No men are the slaves. That's why we call it wage slavery. Men make the money, and then either the family or the government redistributes it into the hands of women, and women spend it.
No, power lies in the ability to redirect other people's money into your possession, and for all your efforts to move the goalposts, you can't deny that women benefit most from wealth redistribution.
and again, the end result of this perspective is that a burglar crackhead that steals TVs to smoke up is displaying power with his "redistribution of wealth"... it's a materialistic view to the point of absurdity.
it makes much more sense to say that the crackhead holds no power over his addiction, and equally it makes more sense to say the woman holds no power against the people that have convinced her to hate men and love spending. and she did indeed require convincing, it did not come naturally.
this is like saying a slave controls the majority of the pickaxes he uses to break up the stones
No men are the slaves. That's why we call it wage slavery. Men make the money, and then either the family or the government redistributes it into the hands of women, and women spend it.
this is only valid with the perspective that consoomption is power, where many here would argue the direct opposite.
No, power lies in the ability to redirect other people's money into your possession, and for all your efforts to move the goalposts, you can't deny that women benefit most from wealth redistribution.
and again, the end result of this perspective is that a burglar crackhead that steals TVs to smoke up is displaying power with his "redistribution of wealth"... it's a materialistic view to the point of absurdity.
it makes much more sense to say that the crackhead holds no power over his addiction, and equally it makes more sense to say the woman holds no power against the people that have convinced her to hate men and love spending. and she did indeed require convincing, it did not come naturally.