Women's studies "research" is much like climate change research. Legitimate questions and study have been thoroughly compromised by activist led "studies" designed to support an ideological outcome, not actually to discover the truth of the matter in question. This is why women's studies is not a science or even an academic discipline in truth...but just the rantings of a sexist cult.
Between Karen S., Janice F., Tom, and others, and lots of websites, with care and discernment with Google, Wikipedia, and anything edited by Soros Foundations' people with mind-raping ethical and morally castrated and willing to include bad science that directs readers towards
frustration, failure, suffering, confusions, and horrors to them and passed on to children and across social groups, to hide often important facts that upset VagFeelies or traumatize the delusional editing and readers, it is very easy to get more reliable information - especially what manhood & women are expressed and perform in different situations.
I commented on a feminist SubStack article and put some truth in comment that I expected she might need to correct me on, to stand on my gonads, and even although the subject was about a group of people along the path my topic's comment went, and she shamed and warned me about discussing groups, especially critically.
So, I thanked her in a reply and mentioned we all need to avoid the poison of assuming-bad character.
She replied something snarky, and I knew she was bating me so she could ban men. I ignored her reply.
Avoid women with power, until you trust her and then with care, and ready to bailout- they most often lack virtue, honor, and poor or no perspective - she upset because you Lovingly corrected and explain (what you would want from a co-workers) - well now you are banned, HR report if you are employed, suspended without pay, screeching Mobs of women reacting to lies they spread after 'telephoned' Witch-whispers 3 layers deep, and you hear she felt unsafe and turns into confusing lies that not connected to reality in any dimension.
How many Substack authors like her that are best to avoid, in a percentage, do you think? Perhaps no more than 5%, likely a lot less then that - as she the first I ran into.
Perhaps she thought my Toxic Masculinity was too high, perhaps I should fly out to her with my massive Codpiece to yell over her my explanation, and prevent her from talking, and if she gets a sentence past my loud yelling, I will belittler her about it.
I think Delphi is not an acronym or an acrostic; it is a name based on the Delphic Oracle from Greek mythology. It is a form of expert review based on consensus building.
Women's studies "research" is much like climate change research. Legitimate questions and study have been thoroughly compromised by activist led "studies" designed to support an ideological outcome, not actually to discover the truth of the matter in question. This is why women's studies is not a science or even an academic discipline in truth...but just the rantings of a sexist cult.
Indeed!
Between Karen S., Janice F., Tom, and others, and lots of websites, with care and discernment with Google, Wikipedia, and anything edited by Soros Foundations' people with mind-raping ethical and morally castrated and willing to include bad science that directs readers towards
frustration, failure, suffering, confusions, and horrors to them and passed on to children and across social groups, to hide often important facts that upset VagFeelies or traumatize the delusional editing and readers, it is very easy to get more reliable information - especially what manhood & women are expressed and perform in different situations.
I commented on a feminist SubStack article and put some truth in comment that I expected she might need to correct me on, to stand on my gonads, and even although the subject was about a group of people along the path my topic's comment went, and she shamed and warned me about discussing groups, especially critically.
So, I thanked her in a reply and mentioned we all need to avoid the poison of assuming-bad character.
She replied something snarky, and I knew she was bating me so she could ban men. I ignored her reply.
Avoid women with power, until you trust her and then with care, and ready to bailout- they most often lack virtue, honor, and poor or no perspective - she upset because you Lovingly corrected and explain (what you would want from a co-workers) - well now you are banned, HR report if you are employed, suspended without pay, screeching Mobs of women reacting to lies they spread after 'telephoned' Witch-whispers 3 layers deep, and you hear she felt unsafe and turns into confusing lies that not connected to reality in any dimension.
How many Substack authors like her that are best to avoid, in a percentage, do you think? Perhaps no more than 5%, likely a lot less then that - as she the first I ran into.
Perhaps she thought my Toxic Masculinity was too high, perhaps I should fly out to her with my massive Codpiece to yell over her my explanation, and prevent her from talking, and if she gets a sentence past my loud yelling, I will belittler her about it.
Sounds good?
God Bless., Steve
In answer to Nuzzo's question about what to call toxic "femininity"? May I suggest we already have that term. Wo-man....the toxic form of a man. :)
you mean Whoa Man? lol
Actually...wo-man is short for woe to man or woe to men in plural!
If we look at the trends of shaming and humiliating men, it has long been the technique of negging men.
Negging men is a tactic to shame men into giving feminists what they want..
Fantastic discussion as always. Many thanks to Dr. Nuzzo for his clear, cogent, well-researched analyses.
I think Delphi is not an acronym or an acrostic; it is a name based on the Delphic Oracle from Greek mythology. It is a form of expert review based on consensus building.
They should give this test to Hillary Clinton, Whoopi Goldberg, and Nancy Pelosi.