Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
nippot
Dels tror jag de skiter i utseendet som en protest mot något, dels är kvinnor som inte fått lika mycket positiv uppmärksamhet från män mer benägna att engagera sig.
Handlar även om medfödda beteenden och preferenser. Som vanligt så har Heartiste skrivit om saken.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/...yre-manly-too/
Citat:
Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air. They exist because people make observations and notice patterns, and then draw generalizable conclusions based on what they see and experience. The accurate observations gain traction and become conventional wisdom, until such time the Krimethink Kommissar orders a media brainwashing blitz and the stereotypes are pushed into people’s subconscious world, where they are extracted by white coats in exercises designed to demoralize the enemy, such as implicit bias tests, and through open-source proxies like neighborhood demographics.
Add another widely-held but covertly-discussed stereotype: Not only are avowed feminists ugly and unhappy, they’re manly too!
Citat:
Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and dominance: A possible explanation for the feminist paradox.
The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e. those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.
(From the results section):
In summary, the feminist activist sample had a significantly smaller (i.e., masculinized) 2D:4D ratio than the general female samples. The size of this difference corresponds approximately to a 30 percent difference in prenatal testosterone/estradiol ratio, which was the index found to have the strongest association with 2D:4D (Lutchmaya, Baron-Cohen, Raggatt, Knickmeyer, & Manning, 2004). Directiveness self-ratings also exhibit a large and highly significant difference in the predicted direction. It is notable that the feminist activist sample 2D:4D was also more masculinized than those of the male comparison samples, except for the left hand in the aggregate sample (see Table 2).
Studien:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journ...4.01011/impact
Så rent vetenskaligt så är det ingenting konstigt. Feminister är ofta inga vanliga kvinnor utan hormonmonster vars sinnen blivit en smula warpade pga annorlunda kemisk cocktail under fosterstadiet. Något som kan ses genom att studera deras fysiologiska "manshänder". Feminister tenderar att ha hjärnor och kroppar som formats av lite annorlunda hormonmix än normala kvinnor. Innebär att de är helt förfrämligade inför sitt eget sex och har en mer aggressiv attityd. Sedan så söker dessa hormonmonsterkvinnor sig till varandra för att finna mening och gruppbeteenden tar över.
Något att tänka på nästa gång man träffar feminister. Har de läbbiga 2D:4D-labbar? Då är det antagligen inte deras fel utan naturliga orsaker under deras fosterstadium som fuckar upp deras sinnen.
