@Carabinacitron ,
mais non! D'après sa photo,il a pas plus de 30 ans,c'est désespérant! C'est fou de ne rien comprendre à ce point là! A part s'il a un fait un voyage dans le temps,je ne comprends pas comment il peut sérieusement écrire que les pays les plus sexistes sont ceux dont la natalité est parmi les plus élevés,ça veut juste rien dire!
Plus les gens sont éduqués,moins ils font d'enfants d'une part et ensuite,les pays qui interdisent l'avortement ont nécéssairement une natalité plus élevée,ça tombe sous le sens!
Ceci dit,il est largement battu par un nouveau commentateur:
Women can never be independent from men in totality, 'think' about it rationally ~ The classic Feminist cliché of the "strong independent Woman" - as it is a complete fallacy in the real world, as woman collectively still rely on men collectively even in this post-feminist society, the only difference is now it's indirect and is by proxy (Govt) - in other words - what a woman relied directly on Men for in the past, is taken from men by big Govt and redistributed towards women collectively, women in the western feminist regions assume that men will provide for them anyway - through private arrangements like marriage, though the difference is that now it is through progressive taxation - collected by big govt.
Since Men work more hours and earn more money than women, they also collectively contribute more to the taxbase, which liberal governments increasingly hand out to women on a plate. So men therefore are forced to pay for women, whether they agree to do so or not. Which means that men who vote for socially progressive governments are essentially agreeing to marry every woman in the country, so if they thought marrying one woman was bad enough as a risky deal, it's clear to see how bad it is to marry all of them, especially as most benefit and welfare claimants are women. Example = A feminist woman who happily rejects £/$10,000 from one man in a bold effort to claim to be "a strong and independent woman" in the spot light, instead takes £/$1 from 10,000 men behind the scenes from progressive taxation initiatives and reaps the benefits from the redistribution process and thinks that still makes her 'strong and independent', the fallacy of the claim speaks for itself given the records, as men make more money, are taxed to the hilt more and women spend more money, are less taxed and claim and are granted more welfare.
Generally, it's established as an unwritten rule historically, that females can't compete with males so at every level of society assistance is granted in order to create "equality". In a free market, men will out compete virtually all women in all endeavours. Feminists particularly seek "equality" because they know they are average or below average in ability and will not get to the top in a free society. Which is why they oppose free market capitalism and attribute this as patriarchy in its economical form - as value is assigned based on production. Therefore, if these women knew they were equal or superior to men as they often claim then they would want freedom and not state enforced artificial equality.
Not that this is the sole reason that men are generally more individualist and therefore capitalist by nature and gravitate more towards the free open market, as they are more this way by default anyway in comparison to women who historically have been more sociologically communal and collectivist orientated - i.e. the needs of the group come before the needs of the individual, whereas in an individualist orientated society, self-interest is considered the primary noble ambition that is prioritised as paramount before entitlement.
Hence - if they were really "strong and independent", they'd also embrace the free market therefore, and be so less reliant on their 'Daddy Govt'.
Well the idea of Women being closer to children than adults has persisted since even Aristotle's day, he re-emphasised it in-fact, look up 'Aristotle on women'. It's recognised even in legal proceedings, the man is held to higher standards as he is the apex of adulthood, where as the woman is held closer to that of the irresponsible child. The ironic thing is that even today, nobody treats women more like children than do the feminists, even before the cultural marxian feminist hordes came, they had more dignity afforded to them by comparison. Today, a woman is even more like a child than she used to be, a woman is encouraged to have little to no agency, accountability and responsibility in any and all her involvements with a man.
Also, the Big Bang theory was actually dreamed up by the Catholic Jesuit priest - Georges Lemaître. And the theory of evolution - model proposed by Charles Darwin, was taking from Erasmus Darwin - Charles Darwin's grandfather - whom got the idea of 'evolution' from ancient Egypt. Evolution is not scientifically sound, not even science has the answers, as even the academics of evolution posit that it is merely a 'theory' hence why it is called 'the theory of evolution' - in full. The same as the OoA theory (Out of Africa) which is linked to the theory of evolution itself, and incidentely, has since had many studies that conflict with what it once proposed as 'fact' since the early 90's. There is a difference between a 'theory' and 'scientific fact' beyond all doubt and with every certainty, and the OoA theory, the theory of evolution as well as the big bang are not scientific facts beyond all doubt and with every certainty, they are current theoretical models in certain fields of study, which are taken and presented incorrectly as 'facts' by certain sections of the media and press based on their political views and affiliations.
Ironically however, even when going by the theory of evolution, women by and large in the law of averages, by the vast majority are biologically hardwired and driven to seek out men that will dominate and lead them, women are biologically attracted to men that are superior to them, superiority in height, wealth and intelligence are only the start and most visibly obvious. Most women feel it deep within, it's a biological imperative, that biological instinctive that drives them to need a man to do this to them, even women who are not consciously aware of it, instinctively are. It is what it is, and you are merely one woman who disagrees with what most women instinctively feel/want. As for 'equality' - it's illusory, one always has to be dominant over the other, no matter how small, and the masculine is always the dominant and the feminine is always the submissive, that is how they work together, like Yin and Yang, they are complimentary opposites. Those who stray from this are those who often do not contribute to the gene pool and die out with their beliefs as they are not desired by the majority.
mais non! D'après sa photo,il a pas plus de 30 ans,c'est désespérant! C'est fou de ne rien comprendre à ce point là! A part s'il a un fait un voyage dans le temps,je ne comprends pas comment il peut sérieusement écrire que les pays les plus sexistes sont ceux dont la natalité est parmi les plus élevés,ça veut juste rien dire! Plus les gens sont éduqués,moins ils font d'enfants d'une part et ensuite,les pays qui interdisent l'avortement ont nécéssairement une natalité plus élevée,ça tombe sous le sens!Ceci dit,il est largement battu par un nouveau commentateur:
Women can never be independent from men in totality, 'think' about it rationally ~ The classic Feminist cliché of the "strong independent Woman" - as it is a complete fallacy in the real world, as woman collectively still rely on men collectively even in this post-feminist society, the only difference is now it's indirect and is by proxy (Govt) - in other words - what a woman relied directly on Men for in the past, is taken from men by big Govt and redistributed towards women collectively, women in the western feminist regions assume that men will provide for them anyway - through private arrangements like marriage, though the difference is that now it is through progressive taxation - collected by big govt.
Since Men work more hours and earn more money than women, they also collectively contribute more to the taxbase, which liberal governments increasingly hand out to women on a plate. So men therefore are forced to pay for women, whether they agree to do so or not. Which means that men who vote for socially progressive governments are essentially agreeing to marry every woman in the country, so if they thought marrying one woman was bad enough as a risky deal, it's clear to see how bad it is to marry all of them, especially as most benefit and welfare claimants are women. Example = A feminist woman who happily rejects £/$10,000 from one man in a bold effort to claim to be "a strong and independent woman" in the spot light, instead takes £/$1 from 10,000 men behind the scenes from progressive taxation initiatives and reaps the benefits from the redistribution process and thinks that still makes her 'strong and independent', the fallacy of the claim speaks for itself given the records, as men make more money, are taxed to the hilt more and women spend more money, are less taxed and claim and are granted more welfare.
Generally, it's established as an unwritten rule historically, that females can't compete with males so at every level of society assistance is granted in order to create "equality". In a free market, men will out compete virtually all women in all endeavours. Feminists particularly seek "equality" because they know they are average or below average in ability and will not get to the top in a free society. Which is why they oppose free market capitalism and attribute this as patriarchy in its economical form - as value is assigned based on production. Therefore, if these women knew they were equal or superior to men as they often claim then they would want freedom and not state enforced artificial equality.
Not that this is the sole reason that men are generally more individualist and therefore capitalist by nature and gravitate more towards the free open market, as they are more this way by default anyway in comparison to women who historically have been more sociologically communal and collectivist orientated - i.e. the needs of the group come before the needs of the individual, whereas in an individualist orientated society, self-interest is considered the primary noble ambition that is prioritised as paramount before entitlement.
Hence - if they were really "strong and independent", they'd also embrace the free market therefore, and be so less reliant on their 'Daddy Govt'.
Well the idea of Women being closer to children than adults has persisted since even Aristotle's day, he re-emphasised it in-fact, look up 'Aristotle on women'. It's recognised even in legal proceedings, the man is held to higher standards as he is the apex of adulthood, where as the woman is held closer to that of the irresponsible child. The ironic thing is that even today, nobody treats women more like children than do the feminists, even before the cultural marxian feminist hordes came, they had more dignity afforded to them by comparison. Today, a woman is even more like a child than she used to be, a woman is encouraged to have little to no agency, accountability and responsibility in any and all her involvements with a man.
Also, the Big Bang theory was actually dreamed up by the Catholic Jesuit priest - Georges Lemaître. And the theory of evolution - model proposed by Charles Darwin, was taking from Erasmus Darwin - Charles Darwin's grandfather - whom got the idea of 'evolution' from ancient Egypt. Evolution is not scientifically sound, not even science has the answers, as even the academics of evolution posit that it is merely a 'theory' hence why it is called 'the theory of evolution' - in full. The same as the OoA theory (Out of Africa) which is linked to the theory of evolution itself, and incidentely, has since had many studies that conflict with what it once proposed as 'fact' since the early 90's. There is a difference between a 'theory' and 'scientific fact' beyond all doubt and with every certainty, and the OoA theory, the theory of evolution as well as the big bang are not scientific facts beyond all doubt and with every certainty, they are current theoretical models in certain fields of study, which are taken and presented incorrectly as 'facts' by certain sections of the media and press based on their political views and affiliations.
Ironically however, even when going by the theory of evolution, women by and large in the law of averages, by the vast majority are biologically hardwired and driven to seek out men that will dominate and lead them, women are biologically attracted to men that are superior to them, superiority in height, wealth and intelligence are only the start and most visibly obvious. Most women feel it deep within, it's a biological imperative, that biological instinctive that drives them to need a man to do this to them, even women who are not consciously aware of it, instinctively are. It is what it is, and you are merely one woman who disagrees with what most women instinctively feel/want. As for 'equality' - it's illusory, one always has to be dominant over the other, no matter how small, and the masculine is always the dominant and the feminine is always the submissive, that is how they work together, like Yin and Yang, they are complimentary opposites. Those who stray from this are those who often do not contribute to the gene pool and die out with their beliefs as they are not desired by the majority.
*sors la liste*......la couleur des cheveux? notre manucure? la forme de nos oreilles peut être??
moi les miennes elles sont petites et roses....ça veut dire que j'ai une âme de lolita? 
par contre le numéro spécial "cul ti cule" (haha je suis drôle 
) et mes oreilles ben.... elles font leur vie, surtout depuis que j'ai retiré mes clous d'oreilles, elles sont libéréééééées délivréééééées (pardon), votre analyse docteur ? 
, tu es un assemblage de grand n'importe quoi 
.
(allez devinez qui est concernée ? allez devinez 
Indice elle a un Totoro en avatar 
)
