Nah, this is just more feminist/TERF nonsense, whose whole basis is hating men and uplifting and worshipping women.
Now, they do often accidentally reverse engineer some healthy habits, but this isn't an example of that. This is just man-hating.
My favorite example is the leftists pushing "radical monogamy." They think they're reinventing a healthy family unit by not sleeping around. I love the horseshoe.
Rightwinger: "Do you think you might be happier settling down?"
Leftist: "SEXIST!"
Leftist, a bit later: "Wait, I've just invented this totally cool idea...we just need a overly long name for it!"
⬆ Keep in mind JKR is a TERF who supports the expansion of women's "rights" at the cost of men who shouldn't have any rights. She's almost like the anti-Impossible1. I'm pretty sure she believes women are superior to men. She's not even against trans folk - she's only against men taking advantage of the trans movement.
Rowlings idol is Bindel, someone so scummy they went after the founder of domestic abuse shelters Erin Pizzey because pizzey said men get abused by women too.
Honestly, my guess is that she became a misandrist because her first husband was abusive. She remarried decades ago, but that obviously hasn't tempered her opinions.
My favorite example is the leftists pushing "radical monogamy." They think they're reinventing a healthy family unit by not sleeping around.
How did their twisted worldview manage to come up with that? Does it have anything to do with Chad's discarded cum rag looking to scam some chump out of his resources?
How did their twisted worldview manage to come up with that?
The dawning realization that monogamy might not be so bad, coupled with a progressive need to be progressive and not be conservative/traditional, as well as the need to not be wrong. Something like that, I think.
Honestly, I don't think that one was especially nefarious; it really did seem to be a 'huh, I fucked up, this lifestyle isn't making me happy, but I don't want to admit anything even close to that being a housewife would make me happy.'
It's easy to explain. They grew up with media that made promiscuity look like the status quo. That has been their experience; that "hookup culture" is normal. Without cultural reference points older than 20 years, they think they discovered something new and counter-culture.
There are men who disagree with you, which makes them bad, and there are men who agree with you but enable your bad choices, which makes them bad as well.
They're permateens in all the worst ways. They keep discovering everything for the first time ever, but with none of the charm or beauty. Add in a level of bitterness that only comes with time and repeated failures, and can't be canceled out by anything good, and you have the average SJW.
No, progressive males absolutely support women's sacrifices to Moloch because they're simps. It's MRA types who would have been willing to compromise on the issue had they gotten any reproductive rights out of the deal. But since feminists have spent the last 50 years telling them to fuck off and die they back the pro-lifers even if they don't personally care about the issue.
Me supporting your issues I don't normally care one way or the other about does require you to support mine. If I see you actively working against my interests I may even take the opposite side just to spite you.
Abortion could be illegal, and you could still allow men not to care for their children. Child support wasn't a thing for most of history.
Women used to have to attempt to keep a man. There was a lot of social pressure but very little to stop him from simply running far enough off that no one knew who he was. Which happened a lot.
It doesn't require it, no. The last 50 years have proven that. I'm just pointing out that the claim she's making about simps is more true for some of the MRAs.
Nah. A feminist woman would only ever be chaste as a petty and resentful act of rebellion against men. Such a woman would not endeavor to caretake her own soul for the sake of itself, and so her performative chastity is not only entirely hypothetical but also purely vain.
A feminist woman would only ever be chaste as a petty and resentful act of rebellion against men.
She would only be chaste for the betabux while getting dicked down by Chad and Tyrone on the side. So basically what they're doing now but finding a way to be even more self righteous about it.
Maybe an 1800s a feminist was chaste once, but there isn't a feminist in the 21st century that isn't a consummate whore. They might virtue signal about it but they are all getting railed if not daily then at least multiple times a week.
Because that is female nature unleashed and it has to be suppressed by a comprehensive, purpose-built, social framework to keep it in check in order to have a sustainable civilization.
I imagine it was because no matter what they called themselves there were consequences for whoring. As a feminist you weren't going to be well received by lots of people anyways, so potentially you didn't make it worse by flaunting your sexual freedom.
There were women who did all the stuff we associate today, even owning property and running their own businesses. They were whores and whoremongers.
Those guys care about those things because women care about those things seemingly above all (well not stripping, that's not common anymore).
You can't usually date half of any woman out there anymore without them making their opinions known on abortion or selling nudes/camgirling pretty clear. And most guys think they need to agree with this to have a chance and rush to scream it to ingratiate themselves.
I can guarantee if women had real opinions on the economy and philosophy, these same guys would be spouting off arguments about those instead. But women only care about their bodies, so these guys follow that train.
I don't believe the common male feminist is a cunning, well thought out deceiver cleverly hiding his nature under a veneer of political progressivism. And I know that isn't a popular opinion here. No, this man is a weak willed fool with a poor self-identity who just parrots what women around him say and scream so he can be a "good boy" and his sexual exploits are simply his male nature winning through the muck until the two become so intertwined they become a weird degenerate hypocrite.
Like most form of failed men in the Modern Era, its just women getting what they asked for and basic biology resisting it.
I don't believe the common male feminist is a cunning, well thought out deceiver cleverly hiding his nature under a veneer of political progressivism. And I know that isn't a popular opinion here.
I dunno how unpopular that is here. I think the general consensus is that they're simping to get laid. There's some dishonesty to that of course, but I do think that a lot of them are genuinely horrified that guys like us don't see m'lady in the same light as they do. I think some of it is them getting off on being treated like shit by the whores they love so much. It's one of their many feminine traits.
Wait, young women there actually want to hear: "yeah, I'm totes cool with women selling nudes online"?
As for abortion, I also support it being legal, and it's not because I want to 'parrot women' or whatever you call it. More than punishing women for their 'irresponsibility' it punishes society with the demonspawn of irresponsible (modern) teenage mothers and other dregs of society.
Wait, young women there actually want to hear: "yeah, I'm totes cool with women selling nudes online"?
Of course they do, because most of them either are or always are a bad day from opening that OF account, or at least have a friend/family member doing it already.
OF alone has really normalized the idea to young women that they can just dip in and out of that life for quick cash whenever they want.
They're dying either way. Letting them starve solves the demonspawn problem and punishes whores. We both win that way. The only losers are future criminals and whores that fuck deadbeats.
Big difference between abortion at 12 weeks than an agonizing death due to starvation. Furthermore, you didn't sound like you oppose abortion when you were talking about 'negotiations' regarding it.
I don't feel strongly about the issue itself. It used to something I would have been willing to support if men got something out of the deal, but feminists will never negotiate in good faith so it's a pipe dream. Now I'm in favor of banning it because a) it forces evil whores to be accountable for something for once in their lives and b) I do think they do it as some kind human sacrifice to the demon they worship.
That's because pregnancy-related things like abortion are literally the only "women's issues." No other issue is gendered. It may be played as gendered in politics, but the underlying issue is not.
Edit: Things like conscription are currently gender-based but that is by matter of policy not because the issue itself is inherently gendered.
The dead kid is equally relevant to both. The condition of being pregnant is relevant to one. Call it a 25/75 split if you want, but it's clearly got a sex-based skew to it.
Rowling is a fucking whore and I never respected the dumb bitch. Just because she also hates trannies doenst mean she is exempt from shut the fuck up go make me a sandwich.
Nah, this is just more feminist/TERF nonsense, whose whole basis is hating men and uplifting and worshipping women.
Now, they do often accidentally reverse engineer some healthy habits, but this isn't an example of that. This is just man-hating.
My favorite example is the leftists pushing "radical monogamy." They think they're reinventing a healthy family unit by not sleeping around. I love the horseshoe.
Rightwinger: "Do you think you might be happier settling down?"
Leftist: "SEXIST!"
Leftist, a bit later: "Wait, I've just invented this totally cool idea...we just need a overly long name for it!"
⬆ Keep in mind JKR is a TERF who supports the expansion of women's "rights" at the cost of men who shouldn't have any rights. She's almost like the anti-Impossible1. I'm pretty sure she believes women are superior to men. She's not even against trans folk - she's only against men taking advantage of the trans movement.
Rowlings idol is Bindel, someone so scummy they went after the founder of domestic abuse shelters Erin Pizzey because pizzey said men get abused by women too.
Makes you wonder who she bones. I mean I know she's loaded, but in theory she doesn't like any men. And I never heard she's a lesbian.
Probably no one frankly. Most TERFs are femcels.
Honestly, my guess is that she became a misandrist because her first husband was abusive. She remarried decades ago, but that obviously hasn't tempered her opinions.
How did their twisted worldview manage to come up with that? Does it have anything to do with Chad's discarded cum rag looking to scam some chump out of his resources?
The dawning realization that monogamy might not be so bad, coupled with a progressive need to be progressive and not be conservative/traditional, as well as the need to not be wrong. Something like that, I think.
Honestly, I don't think that one was especially nefarious; it really did seem to be a 'huh, I fucked up, this lifestyle isn't making me happy, but I don't want to admit anything even close to that being a housewife would make me happy.'
It's easy to explain. They grew up with media that made promiscuity look like the status quo. That has been their experience; that "hookup culture" is normal. Without cultural reference points older than 20 years, they think they discovered something new and counter-culture.
Feminist accuses men of only supporting women for selfish reasons.
Projection is really their most consistent form of communication.
To a true feminist, there are no good men.
There are men who disagree with you, which makes them bad, and there are men who agree with you but enable your bad choices, which makes them bad as well.
What about high value men (a.k.a. "Chad") who always seem to be the men left remaining in all the feminist movies and novels published?
He's bad whenever it's convenient for them. Women's worldviews can change from second to second.
He's bad for leaving her after blowing her back out.
They're permateens in all the worst ways. They keep discovering everything for the first time ever, but with none of the charm or beauty. Add in a level of bitterness that only comes with time and repeated failures, and can't be canceled out by anything good, and you have the average SJW.
No, progressive males absolutely support women's sacrifices to Moloch because they're simps. It's MRA types who would have been willing to compromise on the issue had they gotten any reproductive rights out of the deal. But since feminists have spent the last 50 years telling them to fuck off and die they back the pro-lifers even if they don't personally care about the issue.
Abortion being legal does not require one to support some men's desires to not have to care for their kids.
Me supporting your issues I don't normally care one way or the other about does require you to support mine. If I see you actively working against my interests I may even take the opposite side just to spite you.
Yup, that's a more eloquent way of making the point I was trying to make.
Abortion could be illegal, and you could still allow men not to care for their children. Child support wasn't a thing for most of history.
Women used to have to attempt to keep a man. There was a lot of social pressure but very little to stop him from simply running far enough off that no one knew who he was. Which happened a lot.
Which is why it's the father that picked his daughter's beau. Or held him at gunpoint at the altar if he tries to skedaddle.
It doesn't require it, no. The last 50 years have proven that. I'm just pointing out that the claim she's making about simps is more true for some of the MRAs.
I mean logically require it, not require it in reality. As we both know, the regime rarely follows logic.
or women
Cause people who believe abortion is "killing kids" oppose it. No one's saying "abortion is murder, but men shouldn't be able to do it".
And here too you sound like a psycho.
Nah. A feminist woman would only ever be chaste as a petty and resentful act of rebellion against men. Such a woman would not endeavor to caretake her own soul for the sake of itself, and so her performative chastity is not only entirely hypothetical but also purely vain.
She would only be chaste for the betabux while getting dicked down by Chad and Tyrone on the side. So basically what they're doing now but finding a way to be even more self righteous about it.
Maybe an 1800s a feminist was chaste once, but there isn't a feminist in the 21st century that isn't a consummate whore. They might virtue signal about it but they are all getting railed if not daily then at least multiple times a week.
Because that is female nature unleashed and it has to be suppressed by a comprehensive, purpose-built, social framework to keep it in check in order to have a sustainable civilization.
I imagine it was because no matter what they called themselves there were consequences for whoring. As a feminist you weren't going to be well received by lots of people anyways, so potentially you didn't make it worse by flaunting your sexual freedom.
There were women who did all the stuff we associate today, even owning property and running their own businesses. They were whores and whoremongers.
Those guys care about those things because women care about those things seemingly above all (well not stripping, that's not common anymore).
You can't usually date half of any woman out there anymore without them making their opinions known on abortion or selling nudes/camgirling pretty clear. And most guys think they need to agree with this to have a chance and rush to scream it to ingratiate themselves.
I can guarantee if women had real opinions on the economy and philosophy, these same guys would be spouting off arguments about those instead. But women only care about their bodies, so these guys follow that train.
I don't believe the common male feminist is a cunning, well thought out deceiver cleverly hiding his nature under a veneer of political progressivism. And I know that isn't a popular opinion here. No, this man is a weak willed fool with a poor self-identity who just parrots what women around him say and scream so he can be a "good boy" and his sexual exploits are simply his male nature winning through the muck until the two become so intertwined they become a weird degenerate hypocrite.
Like most form of failed men in the Modern Era, its just women getting what they asked for and basic biology resisting it.
I dunno how unpopular that is here. I think the general consensus is that they're simping to get laid. There's some dishonesty to that of course, but I do think that a lot of them are genuinely horrified that guys like us don't see m'lady in the same light as they do. I think some of it is them getting off on being treated like shit by the whores they love so much. It's one of their many feminine traits.
Wait, young women there actually want to hear: "yeah, I'm totes cool with women selling nudes online"?
As for abortion, I also support it being legal, and it's not because I want to 'parrot women' or whatever you call it. More than punishing women for their 'irresponsibility' it punishes society with the demonspawn of irresponsible (modern) teenage mothers and other dregs of society.
Of course they do, because most of them either are or always are a bad day from opening that OF account, or at least have a friend/family member doing it already.
OF alone has really normalized the idea to young women that they can just dip in and out of that life for quick cash whenever they want.
What we should do is let Tyrone's bastard offspring starve to death along with the whores who think he's father material just as evolution intended.
Abortion is bad, but letting children starve is good?
They're dying either way. Letting them starve solves the demonspawn problem and punishes whores. We both win that way. The only losers are future criminals and whores that fuck deadbeats.
Big difference between abortion at 12 weeks than an agonizing death due to starvation. Furthermore, you didn't sound like you oppose abortion when you were talking about 'negotiations' regarding it.
I don't feel strongly about the issue itself. It used to something I would have been willing to support if men got something out of the deal, but feminists will never negotiate in good faith so it's a pipe dream. Now I'm in favor of banning it because a) it forces evil whores to be accountable for something for once in their lives and b) I do think they do it as some kind human sacrifice to the demon they worship.
We can send all those crotchlings to your area so you can enjoy their cultural activities as seen in these videos. https://communities.win/c/WizardDuels/p/17shvnz3Ds/tar-golem-gets-destroyed-in-west/c https://communities.win/c/WizardDuels/p/17siEc4JlA/wizard-pulls-out-his-magic-wand-/c https://communities.win/c/WizardDuels/p/17siJHbzug/bro-had-on-a-wizard-robe-and-gol/c
How is that an argument against abortion?
I think you might just be a psychopath.
Poor thing, 'slavery'.
You have a very good point. Murder is up 200% among a cohort that frankly probably should have been aborted. Headline: Women most affected.
Abortion or no abortion, women are dumping these kids on society. I don't have much nice to say about the fathers, either, but they're hard to find.
That's because pregnancy-related things like abortion are literally the only "women's issues." No other issue is gendered. It may be played as gendered in politics, but the underlying issue is not.
Edit: Things like conscription are currently gender-based but that is by matter of policy not because the issue itself is inherently gendered.
Takes two people to make a baby, abortion is relevant to both sexes.
The dead kid is equally relevant to both. The condition of being pregnant is relevant to one. Call it a 25/75 split if you want, but it's clearly got a sex-based skew to it.
Rowling is a fucking whore and I never respected the dumb bitch. Just because she also hates trannies doenst mean she is exempt from shut the fuck up go make me a sandwich.
So it's not whether it's true or not, it's who also believes you on the other side?
Twitter really should speak aloud your tweet to you to show you just how dumb it sounds before you post. To save you from yourself.