WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

For those who don't want to watch the clip, the questions the man asks a woman is.

Why is it that, when a woman doesn't have a man she has to take on a masculine roll, but when a man doesn't have a woman he doesn't have to necessarily take on a feminine roll?

Wouldn't that prove masculinity is more essential for survival than femininity?

If that's true, then why is masculinity seen as toxic?

For those who don't want to watch the clip, the questions the man asks a woman is. >Why is it that, when a woman doesn't have a man she has to take on a masculine roll, but when a man doesn't have a woman he doesn't have to necessarily take on a feminine roll? > Wouldn't that prove masculinity is more essential for survival than femininity? > If that's true, then why is masculinity seen as toxic?

(post is archived)

[–] 5 pts (edited )

Everything that doesn't support the oligarch's narrative is deemed toxic or bad. Men have been vilified for decades to prevent them from interfering. Anything or anyone who is a danger to the tyranny will be attacked.

Feminism was used to counter men. However, today, they don't actually want strong women. They want feeble minded dolts.

Notice the new trend is pushing LGBT lifestyles.

[–] 1 pt

Everything that doesn't support the oligarch's narrative is deemed toxic or bad.

Hence tradwomen also being deemed toxic and bad. Because the family is bad and they are essential for it.

[–] 0 pt

neat addition, but what does that have to do with this particular argument/line-of-questioning? I'm more interested on your thoughts on these arguments than whatever stuff you just want to say on the overall subject based on the title.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Wait what ?/. That sounds a lot like gate keeping to just talking about the effects of what is happening, and telling others to keep away from the reasons why it is happening ...

'Kikes and globohomo shabbos.'