Questions

🥃 Charlie Kirk debated with Oxford Union on May 13th, 2025 where he argued that what he called a “hyper-feminine” or “hyper-feminized” society would be weak and unsustainable 🥃

May 13, 2025, within the storied chamber of the Oxford Union, a pointed exchange on culture, strength, and the future of Western society unfolded as Charlie Kirk presented his case against what he described as a “hyper-feminized” social order. Framed as a warning drawn from history rather than mere rhetoric, the argument contended that civilizations endure when resilience, duty, and balance between complementary virtues are preserved. Admirers saw a defense of tradition and stability; critics viewed it as an oversimplification of complex social change. Like many debates staged beneath Oxford’s vaulted ceilings, the moment became less about a single speaker and more about a widening divide over how modern societies define strength, responsibility, and the path forward.

Charlie Kirk proves a hyper feminine society is always a losing option at Oxford - https://youtu.be/U6IoyvIGU3Y?si=9Npk9UR0cdTlGkN3

Patriarchy News Facebook Page - www.facebook.com/.../?mibextid=wwXIfr

I know Sarah Palin got skewered for saying she could see Russia from her house. AOC said Venezuela is south of the equator. And her response to the question of whether the USA should send troops to defend Taiwan if attacked by China was babble.

Last year Aaron Judge won the MVP. He was the best player by statistics. However, Cal Raleigh was a major reason Seattle made it to the playoffs. Also, why they took Toronto to Game 7 in the ALCS. So it could be argued that he was more valuable than Judge was. The Yankees didn't rely on Judge's success as much as The Mariners did on Raleigh's. So do you think it should go to the best player, or the one who had the biggest benefit to their team?