Woman 'disgusts' Twitter after claiming that 'short women' are only attractive to men because they look like they are easier to 'physically dominate and CONTROL'
In my observation, there is an element of truth in this. Weak men do seem to go for short women and I think ease of control is what they hope for. But there are many things that create attraction and height is surely only one thing.
I must confess that I am one who IS influenced by the height of women. I like them tall. My most recent marriage was to a 5'11" lady. I was 5'10" at the time. But the lady I have been in love with for the last 15 years is only 5'4" tall, so I am more strongly influenced by other things
It bears noting that the short ladies themselves are often responsible for height mismatches. Short women usually like tall men and they often get one
And the idea that a short woman is a pushover is a bit of a laugh. I have come across some pretty feisty ones
An American writer has infuriated Twitter users after she proclaimed that one of the main reasons men are attracted to short women is because they seem to be easier to dominate and control.
Feminista Jones made the bold claims on Twitter this week, phrasing her tweets in a way that seemed to mock short women for 'not knowing' that this is why men liked them.
It wasn't long before other Twitter users began criticizing the thread — and while the backlash has led Feminista Jones to delete her account, the criticism is still coming.
'Do short women not know how much of their attractiveness to men is related to perceived controllability?' she wrote in the now-deleted thread. 'Is that thing y'all aren't aware of? Lol cute,' she mocked.
'Ask any woman over 5'10" how harshly men regularly speak to and treat or how rarely she is treated with softness and tender gestures outside of being in a relationship... and even then lol,' she went on.
'A smaller woman can more likely be physically dominated and controlled, like a child,' she added.
'Shorter women don't feel like "mommy." Slimmer women don't feel threatening. The smaller a woman is the younger she appears and that's attractive to many men.'
Jones' thread has been met with swift and furious backlash from Twitter users who point out that it's not very feminist to body-shame or gang up on a group of women for their physical attributes.
'Wait now people are mad at short women on here?' wrote writer Rachel Syme.
'Owning misogynists by exactly replicating their behavior and treating small women like children who need to be controlled and patronized since they’re too infantile and weak-minded to realize the more grim terms of their existence,' wrote another Twitter user.
'Love that she frames this as the fault of short women,' tweeted another.
Yet another agreed: 'So being short makes me... easy to control by men, but I should feel bad about this cause tall women don’t like it? Please give some constructive advice as to how I’m supposed to fix this.'
'I just don’t understand what short women are supposed to do about weirdos that are attracted to them, literally how is that my problem at all,' said one more.
'Why do I feel like you’re lecturing short women rather than creepy men? The “lol cute” here is so condescending,' added another.
Others have disagreed with her assessment of men's behavior.
'I have definitely heard men say c***py things about why they prefer shorter women, and I have also been asked to step on a bug by a guy I was not dating, because he had some kind of fetish related to tall women ... stepping on things,' wrote one.
'Short women do not look like children. They look like short women,' another tweeted. 'Stop trying to infer that being attracted to them is exploitative or some other infantalising c***, you absolute f***ing melts.'
'It is entirely possible to have a discussion about your personal experience as a tall woman without outright saying short women are exclusively f***ed by pedophiles!' complained another.
While several more pointed out that her characterization of women as seemingly easy to dominate doesn't line up.
'“Short women are easy to dominate” have you ever met a short woman??? The rage is concentrated into a lil package??? Human espresso?' wrote one.
'I've dominated every relationship I've ever been in and I'm only 5'3". My 6'4" boyfriend does think that I'm cute, but also tells others than I am the "mean one" and that if we were to get into a fight that "she would murder me". It's all about balance,' said another.
Rowan Atkinson says cancel culture is a 'medieval mob looking for someone to burn'
The star of Blackadder and Mr Bean has long advocated for free speech and has campaigned against legislation he believes stifles expression.
Atkinson, 65, is fearful of the online practice of silencing unpopular opinions by calling out those who hold them and making them pariahs. He has compared the trend to medieval societies rooting out heretics to burn at the stake.
The actor believes this culture of "cancelling" individuals is a threat both to the victims of the online mob and to the future of free speech.
"It's important that we're exposed to a wide spectrum of opinion," Atkinson told the Radio Times. "But what we have now is the digital equivalent of the medieval mob roaming the streets looking for someone to burn."
Activists and advocates have argued that concerns about free speech are a "fantasy" that serve to perpetuate hateful and discriminatory behaviours, language and institutions with the main proponents being well-resourced, established figures of cultural authority who have no risk of being "cancelled".
Was 2020 the year we finally broke our culture?
Beginning in 2005 with a campaign against hate speech laws in the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, Atkinson has publicly opposed legislation thought to dampen freedom of expression.
In 2009 he argued against homophobic hate speech clauses in UK laws; in 2012 against "insulting" behaviour being a criminal offence; and last year he spoke out against the Scottish National Party's Hate Crime Bill over fears it could lead to censorship.
Atkinson has now said that online witch hunts are "scary for anyone who's a victim of that mob". He said: "The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends up creating a simplistic, binary view of society. It becomes a case of either you're with us or against us. If you're against us, you deserve to be 'cancelled'."
The star added that the popularity of the largely mute Mr Bean may be down to the character being verbally unable to offend those with "greater sensitivities", and said this could explain his success in "Muslim countries" and places with "stricter creative regimes".
Despite the huge popularity of Mr Bean, Atkinson has decided not to have an online presence, saying that social media is "a sideshow in my world".
The actor has followed his former Blackadder co-star Tony Robinson, who played Baldrick, in criticising cancel culture.
Robinson told The Daily Telegraph last year that calling out and censoring unpopular opinions "is walking the path of the devil".
The actor and presenter said he was passionate about free speech, adding: "It defends our liberty, and I'm very unhappy with the idea that, just because someone is offended by what I say, I shouldn't be allowed to say it."
Never Give Up
David Limbaugh
I have long believed that the radical left represents an existential threat to the republic. Indeed, my last book, "Guilty By Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win," was based on that premise. So now what?
Since it appears that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will take office in less than three weeks, my deepest fears should only be intensifying. Right?
We needn't carry on this disingenuous debate about whether Biden is a centrist, because his growing mental incapacity makes it a moot point. As long as he is titular president, some invisible committee, one of whose central members is likely former President Barack Obama, will be orchestrating his every move.
But it will be shocking if Biden, once sworn in, remains in office very long. In one of his unforced gaffes, he casually acknowledged having told "Barack" that, while he and Harris agree on most things, if a disagreement on moral principle arises, he will "develop some disease" and resign.
The Democratic power brokers pulling the strings in this Manchurian horror show achieved a double coup. They managed to arrange Biden's out-of-nowhere victory over the popular -- but unelectable in a general election -- Bernie Sanders, and they snuck in the wildly unpopular Kamala Harris as vice presidential candidate under the Biden cover.
The liberal media conspired in this ruse, presenting Biden as an affable and honorable centrist, shielding his frailty and corruption while ignoring Harris' undeniable extremism. Never mind that Biden has a long history of plagiarism and lies -- and now a history of graft -- and that he was anything but conciliatory when he falsely cast President Donald Trump throughout the campaign as a racist.
So the progressive media and all other forces who dogged Trump for four years and concealed the extremism of the Democratic presidential ticket have enabled a certain radicalization of the American presidency for the next four years. By all rights, American patriots can't be blamed for being scared out of their wits about what appears to be coming.
I believe every word I wrote in my book about the dangers that the national Democratic Party represents for the nation.
I stand by this paragraph from chapter one: "?Well-meaning people say Republicans and Democrats have the same fundamental goals but different ideas and strategies for achieving them. I've always regarded this as wishful thinking, but if it were ever true, it no longer is today. The two parties, as presently constituted, have distinctly different visions for America based on conflicting worldviews. Some will object that all Americans want everyone to be prosperous, safe, free, and to live in harmony, but I'm not sure that's even true anymore, given the left's anti-Americanism, its intolerance and authoritarianism, its romance with socialism, its hysterical environmentalism, its preoccupation with identity politics, its radicalism on race and gender, its attempts to erase our borders, its culture of death, its devaluation of the Constitution, its hostility to Second Amendment rights, and much more."
But no matter how bleak things look to all who have a clear-eyed understanding of the radicalism of the Democrats' agenda, there are some reasons for optimism.
President Trump showed that an outsider actually can win the presidency and advance a constructive agenda against nearly overwhelming resistance. He single-handedly transformed the Republican Party into a far more efficient and effective policy vehicle. His very presence smoked out the radicalism, authoritarianism, corruption, destructiveness and utter meanness of the left. Leftists loathe him so thoroughly that they showed the entire country how far they're willing to go to silence their opponents and eradicate Americans' liberties.
Trump presented a template for how the Republican Party should and can expand its base, and how it should push its own agenda every bit as aggressively as the Democrats do theirs, without the cheating and lawlessness.
He inspired tens of millions of Americans with his unflagging patriotism, with his defense and promotion of this country and its interests. The enthusiasm at his rallies was no accident, and it will not diminish but rather surely increase.
Though temporarily dispirited, our side is fired up like never before, and the Republican Party will likely remain the party of Trumpism, even when Trump ceases to lead it. There will not be another Trump -- but there doesn't need to be, as long as the next GOP president largely follows his policy agenda (apart from spending, which we desperately need to rein in), adopts his template for fiercely fighting for that agenda, and continues to expose and proactively fight against the tyranny of leftist media and social media.
So much rides on the U.S. Senate elections in Georgia. If Republicans can hold the majority, we can mitigate much of the planned Biden-Harris mischief.
I also choose to see a dim silver lining in the rampant presidential election corruption: that going forward, Republicans could use it to fuel election reform and scrutiny. If nothing else, people's eyes are now wide open and will remain so.
Heading into the new year, let's do our best to not be dejected and pessimistic but committed and resolved to redoubling our efforts to reclaim America's greatness from those who are on a mission to eliminate it. Never give up!
https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2021/01/01/never-give-up-n2582351
Grease is 'racist, rapey, homophobic and slut-shaming' and should never be shown on TV again, say woke snowflakesTaking a light-hearted show seriously is dumb. But Leftists are that dumb
It was one of the highest-grossing films of the 1970s and has been delighting audiences ever since.
But now the hit musical Grease has become the latest target of ‘woke’ critics who have condemned it for racism, sexism, homophobia and ‘slut-shaming’.
Outraged detractors have called for the story of Sandy and Danny’s rollercoaster high-school romance to be cancelled – and never shown on TV again.
When BBC1 screened the movie on Boxing Day, 42 years after its cinema release, youngsters took to social media to label it ‘rapey’ and misogynist for showing how strait-laced Sandy, played by Olivia Newton-John, transformed herself into a vamp to bag the man of her dreams, Danny Zuko, played by John Travolta.
In the film’s final scenes, student Sandy ditches her good- girl image for skin-tight PVC trousers and takes up smoking so she can impress Danny.
It prompted one outraged Twitter user to write: ‘Grease is far too sexist and overly white and should be banned from the screen. It is nearly 2021 after all.’
Another furious viewer complained: ‘Grease sucks on so many levels and the message is pure misogyny.’
A third user agreed, saying: ‘Grease is just the most sexist piece of s***.’
One scene that caused particular offence to youthful viewers was when Putzie, one of Danny’s friends in the T-Birds gang, positioned himself on the floor to look up the skirts of two female students at the fictional Rydell High School.
Other viewers complained about the lyric ‘Did she put up a fight?’ in the hit song Summer Nights, when Danny describes seducing Sandy.
‘So turns out Grease is actually pretty rapey,’ wrote one aghast viewer, while another said: ‘Misogynistic, sexist and a bit rapey.’
Sensitive viewers also targeted female characters for criticism.
Rizzo was accused of being a bully when she ridiculed Sandy’s good-girl image as she sang Look At Me I’m Sandra D in front of her friends in the Pink Ladies gang at a slumber party.
Others were angry that Rizzo was ‘slut-shamed’ for sleeping with various men, particularly when she had sex with T-Bird Kenickie without a condom.
After thinking she might be pregnant, Rizzo was ostracised, prompting the character, as played by Stockard Channing, to sing about the reaction: ‘There are worse things I could do than go with a boy or two.’
The ‘snowflakes’ were also unimpressed with Vince Fontaine, the radio announcer who hosted the dance-off at Rydell High.
As the character flirted with Pink Lady Marty, he told all dancers that there were no same-sex couples.
The film is, after all, set in 1958 – 45 years before homosexuality was universally decriminalised across the United States.
Nevertheless, the glaring lack of LGBT awareness angered one young Twitter user, who complained: ‘All couples must be boy/girl? Well Grease, shove your homophobia.’
Another simply wrote: ‘Grease peak of homophobia.’
The lack of non-white faces in the cast angered some.
One went so far as to question the broadcaster’s decision to air the film and expressed surprise that it was shown without a disclaimer.
One viewer wrote: ‘I caught the end of Grease, the movie, and noticed there were no black actors or pupils at the high school.’
Another added: ‘Watched Grease on the BBC, surprised they let it go, full of white people.’
When Grease was released in 1978, film censors gave it an A rating, the equivalent of today’s PG, commenting only about some of the near-the-knuckle language.
The film still carries a PG rating with a warning of ‘frequent mild sex references and mild language’.
Ms Newton-John has previously dismissed claims of sexism, saying: ‘It’s a movie and a fun story and I’ve never taken it too seriously.’
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment