He deliberately doesn't, because he likes it. He's generally pretty far gone in terms of "Men should be required to protect women", so it makes sense he'd ally himself with TERFs.
That's what it wants you to think. Meanwhile in the shadows of the Upside Down, the transdimensional entity known as TheImpossibleOfVenice cackles gleefully as more Internet anons fall into it's web.
It's like a jealous ex girlfriend who stalks and harasses you. And any time you bring up any criticism of women he immediately leaps to their defense, screaming "not all women" in whatever roundabout way he wants to.
You you think a bachelor tax is a good idea, you support alimony, you're for abortion but against any way for men to opt out, you apparently think single men are "Pathetic weasels afraid that they might have to actually contribute to society."
Basically, all your views together add up to trapping men into providing for women whether they want to or not.
But probably #1 argument without wasting too much of my time finding a better one would be this:
Yes. There is historical examples of it, for example in colonial Canada, it was illegal for (I'm vaguely remembering the ages, but it's close) men over 16 and women over 14 to be unmarried, you'd be fined every year you weren't.
In the modern day and age, where there's at least an empty gesture towards caring about freedom even in the more traditionalist regimes, that kind of law would be quite abhorred, but it has existed in the past, and likely will in the future.
Has nothing to do with 'men having to protect women'. In case you didn't know, women can be single too.
you support alimony
Again, nothing to do with your bizarre gender obsession.
you're for abortion but against any way for men to opt out
You think that not being able to opt out from supporting your own child that you voluntarily created is 'men having to protect women'? You are beyond deranged.
apparently think single men are "Pathetic weasels afraid that they might have to actually contribute to society."
No, not 'single men'. Try again without the strawman this time.
If that's not literally demanding men be required to protect women, I don't know what is.
WOW! Really got me there! What every society has done throughout recorded history, draft single men to fight in wars. It's all for the womans!
Has nothing to do with 'men having to protect women'. In case you didn't know, women can be single too.
My mistake, I made the rookie error of actually reading your text and assuming you know what words mean, because you specifically say men, not women. "while single men pay their fair share". Whoops, maybe stop lying about your own beliefs when you get caught blatantly advocating against men.
Again, nothing to do with your bizarre gender obsession.
Maybe try reading what I actually write. I know reading is almost as hard as writing, but try for me. Here's the sentence you might want to take to a friend to have him explain it to you:
Basically, all your views together add up to trapping men into providing for women whether they want to or not.
You think that not being able to opt out from supporting your own child that you voluntarily created is 'men having to protect women'? You are beyond deranged.
An unborn child, moron. You support abortion, so obviously they don't count. Holy shit, you are beyond deranged.
No, not 'single men'. Try again without the strawman this time.
WOW! Really got me there! What every society has done throughout recorded history, draft single men to fight in wars. It's all for the womans!
You want to sacrifice single men to protect women while the women sacrifice nothing, having all the rights of the men who are dying. You are feminist scum. Hopefully there's a war nearby you can go and fight in while your feminist allies safe at home at REDUXX laugh at your likely death.
He deliberately doesn't, because he likes it. He's generally pretty far gone in terms of "Men should be required to protect women", so it makes sense he'd ally himself with TERFs.
That's what it wants you to think. Meanwhile in the shadows of the Upside Down, the transdimensional entity known as TheImpossibleOfVenice cackles gleefully as more Internet anons fall into it's web.
Have you seen how he argues with Imp?
It's like a jealous ex girlfriend who stalks and harasses you. And any time you bring up any criticism of women he immediately leaps to their defense, screaming "not all women" in whatever roundabout way he wants to.
He's like jester but for women instead of jews.
Glad I'm not the only one that sees the pattern.
Example?
You you think a bachelor tax is a good idea, you support alimony, you're for abortion but against any way for men to opt out, you apparently think single men are "Pathetic weasels afraid that they might have to actually contribute to society."
Basically, all your views together add up to trapping men into providing for women whether they want to or not.
But probably #1 argument without wasting too much of my time finding a better one would be this:
TheImpossible1: "Draft women".
You: "Draft single men"
If that's not literally demanding men be required to protect women, I don't know what is.
WTF is a bachelor tax? Pay the state to compensate being unmarried?
What IGN said, but in this case, it's specifically unmarried men he's talking about, not both men and women.
Yes. There is historical examples of it, for example in colonial Canada, it was illegal for (I'm vaguely remembering the ages, but it's close) men over 16 and women over 14 to be unmarried, you'd be fined every year you weren't.
In the modern day and age, where there's at least an empty gesture towards caring about freedom even in the more traditionalist regimes, that kind of law would be quite abhorred, but it has existed in the past, and likely will in the future.
Has nothing to do with 'men having to protect women'. In case you didn't know, women can be single too.
Again, nothing to do with your bizarre gender obsession.
You think that not being able to opt out from supporting your own child that you voluntarily created is 'men having to protect women'? You are beyond deranged.
No, not 'single men'. Try again without the strawman this time.
WOW! Really got me there! What every society has done throughout recorded history, draft single men to fight in wars. It's all for the womans!
My mistake, I made the rookie error of actually reading your text and assuming you know what words mean, because you specifically say men, not women. "while single men pay their fair share". Whoops, maybe stop lying about your own beliefs when you get caught blatantly advocating against men.
Maybe try reading what I actually write. I know reading is almost as hard as writing, but try for me. Here's the sentence you might want to take to a friend to have him explain it to you:
An unborn child, moron. You support abortion, so obviously they don't count. Holy shit, you are beyond deranged.
Forgive me once again for reading your words, this is a direct quote from you about a law aimed at single men: https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/13zg9afh6y/ive-seen-this-page-circulating-a/c/
You want to sacrifice single men to protect women while the women sacrifice nothing, having all the rights of the men who are dying. You are feminist scum. Hopefully there's a war nearby you can go and fight in while your feminist allies safe at home at REDUXX laugh at your likely death.