Notice she doesn't say fighting at all, they are coordinating to "sort things out." Its a Lysistrata gambit where they intend the nag and deny sex long enough to force men to do their bidding. Like an HR department but for the world. The "combat trousers" are just her falling back to old feminist talking points about putting on pants to be seen as tough and independent.
Its almost a perfect example of womanspeak and how it misdirects your assumptions to hide how pathetic it really is.
For all their "WE ARE STRONG WOMEN", these feminists really just want to be men.
This is a foundational aspect of the feminist movement. It is (IMO) based on a very special blend of the apex fallacy and penis envy.
When the Declaration of Sentiments was written in 1848, women were a protected class. Men had legal obligations to pay her debts, feed, house and clothe their wives and daughters. There were legal repercussions for failing to do these things.
Divorce (which was always with cause) when won by a woman allowed her all of the benefits of marriage without any of the obligations. She was entitled to a house, food, etc. for life while her husband got nothing from her. Things were pretty sweet, as long as a woman got her shit together to pick a good match and build a life with her husband. The Feminist political movement repainted this situation as "absolute tyranny over [women]."
The Feminist political movement has imagined that all men are pussy-slaying Giga-Chads and applied political, legal and social pressure to get that for themselves.
A big part of the resentment that Feminists harbor is truly against the biological imperative to bear children and to raise them successfully. After the sexual revolution, they just ... don't really do that anymore. Women take hormonal birth control pills, pursue a career in an office and fuck every chad in 200 kilometers, starting with her collage campus. At 40 when the opportunities to party have dried up, she decides to enjoy the benefits of family and children; except she can't, so she buys cats.
I think it would be more successful to threaten to have sex with men if they don't get their way.
Unfortunately there are still a lot of touch deprived men who'd buckle and fall easily if offered a crumb of intimacy, even from someone who hates them.
In fact, its the middle aged woman in combat trousers with rage in prior decades that created the very cycle of married men never having a hint of love or sex in their life unless it was used to manipulate them into servitude.
Notice she doesn't say fighting at all, they are coordinating to "sort things out." Its a Lysistrata gambit where they intend the nag and deny sex long enough to force men to do their bidding. Like an HR department but for the world. The "combat trousers" are just her falling back to old feminist talking points about putting on pants to be seen as tough and independent.
Its almost a perfect example of womanspeak and how it misdirects your assumptions to hide how pathetic it really is.
With these people, I think it would be more successful to threaten to have sex with men if they don't get their way.
For all their "WE ARE STRONG WOMEN", these feminists really just want to be men.
This is a foundational aspect of the feminist movement. It is (IMO) based on a very special blend of the apex fallacy and penis envy.
When the Declaration of Sentiments was written in 1848, women were a protected class. Men had legal obligations to pay her debts, feed, house and clothe their wives and daughters. There were legal repercussions for failing to do these things.
Divorce (which was always with cause) when won by a woman allowed her all of the benefits of marriage without any of the obligations. She was entitled to a house, food, etc. for life while her husband got nothing from her. Things were pretty sweet, as long as a woman got her shit together to pick a good match and build a life with her husband. The Feminist political movement repainted this situation as "absolute tyranny over [women]."
The Feminist political movement has imagined that all men are pussy-slaying Giga-Chads and applied political, legal and social pressure to get that for themselves.
A big part of the resentment that Feminists harbor is truly against the biological imperative to bear children and to raise them successfully. After the sexual revolution, they just ... don't really do that anymore. Women take hormonal birth control pills, pursue a career in an office and fuck every chad in 200 kilometers, starting with her collage campus. At 40 when the opportunities to party have dried up, she decides to enjoy the benefits of family and children; except she can't, so she buys cats.
Unfortunately there are still a lot of touch deprived men who'd buckle and fall easily if offered a crumb of intimacy, even from someone who hates them.
In fact, its the middle aged woman in combat trousers with rage in prior decades that created the very cycle of married men never having a hint of love or sex in their life unless it was used to manipulate them into servitude.
Taming of the shrew did not work in the direction expected?
In actuality, it'll turn out a hell of a lot more like Assemblywoman.