They wouldn't. That's why they haven't even thought about proposing it. Feminist-aligned politicians in most of Europe could have it done tomorrow if they voted together on it, but they want the solution to this problem to kick men even more while they're down.
They call it the 'Equal Rights Amendment', and they've tried to pass it for decades...
Money talks and bullshit walks. They talk a lot of the latter to hide the former. Regarding race-based scholarships, can we take things one step at a time? I wouldn't want to throw away the one chance the world gets at defeating feminism by pushing unrelated things.
It shows that you are not actually upset about unfair treatment. Race-based scholarships are far more common, as is discrimination against whites and Asians.
The idea of losing those scholarships, those organizations that only help women, the government support earmarked for women first...that's what scares them.
Those scholarships and 'support' no one cares about. The organizations they probably do care about.
Angelina Jolie isn't flat chested, and she had a mastectomy for medical reasons. You absolutely can get them back, if you have enough $$$.
If you've read that horrid thing, it actually is a defence of gender specific treatment and specifically speaks about women's complaints about the world, like the fake wage gap and other meme-worthy garbage.
I guess I'm more upset about unfair treatment when it benefits people who I don't like, already get too much special treatment to start with and are incredibly ungrateful for everything they get.
They care a lot about those scholarships and support. That's money in the bank and more feminist whiners making the world a worse place.
And? None of these people are going to have kids anyway, they're repulsive feminists, usually lesbian. What does it matter?
If you've read that horrid thing, it actually is a defence of gender specific treatment and specifically speaks about women's complaints about the world, like the fake wage gap and other meme-worthy garbage.
Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
I guess I'm more upset about unfair treatment when it benefits people who I don't like, already get too much special treatment to start with and are incredibly ungrateful for everything they get.
Sounds like a lot of blacks, actually. Except that women don't have a stratospheric crime rate and that they throw a tantrum rather than burning cities down. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike blacks like the Stormfags, but it's quite odd how you decide on your hatreds. Especially since you never told us why it is that you started to hate women.
They care a lot about those scholarships and support. That's money in the bank and more feminist whiners making the world a worse place.
Reading minds again.
And? None of these people are going to have kids anyway, they're repulsive feminists, usually lesbian. What does it matter?
I thought you always prided yourself that "feminists target kids, and I don't". Here you are targeting kids. Apparently, their ruined bodies don't matter because they are "repulsive feminists".
I meant the current one, not the one from fifty years ago. It includes provisions for reporting the wage gap at publicly traded companies.
especially since you never told us why you started
I'll say that absolutely nobody, friend or enemy, has even gotten close to it. I can rule out all the clichés like a bad mother, bad sex life, being cheated on etc. It doesn't particularly matter why as my current position is purely based on data and extrapolation of trends.
I meant the current one, not the one from fifty years ago. It includes provisions for reporting the wage gap at publicly traded companies.
This was the one actually passed by Congress, but mercifully never ratified, because different treatment is sometimes an actually good thing.
I'll say that absolutely nobody, friend or enemy, has even gotten close to it. I can rule out all the clichés like a bad mother, bad sex life, being cheated on etc. It doesn't particularly matter why as my current position is purely based on data and extrapolation of trends.
Yes, I suspect that it's just internet radiicalization then. You stayed in your basement and read stories on the internet, and got progressively madder, first at 'feminists', and then at 'women' in general. It's what happens to a lot of feminists. It's amazing what you can do to people with pixels on a screen.
It's not hard to predict people like free money.
When 99.99% do not benefit from the "free money", no.
The person in that picture is not a child.
You're justifying this sort of thing happening to girls under 18. In fact, echoing the same arguments made by the perverts "if you want breasts, you can always get them later on".
They call it the 'Equal Rights Amendment', and they've tried to pass it for decades...
It shows that you are not actually upset about unfair treatment. Race-based scholarships are far more common, as is discrimination against whites and Asians.
Those scholarships and 'support' no one cares about. The organizations they probably do care about.
Christ. They're not real.
If you've read that horrid thing, it actually is a defence of gender specific treatment and specifically speaks about women's complaints about the world, like the fake wage gap and other meme-worthy garbage.
I guess I'm more upset about unfair treatment when it benefits people who I don't like, already get too much special treatment to start with and are incredibly ungrateful for everything they get.
They care a lot about those scholarships and support. That's money in the bank and more feminist whiners making the world a worse place.
And? None of these people are going to have kids anyway, they're repulsive feminists, usually lesbian. What does it matter?
Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Sounds like a lot of blacks, actually. Except that women don't have a stratospheric crime rate and that they throw a tantrum rather than burning cities down. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike blacks like the Stormfags, but it's quite odd how you decide on your hatreds. Especially since you never told us why it is that you started to hate women.
Reading minds again.
I thought you always prided yourself that "feminists target kids, and I don't". Here you are targeting kids. Apparently, their ruined bodies don't matter because they are "repulsive feminists".
I meant the current one, not the one from fifty years ago. It includes provisions for reporting the wage gap at publicly traded companies.
I'll say that absolutely nobody, friend or enemy, has even gotten close to it. I can rule out all the clichés like a bad mother, bad sex life, being cheated on etc. It doesn't particularly matter why as my current position is purely based on data and extrapolation of trends.
It's not hard to predict people like free money.
The person in that picture is not a child.
This was the one actually passed by Congress, but mercifully never ratified, because different treatment is sometimes an actually good thing.
Yes, I suspect that it's just internet radiicalization then. You stayed in your basement and read stories on the internet, and got progressively madder, first at 'feminists', and then at 'women' in general. It's what happens to a lot of feminists. It's amazing what you can do to people with pixels on a screen.
When 99.99% do not benefit from the "free money", no.
You're justifying this sort of thing happening to girls under 18. In fact, echoing the same arguments made by the perverts "if you want breasts, you can always get them later on".