These are literally bot-level responses.
No thought has been put into them whatsoever.
Crabs in a bucket mentality: A crab placed alone in a bucket will easily climb out and escape, but when you place it with a few of its mates, this interesting phenomenon occurs: One at a time, as the crabs try to escape, other crabs will pull them back down to their misery and the group's collective demise.
You did not even respond to the question. You mentioned that 2 words with different spellings are in fact 2 words with different spellings. Then you avoided the question by appealing to a crabs-in-a-bucket mentality saying someone else would "get it" and you wouldn't.
Neither of these respond to the question - how would this hurt men without children? How would this actually take anything away from them?
My understanding is that this is supposed to apply to men (as well as women) so I don't any way this would be a drawback.
These are literally bot-level responses. No thought has been put into them whatsoever.
That’s because this community is rife with degenerate FAGTOWs who know that women are repulsed by their existence, with the Imp being their ringleader. They’re just jealous of the idea that men with wives can take time off to spend with their newborns.
To the MGTOWs: If you actually gave a damn about men’s rights like you claim, you’d be happy that men can get the same parental leave as new mothers.
I usually think theimpossible1's posts are great...sad to him to posting the same kind of stuff he's usually against, just with a different coating over it.
I can think of no way in which this is hurting men without children, at all.
TBF the OP said "screwing over", not "hurting". It's a government-mandated work benefit that single men cannot receive.
These are literally bot-level responses.
No thought has been put into them whatsoever.
Crabs in a bucket mentality: A crab placed alone in a bucket will easily climb out and escape, but when you place it with a few of its mates, this interesting phenomenon occurs: One at a time, as the crabs try to escape, other crabs will pull them back down to their misery and the group's collective demise.
I did not argue an opinion. I explained to you why the OP would believe government-mandated paid leave gives men without children the shaft.
I hope you have found this answer useful. Your feedback will help me improve future responses! BEEP-BOOP
You did not even respond to the question. You mentioned that 2 words with different spellings are in fact 2 words with different spellings. Then you avoided the question by appealing to a crabs-in-a-bucket mentality saying someone else would "get it" and you wouldn't.
Neither of these respond to the question - how would this hurt men without children? How would this actually take anything away from them?
My understanding is that this is supposed to apply to men (as well as women) so I don't any way this would be a drawback.
That’s because this community is rife with degenerate FAGTOWs who know that women are repulsed by their existence, with the Imp being their ringleader. They’re just jealous of the idea that men with wives can take time off to spend with their newborns.
To the MGTOWs: If you actually gave a damn about men’s rights like you claim, you’d be happy that men can get the same parental leave as new mothers.
I usually think theimpossible1's posts are great...sad to him to posting the same kind of stuff he's usually against, just with a different coating over it.
And if you were actually right wing, you'd see Pivotal Ventures at the top and know this is Melinda Gates' idea, making it unquestionably evil.
Would it help if you pretended Bill wrote it?