Even those making "low" amounts are still making $100+ a month from nothing
That might be the average, but it's highly skewed by the high 'earners'. Most ruin their lives for close to nothing. You should be enthused, you're a misogynist after all.
Women already have ridiculously easy lives
I'd pick my physical safety over the "easy lives" of the womens.
I'd pick my physical safety over the "easy lives" of the womens.
Men are statistically more likely to be a victim of violence than any woman. Women are only more likely to be victims of certain forms of violence (like sexual assault). You've been tricked by the framing of statistics.
Men are statistically more likely to be a victim of violence than any woman
Cause they go looking for trouble. Nothing wrong with it, I do it myself, but women aren't exactly provoking fights in the middle of the streets. At least, not ones in which they themselves participate.
Women are only more likely to be victims of certain forms of violence (like sexual assault). You've been tricked by the framing of statistics.
I know full well what the statistics are. Let's assume for a moment that men are innocent victims. I also know that I have a fighting chance of defending myself. The average woman would be overpowered by a 13-year-old boy. I'd be quite scared to go outside if a 13-year-old boy could do literally whatever he wanted to me.
Cause they go looking for trouble. Nothing wrong with it, I do it myself, but women aren't exactly provoking fights in the middle of the streets. At least, not ones in which they themselves participate.
This is horrifically presumptuous. I can think of many incidents here in the UK where a male was assaulted, often lethally, and they were simply minding their own business beforehand. To assume that a man is only being assaulted because he "was looking for trouble" is patently sexist.
I know full well what the statistics are. Let's assume for a moment that men are innocent victims. I also know that I have a fighting chance of defending myself. The average woman would be overpowered by a 13-year-old boy. I'd be quite scared to go outside if a 13-year-old boy could do literally whatever he wanted to me.
This exact statement could be used to advocate for the prohibition of women's "freedom", which would be met with backlash. After all, wouldn't it be "safer" for women if they had a curfew, couldn't wear certain clothes in public or drink alcohol? For their safety of course.
That might be the average, but it's highly skewed by the high 'earners'. Most ruin their lives for close to nothing. You should be enthused, you're a misogynist after all.
I'd pick my physical safety over the "easy lives" of the womens.
Men are statistically more likely to be a victim of violence than any woman. Women are only more likely to be victims of certain forms of violence (like sexual assault). You've been tricked by the framing of statistics.
Cause they go looking for trouble. Nothing wrong with it, I do it myself, but women aren't exactly provoking fights in the middle of the streets. At least, not ones in which they themselves participate.
I know full well what the statistics are. Let's assume for a moment that men are innocent victims. I also know that I have a fighting chance of defending myself. The average woman would be overpowered by a 13-year-old boy. I'd be quite scared to go outside if a 13-year-old boy could do literally whatever he wanted to me.
This is horrifically presumptuous. I can think of many incidents here in the UK where a male was assaulted, often lethally, and they were simply minding their own business beforehand. To assume that a man is only being assaulted because he "was looking for trouble" is patently sexist.
This exact statement could be used to advocate for the prohibition of women's "freedom", which would be met with backlash. After all, wouldn't it be "safer" for women if they had a curfew, couldn't wear certain clothes in public or drink alcohol? For their safety of course.