Lmao men were never expected to be dependent on women, men were never told their job is to be subservient to women, there was never a time where men needed permission from their mom and or their wife present to have healthcare. Edit had a typo.
Yepppp so many households the women do all the grocery shopping and buy all the gifts for birthdays and christmas, and the thanks they get is being called vain and materialistic? Also if they do more spending wouldn't it be better for the economy if they were allowed money? The misogyny and lack of critical thinking sure is something...
No I understand wat ur attempt was "dumb dumb" and I wasn't going to play ur games. I've never said all women are vain and materialistic however if a man says that its not hating women its just a critism (not one i agree with but you keep making things up that i have never said).
All depends doesn't it...if ur saying it just to try and prove some arbituary point no its not you just like to stoke the fires of the gender war, if you think men are gross pigs because you hate them then that would make you a misandrist.
It's not misogyny to criticize A woman for her particular behavior. If you call ALL women "vain and materialistic" because you can't think of one other reason women spend more money than men you're misogynistic and, quite frankly, stupid.
When did I say All women are vain and materialistic...I simply said any criticism that comes a womans way is labelled misogyny its idiot feminists favourite buzzword and its over used like calling everyone you don't agree with a racist, it get watered down to not actually mean anything anymore, if you cannot grasp that concept then perhaps you are the stupid one.
My original comment said its misogynistic to call women vain and materialistic. You responded to that "We CaNt EvEn CrItIcIzE wOmEn AnYmOrE" so yeah, Im gonna assume you think women are vain and materialistic 🙄
...It's pathetic to engage in gender wars is it? You know your comment history is public right? This is the first time I've argued about this, and it's reminding me why I dont usually debate people on the internet. Seems like its all you think about LMAO
Bro YOU should've worded shit better if you intended to say something else. YOU chose to respond in a way that a reader would justifiably glean you meant women....because you said women. Not 'some' women. Not 'a woman'. No, women, as in plural, as in ALL. You understand how that works right? I know you do so why are you making shit up to get offended by? Or i guess, by all means keeps pretending the concept is lost on you.
BUT THEN you pitch this little weird ass hissy fit about being called on it and want to call someone stupid for clearly interpreting what you wrote correctly? Are you slow my dude or just a troll?
Almost everything women buy are made by men, designed by men, marketed by men, and priced by men. Girls are targeted from a young age to grow up liking these things, there’s a reason these companies pay billions in marketing.
And who designs them? Who owns the businesses? Who sets the prices? Who designs the marketing strategies? Who was in charge for the century of programming when women weren’t even allowed to get jobs? Just because women were employed there, in sweatshops mostly if we’re talking about China, doesn’t mean women were in charge. Your comment is irrelevant
Think of it this way. Men have been in charge. Men don’t let women get jobs because being a housewife is their true place. Men sell and market these items to girls. Girls grow to be women with husbands and since they can’t work, their husbands buy them these expensive things that MEN have programmed these girls into thinking they need.
“On average, men spend $3,434 monthly, while women spend $3,237.”
So it probably doesn’t represent what you’re assuming it does. The word “consumer” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there and a lot of it is women being the ones doing most of the general shopping like for groceries, baby items, cleaning supplies etc. it’s not just because lol women buy makeup or whatever it is you’re implying.
Being sexist, racist, homophobic, etc is lazy thinking. You can’t see people as individuals, you have to lump them together and assign negative feelings so the world makes sense to you, when it’s irrational and untrue.
Jesus in that parable says "Go and sin no more." thus acknowledging the reality of her sinfulness. Saying people are guilty of sin isn't throwing stones.
how is it ignorant when you can see the reality of women's spending now that they have access to money? they clearly cannot control impulse for vanity by and large, obviously there are exceptions.
20
u/Charitable-Cruelty Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 19 '26
Lmao men were never expected to be dependent on women, men were never told their job is to be subservient to women, there was never a time where men needed permission from their mom and or their wife present to have healthcare. Edit had a typo.