No sign up fuck site no email gta 4 dating service
So this result is that a "patriarchical", controlling force, unacceptable if coming directly from men, is maintained by giving the whip to other 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.
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: recruiting science as a justification for behavior: "Study finds makeup makes you appear more competent." Can't wait to read about that study in a Jonah Lehrer book. So here's the evolution of feminist theory, take notes: "I want to look better" to "I want to feel better about myself" to "I want people to think I am better." Madness.
Since this cognitive trick does help you feel better about yourself, by all means go ahead, but at what point will you stop pressuring other women to go along with it?It may be regressive to ask this, but it is illuminating: "hey.... " This is part of a larger, systemic problem with the way power has shifted not from Group A to Group B, but from ground up to top down, and top down works in a very specific way: it concedes the trappings of power while it retains the actual power. In this case, you are seeing a shift of power be repackaged as a gender battle.And it's quite apparent that power is a generation or so ahead of you, so in 1990 a 40 year old who grew up around successful lawyers then says to his 5 year old, "daughter, you should become a lawyer! Everything you need to know about how the system sees you is expressed in its purest way in ads." and I do not minimize the individual accomplishment of a woman becoming a Senator. One of the Yay-Women senators suggested that the government would benefit from all the makeup because "women's styles tend to be more collaborative," and at the exact same moment she repeated the conventional wisdom's horrendous banality she simultaneously got married to the head of a lobbying firm. The problem isn't with women in the Senate, but rather its celebration, which these dummies blindly participate in.Is it putting on a face for the American public, the way the first face I see on Goldman Sachs's website is a black woman? She's probably proud, she should be proud, that she made it to GS, but for the rest of blacks and women, what is the significance?Makeup is an B/yr industry, that's face makeup alone, no way is it going to allow you to make a choice that doesn't involve a credit card, fine, if you don't like makeup here's a remover for , just remember that you're not doing it for men, you're doing it for yourself. 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?I think the answer is supposed to be, "it's empowering to women", but you should wonder: when more women enter a field, it means less men did, and if the men stopped going there, where did they go? Easy, Huff Po, I know it's not causal, I am saying the reverse: that if some field keeps the trappings of power but loses actual power, women enter it in droves and men abandon it like the Roanoke Colony.Again we must ask the question: if power seeking men aren't running for Senate, where did they go?This works in reverse, too, take a field traditionally XX-only, like nursing, and, huh, what do you know-- at the time where nursing is more powerful than it has ever been, there are also more XY in it than ever. "I'm not gay." Easy, Focker, no one was implying anything.I know to a woman it must feel good, "yay, I'm a Senator!