The plan to lower men to officially be second class citizens to women in society, followed by a possible "population reduction".
One thing that I can guarantee is that men will never officially be second-class citizens. They'll always hide behind something as they do now. Also, it's odd if you think that Boris Johnson's throwaway line means that he wants to institute 'population reduction' (which would be bad for women, by the way, as that would increase competition for mates).
A lot of things would have to be pure coincidences to make it just pandering.
I disagree. Eventually they'll get tired of pretending they consider us equal to them. Biology says that they'd be largely unaffected, women only care about the top 10% of men.
The amount of unelected women gaining power to control things in favor of this jab would be one ridiculous level of coincidences.
Biology says that they'd be largely unaffected, women only care about the top 10% of men.
And yet it's not the top 10% of men who have historically gotten mates. Look at how mad they are about the fact that universities now have female majorities and it is more difficult for them to get a man.
The amount of unelected women gaining power to control things in favor of this jab would be one ridiculous level of coincidences.
Because I'm the one who changed what I called it?
The plan to lower men to officially be second class citizens to women in society, followed by a possible "population reduction".
A lot of things would have to be pure coincidences to make it just pandering.
One thing that I can guarantee is that men will never officially be second-class citizens. They'll always hide behind something as they do now. Also, it's odd if you think that Boris Johnson's throwaway line means that he wants to institute 'population reduction' (which would be bad for women, by the way, as that would increase competition for mates).
Interesting use of the word 'coincidences'.
I disagree. Eventually they'll get tired of pretending they consider us equal to them. Biology says that they'd be largely unaffected, women only care about the top 10% of men.
The amount of unelected women gaining power to control things in favor of this jab would be one ridiculous level of coincidences.
And yet it's not the top 10% of men who have historically gotten mates. Look at how mad they are about the fact that universities now have female majorities and it is more difficult for them to get a man.
You're seeing a difference there?