There are, however, 123 gatrillion, 19 gagillion and one, words written about romantic love. A huge difference. I'm in the process of counting the number of feet of celluloid upon which this delightful conundrum has been dramatized. I will be at it for a while.
So what's so important about these differences and likenesses of the genders? Why would we as a species be so obsessed to write and read, and film so much... and that hasn't changed either sex one iota? I dunno. What I do know is that we are obsessed with it. The difference I mean. It would seem a simple thing. Women are women and men are...well, men. We see it in nature; male and female of most species, and think little about it and its natural occurrence; or the roles which each gender plays in lower animal form. But when it comes to humans...it is somehow more important to define and re-define these roles.
Now, you know...and I know...and I know you know...and you know I know you know...that somewhere, somehow, I am going to bring the "tribe" into all this. Your expectations are well-founded.
Among the above mentioned 18 gazillion(and change) words written on the subject of the differences in our human sex-roles, a vast majority in the past...oh, hundred years or so...have been penned(to say nothing of the celluloid...which is a work-in-progress) referring to a faux-science invented by a bit of a disgusting old jewish Austrian fart. You know the one. The one that posited that most of our "gender" problems stem from hatred that we harbour for one or more of our parents ...beginning in the womb. A child wouldn't even accept that as a plausible plot for a fairy tale...but there you have it. Even though such gobbledygook has been made fun of since its inception, there is still a great deal of the world's population that believes this somehow. Somewhere up there in their craniums. So most of these gazillions of words are somehow influenced by this bearded ashkanazi nut-job that slept with the "patients" that he never cured.
This may be more important...politically speaking...than many of us are aware. It has been said that the Western liberation of women has been fostered and financed by those of the tribe. The top dogs in their cult. I have found, through my research that this may in fact...be a fact. It has been written that the WCTU and the "women's suffrage movement" were both backed by Rothschild money. That would be in the teens and twenties here in the Snakes. The suffrage movement, to put a wild-card into false elections, and another agenda for banning alcohol. It is said that Rockefeller's (Red-Shield bag-man) investment in the temperance movement really had the banning of home-made alcohol as a motive... so that it could not be used in place of his oil, for automobiles. Well, that would make sense. I know at the time, it was almost commonplace for most farmhouses to have mash-generated alcohol at the ready for lamps...and early autos could run just as well on this distillation as it could on jewish fossil-fuel. That had to be stopped...I suppose. I have also read that the ERA amendment to our Constitution, was little more, politically, than a manuveur by the tribal powers to instantaneously double the tax base for hegemonic zionist wars to be fought. I dunno. That too makes sense...to me, anyway.
But back to women. They and jewish social engineering and their almost entirely discarded role as "gatherers" and "nurturers" seem inexorably linked somehow. I dunno. Maybe I'm talking through my hat here...I just can't help but feel that there is yiddish involvement, when something causes so much social strife and in the end...generates capitol. Call me suspicious.
So anyway, when I see so much of the "Arab Spring" being tied to throwing off of traditional female roles in that culture...indulge me here...I see an ashkanazi hand.
Now before you get your panties(or jock-straps) in a bunch and think that I am exhibiting chauvinism(I don't even know what that term really means), I would ask you to examine a few questions.
In my view of things that have happened here in the West, and are now emerging in the East concerning female roles in society, I have to ask Cui bono? Does it benefit a woman to emulate the traditional male role? Or does it benefit the JPTB?
There is usually some well-founded reasons for tradition. It is traditional to, say...hate jews. I think we all know where that comes from. It is based in the reaction to the refusal of that culture to assimilate into any other, although they insist on living among Gentiles. That is a natural response, I think. Especially when their exclusiveness includes money-changing and war mongering. Solid as a rock...is that logic. And it continues. Even here.
I would be the first to say "welcome to it..." when women demand the right to equal slave-labour wages. "It's all yours..." would be my response to a female's quest for social leadership. They certainly couldn't screw it up any worse than jewish-purchased men have.
But it is my contention that an entire gender, is being played for fools. Or maybe both of us. I don't relish... nor do most men I know savor, the accouterments of our particular role in society. It is frought with the frustration and desperation of being expected to provide for a family, with less and less resources to do so. It is being expected to be undaunted in the face of certain ruin, and when, if we buckle under the pressure, are likened to "pussys", if you will forgive my pejorative. And nothing can be more devastating than this...to a normal male. So is it any wonder that the jewish hand in the "gay pride" movement, provides those unwilling or unable to shoulder such burdens, a haven for the more "effeminate" of we males or the "tomboys" of females? I dunno. I am not gay, so perhaps I don't understand. But whenever I see jews leading a movement...I look for ulterior motives. Sue me. But please don't write and call me a homophobe or some other psychobabble term that has no meaning to me.
If the women's movement here...and in the Arab revolt, is little more than social engineering borne of khazarian fantasies about black-ink entries in an account book...should any of us...Mr. or Ms., fall for it? As I documented up there...there are more words written about "romantic differences"...that is, celebrating those distinctions, than those attempting to blur them. And doesn't that speak well for the"traditions" of sex roles? Shouldn't we both examine this whole thing with a little more suspicion and a lot more critical thinking? Just sayin.
Kick it around, boys and girls...