again, i feel like guys who have no interest in clothes don't understand that women commonly dress for other women. if you see a woman dressing in a very revealing way, they are prob doing it for their female friends. https://t.co/cw8j9bwKQM
— derek guy (@dieworkwear) September 9, 2024
Yaass tellem:
i mean, my replies and QTs are of a bunch of women saying "true" and then guys with gaming youtube channels and fake war patches on their twitter page saying "no." π€·ββοΈhttps://t.co/k8Og3CrV36
β derek guy (@dieworkwear) September 9, 2024
All moids are homos:
Um yes literally everyone likes girl bussy:
Our new king is clapping back at all the chuds π π :
Hittem with that insecure move to make them even more insecure:
you don't think this makes you sound insecure?
β derek guy (@dieworkwear) September 9, 2024
SOURCE: asked foids
have you drawn your generalizations from talking to women about this specific issue? i wouldn't consider myself an expert on the subject, but i do talk to women about clothes quite a bit more than the average guy.
β derek guy (@dieworkwear) September 9, 2024
!fashion discuss
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This isn't what happens in reality though. Women who are high-earners just compete for an ever-shrinking pool of men who earn even more than they do. Women do not date down. Ever. Not even liberated #girlbosses who supposedly exist outside of this patriarchal system of courtship.
This is a worse world to live in for everybody because it creates more single mothers. Life outcomes are worse for children of single mothers across the board. There's a reason humans have been mostly monogamous since we went from living in tribes to building civilizations.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm sorry that you live in such a sad and bitter reality, but you are factually wrong.
Both of my sisters are married to men who earn significantly less than they do, and so are at least three of my close friends. It might be that if you feel trapped in a highly-patriarchal social or cultural world, that everyone you encounter or interact with adheres to rigid gender stereotypes, but I swear to you, there is a whole other world out there. And if you want to, all you have to do step out of the world that you feel trapped in (assuming you are privileged to live in an urban part of the West, I can't speak for other places).
That's because if you only control for single mother vs married mother, you're collecting all the data from people trapped in patriarchal systems without support networks and economic mobility for women. A mother making six figures is going to produce children with much better life outcomes if she is single, than if she stays married to a meth head or a s*x predator.
A loving, stable home with two incomes and two parents is almost always going to produce better outcomes than one adult and one income, but the number of parents is not as important as the "loving and stable" part. Many part of the world and many American regions and subcultures purposely make being a single mother precarious and unstable, for the reasons described above. A homeless prostitute who didn't have access to abortion care is likely to see better outcomes for her child if she can find a spouse with a stable income, even if he is awful and abusive. In a structure that forces women to depend upon husbands, fathers, patrons, pimps, or paypigs for survival, then yes--women with husbands will generally have better parenting outcomes that women with pimps or paypigs.
But in a world where women can afford groceries, rent, gas, after-school care, school supplies, etc, then having a second grownup in the household is a positive influence, so long as that individual grownup is actually a positive influence.
The point is not that single moms are good and married moms are bad, the point is that patriarchal social hierarchies and economic power structures are bad for everyone overall (both men and women and children), but good for the people at the top of those specific power structures (both men and women and children).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You speak as if this is not the way humans naturally organize themselves, which is incorrect.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Humans don't "naturally" brush their teeth. Humans "naturally" lose all their teeth by about age 30 and then die.
Humans "naturally" mostly die in early childhood, because humans are born grossly underdeveloped and dependent upon adult caregivers not just for food but to act a prefrontal cortex and sensory system.
But that slow, outside-the-womb, socially-dependent development is also what makes humans human. Humans have the ability to change their nature, and to change the nature around them. Every single "unnatural" or "artificial" thing that exists, from the screen you are looking at, to the chair you are sitting on, to the shoes that you are wearing, to the appliances humming in the background, to the bus you take to work...all of that was made by human beings, of stuff that was either grown up or dug up out of the ground. None of that is "natural". That's what makes us human, that we can choose to change "nature".
You may as well say that it is unnatural for humans to use potty paper, or toenail clippers...it's not just irrelevant, it's nonsensical. What does "humans naturally_____" mean or imply that matters one whit to anything about anything? Humans don't "naturally" shit in pottys, nor stop at red lights, nor wash their hands with soap and water. Should we stop encouraging people to do those things, or throw up our hands and say it's impossible to change the "natural" state?
A bobcat with a broken leg is a dead bobcat, it just doesn't know it yet (or maybe it does). It will not eat, because it cannot hunt, and it cannot scavenge efficiently enough to compete with other scavengers. Even if it had a way to make its leg heal straight, it would not survive long enough to remove the cast.
A wild horse with a broken leg is a dead horse. Its best hope is to die before it gets eaten, because it's going to get eaten.
A human being with a broken leg is almost always going to get better, especially in the developed world, thanks to the social networks and support systems and technologies that humans have developed to care for and look after one another. But even stone-age humans recovered from broken bones, which we know from the archaeological record. And that could only have happened if other humans were helping them.
What humans "naturally" do, is to change nature. Both their own nature, and the nature around themselves. That's what makes us human.
If you want to go live in a hole and eat raw things that you can kill or scavenge with your hands, knock yourself out. But that is not more "naturally" human than being a plumber or an airline pilot. It's also stupid.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Man's ego deludes him into believing he can change his own nature. A tale as old as time.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I know it might be hard to believe, but I stopped pooping my pants before I was even two years old. You can do it, too!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It is genuinely sad to me that you think people who pretend to be potty-trained are just hiding behind a mask.
I promise you, it's possible, even for you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm naturally going to r*pe your bussy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
For some reason, this post sounds like it's coming from a squeaky little voice, about knee-high.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Your pulitzer's in the mail
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context