Womens Champion Of Club: Fill & Download for Free

Ladies and Gentleman i would like to present the latest recruit in the BJP.He is BJP’s delegate in the elite club of shameless politicians.Mr. Naresh AgarwalNaresh Agarwal has the long history of passing sensless and obnoxious comments on womens, rape and religion.When a women was brutually gang raped in Mumbai , This man didnt stop himself from giving moral lessons to the victim and said “Women needed to pay attention to their clothes to avoid being raped”He insulted Indian Army not once but on various occasions, He questioned the calibre of Indian Army just after a terrorist attack when few soldiers of Indian Army lost their life.Naresh Agarwal compared Indian citizen Kulbhusan Jadhav who is illegaly being held in Pakistan to a terrorist. He said that “Pakistan treated Terrorist as a Terrorist”(Yet he is the member of a party which claims itself to be the champion of Nationalism).He didnt stop here, his notorious conduct reached to the Parliament when he mocked Hindu Gods and abused them with Alchoal slang.Narendera Modi and BJP need to answer the Nationalist support of his party for compramising their ideology by recruiting such person.Links-https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pakistan-treated-terrorist-as-a-terrorist-says-sps-naresh-agarwal-on-kulbhushan-jadhav-issue/articleshow/62265963.cmsNaresh Agarwal makes controversial remarks about Hindu gods, later apologies | Oneindia NewsMumbai gang-rape: Naresh Agarwal remarks draw rivals’ flak

I don’t know about hatred, or the promotion of female superiority, but an anti-male, pro-female bias is a feature of almost all mainstream media. It’s a double-whammy of pragmatic marketing based on demographic realities and politics. Firstly women control the vast majority of consumer spending, and the advertisers funding these publications know it. Most are eager to draw as many female readers as possible, and don’t care if they have to alienate men to do it. Although that is seldom a risk either way because men are so inured to being devalued and lied about, and so well-trained at swallowing their feelings they are usually the first to laugh when it happens.For example I remember a while back there was a very small study done in New Zealand (sample size of eight men) which tracked eye movements in response to photographs of women. They found slightly less than half of the men looked at the subject’s bust before her face, about a third looked at the subject’s hips and waists first, and the rest looked at her face first.So let’s say you were going to write an article about this interesting study. DoesProof a man looks at breasts firstOr maybeScientific proof that men look at women’s breasts first and their face is almost lastSeem like reasonable titles to you? Because that was the general gist of many mainstream news articles reporting on it all with headlines like, ‘proof men don’t look at women’s faces,’ or ‘study shows men don’t care about your face.’ The theme of many of the articles being that men are, of course, lecherous perverts who are obsessed with women’s bodies, and breasts in particular.Headlines like this will have most women nodding along smugly, while many men will chortle idiotically about what horn-dogs they are. The minority who are alienated are no loss, and if we complain about it our champions of equality and social justice, the liberals and feminists, are often the first to tell us to man up. This usually takes the form of gas-lighting about male fragility.Now can anyone tell me what happens if a study suggest something unflattering about women? For example that women prefer men who exhibit benevolent sexism? Well then we get articles with headlines like:A study claims women are more attracted to men with 'benevolent sexism' - but some women aren't convinced.Yep, now suddenly a study with ten times the sample size of the last (which was apparently, ‘scientific proof,’) is merely a claim, and naturally some women aren’t convinced. Of course they’re not! And we’re going to be hearing from them at length. I’ll paraphrase the article itself (if you can finish it without being nauseated though I congratulate you) which does nothing but make excuses for the ways women reinforce sexist gender norms, painting them as victims of male sexism, and in the end it has an ‘expert,’ who appears to hail from some kind of alternate reality pull a completely unsourced conclusion straight out of her arse which directly contradicts the studies actual findings:Rather than being attracted to “sexism,” [feminist from alternate reality] believes that women are attracted to “kindness, to thoughtfulness, and to good manners.” [No study has ever found this to be even remotely true, and they often demonstrate the exact opposite]“There is nothing stopping a man from buying a woman dinner, that isn’t sexism. Sexism is a man buying a woman dinner and then assuming she owes him something. And nobody is attracted to that,” she said [actually the study showed they are, in fact, literally attracted to men who think like that]Also I love how she leaves out that it’s internalised sexism that leads many men to feel obliged to buy women dinner in the first place (regardless of whether they expect anything in return) and that it’s sexism for women to feel entitled to such things to the point where they shun men who don’t play along (and that the survey showed this is exactly what women do) but that’s to be expected.In other words a more honest headline for this article might have been,“Feminist insists studies that don’t flatter women are wrong, and we agree.”The article is in short a load of garbage that has nothing to do with the study it is purporting to address, but it’s pro-female garbage, and pro-female garbage sells, while the first was anti-male garbage, and that sells too. Which is all that really counts, and that’s is why you all know already that if the roles were reversed, and we had a study showing that even fifty percent of men preferred women who adhere to traditional gender norms we would see headlines like,“Study proves men are afraid of independent women”“Even after decades of feminism, studies conclude men are still reinforcing sexist gender norms”“Scientists show how Patriarchal standards make dating world hostile to women.”“Proof toxic masculinity prevails in men’s dating preferences,”And so on and so forth, and of course they would invite feminists to proselytise about the evils of toxic masculinity, and probably rape culture too, and how men are to blame for everything from how much money women earn to excess rainfall.The issue, dear readers, is that people are stupid.They prefer reading articles about studies than reading studies themselves. Studies tend to be longer than the average person’s attention span can encompass and contain confusing, big words, and good scientists are wary of making sensationalist statements, and would never claim a single study is proof of anything unless it was so empirically obvious and well-supported that everyone already knew it was true, like “our study proves different people tend to have different opinions about a variety of subjects.” and that’s just not exciting enough. So even if the study is linked in the article itself (often not the case) most people won’t bother reading it, and if they do they will skim it with a view to confirming the bias stoked by the article that introduced them to it, and journalists know it.They are free to twist the conclusions to suit their own agenda, and unless you’re in a persistent vegetative coma if you’re not aware that most journalists, and most news outlets are pushing a socio-political agenda you’re too stupid to have understood anything I’ve written, so why are you still reading? I don’t have time to explain these things to you. Go back to your cat videos, and let the world’s problems be sublimed in the crucible of your ignorance.Sadly internalised sexism is so prevalent in our culture most men don’t even react with annoyance when they’re lied about by the media. We start training them to act this way at a young age. From birth in fact. Hell, studies have shown for example that parents will leave a crying boy longer before attempting to soothe them, just to provide one example, so it’s only natural we learn to eat our emotions instead of expressing them. Boys are frequently exposed to things like this:And when people complain the purveyors hide behind the tagline of it being about empowering girls (a phrase beloved by anyone selling distaff tat) or claim it’s all in good fun. Meanwhile the ever vigilant champions of social justice and gender equality insist anti-male messages simply don’t do the same sort of harm that misogyny does, so why worry? They have real problems to worry about. Like manspreading. So depictions of outright violence against boys, boys not men, gets a free pass, while anything that can be perceived as even remotely offensive to grown-ass women will result in the feminist Sanhendrin rending their vestments in outrage, and demanding the crucifixion of the blasphemers.It’s the cultural manifestation of that benevolent sexism studies show- er I mean ‘claim,’ women love so much. And, of course… patriarchy! There is no such thing as sexism against men. We’re just too powerful. Or so the champions of equality and social justice bleat.Two-tits good, no-tits bad! Baaah!Because it’s all about hurt feelings, right? Our sensitive male egos. Well why don’t we consider the public reaction to the Boko Haram insurgency. Thousands of boys were butchered in the most horrific ways, and those trying to bring it to public awareness were ignored until they kidnapped a few hundred girls. Then, suddenly, everyone cared. Yes, then the ever vigilant champions of equality and social justice, the sensitive liberals and feminists, suddenly decided the matter was worthy of attention. The fair and balanced media swung into action en masse. The politicians - y’know, that patriarchal boys-club - got off their arses and started moving heaven and earth. The girls were brought back. The boys? The boys who were set on fire, the boys who were gunned down, the boys who had their throats slit, who were slaughtered in their thousands do not get to come back. They will stay dead. No one cares.But sure, it’s just about bitter men, with their fragile egos, sore about losing their privilege.

The key to consistently winning medals at the Olympics is to specialize in certain events. Any country that has a national specialty will always contend for medals in those events.China specializes in diving, table tennis and gymnastics.Spain specializes in sailing.Indonesia specializes in badminton.France specializes in fencing.South Korea specializes in archery and taekwondo.The United States specializes in track, swimming and basketball.North Korea has a specialty in four events in particular: weightlifting, wrestling, judo and boxing. These four events account for 85 percent of the medals that North Korea won between 1972 and 2012, and as of this writing, 60% of the medals won in 2016.To the question of why North Korea does well in these particular sports despite their isolationism, there are a few things to keep in mind.All of the events in which North Korea has found success are divided by weight classes. NK specifically does well in the lower level weight classes of their events: bantamweights, flyweights, lightweights, etc. Basically, they do well in sports that account for size, and thus being smaller is not necessarily a disadvantage.Weightlifting, their strongest sport by medal count, is more or less an individual sport in which one is battling with the bar and weights rather than another person. Consequently, it’s possible to excel in this sport in a vacuum. All one needs is a good trainer and proper facilities. Being a reclusive nation would not have a negative impact on success in weightlifting.In recent years, North Korea has pushed its women to succeed. For example, they won six medals at the Beijing Olympics; five of those medals went to women. Of the five medals won in Sydney, three went to women. Women won half of their six medals in London. This is important to bear in mind, especially since many countries underfund, don’t fund, or don’t even field women’s sports.Beyond the points about the specific sports that earned NK medals, there are also some important points about the national attitude about sports.North Korea is a very sporty country, and lots of money goes into anything that they believe will bring their nation worldwide honor and acclaim. With regards to Olympic sports, this means that their athletes train with the most exclusive, fully-funded sports clubs in the country, such as Amnokang and April 25, with the expectation of performing well at the Olympic Games, Asian Games, East Asian Games, etc.North Korea does a great job of scouting out young talent. They find the best athletes at a young age and develop them over the years to eventually become world-class athletes. Their training is nonstop and quite brutal. It is designed to weed out the weak and make champions of the strong.To keep the athletes motivated, they incentivize winning by offering gifts, money, and social status to the winners and their families. Along with the positive reinforcement, there are also many rumors of negative reinforcement and punishment for athletes who fail to meet expectations at major competitions. Many athletes - past and present - have stated that the push to win Olympic gold is crushing, and even silver is sometimes treated as not good enough. [1]In short, NK takes a lot of pride in sports success. They are very tactical about the sports in which they succeed. The country figured out its strengths and maximizes performances in those areas.'The burden of winning a gold medal for our nation': How North Korea demands everything from its Olympians