If y’all really care about women how about speaking out for the women who are opressed in Islamic country’s instead of complaining that men do one tiny thing that you don’t like. I know you had bad ex boyfriends but there are women who actually need support in the world.
the that to the 50k women beung trafficked in the US. So privileged! Obviously womens obly problems are shitty boyfriends.
Women in the US aren’t legally equal to men because the ERA hasn’t been ratified.
Bringing up Muslim women to try and invalidate Western women’s struggles is a desperate attempt to hide Western men’s misogyny.
If y’all really care about women how about speaking out for the women who are opressed in Islamic country’s instead of complaining that men do one tiny thing that you don’t like. I know you had bad ex boyfriends but there are women who actually need support in the world.
the that to the 50k women beung trafficked in the US. So privileged! Obviously womens obly problems are shitty boyfriends.
Women in the US aren’t legally equal to men because the ERA hasn’t been ratified.
Bringing up Muslim women to try and invalidate Western women’s struggles is a desperate attempt to hide Western men’s misogyny.
The same goes for any apeal to history. Like it should be obvious that i dont trust mens opinions.
The malleus maleficarium is incredibly important to highlighting that christian witch hunts were a persecution of women in particular. While Kramer briefly states that it’s possible for men to be witches, “Maleficarum” is the feminine plural word for witches. The book also has literally an entire chapter for the case of women being more susceptible to witchcraft. The primary argument being that they were just so full of lust.
Another fact about Kramer and the Maleficarum is that it was written right after he was actually expelled from Innsbruck for “illegal activities” and an “obsession with the sexual habits of Helena Sheuberin.” Essentially he used prolonged torture and sexual interrogation of women to get off. Look at how much of interrogations required careful examination of women’s bodies. Kramer even said that witches held charms in their vaginas for the bewitchment of judges so he could sexually assault women. It was so bad that eventually the Innsbruck court declared a mistrial and tried to run him out of town. And I mean, this is Catholicism we’re talking about. It’s ALL about torture being the way to holiness.
This mistrial deeply affected Kramer who channeled his rage into the writing of his book. It didn’t become truly popular until the protestants used it post-schism in an effort to develop identity. It was a best-seller, and considered THE handbook for witch hunting. Before this book, witchcraft was not even considered a genuine heresy and most accusations were ignored, but this book became the most read and used text second only to The Bible itself.
TLDR; The Maleficarum doesn’t prove men can be witches. It doesnt give any information on witchcraft itself. However, it does prove that witch hunting was entirely about holy men’s access to women’s bodies for sex and torture as sex.
All of that. The witch trials where not about hunting actual witches. And lets not forget that the trails paved the way for modern medicine and all the horror it entails. Just an extention of the torture and subjugation of women.
The same goes for any apeal to history. Like it should be obvious that i dont trust mens opinions.
The malleus maleficarium is incredibly important to highlighting that christian witch hunts were a persecution of women in particular. While Kramer briefly states that it’s possible for men to be witches, “Maleficarum” is the feminine plural word for witches. The book also has literally an entire chapter for the case of women being more susceptible to witchcraft. The primary argument being that they were just so full of lust.
Another fact about Kramer and the Maleficarum is that it was written right after he was actually expelled from Innsbruck for “illegal activities” and an “obsession with the sexual habits of Helena Sheuberin.” Essentially he used prolonged torture and sexual interrogation of women to get off. Look at how much of interrogations required careful examination of women’s bodies. Kramer even said that witches held charms in their vaginas for the bewitchment of judges so he could sexually assault women. It was so bad that eventually the Innsbruck court declared a mistrial and tried to run him out of town. And I mean, this is Catholicism we’re talking about. It’s ALL about torture being the way to holiness.
This mistrial deeply affected Kramer who channeled his rage into the writing of his book. It didn’t become truly popular until the protestants used it post-schism in an effort to develop identity. It was a best-seller, and considered THE handbook for witch hunting. Before this book, witchcraft was not even considered a genuine heresy and most accusations were ignored, but this book became the most read and used text second only to The Bible itself.
TLDR; The Maleficarum doesn’t prove men can be witches. It doesnt give any information on witchcraft itself. However, it does prove that witch hunting was entirely about holy men’s access to women’s bodies for sex and torture as sex.
All of that. The witch trials where not about hunting actual witches. And lets not forget that the trails paved the way for modern medicine and all the horror it entails. Just an extention of the torture and subjugation of women.
Men don’t understand that saying “[this franchise] now has a/an additional female main character? Another studio caving in to the feminist agenda” is actually a perfect example of why feminism is still needed because women are considered so unequal that their mere acknowledgement of existence in media is considered an “agenda” instead of just a normal thing (like a male lead is).
“Despite the widespread belief that women talk more than men, most of the available evidence suggests just the opposite. When women and men are together, it is the men who talk most. [In] sixty-three studies [w]omen talked more than men in only two studies.”
Which is to say, men talked more than women in sixty-one studies.“… in one hundred public seminars. In [ninety-three], men dominated the discussion time“ “men asked almost two-thirds of the questions during the discussion” “
In a wide range of communities, from kindergarten through primary, secondary and tertiary education, the same pattern recurs – males dominate classroom talk.“ etc. etc. etc.
Here’s a quote from another Tumblr post with more on the subject:
The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.
You know what’s interesting? I didn’t mean to go in this direction, but that post also has some numbers:
… men perceived the discussion as being “equal” when women talked only 15% of the time, and the discussion as being dominated by women if they talked only 30% of the time.
Isn’t that neat?
15% & 17% = fair female presence
30% & 33% = raging ocean of moonblood
Isn’t that neat.
I wonder if there’s more data out there like that?
And I wonder if that shows up in stories?
Like, one female character in five, that’s 20%. That’s a LOT of UNMALE! That’s just slightly more than EQUAL – hence men’s FAIR and JUST upset at the inclusion of even one woman in A N Y T H I N G .
Two in five? That “additional female character”? That’s 40%! That’s like ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY MANPERCENT of unman in a group of men! That’s OUTRAGEOUS.
Anyways.
Women’s existence is too much for men.
That’s how JOHNSON’S® Baby Soft the male ego is.
Women exist, and men can’t even.
Men can’t anything. Cuz they’re defective and they suck.
Men don’t understand that saying “[this franchise] now has a/an additional female main character? Another studio caving in to the feminist agenda” is actually a perfect example of why feminism is still needed because women are considered so unequal that their mere acknowledgement of existence in media is considered an “agenda” instead of just a normal thing (like a male lead is).
“Despite the widespread belief that women talk more than men, most of the available evidence suggests just the opposite. When women and men are together, it is the men who talk most. [In] sixty-three studies [w]omen talked more than men in only two studies.”
Which is to say, men talked more than women in sixty-one studies.“… in one hundred public seminars. In [ninety-three], men dominated the discussion time“ “men asked almost two-thirds of the questions during the discussion” “
In a wide range of communities, from kindergarten through primary, secondary and tertiary education, the same pattern recurs – males dominate classroom talk.“ etc. etc. etc.
Here’s a quote from another Tumblr post with more on the subject:
The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.
You know what’s interesting? I didn’t mean to go in this direction, but that post also has some numbers:
… men perceived the discussion as being “equal” when women talked only 15% of the time, and the discussion as being dominated by women if they talked only 30% of the time.
Isn’t that neat?
15% & 17% = fair female presence
30% & 33% = raging ocean of moonblood
Isn’t that neat.
I wonder if there’s more data out there like that?
And I wonder if that shows up in stories?
Like, one female character in five, that’s 20%. That’s a LOT of UNMALE! That’s just slightly more than EQUAL – hence men’s FAIR and JUST upset at the inclusion of even one woman in A N Y T H I N G .
Two in five? That “additional female character”? That’s 40%! That’s like ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY MANPERCENT of unman in a group of men! That’s OUTRAGEOUS.
Anyways.
Women’s existence is too much for men.
That’s how JOHNSON’S® Baby Soft the male ego is.
Women exist, and men can’t even.
Men can’t anything. Cuz they’re defective and they suck.
How many of y’all DIDN’T get to radical feminism through liberal feminism?
Is anyone here NOT a former libfem?
I was never a libfem
I used to read libfem sites but I was disappointed with them and them backhanding radical feminism and being uptight about ‘misandry’ led me to radical feminism
How many of y’all DIDN’T get to radical feminism through liberal feminism?
Is anyone here NOT a former libfem?
I was never a libfem
I used to read libfem sites but I was disappointed with them and them backhanding radical feminism and being uptight about ‘misandry’ led me to radical feminism
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a framework that will create opportunities for “new uses” of asbestos. On June 1, the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics announced plans for a “Significant New Use Rule” (SNUR) for the substance.
While all currently banned uses of asbestos are expected to remain in place, the EPA has opted to create new avenues for asbestos use. The EPA said the proposal would affect a wide range of uses related to manufacturing that the EPA has identified as “no longer ongoing.”
Such uses would include “adhesive, sealants and roof and non-roof coatings; arc chutes; beater-add gaskets; extruded sealant tape and other tape; filler for acetylene cylinders; high-grade electrical paper; millboard; missile liner; pipeline wrap; reinforced plastics; roofing felt; separators in fuel cells and batteries; vinyl-asbestos floor type and any other building material (other than cement),” according to the EPA.
Before the Trump administration came into power, new uses of asbestos were banned as part of a widespread effort to phase out use of the substance. It is unclear how much Trump’s personal stance on asbestos may have influenced his administration’s decision. In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, he claimed that the association of the substance with health risks was part of a “mob”-created conspiracy.
I guess if Russia says it’s good then it must be true!
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a framework that will create opportunities for “new uses” of asbestos. On June 1, the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics announced plans for a “Significant New Use Rule” (SNUR) for the substance.
While all currently banned uses of asbestos are expected to remain in place, the EPA has opted to create new avenues for asbestos use. The EPA said the proposal would affect a wide range of uses related to manufacturing that the EPA has identified as “no longer ongoing.”
Such uses would include “adhesive, sealants and roof and non-roof coatings; arc chutes; beater-add gaskets; extruded sealant tape and other tape; filler for acetylene cylinders; high-grade electrical paper; millboard; missile liner; pipeline wrap; reinforced plastics; roofing felt; separators in fuel cells and batteries; vinyl-asbestos floor type and any other building material (other than cement),” according to the EPA.
Before the Trump administration came into power, new uses of asbestos were banned as part of a widespread effort to phase out use of the substance. It is unclear how much Trump’s personal stance on asbestos may have influenced his administration’s decision. In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, he claimed that the association of the substance with health risks was part of a “mob”-created conspiracy.
I guess if Russia says it’s good then it must be true!
Celtyradfem 