Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,335,976
@1,335,972 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If a man tried to do something like that, to get the UN to address male/female life expectancy gaps or the male loneliness crisis, or the higher rates of male occupational deaths, or the much higher rates of male homelessness, or anything else, you would laugh at him and call him a pussy no matter how poised and graceful he was up at the podium.
But that's the thing, regardless of who is responsible, it's automatically as much as a problem that women face. Any societal problem is a problem that society will pay for one way or another.
It's strange though, if you look at what I believe is called gender politics, or simply better described as the discussion online when it comes to equality between men and women in particular, it seems totally lost on everyone that if your father or mother is given a rotten deal, that deal will most likely color your life regardless of who you'll be born as. In this way, it's not really about women and men but just society as a whole and how to improve it .
Maybe not with women and men as a whole, But in at least some of these discussions, it would seem as if the two of them (men and women) are treated as individuals that then go on to argue like some cursed couple, "what about when you do this" "well I only do this because you did that" etc.
It's like although these people are genuinely trying to help others, or maybe even just seeking justice for themselves, it's like they get caught in something that I hesitate to call "the trauma" of it all.
A stereotypical example is a veteran over reacting to loud unexpected noises. In the same way I feel like I see people in these discussions overreact, as if the evil doer suddenly showed up.
Well one would hope that the plight of others would be discussed in a more productive way. Advocates for father's rights could share tips with advocates for mother's rights etc, but people remember the faces of the people who hurt them, and so they see them in these groups instead. I would like them to be less hostile to each other.
Yeah but in these discussions, the hope is productive outcomes, so in that example, the people most knowledgeable in these issues should be discussing and wether they are women for men's rights or men for women's rights doesn't really matter.
when it comes to crime, I believe there are theories out there and a big one is called something like wealth inequality, if there's a big enough contrast in wealth between groups, crime seems to be higher.
I wouldn't know about the reaction of women as a whole to how things are going, I'm not that sure about how things are going to begin with. Though believe me, as I tried to convey in the OP, I have absolutely no problem with women bosses, in fact I'd love it if they were all women.
But when it comes to these specific women (or men) in these specific discussions, I see suffering because like the stereotypical wounded vet that tenses up from a surprise, these women (and men) are tensed up.
When I say tensed up, I don't mean unsatisfied, scared, angry or even hurt about something. I mean that they are constantly thinking they saw or heard whoever hurt them when really it's a stranger. Just like the war vet.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,336,162
It would be cool if she sat on the face of every corrupt cisgender CEO and forced them to eat her asshole and pussy as punishment for the gender wage gap and the patriarchy
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,336,170
@1,335,962 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The bitching is that it's not an equality movement.
Feminists can't help but create a double standard for everything in the name of equality. Why do women constantly act like they can't understand the concept of consistency?