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.
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.