There's this magnificently stupid cunti, opening a tediously lengthy if pointlessly annoying tradition of such : before syphilitic Florence Foster Jenkins an' the [truly] Sweet Singer o' Michigan J. A. Moore the world was stained also by Margaret Lucas Cavendish.
Cavendish was a poet, philosopher, writer of prose romances, essayist, and playwright who published under her own name at a time when most women writers published anonymously.
You can already smell it, can't you, the little teacup stormcloud of femtarded "heroes of the cause" brewing. She did "so much for women", this moron! But let's continue.
Her writing addressed a number of topics, including gender, power, manners, scientific method, and philosophy. Her utopian romance, The Blazing World, is one of the earliest examples of science fiction.
Aaand there we go, the wishy-washy. "Addressing" is nothing at all whatsoever, plain Moore-isms, some aspiring nigger & apprentice cocksucker addressing me in broken Romanian doesn't actually do anything. Doodling on your term paper is, technically, "addressing" whatever lofty topics you were there to address ; but all it gets you is an F, and (hopefully) an imperative invitation to never show up again.
The dumb cunt didn't do anything, you see. She merely "addressed", and you're more than welcome to "thank her for her leadership", like USGistani dumb cunts gathered in the USGistani Temple Of Dumb Cunts do.
She is singular in having published extensively in natural philosophy and early modern science.
Except, of course, for the part where her vomit was "in" natural philosophy or early modern science by name only. Not that this makes her singular : at the same time lots and lots and lots of men were actually publishing in natural philosophy, early modern science, and everything else.
It's incomprehensible on the face, but for some reasoniii the dumb cunt lobby just doesn't manage to comprehend that if indeed the standard were truly limited to the textual content of filenames, cat /dev/urandom | base64 > research.txt would be the greatest scientist that ever lived.
She published over a dozen original works; inclusion of her revised works brings her total number of publications to twenty-one.
Totally a high class lady. If only her contemporary Rochester'd have had the sense to write a coupla more "original works" (or if at least he had the sense to revise his thing two more times), he too could've been just as thrice-accomplished. Not quite something to hold a candle to the dodecalice-moron here discussed, of course, especially once you count all her sides an' edges leading to nowhere, but still, something.
Then again, including all the individual sperms he left drying on assorted fayance surfaces, the cunt of his works would climb well into the clouds of trillions.
Cavendish has been championed and criticized as a unique and groundbreaking woman writer. She rejected the Aristotelianism and mechanical philosophy of the seventeenth century, preferring a vitalist model instead.
Seriously now, saying stupid things "against" some other stupid things is no qualification. Precisely how obscure, vague or altogether incomprehensible the former set of stupid finds itself versus how fashionably incorrect the latter set is also no consideration.iv
She was the first woman to attend a meeting at the Royal Society of London, in 1667, and she criticized and engaged with members and philosophers Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, and Robert Boyle.
And if you've been on a US campus in the past decade or two, you know exactly how that "criticized/engaged" went ; and therefore precisely why it's been retconned in there.
No, the dumb cunt did no such "critizing" or "engaging", she just pestered some men she couldn't understand while they were trying to accomplish things entirely unrelated to her world.
She has been claimed as an advocate for animals and as an early opponent of animal testing.
Claimed you see. They even have a name for the retcon thing they do, the color red's been "claimed" as representative of stupidity on the march, an' Christmas' been "claimed" as an advertising device of Coca-Cola.
I recall when we were children, the runts in the group would run up and down the street and "claim" the cars there parked. They mostly favoured the "foreign" brands, and principally by the criterion of "cit prinde asta", approximately "how fast can this go" -- a point to them adequately resolved by the numbers printed on the speedometer. It was better to have claimed a car whose dial went from 0 to 220 than one whose dial went from 0 to 180 -- specifically by about 20% or so.
If only Rochester, instead of listlessly rolling from whore to whore, were there with us, "claiming" foreign cars that happened to be parked on the street... why, how very respectable he could have been in my boyhood society!
What the fuck is wrong with these idiots ?!
As the youngest of eight children, Cavendish recorded that she spent a great deal of time with her siblings. She did not have a formal education but had access to scholarly libraries and tutors, although she intimated that the children paid little attention to the tutors, who were "rather for formality than benefit".
She intimated, did she.
By the implicit paralogic of idiocy, nobody could accuse her of being an acultural lout, because, you see, other kids who were supposed to go to school didn't -- she wasn't even supposed to go, so whatcha got against her ? Why do you hate and persecute her so ?
It's not whether she knows anything or doesn't, it's whether she could "be in trouble" or not. How could she be in trouble, when she didn't even have to go to school, and the other kids who had to go didn't ?! She's certainly not the bottom, she's somewhere in the middle, let her be -- this is the cri de guerre of mediocrity, that tedious cunt-driven "logic" which aims not to be the best, but merely... to not be the worst. Good enough, live another day, spawn another regrettable τέρας. The notionally female concept of competition, "da si mie".
At an early age, Cavendish was already putting her ideas and thoughts down on paper since during this time period it was not common or accepted for women to be publicly intelligent. She kept her intellectual endeavours within the privacy of her home.
The family was one of relatively significant means and Cavendish indicated that despite being a widow, her mother chose to keep her family in a condition "not much lower" than when her father was alive; the children had access to "honest pleasures and harmless delights." Her mother had little to no male help.
It's kind-of bizarre to me, the precise manner upon which the cunt lobby seems to have settled viz the construction of its alternative realities. Her mother "having little to no male help" ie "did it all by herself" is somehow good, and therefore pasted in there ; the obvious lesbian dynasties of Mitteleuropa however, women training girls to fuck women, for centuries on end, that's... bad, perhaps, for some reason ? Or they just don't know about it ?
God only knows what goes on in the cuntbrains.
Dumbdish noted that her husband liked her bashfulness. She also stated that he was the only man she was ever in love with, loving him not for title, wealth or power, but for merit, justice, gratitude, duty, and fidelity. She believed these to be attributes that would hold people together, even through misfortune. She further credited such qualities as assisting her husband and her family to endure the suffering they experienced as a result of their political allegiance.
A few years after her marriage, Dumbdish and her husband's brother, Sir Charles Cavendish, returned to England. Dumbdish had heard that her husband's estate (sequestrated due to his being a royalist delinquent) was to be sold and that she, as his wife, could hope to benefit from the sale. Dumbdish, however, received no benefit. She pointedly noted that while many women petitioned for funds, she herself only petitioned once and, being denied, decided such efforts were not worth the trouble. After a year and a half she left England to be with her husband again.
Sounds just about right, yes.
The original material keeps calling Margaret Dumbdish "Cavendish", which is formally proper but practically inadequate, as it breeds confusion.
In her memoir, Cavendish explained her enjoyment in reinventing herself through fashion. She said that she aimed for uniqueness in her dress, thoughts, and behavior, and that she disliked wearing the same fashions as other women.
She also made her desire to achieve fame public. Several passages of her memoir remarked upon her virtuous character, and that while she acknowledged goodness in others, she thought it acceptable that she should hope to be better than them. Cavendish said her ambition was to have everlasting fame. She also expected to be criticized for her decision to write a memoir. She responded by stating that she wrote the memoir for herself not for delight, but so that later generations would have a true account of her lineage and life. She said that she felt justified in writing her memoirs since it had been done by others, such as Caesar and Ovid.
Because it's totally just as interesting, important or worthwhile. Reading up on the "lineage" of some dumb cunt that never achieved anything, reading Caesar... what, there's differences ?
Why should there be differences!!!
Poems and Fancies is a collection of poems, epistles, and some prose, written by Cavendish on a variety of themes. Topics included natural philosophy, atoms, nature personified, macro/microcosms, other worlds, death, battle, hunting, love, honour, and fame.
Cavendish concluded the collection by stating that she was aware that she did not write elegantly and that her phrasing and placement of words could be criticized. She said she had difficulty creating rhymes that could communicate her intended meaning. In short, Cavendish stated that she strove to keep meaning at the expense of elegance, as her aim was to successfully communicate her ideas. She also noted that she expected her work to be criticized for not being useful. In response, she stated that she wrote not to instruct her readers in the arts, sciences or divinity, but to pass her time, asserting that she made better use of her time than many others. Cavendish returned to these assertions throughout her epistles and poems.
Oh, but I'm aware. In fact, I can even predict how many times per arbitrary timespan she returns to "these assertions". It's called drunk walk, look it up.
In her epistle dedication to Sir Charles Cavendish, her brother in law, Cavendish compared writing poetry to spinning and described poetry as mental spinning. She noted that while it was commonly thought to be more appropriate for women to spin than to write, she herself was better at writing. This is one of several occasions where Cavendish calls attention to stereotypical gender roles, such as the belief that women should spin and not write, and then expands upon her reasons for not adhering to them. As in this epistle, Cavendish often employed metaphors to describe her writing in terms of stereotypical feminine tasks or interests, such as spinning, fashion, and motherhood. While Cavendish criticized her own work, she asserted that it would seem better if Sir Charles Cavendish looked favorably upon it. Cavendish often appealed to the reader to applaud her work, asserting that if it was well received it would actually be somewhat improved. She concludes by complimenting Charles' charity and generosity.
Those aren't metaphores, keks.
And yes, that'd be exactly the problem : that women "writing" as if they were spinning aren't in any sense writing. They're still engaging in stereotypical female activities, that is precisely the problem. Nobody has any problem with genetically female authors writing ; the problem's always and everywhere genetically female morons, spinning and then calling it "writing".
Stop doing that, it's not going to gain you any friends among the powerful, and you really don't want any (more) friends among the stupid.
Like authors such as Aphra Behn and William Wordsworth, Cavendish
Alright, it's good enough like that. By now that Aphra Behn private joke's as much a marker for marauding ignorant imbecility as mentions of phlogiston, creationism, etcetera -- mention the string, get ignored.
Anyways, so prepared, let's delight in some portion of the original... penmanship of the early pantsuit role-model. Ready ? Aite, here goes :
WHEN I first intended to write this history, knowing myself to be no scholar, and as ignorant of the rules of writing histories, as I have in my other works acknowledged myself to be of the names and terms of art ; I desired my Lord, that he would be pleased to let me have some elegant and learned historian to assist me ; which request his Grace would not grant me ; saying, that having never had any assistance in the writing of my former books, I should have no other in the writing of his life, but the informations from himself, and his secretary, of the chief transactions and fortunes occurring in it, to the time he married me. I humbly answered, that without a learned assistant, the history would be defective : but he replied, that truth could not be defective. I said again, that rhetoric did adorn truth : and he answered, that rhetoric was fitter for falsehoods than truths. Thus I was forced by his Grace's commands, to write this history in my own plain style, without elegant flourishings, or exquisite method, relying entirely upon truth, in the expressing whereof, I have been very circumspect : as knowing well, that his Grace's actions have so much glory of their own, that they need borrow none from anybody's industry.
Many learned men, I know, have published rules and directions concerning the method and style of histories, and do with great noise, to little purpose, make loud exclamations against those historians, that keeping close to the truth of their narrations, cannot think it necessary to follow slavishly such instructions ; and there is some men of good understandings, as I have heard, that applaud very much several histories, merely for their elegant style, and well-observed method ; setting a high value upon feigned orations, mystical designs, and fancied policies, which are, at the best, but pleasant romances. Others approve, in the relations of wars, and of military actions, such tedious descriptions, that the reader, tired with them, will imagine that there was more time spent in assaulting, defending, and taking of a fort, or a petty garrison, than Alexander did employ in conquering the greatest part of the world : which proves, that such historians regard
more their own eloquence, wit, and industry, and the knowledge they believe to have of the actions of war, and of all manner of governments, than of the truth of the history, which is the main thing, and wherein consists the hardest task, very few historians knowing the transactions they write of, and much less the counsels and secret designs of many different parties, which they confidently mention.
Although there be many sorts of histories, yet these three are the chiefest : (1) a general history ; (2) a national history ; (3) a particular history. Which three sorts may, not unfitly, be compared to the three sorts of governments, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. The first is the history of the known parts and people of the world ; the second is the history of a particular nation, kingdom, or commonwealth. The third is the history of the life and actions of some particular person. The first is profitable for travellers, navigators, and merchants ; the second is pernicious, by reason it teaches subtle policies, begets factions, not only between particular families and persons, but also between whole nations, and great princes, rubbing old sores, and renewing old quarrels, that would otherwise have been forgotten. The last is the most secure ; because it goes not out of its own circle, but turns on its own axis, and for the most part keeps within the circumference of truth. The first is mechanical, the second political, and the third heroical. The first should only be written by travellers and navigators ; the second by statesmen ; the third by the prime actors, or the spectators of those affairs and actions of which they write, as Caesar's Commentaries are, which no pen but of such an author, who was also actor in the particular occurrences, private intrigues, secret counsels, close designs, and rare exploits of war he relates, could ever have brought to so high perfection.
This history is of the third sort, as that is ; and being of the life and actions of my noble lord and husband, who hath informed me of all the particular passages I have recorded, I cannot, though neither actor nor spectator, be thought ignornnnt of the truth of what I write. Nor is it inconsistent with my being a woman, to write of wars, that was neither between Medes and Persians, Greeks and Trojans, Christians and Turks, but among my own countrymen, whose customs and inclinations, and most of the persons that held any considerable place in the armies, was well known to me ; and besides all that (which is above all) my noble and loyal Lord did act a chief part in that fatal tragedy, to have defended (if human power could have done it) his most gracious sovereign from the fury of his rebellious subjects.
And so in this vein, stretching forever, or at any rate for as long as your patience might endure. The moron, liberated from the constraints of needle and thread, of their inequitable and oppressive natural existence putting some kind of measure to the deluge, deterring her by their resistence to "free" (ie, baseless) expression, moves instead to paper. The frictionless, shameless medium is then in short order made to carry broken simile atop dysfunctional correspondencev, false claims fraudulently made and then readily disavowedvi to try an' keep the cake too, after having eaten it...
The problem isn't the writing by women. The problem is writing like women. It's not a who, it's a how.———
- In the words of contemporary Samuel Pepys,
Thence home, and there, in favour to my eyes, stayed at home, reading the ridiculous History of my Lord Newcastle, wrote by his wife, which shews her to be a mad, conceited, ridiculous woman, and he an asse to suffer her to write what she writes to him, and of him. Betty Turner sent my wife the book to read, and it being a fair print, to ease my eyes, which would be reading, I read that.
ended my letters, and so home to read a little more in last night's book, with much sport, it being a foolish book, and so to supper and to bed.
the next day.
Notice, if you will, how the cunt lobby doth in fact organize, and promote its ignoble urdori [Lat horridiores]. They do, they do. Like flies unchecked promote contagion, cunts unchecked promote stupidity.
Here, another example :
anne marye, on 14 Sept 2015 - 7:01 PM, said:
-sex normal in diferite pozitii(cu exceptia celor in care penetrarea ar putea fi dureroasa si bineinteles asta depinde si de marime)
FUNtastic, on 14 Sept 2015 - 7:40 PM, said:
Nu-mi vine sa cred ce debiteaza fatucile astea...Auzi la ea "penetrarea poate fi dureroasa" ... OMG ! Unde dracu' sa fie penetrarea asta sa fie dureroasa ? In gaura de la piercing ? Sau cu ce sa te penetrez in pizda sa te doara ? Cu turnul Eiffel ?
anne marye, on 14 Sept 2015 - 7:49 PM, said:
Ai cumva....vagin? :350x
FUNtastic, on 14 Sept 2015 - 7:58 PM, said:
Nu am vagin, dar am bani sa platesc unul..iar daca il platesc imi bag pula in fitele voastre : au ma doare, acolo nu-mi place, si alte cacaturi...Am futut femeie de 1,5 m pe care am zis ca nici Dr. Ciomu nu o mai coase dupa ce termin cu ea, dar surpriza..Mi-a ras in nas zicandu-mi sa nu ma agit ca nu-I dau de fund la "vagin"..asa ca lasa vrajeala si pune "vaginu" la bataie fara fite de Dorobanti fara sa ai o chiftea in burta.
anne marye, on 14 Sept 2015 - 7:59 PM, said:
Nici in mometul de fata nu inteleg "revolta" unora referitor la pret,timp,servicii etc....sunt atatea fete,atatea preturi,atatea variante s.a.m.d ...de ce trebuie sa te impotrivesti cand ai de unde alege????
no_body, on 14 Sept 2015 - 8:08 PM, said:
Nici noi nu intelegem revolta ta impotriva celor cu pula mare... sunt atatea alte meserii, tu ai ales sa fii curva.
anne marye, on 14 Sept 2015 - 8:12 PM, said:
Nu am nimic impotriva...doar imi rezerv dreptul de a selecta...
Some inept prostitute's wholly imaginary "right" to... select. Definitionally the antithesis of what her profession an' social situation even is, except of course in the stupid cunt "mind" her profession, situation & everything else's exactly one thing and never aught more.
Notice if you will how the whole doctrine of militant stupidity is ever-present whenever one of these slimy shitflaps starts queefing out of the wrong hole. The call to inconsequence's there, why "rub old sores", when the goal of cuntexistence's specifically not leaving any mark behind ? Oblivion for the win ; and then they wonder.
She'd also very much lemon market the thing, if you please ; why don't you want some crap added to the rooster, so as to bring average quality down ??? It'd help her position so very much, especially if even more retarded cunts followed in her brave, revolutionary, progressive steps later! Think of the Overton windows!
- As they say, "the mother of idiocy's always pregnant". [↩]
- God only knows, but probably something along the lines of how "every worm crawled out of cunt is sacred, right, so why should anything work differently ?!?!"
Needless to say the problem is unresolvable as stated, because indeed nothing should work any differently. The issue's not "how to introduce the difference" ; rather the issue is getting rid of the nonsensical hook they managed to stick in there, that original division by zero from which springs all the further nonsense downstream.
No, not everything that crawls out of cunt is sacred, and yes children should be murdered on a regular basis (and age-irrespective). Because it's infinitely better to live in a world wherein you might be murdered than in a world were you also might be murdered but you certainly can't think. [↩]
- And similarily, a dog barking while the tyrant speaks is offering no political opposition. Dogs barking (and bitches howling) are counted with the resistence of the medium, in itself the exact opposite of political anything. [↩]
- Truly, three kinds of ingrown nail are like three kinds of stars, and three kinds of deceased flea, namely splattered by the finger, squished in the nail, and severed in the teeth, are like ontology, gnoseology an' metaphysics ? But why not, the monkey's heard the words, and while it sits there grooming its fellow monkey it can spin a tale, of the three kinds of philosophy, how they related to the three kinds of direct experience. Problem ?
Or isn't all human knowledge borne of human experience, why shouldnt the three kinds be like the three kinds ? [↩]
- What is the truth, is she clueless or informed ? Is
knowing myself to be no scholar, and as ignorant of the rules of writing histories, as I have in my other works acknowledged myself to be of the names and terms of art
among my own countrymen, whose customs and inclinations, and most of the persons that held any considerable place in the armies, was well known to me
the actual case of the matter ? [↩]