They're gonna fuck for you!

According to the newspaper.pl website, in a vulgar entry on the instagram, referred to as a “star”, a beautiful woman named Zofia Zborowska, pointed out to women that they wanted to vote for the Confederation.

She referred to the provocative circus (returned “Sexmission”) under the slogans of the patriarchate and with 8 exclamation marks (instead of stars?) she ended the entry with a cry to the women “Think SAME!!!!!!!!!”

According to the encyclopedia, "thinking, psychol. conscious intellectual process of man, leading to indirect and generalized cognition and knowing of the surrounding reality"

So by nature, reasoning is simply a self-contained act. Another form is, at most, a repetition of someone. Hence, ‘self-thinking’ is popular, but nevertheless butter butter.

Calling for "thinking alone" is, in fact, a message of the kind of thoughtlessness that Mrs.Zborowska calls for. Is that what she was trying to prove?

I already omit even the backward, medieval, limiting the star of Zborowska to 2 sexes and the communicative in the imposed by the rotten patriarchate stereotypical arrangement of a female – a man; a female known lower, a man taller, a female weaker physically, a man stronger, a female – a blond with long hair, a short haired man, a female giving birth – he breeds, a female painted, he hair greased, a female 2 shoe closets, he 1 – caught, just like pants. Ittd.

It is besides unclear why a star, Mrs. Zborowska, considers himself smarter than those who read her entries and are able to teach them. Judging by the vulgar language, exclamation points and the neckline plan of the call – I think it usurps besides much even for – according to wikipedia – the Polish triple champion in rhythmic hitting with both feet on the boards.

Is it right, however, to ask this question – to depreciate “independent thinking” – in the sense of listening to others?

The full learning process is to learn the cognition of others, to apply it in life and to draw conclusions. Yet, throughout our lives, we usage the reasoning of others in areas we are not curious in, in which we are “not familiar”.

The engineer listens to the lawyer, and the engineer's lawyer listens to the lawyer. The paramedic listens to the architect's advice, and the architect listens to the lifeguard's instructions. They may not listen, but...

"Star" listens to its patron, and the patron... does not perceive to "star" – here we have an exception in listening. But teenagers perceive to the wisdom of the ‘star’, and actors seem to think that playing learned roles have made sense of the characters played, although that is not the case.

So if women are not curious in politics, they hear from the men they trust, whom they love and with whom they share their lives, that "vote for a Confederation is the best we can do 15.X, honey," they do the best they can. After all, it would be highly foolish to be guided by the fact that a goug “is handsome and knows English with an accent”, or to vote for pathetic emptiness saying that a man needs a female like a fish bike, and killing his own children is the best thing a female can do for herself erstwhile she has besides small ft and wants to accomplish something.

I'm certain women will do better erstwhile they perceive to their man than a weak agitator on the instagram, possibly even paid for entries. They are. For the second needs agitated at most to fill his wallet, and the closest man we trust shares with us the hardships and radiances of everyday life and rides with us in 1 wheelchair. If he can't be believed in choosing a organization at the election, what can he be believed in?

"Stars" seem to believe their husbands, like men, in their advice and stories. Isn't it?

Finally, since we are having specified fun, an appeal to all fathers, husbands, lovers and imperial-king deserters: think for yourselves!!!!!!

And always give advice to the women around you and to the another 100 sexes, or how many have multiplied them overnight.

Wojciech Popiela