A rant on gender stereotypes

[Jenny A]

My sister is your general size and pretty tough in her own way. I don't know why stereotypes persist. But anyone who thinks they need to find out what it is to be masculine or feminine and then emulate that is pretty pathetic. You only get one shot in life. If you don't be yourself, who will? I read somewhere about how a bullfighter said when asked what it was to be masculine. He answered that he just did what came naturally and since he is male that must be what is masculine.

Your perfectly right in living your own life, but the reason why stereotypes persist is non-conformity and that makes those afflicted victims of our modern day society.

Non-conformity leads to stereotypes? I suppose then that grey leads to black and white.

Sorry to say, and that certainly is not their fault but is a societal dis-ease. Notice that the word 'societal' is culture driven and that is in which we, as in all of us, are a product that is designed by the previous generations with that same diminishing influence again the farther back we go, but most certainly the previous 2 because 'quality' is RNA by design instead of DNA and therefore skips one generation to rebound.

What you have there is a bad case of word salad. Do you think the "problem" is genetic (DNA) or societal?

In the ideal masculine males and effeminate females make the prefect match to procreate and since the Y chromosome is the fleeting one it must be charmed to remain and therefore societies are known to be male dominant. (((This is simply true and is why many years ago in Burma very few boys were born and that is what created 'snake charming' as a 'worthy' enterprise (from the Greek word axiom that no self contradiction shall remain), and hence the sage was right to say))).

You're going to have to explain this vanishing male population in Burma. Not only that it happened, but if it did, what it has to do with the "fleeting Y chromosome." What pray tell is fleeting about the Y chromosome, other than that Y sperm are slightly faster than X sperm because the Y doesn't weigh as much. But that's a rather different kind of fleeting.

The real problem is that life is an illusion (or eternal life could not be real) and therefore a stand is made in which two opposites are needed to validate the other one as opposite.

What makes you think eternal life is real?

This is what placed human opposite to woman, with woman being the womb of man and human just, or nearly just, the idiot who thinks that he has something to say as the womb of man made manifest. They so make a perfect hunter-gatherer pair that the ancients called TOK and TOL with TOL being the mainstay for TOK that we would our 'right' and 'left' for short.

More word salad.

Then, because life is an illusion a subliminal axiom looms in which an 'estate' (or greater worth) is seen (that we would call par-ousia). In our modern day this is what set woman free to find her own destiny in life in what became known as our 'gender equal' society where a claim to fame is sought by woman on her own. And of course she will, but also fails to take care of her own womanity (archaic word these days) and that left the next generation void with no idea of destiny = no par-ousia seen for them and hence the a- was placed to make known atheism with no labyrinth (integrity) to protect -- and will obviously look for a bigger dick to ride with the barn-door (soul) left wide open.

Womanity, is at best a 1864 word, made up then by feminists. If you have a more archaic usage, I'd like to see it. And the 1864 version it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Perhaps you mean femininity?

Important to understand here is that an increase of our humanity will be at the cost of our womanity, and obviously this would be true the other way as well.

I don't think I'm going to miss it.

This also explains where homosexuality has cause to be, and just like you and me should have the right to be as a product of our society.

Homosexuality is older than Judaism. To call it a modern byproduct is silly.

---

oooooh...the wo-manity!

You must have noticed that there is no such thing as man-ity, in which Christ is fully man as the solitary individual and that puts a dead stop to all of Christian-ity.

This would certainly mean that atheist is a valid stand to take, but should they not be burning all those Christians churches then? or just let them do it on their own, and bring back spontaneous combustions again at the foot of the cross they serve.

Translation please?

What would manity be if it existed? Definition please.

What the hell is Christian-ity as opposed to Christianity?

What possible cross do you think atheists serve? Or are you mistaking Satanism, a name for several kinds of theism and at least one non-theistic religion, for atheism?

But I'm not particularly concerned about spontaneously combating at the behest of a non-existent god, if that's what you're suggesting.