No more women's dictatorships

A variety of leftovers who think that 2 + 2 = 5 all erstwhile in a while shouts that we live in a patriarchal society, and that this patriarchate must be overthrown, blah blah blah.

And this, like most of their eating, is simply a lie.

Lemings won't even think about it, but the fact is that we live in a matriarchial society, that is, women are a class privileged by the Marxist language of the aggressor mouse companion.

You squeaky part of shit! You're a conspiracy theorist! How dare you have specified heretic views!

Yeah.

First of all, what equality is.

Equality is equal treatment for both sexes.

Okay, let's look at what it looks like in reality.

The most crucial issue is work (because we live in neosocialism):

Women usually work little than men, their work is usually little demanding, and they quit a fewer years earlier, even though their average life expectancy is longer than this man.

Now the subject is tied, which is parity. all now and then we hear how our rulers (because we are de facto slaves of the state) want to force another manufacture to make at least 40% of their bosses women.

"I just look here!", that's in quite a few places.

There's parities in the parliament, there's parities in corporate boards.

There are many absurdities here.

For example, why are parities only in management positions?

Why isn't it that, for example, 40% of ankle stackers on the street must be women? Or why can't 40% of garbagemen be women?

Why isn't there a parity of men in a women-dominated competition? This is why it is not possible to pass (because the bill is the origin of the law) that, for example, 40% of kindergarten children must be men?

The "why" is more of a joke. Personally, I do not think that parities should be at all, due to the fact that competence is the most important.

Next, equality before the law.

In the current legal system, a female can most likely simply accuse everyone of home violence, and no 1 is able to do so (it has a very negative effect on demographics).

If his wife slaps her husband, he can't give her back due to the fact that he'd go to jail for home violence, and she won't, due to the fact that no 1 will believe him, due to the fact that if specified a tiny and tender being could do specified a thing.

Then: a social approach.

When a single parent stays with a child, she deserves alimony and compassion.

When a single father stays with a child, everyone reproaches him, and alimony doesn't belong to him due to the fact that Chop is expected to work.

A female can dress up as she likes, and for getting weirder outfits she gets commended for her strength and independence, while a man for stepping outside the tuxedo-hat is considered a freak, and can get punched in the nose.

In Islam, a woman's voice in a court of law is worth little than a man's voice, and in ours is the opposite.

We always believe in a woman.

Examples can be multiplied, but 1 way or another, it shows that there is no equality in us due to the fact that we live in a matriarchical society that idolizes women.

Why is that?

I would look for reasons for romanticism ("cursed books"), while the best illustration is "The Doll" (I do not know if Barbaria has already thrown it out of the list of readings, or if it is going to). In short, it is crucial that Wokulski there spoke of his chosen 1 (who only wanted to milk him) that he was a goddess to him, that he would worship her.

A female is not God. Period.

Feminism is designed to enhance this effect. The goal of feminism is to make society segregated on sex lines, with women as a higher class.

What is the intent of this entry?

Tell the left to halt lying. If we were surviving in a patriarchal society (or should we) then these black marches would be dealt with as they should be. That's how it didn't happen, and it got in your head.