I don't want my mother treated like that.
I don't want my sisters treated like that.
I don't want my aunts treated like that.
I don't want my cousins treated like that.
I don't want my niece treated like that.
I don't want my eventual girlfriend/wife treated like that.
Considering it's worked out just fine for my dad, my brother-in-law, my uncles, and my cousins, I think I'm willing to take the risk for a family. Just gotta not take it lightly.
That's what you sound like man, a goddamn incel weirdo.
We CAN'T do that to women, as the majority of sane people keep trying to tell you...all our women are lovely people...I don't really like saying this but I kinda pity you.
Everyone can see that radical feminists are cancer...but they are just meat puppets at the end of the day.
What are the chances that this is someone legitimately looking for a US/Canada conflict on such a scale that the US will just run down Canada's current government, thereby instantly making it a better place?
You know, if she had succeeded, the democrats would have blamed white supremacists. And Trucuck would have confiscated more guns. Timmy Tammy would have probably required analmasks to shit or something.
Being a feminist is a massive loss of social capital, whether they'll admit that or not, it's the truth. Those who openly identify are the tip of the iceberg.
Being a feminist is not a massive loss of social capital in normie society, just a minor one. It's no worse than saying "I'm progressive". Especially when part of that 8-15% of women are the "Feminism just means wanting women to have rights, so therefore I'm a feminist" style Useful Idiots.
Which means that in the end, when you exclude the ignorant UI's, and include the secret Feminists, you might just have a wash of a still small 8-15% of women that are feminists.
I suspect that a lot of the issue is due to the way that the media panders to these narratives.
It's presented as "Giving women a chance to compete in the workplace!" - and the media will not ever question that or give time to anyone who does. If it were ever presented as "Women! Do you want your sons to be unemployable? Do you want your sons to know that they're disposable tools? Do you want them to lead such a hopeless life that they'll kill themselves before you're even on your pension? VOTE FEMINIST!" it'd get a lot less traction.
That's not even to say that I believe that every advance in women's rights must necessarily come at the expense of men's rights ... but that is a decent summary of feminist advocacy.
That's exactly my point about every protectionist measure. Protectionism looks like it favors the group they claim, and it really only favors the leaders, or the upper-echelon of that group that aren't under threat.
Unions do the same thing with labor, racists do the same thing with race, theocrats do the same thing with religion.
My problem with Impossible, is that he goes backwards and says: "See! Laborers hate individual bargaining! Unions opposes it, and they speak for laborers! I know because so many laborers are in unions." Except the numbers are worse for women & feminists than it is for unions & labor.
How can only 15% support it and even when the other party wins everybody bends over backwards to meet their insane demands.
I mean nobody is willing to undo the feminist "achievements" of the past and stripping women of all the privileges they have or burden them with the responsibilities men have, because doing so will lose them the whole female vote. So, in a sense, they are almost all feminist, wether they admit it or not.
The "good ones" shut right the fuck up as soon as the duties part is being talked about but they'll gladly use and abuse the "progress" feminism has brought re. family and divorce courts etc.
But as you can't tell who is a feminist by looking, just don't trust any of them outside of your family.
Well, you kinda can ... that blue-haired creation with the piercings and the quite possibly terminal case of body-positivity is unlikely at best to be a tradcon...
That's been the case for every presidential election since 1996. That doesn't mean that women hate men. The same way that over 50% of blacks will vote Democrat, and they probably don't want to kill everyone who isn't black.
To quote a fellow Kiaian:
I don't want my mother treated like that. I don't want my sisters treated like that. I don't want my aunts treated like that. I don't want my cousins treated like that. I don't want my niece treated like that. I don't want my eventual girlfriend/wife treated like that.
Considering it's worked out just fine for my dad, my brother-in-law, my uncles, and my cousins, I think I'm willing to take the risk for a family. Just gotta not take it lightly.
Oh no muh femoids.
That's what you sound like man, a goddamn incel weirdo.
We CAN'T do that to women, as the majority of sane people keep trying to tell you...all our women are lovely people...I don't really like saying this but I kinda pity you.
Everyone can see that radical feminists are cancer...but they are just meat puppets at the end of the day.
Why the fuck does some loser canuck give a shit about our president
Give them some credit ... the TDS sufferers in Canada and Britain are at least factually correct when they shout "He's not my President!"
You don't understand, America is solely responsible for all atrocities committed throughout human history.
Add to that the fact that Trump is worse than Hitler and you would be insane NOT to attempt to assassinate him...
It's typical Canadian behavior. It's been like this for as long as I've been cognizant.
What are the chances that this is someone legitimately looking for a US/Canada conflict on such a scale that the US will just run down Canada's current government, thereby instantly making it a better place?
Please do, the Canadian government is filled with useful idiots. Forcing them to deal with real issues would be a breath of fresh air.
You know, if she had succeeded, the democrats would have blamed white supremacists. And Trucuck would have confiscated more guns. Timmy Tammy would have probably required analmasks to shit or something.
Annnnnnd problem solved.
They hate Trump because he is an attractive and tall white man who would never fuck them.
Feminists, not women as a collective.
You've been ranting for days that women want all men to die. That's inherently bad.
Except that's not true because most women don't even identify as feminists.
Being a feminist is not a massive loss of social capital in normie society, just a minor one. It's no worse than saying "I'm progressive". Especially when part of that 8-15% of women are the "Feminism just means wanting women to have rights, so therefore I'm a feminist" style Useful Idiots.
Which means that in the end, when you exclude the ignorant UI's, and include the secret Feminists, you might just have a wash of a still small 8-15% of women that are feminists.
I suspect that a lot of the issue is due to the way that the media panders to these narratives.
It's presented as "Giving women a chance to compete in the workplace!" - and the media will not ever question that or give time to anyone who does. If it were ever presented as "Women! Do you want your sons to be unemployable? Do you want your sons to know that they're disposable tools? Do you want them to lead such a hopeless life that they'll kill themselves before you're even on your pension? VOTE FEMINIST!" it'd get a lot less traction.
That's not even to say that I believe that every advance in women's rights must necessarily come at the expense of men's rights ... but that is a decent summary of feminist advocacy.
That's exactly my point about every protectionist measure. Protectionism looks like it favors the group they claim, and it really only favors the leaders, or the upper-echelon of that group that aren't under threat.
Unions do the same thing with labor, racists do the same thing with race, theocrats do the same thing with religion.
My problem with Impossible, is that he goes backwards and says: "See! Laborers hate individual bargaining! Unions opposes it, and they speak for laborers! I know because so many laborers are in unions." Except the numbers are worse for women & feminists than it is for unions & labor.
It's worse, no?
How can only 15% support it and even when the other party wins everybody bends over backwards to meet their insane demands.
I mean nobody is willing to undo the feminist "achievements" of the past and stripping women of all the privileges they have or burden them with the responsibilities men have, because doing so will lose them the whole female vote. So, in a sense, they are almost all feminist, wether they admit it or not.
Because women vote on issues unrelated to gender?
The "good ones" shut right the fuck up as soon as the duties part is being talked about but they'll gladly use and abuse the "progress" feminism has brought re. family and divorce courts etc.
Well, you kinda can ... that blue-haired creation with the piercings and the quite possibly terminal case of body-positivity is unlikely at best to be a tradcon...
You know, you're doing significantly better lately than the theoretical 50/50 odds would suggest.
You mean feminists.
white women went red in 2016 though
That's been the case for every presidential election since 1996. That doesn't mean that women hate men. The same way that over 50% of blacks will vote Democrat, and they probably don't want to kill everyone who isn't black.
I literally can't understand how you can't see that you've made a contradictory argument for both groups.
You believe blacks are voting Democrat because of conditioning.
You believe women are voting Democrat because they have an innate hatred of men.