See, you fight for this nebulous concept, “equality.” And the fight becomes real, it gains momentum. It perpetuates and spawns this elusive equality. The movement lays waste to tradition and to collective social history. Over several generations, strengthened by rapidly evolving digital technology and the shrinking of our cultural space-time, women become more free, more equal, than ever. So free, in fact, that they surpass men in many key measures of concomitant success.
The thing is…women are evolutionarily unequipped to handle such unbridled power and associative liberties. The innate nature of woman to suffer and wallow in cathartic, obsessive unhappiness, is unleashed, and thanks to their newly-granted equality and self-directed autonomy, is no longer constrained by propriety and the cultural “father figure” which protected women from themselves in archaic society; benevolent restrictions and superficial inequalities which kept women happy and fulfilled are purged from memory and vilified.
According to the latest study from NHS Digital, more than a quarter (26%) of young women aged 16 to 24 are suffering worrying symptoms – more than three times the rate for men the same age (9%).
And around a quarter of young women have self-harmed – most commonly by cutting themselves – compared to just 10% of men the same age.
In 1993 young women were twice as likely as young men to exhibit common mental health disorder (CMD) symptoms. Now, they are three times more likely to experience them.
CMD symptoms include irritability, worrying, depression, anxiety, feelings of panic, compulsion and trouble sleeping.
The study, which looked at responses from 7,500 people, also found that young women are the most likely to drink at hazardous levels compared to women of other age groups, and they have high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Sally McManus, the study’s lead author, says that social media and the pursuit of ‘perfection’ could be fuelling the rise in anxiety and depression in young women.
‘This is the context they are coming into and it warrants further investigation,’ she added.
What if you found equality but lacked the tools to wield it peaceably?
“News” items like this, isolated, unverifiable, bordering on the apocryphal, strike me as dubious. They straddle that line of legitimacy and believability that makes them hard to discount, yet you still have to wonder how rigorous the fact-checking was that went into checking the story before publication. But still, there is that nagging reticence I experience as an open-minded cynic; it could easily be true, and since the MSM is essentially a Hillary-apologist tide of idiocy and vile manipulation, makes some pragmatic sense.
And especially, it is Hillary we’re speaking of. Would this be so shocking?
CLINTON RECEIVED DEBATE QUESTIONS WEEK BEFORE DEBATE, ACCORDING TO SOURCES
Earlier last week an NBC intern was seen hand delivering a package to Clinton’s campaign headquarters, according to sources. The package was not given to secretarial staff, as would normally happen, but the intern was instead ushered into the personal office of Clinton campaign manager Robert Mook. Members of the Clinton press corps from several media organizations were in attendance at the time, and a reporter from Fox News recognized the intern, but said he was initially confused because the NBC intern was dressed like a Fed Ex employee.
The reporter from Fox questioned campaign staff about the intern, but campaign staff at first claimed ignorance and then claimed that it was just a Fed Ex employee who had already left. No reporters present who had seen the intern dressed as a Fed Ex employee go into Mook’s office saw him leave by the same front entrance. The Fox reporter who recognized the intern also immediately looked outside of the campaign headquarters and noted that there were no Fed Ex vehicles parked outside.
It’s precisely this sort of crooked political cloak and dagger role play that is designed to escape notice and scrutiny, so it makes sense that it would be exposed amid the gossip-infused poli-observer crowd most likely to sit in the shadows outside a candidate’s campaign headquarters.
There were a few quasi-dramatic moments that punctuated tonight’s Clinton-Trump (first of three) debate, but there were no KO’s to be had; not even a measly TKO by my estimation.
But then that has a lot to do with the fact that I am not a fanatical true believer of either side. I’m a “Trump supporter” and I will vote for him in November, but you won’t find me lurking in the many corners of the internet spewing gism over his holiness. I would say my abhorrence of Hillary, and all things Democratic, is stronger, in its direction, that the magnitude of devotion you’ll find me feeling for Donald Trump. In this respect I didn’t watch the debate with such rapt delusion that I felt “my guy kicked” ass or that Hillary was “strong and Presidential” with any degree of passion. It was clearly too close to call and the only people who feel either candidate won are most likely those who vociferously support said candidate.
DT got in a few good licks and his tendency to talk over and interrupt suited him well, especially considering he was debating a shrill woman; Hillary worked the indignant schoolmarm angle well, coming across as restrained and caustically mature. Her whole stamina retort was effective, in my estimation. Both candidates were reasonably coherent, although several times Hillary stumbled over some words but not egregiously so.
Ultimately, the debate only brought an immediacy to life which highlighted the disparate angles both candidates approach us from. Everything they sparred about tonight was a repeat of everything the two and their proxies have feuded about in the media and over Twitter. The debate affords us a graphic and dramatic vehicle by which to perpetuate our own opinions about the candidates.
I doubt many minds were changed by this debate. Maybe persuaded, reinforced, but not changed. Per se.
When police and paramedics arrived, they found two children alive and three dead adults. Police are confident in stating these are homicides. A 17-year-old sibling of the children is missing.
“Anytime someone loses their life it’s a tragedy,” police Sgt. Jon Radus said. “It’s even more of a tragedy when children are involved.”
Radus declined to release the children’s ages or their relationship to the three adults found inside the home, citing the ongoing investigation. He said detectives spent the day searching for the children’s sibling, identified as 17-year-old Katlynn Goodwill Yost, but have not been able to find her.
“We’re concerned for her safety because we obviously haven’t been able to find her,” Radus said.
Radus said authorities were working to obtain a search warrant to continue their investigation at the home. He said investigators were still trying to determine whether an outside suspect was responsible for the deaths.
“We don’t believe the community is currently in danger at this particular time,” he said.
A neighbor told the Orange County Register a couple lived in the house with three children, one a teenager and the others between 7 and 9 years old.
This is truly a tragedy. An event beyond description; sad dignity dampens any editorializing or bloggish tomfoolery. We must remain dour and practice restraint in the face of such horrific acts.
There is one thing about modern SJW/BLM types, and others of their ilk, which disturbs and angers me most.
It is their expressed desire and shameless desire to re-write history.
If, as a group, you wish to air grievances, protest your state of current societal evolution, clamor against perceived wrongs perpetuated on your [insert name of ambiguous social or group’s phenotype], fine. I have no problem with that. Especially in America where our national history is predicated on the principle of free expression without the fear of imprisonment or execution, it’s important that people are able to voice opinions and views antithetical to the predominant paradigm of governance and rule.
BLM and SJW’s do not bother me for their opinions; they bother me for their desire to rewrite history. This is a dangerous path of intellectual totalitarianism and tyranny. The past must always remain visible, remain a viable chapter in our collective national psyche which we can evolve away from (or towards). Without a history visible we are a wayward society, lacking direction, rudderless. But the SJW/BLM matrix does not care about the big picture. They are impulsive, short-sighted movements who only seek immature cosmetic fixes to deeper flaws; rewriting of history is the most cosmetic and counterproductive of all solutions. Rewriting history is the lazy man’s way out of the maze of drudgery and sacrifice required to truly improve one’s state.