Wednesday, 9 September 2009

The Irrationality, Hypocrisy and Cowardice of Women

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8242870.stm

Women judge, but do they convict?

The answer, it seems, is that they judge but do not convict.

What are we to make of this?

Typical woman: in the dishonourable position of wishing to wound, but afraid to strike. Vacillating, irrational, hypocritical frightened women, who rarely have the courage of their convictions, in case they offend against their own sex by seeming harsh, judgemental and uncompassionate.

After all, they prefer to let someone else - men - pick up the pieces and do their dirty work, eg squashing that bug, pulling the trigger etc, after they have wasted everyone's time and allowed more time for things to get worse while they fuss with their hair, fix their nails, look in the mirror, dither about and examine the contents of their handbag ....

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do not understand how you draw your scathing conclusions about women from this article.

It says far more about age differences than about gender differences.

And with regard to the initial observation that '[w]omen are more likely to view someone as dishonest, but are less likely to convict,' the article draws a very different conclusion about why that may be the case.

In particular, it notes, that the study 'asks whether an action is dishonest according to the "ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people". It then asks whether the defendant realised this was the case [and adds] "The current law is based on an unattainable common standard."'

Could it be that the women have a more nuanced view of the reasonableness of the law, regarding a defendant's honesty vis-à-vis the need to incarcerate him/her and ruin his/her life forever?

Could it be that women realize that although a person may be judged "dishonest" by an "unattainable common standard," they may also realize that in the real world people are allowed a certain degree of dishonesty -- and indeed may not even be aware that they are being dishonest -- without it being judged a heinous crime?

And as to your comments about women being '[v]acillating, irrational, hypocritical [and] frightened ... [who] fuss with their hair, fix their nails, look in the mirror, dither about and examine the contents of their handbag ... [while letting]... things ... get worse.'

Well. If the women in your life are like that... I think perhaps you need to find some new friends.

Or perhaps you just need to read some history...

Did you know that the tide of WW II was turned by none other than a Soviet Regiment of inexperienced, volunteer, teenage women -- who manned anti-aircraft cannons to alone repel the advancing Nazi army.

They stood at their posts and fired on the enemy until every last one of them was dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1077th_Anti-Aircraft_Regiment

Or perhaps you can just look to Africa, where microloans are targeted at women because the finance industry recognizes them as more financially responsible than men: http://business.africanpath.com/article/Investing/Banking_Finance/World_Bank_Standard_Chartered_launch_micro_loan_plan_for_poor/54912

Andromeda said...

I am making the point that our politicians are behaving like women at their worst really.

There are exceptions of whom I am of course one.

It is entirely my misfortune that my single female friends are unreliable, fickle, neurotic, unsuccessful, lonely, petty, censorious, puritanical, slow to forgive and have pets as their substitute for love.

The male/female ratio at


http://www.1party4all.co.uk

an opinion polling politics website has always been around 4:1.

My female friends also use the fact that they are female as a reason for their disengagement from politics. This is because that they will have their views challenged if they make them known, and this hurts their easily-hurt feelings.

Upon my pointing out that this should spur them on to become better informed, their response is that they haven't got the time, presumably because they are forever fussing over their dog, their house and their hair.

pjanus said...

I see you have picked up a reader of the radical feminist stripe who considers, she says, some of your entries to be rather nauseating. It is rather ironic that a woman who prides herself on analytical thinking and feminine values can do no more than express the thoughts of men. Men who had in mind the destruction of Western Culture. Communists Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse were of the opinion that in order to destroy our culture then the family would have to be destroyed and a matriarchy established. They identified women as the Achilles heal of men and women as useful idiots.

Herbert Marcuse was a member of the, Frankfurt School, a Communist institute set up to destroy the west. They fled Nazi Germany in 1933 for America, became American citizens, eventually infiltrated American Academia, and managed to turn everything on its head. Today's leaders were the recipients of this Marxist education and why everything seems to have gone wrong in our culture. Where we see reality contradicting what we are told, then reality must be forbidden and, if necessary, backed by the power of the State. Here is an example of such:

- sensitivity vs. truth
- feelings vs. facts
- commitment/relationship vs. individuality
- safety vs. fun

How typical of masculine values, and our cultural blindness to them, to necessarily see the above as opposing pairs?


This is where the lines are blurred so that feelings (yesterdays feelings or today's?) begins to trump facts and sensitivity becomes truth. Gradually good becomes bad and bad becomes good..

- The feminine can see how the "cold, hard truth" might be known and comprehended with sensitivity -- and sensibility.

- It can grasp that a discerning awareness of feeling can lead to a more accurate perception of fact.

Hear we see Politically Correct sensitivity training supplanting truth and feelings (again yesterdays feeling or today's) supplanting fact. This leads to bad science which bears no resemblance to everyday experience.
It does not need to parasitically attach to men, because it regards the masculine as equal and values its different (note I do not say "opposing") perspective.
Again interesting, in that, prior to Cultural Marxism, women were not parasitic. A man and a woman merely exchanged a contract. It is only in recent times that women have become parasitic. With the destruction of the family, women have attached themselves to the state. This enables big government. The more women demand the bigger the government gets. Politicians love women.

pjanus said...

Part 2.
Today we have In particular, it notes, that the study 'asks whether an action is dishonest according to the "ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people". It then asks whether the defendant realised this was the case [and adds] "The current law is based on an unattainable common standard."'

Could it be that the women have a more nuanced view of the reasonableness of the law, regarding a defendant's honesty vis-à-vis the need to incarcerate him/her and ruin his/her life forever?


This of course is the blurring of the lines between good and bad so that people no longer know the difference between honest and dishonest, together with, a dollop of Politically Correct tolerance. What was previously attainable is no longer.

She ends with a reference to women of the third World being more financially responsible than men. This is in fact a feminist UN backed project where feminist go into third world countries and set up women and girls in education and business. They give no help to men and boys under the pretext that women are more financially responsible. This disenfranchises the men and is of course designed to break up the family. They are succeeding.