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.
I see insults but absolutely nothing of an argument in there.
Literally 0. Nada. Nothing.
How would the generic "resources are infinite" even apply to men being able to spend some amount of time with their own children.
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 haven't noticed that you're not repeating feminist ideology just with different rationalizations?
"White men shouldn't have children.
Only foreigners are worthy of having children"
Same thing you're saying here.
I really think I figured out why feminists hate the harry potter author j.k. rowling.
She wrote realistic female characters like Dolores Umbridge.
If you picture Dolores Umbridge saying feminist themes they all makes sense.
That is actually what they want. They're so tiiiiired of needing to...think...work...make their own decisions on who to sleep with or not sleep with.
They crave to return back to a time when (in their minds) everyone else made these decisions for them and all they had to do was go with it and not think about it.
The eventual end goal of feminism is "reducing males to 10% of the population".
You think of the genocidal aspect, but there's also that feminist crave a system where they fuck the dominant male and simply don't think about any other aspect of dating and relationships.
Why am I not surprised at this part...
Meanwhile, three female Florida high school students — two 17-year-olds and a 15-year-old — were arrested this week for their role in yet another violent campus melee caught on tape.
That footage shows five girls relentlessly punching a student at West Broward High School in Pembroke Pines on Jan. 24.
The victim in the case suffered a concussion, Local 10 reported.
After the video circulated, principal Brad Fatout warned that students who filmed fights would be disciplined in the future, arguing the footage incites violence.
Eventually in pursuit of an agenda they whittle it down to they tiny niche groups though.
"White males commit the most mass shootings! *
"* Measure in Jan 1940, only in Smallville Ok, only in a school, only in 4th grade, only counting shootings that happened on a Thursday...
Come to think of it, do any all-women work environment exist?
Every one I can think of (nursing, secretaries, etc) is a structure where there's always men they're serving in some way that keep things organized - males doctors, male managers, etc.
In the last go around of this in the 70's and 80's women started up women-only businesses. They all failed. Put 100% women in the same office and the entire thing devolves into infighting and empty status signalling.
Notice how they immediately jump to "blame the men for their own victimization" routine.
"Women becoming > 50% of the department creates a workplace that's hostile to men, to the point men are forced out of their jobs and careers" is another way to put it.
I've never seen a job environment where women go from being a smaller group to being the largest group that doesn't end up with an atmosphere like a bar near bar close.
Yeah but I think you're close but not quite there.
The average women does not want to watch women in superhero roles.
Women makes up 49% to 51% of the population based on where you are, a purely female audience will absolutely do great at the box office. Women don't want to watch it.
Feminism can convince women to say they want to watch it...can convince them to watch it once or twice...but that's where their influence over women ends, women simply don't like watching women in a superhero roles.
Good post, but you've only just grazed that the fundamental reason these shows don't succeed is because women don't want to watch them.
It's not difficult to get men to watch women in shows. You simply make the character female, somewhat attractive, and have a slightly feminine attitude, and men will jump all over themselves to watch.
I chose this picture because the one on the left has an aburdly sexual outfit - but the one on the right is the main character that guys watched week after week after week - despite wearing what are basically men's casual military clothes. Put a woman who's somewhat attractive, a little feminine, and men will watch.
It's the female audience that you have an issue with. Women aren't interested in watching other women in fight/combat/action roles.
And if you try to push the show mostly to men, then feminists show up and absolutely destroy your female characters. If she's sexy they attack that. If she talks a lot they'll attack anything her character says they don't agree with which is basically everything. If she doesn't talk they'll complain about that as well.
And importantly - if the female superhero engages in the same violence that the male superheros do - they'll have an absolute fit. This is why it's impossible to write a female superhero that men will watch even if she is attractive.
Imagine the fit feminists would have if in this scene loki was a woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ZjnrHR8EA&t=41s
Take the elevator fight scene in captain america "So 15 men attack and try to dogpile on our female hero?".
The problem is always that the moment you add women to a movie, you're opening yourself up to every single thing the female character does being critisized and bemoaned, and 50%-90% of the things a male character would do being off limits even to reasonable people.
The only reason why buffy the vampire slayer exists is because feminist were not around to fuck that up.
And they still went after joss later so look how that goes for films that include women in them.
Like nearly everyone I've only heard of tate because feminist types pushed him.
He has the same energy as women-centered shows tend to have. Jerry Springer, Maury, Oprah, Daytime Soaps.
I feel like the thing around him is more that he entertains younger women, thus is a competitor to feminist messaging towards women.
Because those bored rich bitches played right into the hands of the corporations and government who knew they could be a huge market for siphoning taxes/money.
They played their support role perfectly of furthering the interests of their rich husbands.
Isn't this family leave for both men and women?