I should not have to pay anything!  what the hell am i paying for??  and who the hell is getting this money?!

the logic is sound.  she had sex and unfdruatnely a fetus was created.  she had taken precautions to prevent conception, or so she thought.  howerver the precaurtions failed her.  she made the decision to terminate the prehnancy, all of which were well within her rights.  doesn't matter; a fetus was created in time and space.  so now she has to pay the price for the next eighteen years (begiining at the theoretical birthdate.)  she did not[[??]]

This is exactly what men are forced to do, every single day in western countries.  Why should we not impose the same regulations upon women?

Perhaps we should call men "handbutlers," seems more apropros gender-wise.

Another note:  I can predict that a lot of women will claim that work and pay are not a big deal because it can't compare to bodily autonomy that women give up during pregnancy.

Really, work and pay are not a big deal?  Then why do you care that women only make 70c to every dollar a man earns?  After all, work/wages are not a big deal.

And fyi, that statistic is false.  The U.S. Department of Labor has conclusively proven that the ratio is more like women earn 99.999c to every dollar a man earns.  In my opinion, this is perfectly just and justified, due to the fact that women universally (that is, in every culture, society, and nation around the world) expect men to financially support them.

The new British NMP

Ah, I see that the British government have appointed a new NMP to listen to the people's concerns.  The NMP is tasked with being receptive to the common folks' concerns, devise a solution that they can all agree on, and then implement said solution to the best of the govmit's ability.  The British NMP:  Not-my-problem.

No-one should be allowed to vote

Those who know me know that I have been a Christian libertarian for nearly four years now.  I do not anticipate this changing.

The tenets of this philosophy are essentially that government should not exist and essentially that mega-corporations should not exist, either.  Do not let the "libertarian" moniker fool you into thinking that I am in favor of one and only against the other.  most self-proclaimed libertarians are supremely ignorant in this regard, in that they think a government with over-reaching authority is sure to abuse its power yet a mega-corporation with over-reaching authority somehow magically will not.

For the uninitiated, you should be aware that big gov't and big corporation are one and the same.  They operate in exactly the same manner, as bulky, groaning, burdensome behemoths that have insinuated their tentacles into every facet of life, utilizing tiers and hierarchies of false authority.  they extort money from hard-working human beings in similar fashion.  they [[[_dis-qualify?? __deny_]]] full access i.e., full, humane, logical, practical rights to the fruit of one's labor.  the rights to

They both call upon people to recruit themselves to narc, spy upon, and tattle-tale upon their neighbors and other fellow citizens.  They are indifferent to, no let me rephrase that, they encourage the gradual destruction of the family unit and family values.  While at the same time, they encourage and reward loyalty to the state and to the corporations.

These are not merely my fanciful interpetationsd.  Genertaions of analysis have yielded thsee exact [[_conclusions]].


You know what would really solve the proble of police brutality?  Simply elimiante half rthe police force.  PRblems solved.  Instead of extortint even more money from hard-working Zmdi zan in the forme of bogus taxes, simpy slash the cost in half.  Cut the fat where ith fat is.  Ragther than outfitting every single police officer on the force with a bodycam, upgradinf the onboard computer, navigation sustem, long-range two-way comminication device, internal mobile data modem, cop intranet, blah blaschbalh. 

{{{there was study that showed the psychology of multiple cops being at one stop.__  It tended to heighten the aggression due to egging each other on and showing off for thwir buddy, severely cause the tension to skyrocket, feeding into a vicious cycle,__>> and even more deadly outcome here.  compared to only one cop arriving at a scene.}}}

This woulds severely reduce the incidence of police brutality.  In several,[[[___accounts, records,__]]]] it is stated that a police officer's job is *not* to de-escalate a situation.  In fact, cops are trained to adotp an "us-versus-them" mentality.  The governemtn/cops being "us".  and all non-cop human bewings being "them," including you and me being "them."  You've seen routine traffic stops whre there are multiple police cars standing by?  Are you frakkin kidding me?  A routine speeder somehow warrants the presencev of more than one cop??  So, save tXES, and cut police brutality in half.  Everyone is happy.


* well, let us see.  I retain my right to soveriegnity of self.
_bodily automony.  I may carry a gun, taser, pepper spray, rifle, AK-47, or whatever weapon I wish for self-defense or defense for my family.  that is not a votable issue.

* I retain my right not to commit violence against myself.  that means if I don't want an abortion, I will not obtain one.  I refuse to be sucked into the liberal [[__vague _filth]]] that sells violence against women as "liberaton" and/or "empowerment."
if I do not wish to [[_seek ,,, turn to some federal-governemtn-approved medicine fo, and that if I instead choose to pursue some form of medicine which the federal goverment staunchy disapproves of yet which *wokds for me,* then I retain this right to heal myself in this manner that I choose.

* I retain the right not to be drafted into war or having to enlist ever.  this is a human right, and it is high time we extend this human right to men.  men and women, as sovereign entities, as living breathing souls, have the absolute foremost and ultimate right not to risk their lives for any cause that does not concern them.  this is especially concerning the usually-undisclosed-purpose-of-demolishing-foreign-governments-that-stand-in-the-way-of-US-and-israeli-monetary-inerests-and-instead-sold-a-ludicrous-fake-narrative-concerning-"democracy."  eliminate the draft completely.  should not exist for men nor for women.  __facing certain death for some monied political cartels' squabbles.
war is always about, and always has been about, multinational banksters/banking-cartels arguing over how to move their money around.

* I retain the right to keep the money that I earn.  All of it.  If I wish to donate money to a local school, soup kitchen, homeless shelter, which I I do frequently, I will do so entirely of my own volition.  that is my choice alone, and that is to be determined solely at my own discretion.
this also means that I retain the right not to give my money for any corporate subsidies.  I retain the right not to give my money for any government-sponsored/outsourced corporate subsidies.  Multi-billion-dollar behemoths that siphon all produced money away from the workers who are actually doing the work, funneling all that money upwards to the greedy ahole ceos and owners.  , and barely allowing thw workers to keep any table scraps.

* I retain the right not to fund any wars.

* not to give money to any extranneous polive force.  Geez, talk about a mafia ring.  A mafia is essentially what the modern government poilce force is.  Think about it.  You are paying mmoney to the local band of thugs.  -if you _________
I am done.  I am done paying protection money to the mob.

* none of the above issues are negotiable.

women being illogivcal, irrational, over-emotional, and/or hysterical does not concern me.  As long as I don't have to deal with the ramifications.  Men being violent-tempered, mysoginistic (har har) does not concern me.  As long as I don't have to deal with the ramificatiions.


So wqhat exactly do you think people have the right to vote on?
* oh so you want to vote.  on what exactly?  <uhhh bond referendums.
the eff is a bond referendum?


If it's my money, and I do not wish it do do something, it is not going to do it.  End of story.  Do you understnad?  My money is simply not going to.

---
As early as high school I was already wary of the [[[_pitfalls __]] of democracy.  I was well aware that the average person was, well, rather dim, and was certainly in no way qualified to determine legislation that would affect a city, county, state, or country.

Around ten years ago, which was well past my high schools years and well into my time as a fully-functioning adult, I happened upon an essay by Walter Williams.
"tyranny by the few...."
at the time that I read this essay I was appalled at his characterization of democracy as "tyranny by the many."  I was appalled... and yet also I remembered that just within probably the preceding year, I had already penned a little ditty titled "Femnism andDecom
It was a n essay inin which I chronicled many of the logical [[__fallaciews___ hmm nnonnono,,,, the many...pitfall,ss, nono, contradictions, innate,,, where it conflicts with itself.  And yet my feelings were obviously the opposite-- I still felt that democracy and voting were important.

My, how things have come full circle, I ponder ruefully.  (Or iis it rather a semi-circle since I am at a diametric opposite?)

** men in black, A"people are dumb blind panicky and you know iet."
yes I do know it, indeed.

** Winston Churchill "a conversation with the average person on the street is the best argument against democracy."

Women and Science- A Practical Solution

This is such a depressing truth.  I dreaded reading up on this because I already knew what I was going to find.  Roughly only 10% of women college students study any science, mathematics, engineering, or technology subjects as college majors.  Being a Biochem undergrad with a Master degree in Medical Lab Sciences myself, I personally do not understand that attitude at all.  I feel that science is interesting and fascinating, and I do not understand why anyone would NOT want to study it.

The other 90% of women are divided thusly.  A 45% portion are sluts that think they are empowered and liberated because they whore around in college, hate their families, and blame men for all of their own self-inflicted messes.  They major in women's studies, psychology, medieval literature, or whatever.  Then they turn around and whine and complain that not enough women enter the science and math fields.

Well, here's a thought.  Instead of bitching and moaning and groaning that enough women don't study science, how about you... study science?  If they were to take the energy they waste on complaining about this and instead decided to devote that energy to actually studying science, then we might close that gap.

The other 45% still do major in softer subjects such as psychology, literature, child development, education, nursing.

But at least they do not waste time sluttifying themselves.  They are reasonable and they devote their time and attention to seek a particular solitary young man so that they may get married and raise a family.  Kudos to them, I say.  This is necessary because someone has to do the job of keeping society orderly, whole, safe, and healthy.  Who would do this, if not the women?

It seems that this 45% of women who are practical, logical, reasonable, and moral do not want to waste their time with anything that does not directly impact their families.  They harbor the unfortunate opinion that learning science falls under the umbrella of "wasting time."

Until they begin to truly take care of their families, that is.

The fact is that women who are devoted wives and mothers must dedicate a large arsenal of their capabilities to having a working expertise in science.
Food science and food chemistry.
Women who do a lot of cooking have to have [[an ididic,_ working knowledge, conversational,, well-versed in food ingredients and how they comingle
they know that eggs are mainly composed of a binding protein
they know the types of acid that comprise vinegar and lemon juice
they know about sugar___

They know a lot more about medicine and physiology than you realize.
Any mom whose kid has a gluten allergy.  Or a peanut allergy.  Or who wants to learn more about auto-immune diseases.  Or any mom who wants to learn about the pharmacokinetic effects that vaccines have on a child's body, even if she ends up being okay with her kids being vaccinated.  Or any mom who is a devoted, dedicated, and yes, strict mom who wants her kids to be healthy.

I am noticing that there is a growing distrust of "modern" commercial medicine, and for good reason.

A lot of women who want what's best for their families do significant research on commercial pharmaceutical medicines that were created synthetically in corporate industrial laboratories.  a woman who is devoted to her children and husband's health will get to know as much about disease states, symptoms, treatments, causes, antibiotics, prescriptions, and over-the-counter medications as any formally-trained Doctor of Medicine.

Women read up about commercially available cooking ingredients like white flour, white sugar, and white rice.  Women know that these food options are empty calories, void of nutritional purpose, which is what food is supposed to be.
and stripped of their nourishing [[traits__ ability]]]
reading ingredient labels for processed foods.

Moms who homeschool their kids have to know about electricity, introductory physics, introductory chemistry, introductory biochemistry, biology, gardening.  They have to know all of this so that they can teach their kids properly.  This might be just introduction to science rather than full-scale academia, but some effort is better than none.

All of the above is science.  What do all of these women have in common, and what inspired [[spurred]]]] them to learn about science?  Answer:  these women decided to learn about science when it became directly related to taking care of their families.  When women realize that they have to know about science or else their families would perish, this motivates them to learn science.

So how do we get more women who are still in college, each of whose family is merely a twinkle in her eye, to study science?  Simple.  We don't tell them it is science.

It seems that women are perfectly willing to learn "science" as long as greater society at large does not refer to it as "science."  This makes zero sense; I am aware of that.  Sigh; all I can say to that is what we already know-- women are irrational, illogical, hysterical, over-emotional, and impractical.

How do we enact something like this?

A college major called Home Economics can be established, which teaches girls how to be homemakers.  Since girls tend to want to be lazy with paid careers and not work anything useful outside the home anyway, we might as well just give this to them.  Give them what they want.

And girls absolutely refuse to study science.  So what we do is, unbeknownst to them sneakily teach them science in an underhanded and roundabout way.  Just don't call it science, call it "Home Economics."

Forcing girls to learn science against their will.  Which would make bastardized-liberal-feminists foaming at the mouth, because for whatever reason, even making girls do something that benefits them and is productive and useful, still makes feminists mad.
In India local healers use Cissus quadrangularis to help set broken bones. Experiments with rats and dogs [Indian Journal of Pharmacology 1994; 26:44-5.]

brilliant idea::  for future societal improvement of Bangladesh::
** have a college major of Home Economics.  Which actually incorporates quite a bit of chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, food nutrition, physiology.

since so many girls just want to be housewives anyway,
Girls absolutely refuse; they put up a resistance at being given any higher-level knowledge.

But we want them to be smart.  We still want them to be able to solve and treat all of their families' health, nutrition, medical, and scientific needs.

And we still want them to understand and comprehend science.  despite their biggest protests to remain lazy and ignorant, to continue living in luxury and comfort with little to no effort, to not have to study any fields that actually have substance and genuine facts and information, to not have to study any fields that actually require any work,

*Subjects in science that girls must be taught:
-How to treat colds, sniffles, muscle aches, tooth aches, stomachaches, menstrual cramps using homemade remedies.  they must learn of the chemical backgrounds that substantiate these treatments.  --also learn why these old-timey home remedies are far more beneficial.  than the commercial corporate multi-national pharmaceutical company, synthetic produced products that are not good; are unnatural, elicit bad physiological peripheral reactions in the body, have auxiliary side effects, are contra-indicated to so many other synthetic substances.
-quite a bit of pathophysiology.  explain why antibiotics are not always a good idea, they wipe out normal flora, leaving behind an antibiotic-resistant strain that is even stronger and more virulent, and since it now has no normal flora competition that overgrows and would normally prevent the strong one from getting too much nutrition, now the resistant strain unfortunately is able to grow unchecked.
-learn about heart disease, diabetes, why diabetes has a devastating effect on the kidneys.
-learn about papaya and pineapple, their enzymes.
-more serious-- how to stop a wound.  What to do in case of heart attack.  how to change wound dressings.  how to set broken bones-- this is more serious; would be more risky if done wrong; so definitely not beginner freshman year.  how to make salve.
-How to dissolve a cyst within body.
-How to make toothpaste, deodorant, lotion.  must learn chemical theories supporting these homemade products.
antibacterial oils e.g. peppermint or rather tea tree oil.  coconut oil.  how to make [[medicinal treatments]]] to re-grow tooth enamel.
-Must learn all chemicals and beneficial properties.  quite a bit into detail of biochemistry, such as glycine, collagen, bone ions CaPO4, muscle myoplasm, K+ grad.  nerve function-- Na+ gradient, Ca++ grad.  brain chemistry-- cholesterol, lipids, myeloid membranes, myelin sheath over neurons.  skin cells and actually all cell membranes are made of lipids-- go into detail of different types of membrane lipids, choline needle sharps, sphingosine, cardiolipin.
-Chemistry, science, nutrition of food.  Health.  e.g., bone broth and why it is such a beneficial food source.  Healing tea-- ginger, cinnamon, cloves, bay leaves.  how eggs work, albumin; what is chemkical diff btw butter and margarine; what is diff btw white rice nn brown rice; rice flour; gluten flour nn why it's bad.
-Household cleaning products; vinegar and ammonia.  ^They would have to learn why NOT to mix certain chemicals, such as bleach nn ammonia is a NO-NO.
-^One homework assignment-- go grocery shopping.  They might have to go grocery shopping for ingredients, such as soapmaking lab materials.  Or oranges.  Then bring those ingredients into class the next lab assignment, and use those to work on the lab.

*For laboratory practicals:
-How to grow a garden in tandem with raising food fish in tank, hydroponics.  aquarium, terrarium.
spinach, beans.
-Water sanitation for home use.  Run fecal coliforms like in ecology lab.
-How to make sprouts.
-Make soap.
-Make aspirin.
-Set broken bones.  use laboratory-created corals as models for human bones.  *Even better:  grow coral as simulation for bones in Lab one semester.  *break them, and repair them in a Lab second semester.  using setting/placement techniques along with chemical regeneration methods.  *this definitely sounds like something more advanced.  this sounds like a senior year Lab practical.  *possibly begin growing the corals in freshman year.  observe, monitor, supervise, guide the growth throughout all four years of college.  then, in senior year, they will break the corals and then heal them.
-How to make coconut oil.  how to distill essential oils such as orange, lemon, peppermint.  rosewater, mustard oil.
-For quantitative analysis Lab.  bring in an ancient old traditional home remedy.  analyze this in Lab-- what are chemical components, what is the admixture, what proportions, molarity, concentrations, pH.
-Grow orange trees.
-*Brilliant idea:  for earlier year Labs, do a lot of gardening.  also growing vegetables gardens-- squash, zucchini.  many others that demonstrate the different plants classes, i.e., the ones w ripened fruit ovaries growing inside the stalk, and the kind that grows external to the plant originating from the flowering.  grow roses and tea plants/trees.  mustard, cloves, turmeric, spice plants, herbs plants; root plants-- garlic, ginger.  *Then in a subsequent semester or year, use these very same plants, vegetables as ingredients to make the essential oils.

*Hate to say this, but maybe don't make physics and calculus required subjects.  Hmmm... or maybe on second thought, dooo teach it and do class examples.  Teach the subject matter in depth, perhaps require some in-class work.  But no homework or tests.  Or maybe physics no, calculus yes.

Suggested flow of work::  naturally emerged plan of study::
*Gardening.
*^Bulding the fish and plant terrariums.
*^Soapmaking, making laundry detergent.
*Then anatomy and physiology, oxygen, respiration Labs and stuff.
*^Water sanitation Labs during this same time.  fecal coliforms.
*^Build water filtration system.
*Then by this time, the gardens should have grown and produced desired results-- fruits, plants, medicinal plants.
*^Cooking during this same time.  Hmm.. or maybe not; have cooking instead be after the gardens are grown and harvested.

Female privilege

Ways in which women are privileged

--reproductive rights

--reproductive rights

--reproductive rights

--few reproductive responsibilities-- this is a dangerous combination of one-two punch.  the female has all reproductive rights up to, including, and surpassing carrying to term and the birth.  BUT simultaneously, the female has no responsbilities of making sure that an unwanted fertilization occurs.  popular consensus states that solely males bear all the responsibility to ensure that no unwanted fetus grows.
health insurance companies have now also made sure that females don't have to take responsibility for themselves.

--gender specific homeless shelters.

--the husband is expected to shower the wife relentlessly with affection, attention, compliments, all the time.
notice this joke right here.  look at it:  no expectations whatsoever from the female.  but look at the laundry list of demands expected of the male.

--but there is a catch.  if the man does happen to buy his wife flowers out of the blue, she has the full right and choice to interpret it as him being guilty of something.

--the husband must always apologize if there was any misunderstanding.  -for example, if the husband does anythign remotely that might be perceived [construed] in the female's brain as insulting, offensive, taken the wrong way

--notice that the woman is not expected to do anything for valentien's day.  go back through your memory and you will see this.  the husband is expected to make dinner reservations, or cook an entire home-cooked meal.

--notice that the husband gets crap for forgetting anniversaries, etc.  this is even though the wife is not expected to execute any romantic gestures for an anniversary.

--work, job responsiblities.  a man does not have the option of just taking some time off and not work for a while.  is never allowed to just get fed up with his job and quit.  -if a wife just gets fed up at her job one day and throws up her hand and quits, oh well.  she might choose to go back or she might choose to "tkae some time off to regroup and take care of herself___".  a man has no such luxuries.

--lots of females insist that men do "their equal share" of housework.  they expect that the man who is usually the breadwinner, meaning he is working a job that is actually importnat and that positively impacts society, must come home from working a full day,, and then clean the entire kitchen.  this is even though the females sure as hell don't do "their equal share" of working outside the house.  women are secretaries, assistants, clerks, etc.

--there are ALREADY tons of female superheroes.  hunger games, buffy, ___. trinity, xena warrior princess, alias

Singing the praises of Cap: Winter Soldier

Man, I cannot shut up about Captain America:  Winter Soldier.  It is such a good movie.

I serenely grace the ears of anyone who will listen, anyone who either likes superhero movies or who likes politically, modern-day relevant movies to go watch it.

Man, Captain America got arrested.  Say that again.  Captain frekn America got arrested.  You know something's wrong when a beacon of hope, freedom, and patriotism is arrested in the same damn country that placed those mantles upon him.

Imagine my gradual realization that Cap would be considered a terrorist/dissident specifically because he didn't want to shoot and blow up random innocent citizens.  Cap is considered a terrorist because he is not okay with the government terrorizing people.

My foolhardy self did not even realize this next thing at first.  I had to stumble upon a brilliant epiphany from a freakin tumblr user, of all unexpected sources of inspiration.

If the subject of government bullying arises, you have to address the major subtopic of black Americans.  You cannot address government intrusion and bullying -- without discussing the massive subtopic of black people being brutalized, abused, and murdered by officers of the law.  Harshly and in disproportionately large numbers compared to all other demographics.

The internet denizen made some incredible, insightful observations.  He/she stated that towards the middle of the movie, there were indeed sufficient warning signs that Nick Fury was a target of the government and under imminent attack.  Unfortunately, the signs of impending government brutality looked exactly the same as the daily, routine, systemic racism to which Nick Fury is subject every single goddamn day of his life.

The rare tumblr hero also noted that the police did not hesitate to murder a black man out in broad daylight, in the middle of the day, on a very busy street.  Doesn’t matter that he didn't do anything wrong, did absolutely nothing to provoke the police brutality.  Which is another important point only slight off-topic.  No one, that is, absolutely no one, that is forced under police detainment has ever done anything to provoke being murdered.  A person fighting back, wanting to maintain bodily integrity, understandably terrified, is never asking to be murdered.

Nick Fury only escaped alive because he is Nick Fury.  The police did not give a 3h + that Nick Fury was also a government official and a good person.  He is a black man, he is the target, end him.

Whereas regarding Cap, ehh, at least the police sort of afforded him the dignity of not being fed several rounds of bullets out in the open public.  Frank Grillo saw the news chopper and told his underling, "not here."

Nick fury had a main-character-sized role in this movie, which was an excellent story decision.  In all the other avengers movies, nick fury is relegated to a side role or simply a cameo.  The "avengers assemble" was an ensemble cast, so nobody had a main role.

Another reason Cap would be considered a terrorist is that he destroyed government property.

Never mind the fact that the government property of interest is a destroyer ship, built and programmed to literally slaughter millions of innocent people and therefore Cap is 100% in the moral right.

Nope.  Simply the fact that Cap caused millions of dollars worth of property damage is enough to label him "terrorist."  The fact that Cap is a decent human being with a good heart and a sense of right and wrong, are what brandishes him now as "terrorist."

But that's where the government is at now.  For that matter, Sam Wilson, Black Widow, and the legendary Nick Fury would also be considered terrorists.

The movie incorporated brilliant parallels to a lot of legitimate-sounding conspiracy theories.

patriot act; 9/11 used as a convenient, catch-all excuse for the patriot act, TSA, department of homeland security.  in this day and age where there are all sorts of propaganda TV shows and movies, including the I-haven’t-watched-it-because-frankly-it-looks-embarrassing "Homeland," starring my-so-called-life.  CA:  Winter Soldier is a very much needed reversion to the propaganda entertainment drilled into people's heads every second of every day.  Brutal honesty.

This movie is round-aboutedly declaring that it is not a straightforward matter of government acting in its citizens' best interests and simply screwing up phenomenally. The govmet is not simply following its purported good judgment and proceeding with extreme caution for the citizens' own good.  It is not simply the government reacting to the current sociopolitical climate.

No-- the government is fomenting chaos, terror, violent crime ON PURPOSE.  False flags.  Spreading hate and unease and distrust among average ordinary people, so that govmet have an excuse to crack down on people's lives, freedom, family home, freedom to travel n move around.  To declare arbitrary notions "illegal" so that the govt can lock up harmless people.

A specific act that the movie focuses on is the government spying on, profiling, and targeting people.  And then will murder them if they oppose the government's vision.  Hydra with its helicarriers. 

Analogous to intercepting private people's private phone calls.  Tracing and reading private people's private emails.

Profiling people's facebook posts, blog posts, twitter tweets, editorials written in newspapers or news websites.  Scanning, carefully methodically scouring the collection of the written word.  Searching tirelessly for any seeds of dissidence against the government.  And then eliminating that person because, after all, the government is good.  Therefore, anyone who speaks out against the government is surely bad, and anyone that is bad against the United States government is a terrorist, right?

The movie specifically addresses the so-called "war on terror."  The US government claims it is "protecting you from the bad guys" by accusing you of being the bad guys.

illuminati Rothschilds Rockefellas bilderbergs NWO the puppet masters George Soros Federal Reserve 9/11
the deep state; corruption of democratic party n republicans

Chipping away at the dignity of human beings.  A prominent example being TSA at airports being allowed to conduct body/groping searches.

—
The endings to each of their story arcs were very realistic. Cap waking up in a hospital bed, recovering.  With his friend by his side playing familiar comforting music.  Black Widow at the congressional hearing.  All of it extremely realistic, especially the hearing with federal congressional politicians feigning moral outrage.  indignation huffy and puffy towards the avengers' so so grievous, egregious actions, they would dare to take action against a scheming, beyond-corrupt, abusive, lazy, useless government.

About Nick Fury torching his belongings, holding a fake funeral with a real gravesite, and having to go into hiding.  I’m not sure how realistic that is, per se; in the sense that it’s not an everyday occurrence.  But I have never before seen a “superhero” movie present us a resolution so grounded in the physical world we inhabit.  And none so genuinely badass.

Captain America: Winter Soldier is the best superhero movie, period

This is so cool.  This is crazy and brilliant and fascinating:  Captain America is a libertarian.  (Hopefully the nice and moral kind, aka Christian libertarian.)

Which was a brilliant decision by the writers, producers, story editors, etc., whoever else is involved with making the plot.  Because seriously, as I have said before, a superhero named "Captain America" in this day and age is a macabre, tasteless, mirthless joke.

The movie is about so much more than just these asinine avengers, etc.  It is a mirror reflection of precisely what is going on in this dear country.  This land, once the land of opportunity, once the land of the free and home of the brave, has now deteriorated into a heap of huddled, haggard ragamuffins too deathly afraid to stand up to the IRS, to the government, or to other corporations.

I also thought it quite refreshing, calming, and progressive that, of the four main characters, two of them were black.

You must see this movie.  If you do not like the scenes of extreme violence, which is completely understandable, you can just fast-forward past them.  Haha, "fast-forward," I am such a child of the 80s.  Most kids under age 20 would be like, "fast forward?  What's that?"  Sorry, I'm just a little excited because I have not seen a movie this good and this relevant to current events in a long time.

It's not just a matter of corrupt government.  It is not a matter of crooked police, crooked local politicians, local mayors taking handouts, cash bribes [[kickbacks]]] from convicted criminals so that the criminal can go free.  It is not just a matter of police confiscating street drugs and then turning around and selling the street drugs themselves, thereby ingratiating themselves into the crime syndicate.  It is not a simple matter of corruption on a local, county-wide, state, or federal level.

No.  What has happened now is that they have created a whole entire agency that has the express purpose of spying on average citizens.  Its sole purpose is to sneak, insinuate, and ingratiate itself, into every facet of daily life to spy on, terrorize and restrict the movement of honest people.  And it says it is doing this for the honest people's own good.

This is a matter of the government doing what it thinks it is supposed to be doing.  This is a matter of the government thinking it is doing right for its citizens.  the government thinks it is protecting citizens and keeping them safe -- by imprisoning and kidnapping them before they have committed any crime, by imprisoning them in their homes, by imprisoning them in many ways preventing them from having normal decent happy family lives.

Be honest.  The corrupt cops and political branches doing bad -- they know they are doing bad.  They know they are corrupt and screwed.  They don't harbor any fantasies of doing what it takes to be in way of the greater good.  They just don't care anymore.

I noticed that the movie didn't really have one specific villain.  was it this guy?  bucky winter.  ehh, no.  we find out in the movie that Bucky is not the mastermind behind any of it.  in fact, it is readily apparent that Bucky has been tortured n essentially dehumanized during his entire stint as the "winter soldier."  ehh,, was it this guy?  Robert Redford.  Erm, I guess he is supposed to be the high-up CEO of the evil government agency.  but to be honest, Robert Redford's villain does not really have a leering, looming, domineering, threatening, truly villainous screen presence.  or maybe this guy?  frank grillo.  or these pieces-of-human-garbage cops?  Nah.  I suppose I'm comparing all villains to the gold standard that was set by heath ledger's joker.

None of them individually were the one true criminal mastermind behind the government agenda of holding a gun to every person's head and calling it "security."  They were all equally culpable and villainous.

This was precisely the point of the movie.  The movie's whole message is that no one given person is solely responsible for causing chaos and terror.  The entire system, the entire establishment is corrupt, rotten, crooked, compromised beyond all repair.

See, the heath ledger movie was about philosophy.  Our evil human natures, our primitive selfish motives, get people destitute and desperate enough and they will revert to their primitive violent natures, blah blah blah.  That can be easily enough embodied in one specific character.

This movie, however, is not about abstract philosophy.  This movie is trying to send a realistic, very urgent message to its viewers.  This movie is about current events happening in real time, transpiring as we speak.

It would make things so much easier to be able to pinpoint one specific culprit as the root of all evil.  And then in the words of Andrew Jackson, "rout [that one person] out," get rid of the evil influence, and then things could go back to being hunky-dory and happy.  but there is no one specific bad guy.  The government having grown to what it is today is a massive, colossal stupid unwitting cooperation of many subbranches numbering in the triple digits.  On local, county, state, and federal levels.

A major plot point that many others have pointed out.  The other avengers didn't show up in this movie. 

This was not a coincidence nor was it an oversight; I think there was a very good reason for this.  I think the point was to convey the feeling of being utterly alone when going up against a monstrosity goliath like the bloated, groaning, heaving US government.  the feeling of being made to feel isolated... with no one on your side, no one to turn to for comfort, for support, for aid.

The government does this on purpose to people.  For instance, imagine that an acquaintance of yours has received a letter from the irs or from the state council accusing them of something nefarious.  They owe back taxes.  Or they are being fined a hefty amount for some grievance.  Alternatively, imagine that your acquaintance's credit history is so bad that they are unable to qualify for an apartment lease.

Do you feel sympathy for that friend?  Do you feel that you should be there for them to offer a sympathetic ear or shoulder to cry on?  Or do you feel kind of uneasy being around this person now?  Perhaps you feel morally that it is no longer a good idea to be associated with this person?  It's kinda skewed now, isn't it?  Like this friend is now revealed to be a dishonest person.  You durn tax evader, you criminal, you non-patriotic troublemaker, you shirker of your responsibilities, you neglecter of your civic duty, you neglecter of credit.  And then do you choose to distance yourself from that friend.

Think of how the friend feels.  He or she is still the same decent, honest human being.  But now they feel targeted by a monstrous looming evil kraken that they cannot hope to fight evenly, such as reasonable I court.  They probably feel isolated, cold, unloved.  They know that they have now in the eyes of their friends, such as you, become a social pariah.

This is the exact feeling that the writers and producers of this movie wanted to convey to the audience.

I sing this movie's praises to anyone within a twenty-feet radius of myself.  Extoll the virtues (that's from go fug yourself re:  sandwiches; it is equally applicable here) to anyone that is interested in government abuse but wants to be entertained at the same time.

relevant memes:  what I expected:
fun avengers
superman

what I got:
9/11 false flag
edward snowden/nsa
when did this (friendly neighborhood police) become this (militarized local police)
fake police-do-gooder news articles 1984
arbitrary imprisonment without due processsssss
america bombing syria, america forcing into sovereign countries
federal reserve/irs

Middle-class white women, men's rights activists, and divorce

I've been revisiting this very controversial topic iin recent months.  Sigh.  I just can't stay away from a challenge.

I'm sorry, but a lot of the complaints that MRA's cast against wimen are ture.

Women leave and get a divorc for no apparent readon.  She is the ine whi gets bored, because the guy did not entettain her enough.  Then she demands child support and alimony simy because she does not want to look at bis face anyore.

----- ((perh put in here???)))  I have heard the bslip reasons that so many women say they still expe ttheir ex-husband to support bem financially.  They saythey wxpect the father to supprt the ex-wife and kids because there is no way she would be able to suddenly gou out and get a job that could comfortabl supprt them all.  does not have the work experivec, she does not have a marketable degree, ad nauseum.

--THere is a very easy solution to this.  Give custody of the kids to the father.   -- I have read enougn supporting arumets to be of the opinion that child cusotdy sbould go to the parent who is financially solvent enougn to support them.  the oher parent proba l does not make enoughomey in some minimum wage nob that she had to scramble to get once she relaized she could not subsust without the gravy train that she micked out of her life and her cbildren's life when she got bored.

In the vast majoriy of divorce situations, the fathe is the one that has the work experience and the reliable, professioanl job.  HThe is the one who could best suppor the kids and give hem a giod home.  He can afford to live in a good enighborhiid sfae from crime, affird healht insurance so he can take them to the doctor whneener needed, he can buy prescription medicines.

This is the most logicsl silution for all invilved parties regardign a divorce.  the ex-wife could get a job in a grocery store stackig canned fodds on shelves.  Wihitu the wory of supporin the kids financually, she could easily support helrsf on this minimum wage bourly income. __For God's sake, she is a griwn-ass adult woman.  She should work to support herself.  She shpuld not be alloee to rely on alimony to support ber.

To whicht I can imagine their counte argument is that the father would be workign sll thr time, herefore the would not have time to actuall raise the kids, as in servingthem dinner, helping them wih homework, talkin to them and nust veing their for them '

Oh, so waht you are sayig is that one parent should work to support the kids, and the other parent should refrain from workig a salaried job so that this one can devote full time to raising the kids.

Yeah, you already had that arrangemey -- it was called marriage.  You chose to opt out of it.

This is more juvenile entitlement bullshit.  What this feemale is absicly saying is that she does not want to face any of the reponsibilites of a a marraige, such as beig there emoiknally cor her husbamd nor cooking for him -- but she still wants all tje genefits-- such as him continuing to support her with his paycheck.


-- and middle-class white demales notice absolutel none of it. 
Likeyhat insipid eat pray love featuring a ninny of a privelwged, comfortable, and Ompeltey oblvious to her privelage female.
Her husnad eas a ghood duy.  She disht have any actual substania compaints about him.  He eas not abusive, not an alvohoic, nt a duggie. 
-- just a generla vague feeling of malaise and boredom,, as middle-class white females are wont to do.

You nkkw why she was feeling so bored?  It's because she is borig.  I see this eerythere, not just in hollywod.  Middle-class white females are eiher boring -- or disgusting..  Their carees are borig, usually some sht like publishing or advertising or some junk like that.  They have no jnteresting hobbies.  The only dosernible hobvy I can identify is that they like compainjg about men.
……….
Then when she decides she is bired eith him, after the has apparenty given her whatber she wanted from him, she decides to dispose of him.  She gets a divorce.  Or moves cross country, wahtever.
Rendering the man as beig no more use to her.

Tooany times, women see men as little more than a speem bank and a money bank.

Review of "Frozen," aka The final nail in the coffin of the failed social experiment that is feminism

Apparently there is a new computer-rendered animated movie out called "Frozen."

I don't watch much TV on a TV set so I suppose I have not been assaulted with the same amount of drowning propaganda to which others have been subjected.  Also I don't hang out in the children's underwear department much, so this movie somehow escaped my attention until now.

This is a story about a girl with really awesome superpowers and enormous responsibility expected of a queen, and her boring, typical middle-class white female sister.

Hunh.  So it employs the same digital animation style as that used by Pixar.  Well, Disney has been collaborating with Pixar for so long, it stands to reason that they would learn a thing or two about animation in the new millennium.

The move honestly was very enjoyable, very entertaining.  The musical number "Let It Go" lived up to every bit of the hype it has apparently been getting.  I read up on youtube comments so I know this was a popular hit with fans.

The two main characters were mostly a pain in the ass.

It is the classic story of some very comfortable, privileged, upper-middle-class white girls who are convinced that the patriarchy is somehow holding them down.  They are oppressed even though they are born into royalty, have every freedom to do whatever they want and freedom not to do whatever they don't want at their whim.  They have the whole entire kingdom at their beck and call.  But don't forget that they are oppressed.

In all probability, men designed and built the whole entire castle in which they reside.  This includes the plumbing system, the furniture on which they sit their rich asses, and the fine crowns and jewels with which they adorn their privileged heads.  They don't have to do any cooking, cleaning, or laundry whatsoever; those tasks are most likely left to working-class women.  But don't forget that the two princesses are oppressed.

They spend their days waking up at noon, not having to work a day in their goddamn lives.  They spend their days singing and talking about snowmen.  They don't have to worry about trade relations, the economy, any peasants' standard of living.  But don't forget that the two princesses are oppressed.

The younger sister, to whom I guess we are all supposed to relate, is a girl born into privilege and wealth and comfort.  Who has not had to work for anything in her life.  She has no special skills or powers, nothing.  No marketable talents that could get her a respectable, prestigious, well-paying job.  nope, her wealth is entirely due to the fact that her *parents* are comfortable and wealthy.  (*Were* comfortable and wealthy; my bad.)  She did not earn a penny of it herself.  She is not interesting, she is not jaw-droppingly intelligent, she is not phenomenally talented.

She is also a typical female who is naiive and easily duped about romance/men/dating.  She is so desperate for a boyfriend that her gullibility allowed the hot red-headed guy to be a jerk.  Sorry, but everything Hans said to her in that part where he was going to murder her in front of the fireplace, was true.  This is the case in the vast majority of girls that end up with untrustworthy guys.  There was nothing remotely extraordinary or fascinating about the Anna character.  She is just all-around mediocre as hell.

I am also concerned because of the unwitting message this is sending to girls regarding desperation for male approval.  We all know that teenage girls aren't too bright, especially in matters of romance/dating/sex.  I am worried that girls are going to see this and think, "ohh well as long as I don't *marry* someone I just met, I'm not being desperate.  It's okay if we sleep together, or shack up together, or have a baby together, after having just met.  As long as we don’t get married, I'm not being desperate."  That nuance and simile would probably be lost on them.

And asking the poor blonde guy to help her.  Ah, let me rephrase that.  She did not "ask" Christoph to help her.  She ordered him to help her; she didn't really ask him.  She ordered him to, and just expected that he would comply.  Let me rephrase things again.  The word "help" intrinsically means one person is already *doing* the work.  Then they can then get a second person to *help* them.

That is not what happened here.  Anna expected this poor poverty-stricken guy to do all the work for her while she sat back and watched him "help."  Who does she think she is?  ""ohhh welll she's a princess."  Yes, I am aware of that.  She is a spoiled, pampered princess.  That all is what got on my nerves about the movie.

But I loved almost everything about Elsa.  This is because Elsa was the opposite of Anna.

That is, I loved Elsa until I read some critiques of the character, and did a little more thinking.

So... she's a queen with girl power who don't need no man.  She's such a capable and intelligent queen... that she just cursed her whole damn kingdom into frost, ice, dangerous driving conditions, killing crops and livestock, dangerous walking conditions.  And then she ran away like a coward.

She's such a strong capable woman in charge of her own life... that she doesn't know how to control her own powers.  Remember this scene?

What do you mean you "can't"?  You're a flucking grown adult.  Figure it out.

We certainly don't accept this kind of BS excuse from men.  We expect men to have a good handle on any magical powers.  If they are not able to control their own powers, they are evil.  Jafar, Rasputin.  No one accepts the following excuse regarding males, "oh he doesn't know his own strength."  And rightly so.

We do not accept this excuse regarding any male that, say, is restraining a female, has grabbed her arm, and inadvertently leaves a really bad bruise.

Therefore there is no reason to be so accommodating towards women.  That is your responsibility to figure out how your powers work, not anyone else's.

By the way, in the past , we did hold women to the same standards of knowing their own magical strength.  Fairy godmother, the three good fairies.

Maleficent, the wicked queen stepmother, the evil fairy in Shrek 2.

It is the classic story of some very comfortable, privileged, upper-middle-class white girls who are convinced that the patriarchy is somehow holding them down.  They are oppressed.  Even though they are born into royalty, have every freedom to do whatever they want and freedom not to do whatever they don't want at their whim.  They have the whole entire kingdom at their beck and call.  But don't forget that they are oppressed.

Let's be honest.  In all probability, men designed and built the whole entire castle in which they reside including the plumbing system and fuel/heating system.  Men built the furniture on which they sit their rich asses, and the fine crowns and jewels with which they adorn their privileged heads.  They don't have to do any cooking, cleaning, or laundry whatsoever.  Those tasks are most likely left to minority, working-class women.  But don't forget that the two princesses are oppressed.

They spend their days waking up at noon, not having to work a day in their goddamn lives.  They spend their days singing and talking about snowmen.  They don't have to worry about trade relations, the economy, any peasants' standard of living.  But don't forget that the two princesses are oppressed.

Men being objectified, Part II, aka Avengers Edition

We might also call this, Men Being Objectified:  Avengers Edition.

I agree that things that degrade women's bodies into an assemblage of various physical pieces is shameful and disgusting.  *But dildos and truck nuts are okay, I guess.

*Those hefty trash-bag commercials

*Comparing men's cars as commentary on their penis sizes.  Seriously, we see and hear the penis-size jokes everywhere and all the time.  I'm surprised that people don't recognize this as the blatant objectification that it is.  Sigh.  Then again, I guess I'm not honestly too surprised about it.  I didn't coniser it to be objectification myself until very recently when I sat down and actually thought about it.

*Fan photograph opportunities with celebs.  Apparently at fan/comicbook conventions, there are booths where fans can stand in line to get photo ops with the stars.  There was commentary of Stan Whatshisface being prodded into pictures that were too familiar and intimate.  I was curious what in the world are they talking about, and yep.  These are poses that the fans are requesting, not the actor.  Most of the photos are definitely too close for comfort, especially for a chance on-off meeting with a complete stranger.  Remember that these girls asked him to do this.  They were the initiators, not him.

*The girl in the audience that asked about the Captain America boob grab.  (Chris Evans tends to grab men's boobs, not women's)

*A reporter just reached out and grabbed Tom Loki's Adam's apple.  To women's credit, this was a male reporter that did the grabbing, not a female reporter.

*Any sexy interviews of Chris Hemsworth, i.e., any interview of Chris Hemsworth

Hey libertarians, here's a sneak peek into your future

Let us gaze into the crystal ball, shall we?

Be careful what you wish for, libertarians, for that world already exists today.  You would wish a future in which nobody would feel obligated to help anybody.  You would choose a world in which there is no social cohesion, a world in which there are no social programs, no cooperation, no method of lifting people up out of abject poverty.  This is what you would inflict upon the world.  I feel that a public service announcement is in order.

You libertarians feel that you have absolutely no obligation to abide by the social rules of empathy, compassion, or concern for your fellow humans.  In this mortal coil.

...But you think they will still somehow magically follow the social rule of consent??

Let us take a gander at the Indian subcontinent, the land of Hindustan.  The heritage from which I hail.  This is what a libertarian society looks like.  This is the world that you would wish for.

Libertarianism means nobody has to do absolutely anything they don't want to do, correct?  I hope that includes police officers, because that is how India and Bangladesh apparently interpreted it.  If the police officer over there doesn't feel like investigating a crime, whether violent or white collar, they won't.  If a cop doesn't feel like apprehending a crime in mid-execution, they won't.  If a cop doesn't feel like making an arrest, they won't.

Same goes for emergency rooms. If a patient does not present cash up front, the doc doesn't have to help them.

Politicians and corporate bigwigs embezzle money, or skim it off of workers' pay, which is essentially embezzling it in a legal manner.  They store this money, of course, in Swiss bank accounts, effectively stealing it out of the nation's economy.

What's that you said, libertarian, workers couldn't possibly consent to that?  Well, actually, workers cannot withhold consent from what they don't even know is happening.

There are no social programs to aid suffering people.

To aid the sick and poor

No WIC programs.  No monetary welfare. No druggie/alcoholic/etc. rehabilitation programs.  Look, I am not necessarily "pro" all of these things.  Lord knows I dislike welfare queens and baby daddies including corporate welfare queens as much as the next person.

No taxpayer-funded public grade school systems.  No taxpayer-funded vaccination programs for children.  There aren't even any charity organizations in place that might afford at least some poor people the chance not to die of preventable illnesses.  There are no homeless shelters or even soup kitchens.  Ha, yeah, right!  Homeless shelters?  What's that?

When I talk about helping the poor and downtrodden, I do not mean things like affirmative action or social promotion.  I think the verdict is in on those movements -- they do not work.  All that those farces of political correctness do is usher unqualified people into schools and jobs that they are wholly unprepared for.  It does nothing but perpetuate and reward failure.

A society could have remedial programs in education, like academic rehab.  It is best to have a society that is at least somewhat literate.  Get the general population up to some minimum standard.

But in your dream libertarian society, this would not exist, either.

No taxpayer-funded or city-wide sewage system or plumbing system.  No city water tank or water-pasteurizing system.  No city garbage collection or handling.

Why do none of these things exist in the Indian subcontinent?  Because noone ever wanted to undertake any massive city-wide project to establish these systems.  So what if it is a matter of public health, order, sanitation, and ultimately safety?  No one wants to do it, and that's that.

Remember, in a libertarian society, no one has to do anything they don't want to do.

No programs for mental illness

No welfare for poverty stricken people

You say you do not have any obligation to give money to charity.  No obligation to do volunteer work in the community.  No obligation to make sure everyone in society is at least doing better than grinding abject poverty.

You got rid of the social rule that says, "Do unto others."  You got rid of the social rule that says that all children have a right to grade school education.  You got rid of the rule that says all of society has a responsibility to care about all children.  You got rid of the social rule that says that people have a right to basic food, nutrition, sustenance.

And yet you think the people that are directly harmed by all these decisions -- people in obliterating poverty, that is -- should still somehow magically obey the social rule of consent and not mug you??

I find it mind-boggling that so many libertarians insist that there is no social contract to which people ought to adhere.  Erm, excuse me?  When you see a green light-- go; yellow light-- slow down; red light-- stop.

Don't drive your car carelessly or mow over pedestrians.  Don't commit crimes.  Don't mug people.  Don't throw trash on the street.  Look for a garbage can, and dispose of waste properly.

Most importantly, do not think that the only reason not to do these things is that they are against the law.  The law is only a piece of paper that cannot force anyone to comply.  No.  Refrain from doing these things because NOT doing these things is the moral and right thing to do.  These are all parts of the social contract that libertarians claim does not exist.

It seems that libertarians have a very unsophisticated, woefully inadequate understanding of human psychology.  You cannot simply trash almost all social rules -- charity, low cost healthcare options, mandatory education for children funded by all of society, mandatory food for children funded by all of society -- and then still expect said society to function in a safe, orderly, healthy manner.

You cannot simply say that rich people can do whatever they want to do, such as not have to care about sick and poor people -- and then turn around and say that poor people cannot do whatever they want to do, such as mug and rob rich people, or commit public group beatings of a rich person out on the street.


I realize now that the aforementioned societies are exceedingly libertarian.  This is not a good thing.  They most certainly would not label themselves libertarians.  But as I have noted many, many times before, people are not good at assessing themselves.

Remember my previous article on how civilizations mirror the growth and development of a human life cycle?  That still applies here.  But in some societies, such as those of Bangladesh and most parts of India, conservatives have evidently allowed themselves to be too emotionally damaged by the state of affairs around them.  They are bitter, cynical, and jaded; they are emotionally damaged to an extent beyond repair. 

Those societies have snowballed to the point that conservatives have lost all hope.  A libertarian is in essence a conservative that has lost any and all faith whatsoever in humanity.  They do not see an optimistic future for society.  They have given up completely.  This is why they are okay with things like illicit street drugs and prostitution, and yet at the same time they are fiscally very conservative.  They no longer give a crap about anyone.

Very important to note:  just because a given conservative turns into a libertarian, this does not automatically mean that he/she is more "evolved."  Here is what I mean by that.  Many former liberals do evolve a bit, after gaining knowledge of the whole unfiltered truth.  They see news and current events, they begin understanding more comprehensively about society, and they read their history.  They then realize that their opinions and perceptions begin leaning more to the right.

However, very much unlike that, a libertarian is not a more "evolved" conservative.  A libertarian might have started out as conservative, fine.  But a conservative-turned-libertarian is like milk that has turned into spoiled milk.  Spoiled milk has aged, and sure, it has reached the next step in its biochemical development.  But it sure as hell has not improved.  It has gotten worse.  It is now no use to anybody.  It is better to have it removed from society at that point, because the harm it could do greatly outweighs any benefits to society.

In a way, turning into a libertarian is a form of de-evolution.  It has changed, it has mutated, but it has not evolved.  Evolution denotes an improvement.  Becoming a libertarian is a process of shriveling up,__

More Civilization Fractals

I slowly came upon this theory like pouring molasses in January.  (After reading everything I have written, can you tell that I am hugely influenced by Michael Crichton?  And yes, I only first became aware of the existence of the concept of fractals after reading Jurassic Park.  No, I did not have knowledge of their existence before the early 1990s.  I was a tween, so sue me already.)

My theory slowly took form.  And as it did, nearly everything that humans have done, or have had done to them, has fallen neatly into place.  This theory is supremely complex, sure.  But it is simultaneously clean, straightforward.  It manages to explain so many things.  It appears to answer several burning questions about human history, about scientific discovery and creativity, about human developmental psychology, even about lack of scientific discovery and creativity.

Anyway.  I had been reading on the internet about "racism" and all the tandem accusations spewed like slop, and I was getting a headache from the aggravation and the frustration. Of course not only because of the internet, since "racism" has been around longer than the internet.  There is always nattering blather about how America is obsessed with "racism" and racial identity and racial politics, and always has been, ad nauseum.

Apparently there is a lot of conflict within the black community because there are shades and gradients of black -- brown, tan, beige, dark brown, etc.  This produces a subset of racism called "colorism."  I have known since at least my middle school days that black people, especially black girls and women, are particularly sensitive about their hair.  Their hair length, texture, thickness, silkiness, softness-v-coarseness, resemblance to "white people's hair," natural vs. styled, weaves, sewn-in styles.  In all honesty, I had known about the "colorism" since middle school also.

It seems that "colorism" causes as much aggravation and strife within the black community as racism does without the black community.  I read this and I was rolling my eyes in frustration because I wondered why they have to get so upset and make such a big deal over something that is not really dire.  And I realized that while I can sympathize with them -- this was not really my problem.  They need to figure this out on their own.  That has to be their learning experience, their evolution, their growth.

But I was astounded to learn that most populations of Asians *are* racist, and they are *okay* with this fact.  They have come to terms with it.  It does not cause crime, mugging, r--, gang activity, riots, violent protests.  It does not cause emotional strife, it does not cause depression, anxiety, identity crisis, complaining about brown light-skin vs. dark skin.

Looking back through my memory, I realized that this was true.  Indians, my own Bangladeshi, Chinese, Taiwanese, Indonesian, Malaysian, take your pick.  Whatever Asian culture we are talking about, there has always existed a brand of colorism.  Asians prefer to marry and mate light-skinned Asians within their country.  There are shades and gradients of yellow, brown, yellow-brown, tan, wheatish, fair, et al.

Of course, a given person can only mate with someone that will accept him or her.  This is universal throughout the human race.  Which means that only the lightest will be privileged with marrying the lightest, the next lightest will get to marry anyone darker than that, and on and on down the color line.

Full disclosure, I have always been fine with this.  This makes sense.  The light-skinned people are not obligated to hook up with anyone darker than them.  Not out of any nonsense notion of "equality" or "fairness," and not for any reason unless one is truly madly deeply head over heels in love with another one.  In which case, go have a crazy over-the-top wedding and have lots of marbled babies.

But to claim that colorism is "evil" is exaggerated, hysterical idiocy.  Come off it.  Marriage and romance are about whom you are most comfortable with, not about who is most politically correct.  The darker brown ones can bitch and moan and groan all they want.  But the fact remains, light-skinned people are not under any moral obligation whatsoever to raise dark-skinned people's self-esteem by having sex with them.  Light-skinned folks should not be forced to include dark-skinned folks in the popular crowd.  The dark ones got rejected by the light ones.  Get over it.

Asians do not obsess over this "racism" as a national pastime.  There are no "national conversations about race" that need to occur.  It has already been settled.  Yes, we're racist, we're over it, that's old news, move on.

This was breathtaking discovery for me.  This was fascinating.  I am forever grateful to fate, destiny, etc. that I stumbled upon this.  So you are saying it is possible for people to be keenly aware of racial differences, and yet not abuse and flagellate and torment themselves over it?

When I say racism, I do not mean a harmless innocuous being proud of one's own family and cultural heritage.  That is not racism.  I am talking about actively engaging in behaviors that indicate that one feels that certain ethnic groups are more fit and acceptable than others.  This would include the act of only socializing with people that one feels most comfortable with.  This means promoting a particular race as more well-suited to particular careers and livelihoods.  And yes, this includes romancing and marrying someone that one deems acceptable for oneself to marry.

Now, I am NOT saying that hate crimes are okay.  Crimes are crimes are crimes.  Doesn't matter what the motivation is.  Lynching, r--, gang-beating, what happened to Medgar Evars.  Those are sick and filthy and vile, and just because I am slightly racist in terms of human intimacy and comfort does not mean I am okay with the existence of crimes against humanity.  Colorism is not even close to advocating violation of a human being.

A criminal that violates a person's right to bodily autonomy, should be charged with the same crime as any non-racially-based or non-sexually-based crime.  Black people, dark-skinned Asians, whoever we are talking about must have the same individual freedoms and rights of any group of people, no argument there.  Do not take my words out of context.

Anyway.  You cannot imagine the relief I felt when I chanced upon this revelation.  It felt like I could finally let go of a breath I had not even realized I was holding.  A huge burden was lifted from my shoulders.

I detected a parallel between this peculiarity of Asian culture, and the fact that adults tend to be okay with their flaws, whatever the flaws may be.  If they can learn to live with it and still function in society just fine, then this is not a problem.  I have grown to accept it. I have learned to accept myself for who I am. I am a colorist. I have made my peace with this fact.  I have accepted it, and I am moving on.

Hmm, interesting.  What other ways have Asians demonstrated that they are more progressed along the timeline of civilization development?

- The above information combined with the high mean IQ of Asians,
- As well as the vast expansive history that spans several millennia back into the past


I hold a similar, if more impatience and vehement, view towards western women and women's rights issues.

A pandemic number of western society first-world females proclaim themselves so oooo confused about their role and lot in life because, gosh darn, they are just so trailblazing, capable, independent, and glass-ceiling-busting that traditional women's roles just don't fit them anymore.

As we have all heard, western society women claim that they are now emancipated, feministed, empowered, liberated, modern young women free from the shackles of an outdated oppressive patriarchal regime.  They claim that because of this newfound freedom, the traditional social roles of men and women are now topsy-turvy y and confusing as all get out, and therefore the old answers and approaches to life don't work anymore.  They have declared traditional societal roles as "obsolete."

___relationships, baby-daddy situations, (These liberal females are too chicken to use the word "marriage."  "Marriage" is a dirty four-letter word in the liberal feminist lexicon; it is the worst foul-language curse that a liberal female could possibly utter.

they are still trying to figure out how
oh it is all just so confusing, }}}insp, insppp||||

What the hell is so Goddamn confusing about this?
I'm not really following.  What the hell is so damn difficult to understand?
What is do damn confusing about this?

|||||these females say that "society" expects them to act like dumb bimbos... erm, let us examine this accusion towards "society" a bit more carefully.||||

Notice that when these females say that "society" expects them to whore themselves out for pleasing the crowd, they do not actually mean society.  They actually only mean the entrainment media:  hollywood/pnr.

This is because actual society, as in flesh and blood human beings, do NOT tell them this, and in fact have never told them this.  Their families, their genuine friends, teachers and other people at school, church groups -- none of these normal human beings ever advised the aforementioned young ladies that they had to be dumb bimbo xsluts in order to make their mark in life.

The truthful account is that the dumb sluts chose of their own volition to discard common sense and morals.

-----

Several years ago I wrote an essay that drew from everything I knew, at that time, of the human experience.  I drew from facts of economics, international trade, history, different cultures, general social progress, and individual progress.  I constructed a theory that cleanly but complexly wove all this complex information together into a coherent tapestry.  There, I had theorized that civilizations rise and fall in cycles.  I remarked that we in this society are fortunate enough to be living in the Golden Age of the United States.

However, now that I am a bit older, I realize that I did not have all the necessary information back then.  Crucial pieces of the puzzle, heretofore unseen, are now revealing themselves.

Now I am seeing more sociopolitical patterns that still fit that same previous theory of mine -- but which add massive mountainous strata.  Not to mention, the angle of my vantage point has completely revolved.  I see that the puzzle of human past and future is far more complex, and far larger than I previously even knew existed.  It is as though I were a Flatlander before, being conscious of only two dimensions.  And now the cloak has dissolved, and I see in three dimensions.  I revel in their saphenous nature.

In my defense, I like to think that my previous theory was not simply a matter of youthful hubris.  I think that at the time, events truly had not progressed which might have offered some insight into human history.  I think that a tiny little bit of time has passed, enough for humans to experience what happens next in the timeline.  And I realize I have to amend my previous theory.

I suppose it is strange that a live-wire topic such as racism was the gentle nudge that led me to this theory.  Then, everything clicked into place.