about 1900- 1920
Yes, they definitely are, no doubt at all. They are designed by nature to be followers, not leaders (how many female political leaders do we have? America has never had any, despite the fact the majority of the electorate are women and so could have voted them in).
That is why feminism was created. Social engineers wanted to destabilise society by breaking up the family, and they knew they would not be able to achieve this by targetting men, so they invented feminism instead. They easily brainwashed women into giving up their respected, fulfilling social roles as crucial community lynchpins and valued matriarchs to become replaceable worker drones and sex objects instead.
Then look at the media, and see how it has easily convinced women to starve themselves, inject poison into their faces, sew toxic bags of silicon into their chests, and so on. Women are, generally, of extremely weak will and very easily manipulated and controlled. That's why for so many years their safety was entrusted to men - first fathers and then husbands.
So the social engineers broke these families up by giving women "independence", and they have used said independence to completely destroy themselves - women's rate of mental illness (depression, anxiety, eating disorders etc) is sky-high and rising - and far outnumbers men's. This did not used to be the case at all - prior to 1950, when most women lived traditional lives, men had far more mental illness than women.
So in short yes, women are far far far more susceptible to brainwashing than men, as they have been brainwashed into destroying themselves - and into defending it as "independence"! source
1950
1991
2000
they make womens worthles
https://www.google.com/search?q=women+of+2014+sluty&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=z8kBVJvyJcmD4gTfiYHwCw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=601
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen