>сложно быть сексуальной когда у тебя нет 50 грамм гагагага

вы только взгляните на этих мамкиных коллаборационистов и комбатантов #528M0C/H4F #528M0C/V4X

коровники https://habr.com/ru/post/437994/

til хром по умолчанию не показывает #0000ff как синий, нужно врубать профиль sRGB в chrome://flags/#force-color-profile

а напомните-ка мне в какой башне комар восседал/восседает? (пруф или восстоял)

как у нашего москвано под залупой пармезано, палочкой он соскребет и потом на бутерброд.. и жрет.. фу блять, смегмаед

куда комар-говнарь съебал?

Толстый, ты там хоть диваны ломаешь или всё в кулачок да в кулачок?

скоро весеннее хуестояние

комар обклеился https://meduza.io/news/2019/01/29/sostavlen-reyting-samyh-prodavaemyh-v-rossii-lekarstv-na-pervom-meste-bakteritsidnyy-plastyr

http://6nw.im/p/XAYFAO как тама тренировочки поживают, лапуся?

Шива говорит не надо элосдэ с транками мешать, а если это гидроксизин или другой небензодиазепиновый тож? ну или если он тупо был несильно раньше принят?

Феминизм курильщика: https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/28/the-future-is-female-and-shes "The Future Is Female. And She's Furious. Is rage the future of feminism? In October, a few days after Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice, The Washington Post published one woman's account of channeling her rage into half an hour of screaming at her husband. "I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead," wrote retired history professor Victoria Bissell Brown, entirely unapologetic despite conceding that her hapless spouse was "one of the good men." While Brown's piece was more clickbait than commentary, it was an extreme expression of a larger cultural moment. 'Tis the season to be angry if you're a woman in America—or so we're told. The storm of sexual assault allegations that nearly derailed Kavanaugh's confirmation was just the latest reported conflagration of female fury. The Kavanaugh drama coincided with the first anniversary of the downfall of the multiply accused Hollywood superpredator Harvey Weinstein. But this decade's wave of feminist anger had been building for several years before that—from the May 2014 #YesAllWomen Twitter hashtag, created to express women's vulnerability to male violence after woman hater Elliot Rodger went on a shooting and stabbing rampage in California, to the November 2016 election, in which the expected victory of America's first woman president was ignominiously thwarted by a man who casually discussed grabbing women's genitals. While the "female rage" narrative does not represent all or even most women, there is little doubt that it taps into real problems and real frustrations. The quest for women's liberation from their traditional subjection is an essential part of the story of human freedom—and for all the tremendous strides made in the United States during the last half-century, lingering gender-based biases and obstacles remain an unfinished business. But is rage feminism (to coin a phrase) the way forward, or is it a dangerous detour? The case for rage is made in two new books published almost simultaneously in the fall: Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women's Anger, by activist Soraya Chemaly, and Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger, by New York columnist Rebecca Traister. Traister's book is, despite its forays into the history of American feminism, very much of the current moment. It is dominated by the 2016 presidential race, the Women's March, and the #MeToo movement. Traister believes that Donald Trump's election woke the "sleeping giant" of female rage at the patriarchy. (Along the way, she seems to suggest that pre-2016 feminism was a mostly "cheerful" kind, with a focus on girl power and sex positivity—an account that airbrushes not only #YesAllWomen but many other days of rage on feminist Twitter and on websites such as Jezebel.) She wants women to hold on to this anger and channel it into a struggle for "revolutionary change," rather than to move on and calm down in deference to social expectations. "Our job is to stay angry…perhaps for a very long time," Traister warns darkly. Rage Becomes Her provides a broader context for this anger. Chemaly, the creator of that #YesAllWomen hashtag, sets out to count the ways sexist oppression continues, in her view, to permeate the lives of women and girls in America. Her indictment includes inequalities in school and at work, ever-present male violence, rampant and usually unpunished sexual assault, the sidelining of women in literature and film, male-centered sexual norms, subtle or overt hostility toward female power and ambition, and a variety of petty indignities, from "mansplaining" to catcalls to long bathroom lines. Like Traister, Chemaly sees women's long-suppressed anger as a necessary driver of change.[...]"

Феминизм здорового человека: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/feminism-does-not-demand-collectivism "Feminism Does Not Demand Collectivism by Elizabeth Nolan Brown Libertarian feminists offer a thoroughly individualist version of feminist thought rather than the common collectivist understanding. Collectivism: the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it Individualism: a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control “But…isn’t feminism collectivist?” As a self-proclaimed libertarian feminist, that’s a question I’m confronted with frequently—and not without some good reason. After all, libertarianism is a political philosophy concerned with maximizing individual liberty, while feminism in its most prevalent form today tends to be heavy on groupthink, government solutions, and prioritizing an alleged greater good over freedom of expression, free association, and personal autonomy. Yet there’s nothing inherent in feminist philosophy and activism that says it has to be this way. Throughout the history of modern feminist movements, tensions have arisen between individualist or libertarian feminists and their counterparts of more collectivist and socialist bents. Within these divisions lie disagreements that are prone to plague many movements. Consider a set of related questions: Should social change come from voluntary action or top-down tactics? Can we count on spontaneous order and markets to produce equitable conditions for different groups of people? What is the end goal, actually—equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? How much should identity matter under the law? Feminists have also been long divided over questions of womanhood and manhood, femininity and masculinity. Consider another set of questions: Is biology destiny? Are ladies from Venus and men from Mars? Is gender a construct? A binary? Will boys be boys? Can women “have it all?” To libertarian feminists, the first set of questions is simple. The only way true social change can happen is without the use of government force—i.e., by changing hearts and minds, rather than changing the laws. In policy terms, our goals are to tear down state-sanctioned sexism where it still exists—whether that sexism seems to benefit men or women more—and advocate for systems where sex and gender are irrelevant to how one is treated by agents of the state. Equality of outcomes is an okay thing to desire but not an okay thing to accomplish through legislative fiat (from a moral or practical perspective). While often framed as well-intentioned attempts to correct for historic discrimination, trying to officially give women a “leg up” over men only winds up enshrining a separate-but-equal status under the law—a status that will backfire against women ultimately. Considering all of this, our answers to the second set of questions are somewhat irrelevant. Sure, individual libertarian feminists might have strong and differing opinions on them. But when we get the state out of sex and gender, we rightly return these topics to the realms of science, philosophy, business, religion, and personal relationships.[...]"

https://fee.org/articles/why-single-women-are-way-more-likely-to-own-a-home-than-single-men/ >The study revealed that in the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas, single women are almost twice as likely to be homeowners as single men. новости привелегированного гендера