John Michael Greer Comments Three months ago, we marked the beginning of the astrological year by discussing the Aries ingress chart for the United States.
Seven people were asked their opinion in a column called "Room For Debate," liars, there was no debate, all of them said "I guess so", their main contribution was the hedge: When they say, "it's a woman's choice" what they mean is "it's not a man's choice, it is thoroughly stupid to wear make up just for men, the only acceptable reason is if you do it for yourself, if it makes you feel better about yourself.
Or women, depending on which genitals you want to lick, hopefully it's both. I'm not saying you have to look good for men, I'm saying that if wearing makeup not for men makes you feel better about yourself, you don't have a strong self, and no, yelling won't change this.
Everyone knows you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, now you're saying the cover of the book influences how the book feels about itself? I am not doubting that in fact you do feel better about yourself, I am saying that that fact is both pathological and totally on purpose. When will you stop "requiring" it, like when you say, "oh, she's so pretty even without makeup" as if the default was makeup?
The fraud women now believe is that it is wrong to look good for men only, as an end in itself; the progressive delusion is that looking good for men is synonymous with submissiveness, so while you're allowed to look good to men, it should always be secondary to looking good for yourself.
You are enhancing your outward appearance, which is great, but then you pretend it's for internal reasons? How would you like to live in a world where men had to wear make up?
Ask it this way: The trick to the makeup debate is that it pretends to want to be free of male pressure, yet the pressure to look a certain way is actually much worse from women. No boss man would survive if he said, "ugh, you should put on some makeup, doll yourself up a little bit" but women say this to other women all the time-- especially at work.
Just once I wish the reply would be, "I am, your husband kept me up all night. The evolution from "enhances sexual attractiveness" to "doing it for yourself" is definitely a regressive step, and by regressive I here mean "regressing to age two", but it's the next step which reveals the presence of a neurosis: So here's the evolution of feminist theory, take notes: The further clue that the problem is not gender but The reason the makeup debate is insoluble is that it's not yours to solute.
The choice to wear makeup is no choice at all, I know you think you came to it on your own but you live in America, you don't make free choices here, freedom is a brand. I had used all the porn on the internet, so I turn on the TV, and there's a marionette called Diane Sawyer interviewing 20 female Senators, the most in history, applauding and giggling as if cold fusion had finally been discovered.
Of course it's a "good thing" that women are Senators in as much as not allowing them to be Senators is the bad thing, but other than that, what does it mean? That women are finally brave enough to run, or America is brave enough to hire them? It's not like the Capitol Building was turning them away, so why is this important?
The ABC demo is not ever going to be a Senator, I would bet ten bazillion dollars they couldn't even name one of their Senators and a gazillion bazillion dollars they have no real idea what Senators do, so why is this on prime time ABC?
I think the answer is supposed to be, "it's empowering to women", but you should wonder: Why did they leave? I assume they aren't home with the kids, right?
I don't want to be cynical, but boy oh boy is it hard not to observe that at the very moment in our history when we have the most women in the Senate, Congress is perceived to be pathetic, bickering, easily manipulated and powerless, and I'll risk the blowback and say that those are all stereotypes of women.
Easy, HuffPo, I know it's not causal, I am saying the reverse: Again we must ask the question:Wow! What a great way to expose the lies that Hollywood is trying to perpetuate.
Parents need to get their heads out of the sand and begin to re- engage their young people in meaningful discussions about the TRUTH of human sexuality.
The 13th amendment abolished slavery and the 14th amendment provided that representation would be determined according to the whole number of persons in each . Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of.
The FIFA World Cup was the 21st FIFA World Cup, an international football tournament contested by the men's national teams of the member associations of FIFA once every four years. It took place in Russia from 14 June to 15 July It was the first World Cup to be held in Eastern Europe, and the 11th time that it had been held in Europe.
At an estimated cost of over $ billion, it. The Suite Life of Zack and Cody () is a Disney Channel Kid Com about a couple of twins named Zack and Cody Martin (played by twins Dylan and Cole Sprouse, respectively) who live in The Tipton, a hotel in rutadeltambor.com divorced mom Carey is a singer at the hotel who has a secret admirer in a rather dorky janitor named Arwin.
Apr 01, · This essay will analyze the overall effectiveness of Social Security, as determined by the overall goal of the policy in promoting social welfare.
The thesis is that in spite of some weaknesses and presumptions, Social Security remains consistent with the constitutional framework of federalism.