Fast track to femininity: Why competing with men has left women out of touch with their feminine sid

[Axmed-InaJaad]

cynical lady;692283 wrote:

A woman should be a woman so says a man. Kiss our toes is my response to you booohoooo cry me a river nonsense for a thread.

 

p.s equality is for women with no aspiration. We don’t want to be your equal, when we know were better than you. As for your fear of the 4th stage.......get with the programme your already replaced from the IVF and strapon department.

istaqfurallah. ilahay ka baq gabaryahay.

[cynical lady]

I am woman, hear me roar

 

Acudubillahi minashaytani rajim. A women should be cute, beautiful and intelligent, not someone who roars like a xawayan.lolllllll.kkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

 

 

So asks a man whose neither tall, dark or handsome. P.s unattainable criteria for your pathetic self I assure you; now just be grateful that any woman looks at you let alone have you.

 

@Ibti

 

Mpendwa- why should i?

[Chimera]

I am a woman, hear me roar!

Hair on my chest, i'm ready for war

Shaving it though is such chore

 

I am a woman, equalled by none

With my strapon I have so much fun

Who said we need that son of a Gun?

 

I am a woman, bow down for me

No such thing as equality

Understand our mentality

We seek to dominate regardless of this blatant form of hypocrasy.

 

....

 

Cynical Lady sings this every morning in front of the mirror.

[Polanyi]

cynical lady;692530 wrote:

So asks a man whose neither tall, dark or handsome. P.s unattainable criteria for your pathetic self I assure you; now just be grateful that any woman looks at you let alone have you.

 

@Ibti

 

Mpendwa- why should i?

 

A couple of things:

 

1. Relax your self. You are not the spokeswomen for all females in the world and I don't think they would want you to be either. No need for the hype, walal.

 

2. I am tall

 

3. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

 

4. I am not dark

 

5. No need for insults. I don't think there is any place I insulted you in that post.

 

6. If i came to meet your family, you would probably be making me tea, ya feminist.klkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

[Alpha Blondy]

 

lol.

 

twinky:cool:

[Prometheus]

The original article is too daffy to deserve a serious response, instead I’ll make a few passing remarks about the feminist movement. Like any educated and egalitarian person, I think the feminist movement has, for the most part, been a force for greater good. In fact, I fancy myself a feminist (or pro-feminist) in a lot of ways. But my admiration and empathy for the earlier waves of this movement do not extend to the eccentric, faux-feminism agitations of subsequent feminist ‘thinkers’. There are, to be sure, some irrational and insufferable feminists. I imagine earlier feminists would suffer from second-hand embarrassment were they read to read the muddled thoughts and mangled words of their successors. Fortunately, these fatuous feminists are wasting away in obscure humanities departments of still more obscure universities. Their silly ideas invariably invite hoots of derision from scientists and rationalists.

 

I’m referring to the sort of daffy feminists who refer to Newton’s Principia as a ‘sex manual’; who whine that E=mc2 is a ‘sexed equation’; and so forth. It’s not only physics that triggers these bizarre outbursts, but even basic findings in biology.

 

For instance, these bimbos blithely claim that are no species with a dominant male hierarchy. This belies an astounding, even embarrassing, ignorance of ethological studies (studies of animal behavior). With very few exceptions, most mammalian species have stronger, more dominant, and more aggressive males. And this is precisely what we would expect given the theory of sexual selection and the sexual dimorphism of such animals. Yes, male-dominance is a mere accident of nature, but it is pervasive one just the same. The competition among males for resources (food and females) is most fierce – a kind of arms race where bigger and bigger males eliminate less adaptive, smaller males.

 

Many well-intentioned, albeit dim-witted, feminists often try to confute these empirical facts as it does not neatly cohere with their naive and romantic view of Nature. Nature isn’t egalitarian or, for that, matter sexist. It just is. Moreover, these daffy feminists worry that allowing for the fact of male dominance in animal populations would lead to supporting it in human populations. Complete non-sequitur. Description and prescription need not overlap.

 

Most Nomads, I suspect, recall the brouhaha that erupted over the words of then Harvard University president Lawrence Summers. He proposed several hypotheses to explain the under-representation of women in high-end science and mathematics professions. One hypothesis suggested that social pressures (discrimination, discouragement etc.) did not adequately account for the substantial differences in achievement. In other words, it's not all nurture; nature plays a role. Perhaps innate sex-differences better account for such gender disparities. This is an empirical claim—something that scientists should study openly and freely. Asking empirical questions of this kind, however, elicited an all-too-familiar response from some feminist quarters: sound and fury. Insufferable feminists won the public relations war. Summers later resigned. The science of ‘gender science’ is not completely settled, but the evidence strongly favors, as Pinker et al have demonstrated, a biological basis for why mathematical geniuses are more likely to be male than female.

[Juxa]

I dont mind CL being my spokes-woman actually, i know i will get my piece of the hilib

 

chimera waxaaga waa bahdil-qarsoon (between the lines i mean)

 

keep on roaring baan ku iri

[cynical lady]

The original article is too daffy to deserve a serious response, instead I’ll make a few passing remarks about the feminist movement.

Like any educated and egalitarian person

, I think the feminist movement has, for the most part, been a force for greater good. In fact, I fancy myself a feminist (or pro-feminist) in a lot of ways. But my admiration and empathy for the earlier waves of this movement do not extend to the eccentric, faux-feminism agitations of subsequent feminist ‘thinkers’. There are, to be sure, some

irrational and insufferable feminists

. I imagine earlier feminists would suffer from second-hand embarrassment were they read to read the muddled thoughts and mangled words of their successors. Fortunately,

these fatuous feminists are wasting away in obscure humanities departments

of still more obscure universities.

Their silly ideas

invariably invite hoots of derision from scientists and rationalists.

 

I’m referring to the sort of daffy feminists

who refer to Newton’s Principia as a ‘sex manual’; who whine that E=mc2 is a ‘sexed equation’; and so forth. It’s not only physics that triggers these bizarre outbursts, but even basic findings in biology.

 

For instance,

these bimbos

blithely claim that are no species with a dominant male hierarchy. This belies an astounding, even embarrassing, ignorance of ethological studies (studies of animal behavior). With very few exceptions, most mammalian species have stronger, more dominant, and more aggressive males. And this is precisely what we would expect given the theory of sexual selection and the sexual dimorphism of such animals. Yes, male-dominance is a mere accident of nature, but it is pervasive one just the same. The competition among males for resources (food and females) is most fierce – a kind of arms race where bigger and bigger males eliminate less adaptive, smaller males.

 

Many well-intentioned, albeit dim-witted, feminists

often try to confute these empirical facts as it does not neatly cohere with their naive and romantic view of Nature. Nature isn’t egalitarian or, for that, matter sexist. It just is. Moreover, these daffy feminists worry that allowing for the fact of male dominance in animal populations would lead to supporting it in human populations. Complete non-sequitur. Description and prescription need not overlap.

 

Most Nomads, I suspect, recall the brouhaha that erupted over the words of then Harvard University president Lawrence Summers. He proposed several hypotheses to explain the under-representation of women in high-end science and mathematics professions. One hypothesis suggested that social pressures (discrimination, discouragement etc.) did not adequately account for the substantial differences in achievement. In other words, it's not all nurture; nature plays a role. Perhaps innate sex-differences better account for such gender disparities. This is an empirical claim—something that scientists should study openly and freely. Asking empirical questions of this kind, however, elicited an all-too-familiar response from some feminist quarters: sound and fury. Insufferable feminists won the public relations war. Summers later resigned. The science of ‘gender science’ is not completely settled, but the evidence strongly favors, as Pinker et al have demonstrated, a biological basis for why mathematical geniuses are more likely to be male than female.

 

:rolleyes: God give me strength…..But sadly I’ve wasted enough time with this dysfunctional sperms.

 

Mac mac kor iyo sideways Juxa...

[Juxa]

CL you should practice family law (divorce) you would be excellent me thinks

[Ismalura]

I stopped reading half way the article because it was enough ****** for one night. If femininity mean docile, superficial and powerless than no woman needs it. Some of us don't have to act 'feminine' to feel like the women we are.

 

@ CL great song !