First of all, you're taking the position that the only worth men and women have to each other is centred around heterosexual romantic relationships, which is not true. Men and women can have friendships, platonic or otherwise, or be related to each other. Sisters and brothers and parents and children don't need to bring anything to each other's tables to be of value to each other. This is a sexist stance, not only because it's such a narrowly male perspective and completely discounts the value of women outside their appearance, but it also ignores gay women, who actually see women as human beings and value them for more than their appearance AND it discounts any men who also view women as human beings and do not share this sexist view.
Plus, it doesn't make sense given that Barbies and Kens are sex-less, so their view of each other would never be based on their romantic inclinations toward each other, since those don't exist.
Let's face it, in real-life, for a man to be worth anything, he has to have actually achieved something
Says who? Which women say this? Because most women online have made it clear that the main thing they want men to achieve is the same level of empathy, intelligence and understanding that they have at their respective ages. That's a small ask.
In the case of doctors, presidents, scientists, etc. doctors need patients, presidents need voters, scientists need all of human existence to study, etc. All those things ensure that doctors, presidents and scientists even exist. Are Kens "just" Kens because they simply aren't in the same field of employment? That's classist and again, sexist because it takes the dominant male perspective as the norm. Most women don't think this. The only reason women want wealthy partners is because they don't want to be used, since women as generally known givers, so they're trying not to attract takers.
There's nothing feminist about your opinions, idk where you got that idea from.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
10 months ago
"First of all, you're taking the position that the only worth men and women have to each other is centred around heterosexual romantic relationships, which is not true. Men and women can have friendships, platonic or otherwise, or be related to each other. Sisters and brothers and parents and children don't need to bring anything to each other's tables to be of value to each other. This is a sexist stance, not only because it's such a narrowly male perspective and completely discounts the value of women outside their appearance, but it also ignores gay women, who actually see women as human beings and value them for more than their appearance AND it discounts any men who also view women as human beings and do not share this sexist view."
Thank you for revealing the TRUTH, which is certain parts of 'woke' society now regards straight relationships, particularly straight men, as innately sexist and 'problematic'. *sigh* ππ€¦ββοΈ
"Parents and children" HOW THE FUCK do you think parents and children FUCKING exist in the first place? Do you think it might have something with straight sexual relationships between women and men? This is the problem with a certain contingent of middle-class, gaslighting society...They seem to despise straight relationships, celibate men who want relationships, and anyone who asks about relationships, and yet many of you ARE IN straight relationships, and have children and families. By gaslighting single women and men, you're basically flaunting your OWN privilege as married women and men with children. Let me guess. You were attached at birth to your partner. Or maybe you're the product of sexless arranged marriages. Good for you.
But in MOST PEOPLE'S reality (i.e. not the scolding, finger-wagging, sanctimonious upper-middle-class's), sex DOES matter.
And your entire argument reeks of HYPOCRISY. On one hand you argue that women don't need successful male partners. On the other hand, you contradict yourself...
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
10 months ago
...and you make it clear that women *do* want wealthy partners.
You say "women only want wealthy partners because they don't want to be used," yet you accuse *me* of classism. π€¦ββοΈ Once again, your RANK HYPOCRISY is not even subtle. You're EXPLICITLY saying that non-wealthy men are 'users'. Then again, I guess it's 'okay' to put down poor men...
Besides, when do you ever read/hear about *male* golddiggers? But, of course, in your SUPREMACIST mindset, all women are 'givers' and men are 'takers'. This is NOT EGALITARIAN FEMINISM. This is called SUPREMACY, which is a bastardisation of feminism.
Do you not see the BLATANT HYPOCRISY of questioning the 'dominant male perspective' whilst also arguing that men need to be wealthy (and FWIW, I'm not upholding the 'dominant male perspective' as a good thing; on the contrary, I'm simply doing the VERY FEMINIST thing of acknowledging the patriarchy and the expectations it places on both women and men; do you deny its existence and impact?!?)
There are AWAYS EXCUSES, aren't there? Instead of endeavouring towards a fairer, more equal society, people like YOU are going to give BULLSHIT reasons that justify your decision to UPHOLD THE PATRIARCHY, and only marry rich men (because, apparently us working-class men are 'users'... *sigh* π€¦ββοΈ So says the 'non-classist'... *sigh* π€¦ββοΈπ)
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
10 months ago
And just to be clear, when I say "sex does matter", I'm talking about sexual intercourse. NOT using the language of transphobes.
As a staunch progressive, I am very supportive of trans rights.
reply
share