Do Not Give Me A Love Confession Note Man I Will Straight Up Roll That Shit Into A Joint. I Am Not Kidding.

Becoming a parent is an ego death for the mother. But not for the father. When a couple has a child, the woman becomes a woman and the man stays a man. In the sense that, the role of being a mother is inescapable. A baby is latched to you 24/7 in a way that isn't the case for the father. Even if you were pumping and so that the father could get up and feed the baby instead, you still are going to have to get up to pump to keep your production. There's nothing that a man can do that the woman doesn't already have to do. Most men continue their extracurricular activities as normal, having days out with the boys meanwhile women find that they can't even take a shower anymore without requiring advanced coordination. I mean heck, the fact that men can have multiple families but a woman never can, speak to this fact.

Prior to this, as just a couple without children - you can have gender equality. So if you don't already have it at that stage, you will definitely never have it when you have children.

But the act of having a child is an inescapable gender inequity. Parenthood can never be 50/50 even with a very involved partner. I think this is a very hard pill to swallow.

doing exactly what misogynistic patriarchy loving males want and tell you to do doesn’t help to uphold or even contribute to the continuation of patriarchal society’s and other comprehensible takes from radblr

autistic men who think they're smart will cause society to collapse

"Men in dresses are seen as bad, but women in pants aren't!"

is not the statement that "men can't be feminine but women can be masculine in society" that you think it is.

Let me introduce: women with facial hair. Full beards. Mustaches. Bald women. Bodybuilder women. Women with visible body hair. These aren't "more acceptable" than men in dresses.

Pants don't have a gendered association anymore, while dresses do. There is something to be said for that, but it certainly ISN'T "masculine women are acceptable now."

the average man acts like a spoiled petulant disrespectful toddler because his parents and society let him do whatever he wants and men stop mentally maturing once they turn 3. you can't tell men "no" without them having a tantrum. you can't do your own thing without them butting in and disturbing your peace. you can't have fun without them because it hurts their feefees when you don't acknowledge them for one second. none of this would be an issue if the world wasn't so androcentric and if everybody realized men are too emotional to lead. they shouldn't even be allowed in public spaces due to how destructive they can be

Women on radblr will always play the "that's misogynistic" card when they have got nothing to say.

Only a dictatorship will stop women from reproducing or else they'll keep breeding like rabbits..

A dictatorship wouldn’t stop them lol. They have to fuck moids because it’s in their biology to do it. They can’t help it. They are natural slaves.

I sometimes feel betrayed, concerned, in disbelief, and even disgusted with women's willful participation in patriarchy, but I am working on that. A day will come when I no longer care about any of it. From that moment on, it won't even register to me anymore. I will have accepted I was never truly owed sisterhood, nor is there a point in building it when you realise that the majority of women are deviants themselves, trapped in heated heterosexual foreplay.

Sisterhood comes across as a euphemism for labour from childfree women who are either in homosexual relationships or are celibate while the majority of women offer nothing to help those women's broken backs. They're more likely to drop a drawer of knives on their backs, really. It's not something I want to be a part of. Even among women, sisterhood is to sacrifice yourself for women who cater to males or have failed catering to males but learned nothing from it.

One day when I happen to see their struggle amongst themselves in endless cycles of empty words, cute slogans, and briefly trending hashtags while they continue loving men, regardless of how many times they prove unsalvageable, I'll not feel emotional about it at all anymore. And I will be a happier woman for it.

Is it not patronizing to claim that women are unintelligent to the point of always falling for social conditioning and propaganda and that women's decisions are always informed by such as a result? Because that is the notion that radical feminism is promoting and has been ever since I became acquainted with it.

Women are adults capable of making informed decisions and this fact remains true even if you believe that said decisions put women in a worse light. Besides, not only is this denial of women's agency patronizing, it is also offensive to the women from developing countries who continuously make decisions that do not involve exploitation or abuse under much worse pressure only to be lectured by western "feminists" on how impossible it is to achieve.

Some people have love for humanity, but no compassion for it, no real empathy for human beings that goes beyond the surface level and superficial. Being a misanthropist with compassion is better than being a philanthropist who thinks that there is ultimately nothing fundamentally wrong with the world, who thinks it's okay if all the horrors that humans are subjected to continue to persist, because they think "everything balances out in the end" or because "everything happens for a reason" or some shit. Like I'm sorry, but we definitely tolerate toxic positivity and allow it to masquerade as healthy optimism out of a fear of ever validating anything that seems "too edgy" way, way too much. At some point a desire to only think normal thoughts that aren't cringe turns into intellectual cowardice and moral laziness, and you've definitely reached that point if your attitude towards the abundance of heinous suffering in this world is just, "oh gee well that sure is unfortunate, but you know, ultimately life is beautiful and everything is okay, and none of that stuff really matters in the grand scheme of things, life is still inherently good, etc. etc."

If there is no form of suffering so heinous to you that you would rather vaporize the planet than allow it to continue for one more day, then I'm sorry but you are someone with a hollow and performative affection for your species. Valuing the mere absence or presence of human minds over the actual experiential quality of the lived realities of real humans will always be oonga boonga brain shit to me, I'm sorry. Like your primal drive to support the species' survival is dampening your higher moral functioning. I would rather live in a world where there's just three clones named Sally who are immortal and always happy, than live in a world where millions of people are enduring unspeakable horrors every single day, sorry. "The beauty of life" and "the wonderful tenacity of the human spirit" mean nothing to me when there are people living their entire lives in slavery and little girls are getting gangraped to death. The fact that people regularly take their own lives because their pain is so unbearable that they'd prefer to just cease existing should tell us all we need to know about the value of quantity vs. quality on this issue. Life itself is not inherently good any more than anything else is, and more life does not automatically equal more value and goodness. If you see nothing wrong with throwing new people into this world despite knowing what it could have in store for them, what potential fates they, or their children, could endure, then you only love humanity in the way you love coffee or a good book. You love the idea of humanity. The ideal of humanity. What humanity represents to you. You love humanity as a concept, not as a collection of individual human beings with thoughts and feelings.