If you read it, you'd see they say that giving it to men has no effect, so we wouldn't get it. We'd just have to work the extra hours.
I read it twice and I am not sure where you got that.
Anyway, that would be bad for women's employment opportunities. You can't give a group extra rights without simultaneously hurting it. If a company hiring a female worker will have additional costs imposed on it, but not with a male worker, the market dictates that male workers will be more attractive one way or another - in the worst case with the companies hiring more female workers going out of business.
Oh God, that highlighted text will attract all the stormcucks.
Well, it does sound extremely dodgy. Not just that he cheers the replacement of native Europeans by (Islamic) immigrants, but also in that he simultaneously says that demographic decline is not a problem because immigration, and because it's actually good for his global warming cult.
Working from home women found they could spend more time with their children and they choose to have more. The same effect wasn't found in women with lower levels of education or with men.
Here, they tried to bury it.
You're forgetting that women are the most over-privileged group in the world, with innumerable amounts of laws protecting them, power positions in their control and a friendly media. Any attempt to mitigate their privileges' effect would be met with being blacklisted from stock exchanges, being dragged through shit by the media and being blocked from processing payments by Mastercard.
They're saying that they can maintain the population growth needed for economic stimulus through immigration, but eventually this will stop working and they'll then pivot to "the population is crashing, but that's a good thing because climate change" instead of daring to challenge society's most privileged and uncompromising group.
It's not saying that only women should have that privilege. Hell, I bet that would be impossible, just like with the 'male curfew'. Can you imagine a company that says that only women can work flexibly? Maybe mothers, but that's pushing it.
You're forgetting that women are the most over-privileged group in the world
You forgot that I don't believe that. Plenty who come before them.
and being blocked from processing payments by Mastercard.
This isn't about your conspiracy theory that some random woman at Mastercard blocked PornHub, which you asserted without evidence, in order to help OnlyFans, which you also asserted without evidence - and not because Pornhub was involved in a massive scandal over child pornography?
instead of daring to challenge society's most privileged and uncompromising group.
I mean, even in your theory and worldview, they are 'compromising' by allowing rape gangs to operate freely so that Muslims will vote for Labour.
They are saying that. It's very possible, you just only hire women for those positions that involve flexible working. Who is going to find out?
Sorry, they'll only be removed from stock exchanges and dragged through the media, as well as sued for discrimination against women.
Even if you don't believe my reasoning on the Mastercard ban, you can't possibly believe their excuse. Twitter, FB etc are full of CP, they didn't get their payments cut. A massive scandal that just happened to be run through pro-women organizations and end with an action by a company with an openly feminist VP? Come on.
Not what I meant by compromise. I meant for the greater good, not to advance their own agenda.
If society is due to collapse from low birth rates, they will start taxing us for not having kids before they give us any incentive to have them.
I thought you were saying that they said men wouldn't get them.
It's very possible, you just only hire women for those positions that involve flexible working.
Then that would make women less desirable employees.
Even if you don't believe my reasoning on the Mastercard ban, you can't possibly believe their excuse. Twitter, FB etc are full of CP, they didn't get their payments cut.
What is more likely, that Twitter is part of the establishment, a large company that is therefore not targeted (not that Twitter users use Mastercard to begin with), or that some random women was trying to help OnlyFans? That is the most far-fetched of the theories that you have advanced. In other cases, you have at least something, no matter how flimsy.
Not what I meant by compromise. I meant for the greater good, not to advance their own agenda.
Then how are they uncompromising?
If society is due to collapse from low birth rates, they will start taxing us for not having kids before they give us any incentive to have them.
Actually, taxing people who don't have kids sounds like a great idea to me.
I read it twice and I am not sure where you got that.
Anyway, that would be bad for women's employment opportunities. You can't give a group extra rights without simultaneously hurting it. If a company hiring a female worker will have additional costs imposed on it, but not with a male worker, the market dictates that male workers will be more attractive one way or another - in the worst case with the companies hiring more female workers going out of business.
Well, it does sound extremely dodgy. Not just that he cheers the replacement of native Europeans by (Islamic) immigrants, but also in that he simultaneously says that demographic decline is not a problem because immigration, and because it's actually good for his global warming cult.
Which is it?
Here, they tried to bury it.
You're forgetting that women are the most over-privileged group in the world, with innumerable amounts of laws protecting them, power positions in their control and a friendly media. Any attempt to mitigate their privileges' effect would be met with being blacklisted from stock exchanges, being dragged through shit by the media and being blocked from processing payments by Mastercard.
They're saying that they can maintain the population growth needed for economic stimulus through immigration, but eventually this will stop working and they'll then pivot to "the population is crashing, but that's a good thing because climate change" instead of daring to challenge society's most privileged and uncompromising group.
It's not saying that only women should have that privilege. Hell, I bet that would be impossible, just like with the 'male curfew'. Can you imagine a company that says that only women can work flexibly? Maybe mothers, but that's pushing it.
You forgot that I don't believe that. Plenty who come before them.
This isn't about your conspiracy theory that some random woman at Mastercard blocked PornHub, which you asserted without evidence, in order to help OnlyFans, which you also asserted without evidence - and not because Pornhub was involved in a massive scandal over child pornography?
I mean, even in your theory and worldview, they are 'compromising' by allowing rape gangs to operate freely so that Muslims will vote for Labour.
They are saying that. It's very possible, you just only hire women for those positions that involve flexible working. Who is going to find out?
Sorry, they'll only be removed from stock exchanges and dragged through the media, as well as sued for discrimination against women.
Even if you don't believe my reasoning on the Mastercard ban, you can't possibly believe their excuse. Twitter, FB etc are full of CP, they didn't get their payments cut. A massive scandal that just happened to be run through pro-women organizations and end with an action by a company with an openly feminist VP? Come on.
Not what I meant by compromise. I meant for the greater good, not to advance their own agenda.
If society is due to collapse from low birth rates, they will start taxing us for not having kids before they give us any incentive to have them.
I thought you were saying that they said men wouldn't get them.
Then that would make women less desirable employees.
What is more likely, that Twitter is part of the establishment, a large company that is therefore not targeted (not that Twitter users use Mastercard to begin with), or that some random women was trying to help OnlyFans? That is the most far-fetched of the theories that you have advanced. In other cases, you have at least something, no matter how flimsy.
Then how are they uncompromising?
Actually, taxing people who don't have kids sounds like a great idea to me.