In context that women in the future maybe the near or far future would be taking more of a leadership role than before. Meaning many female politicians will be there, many women would be the ones leading the family, and such? And do you think this is a good or a bad thing? I think this is most likely going to happen sooner or later, it's obvious that women in our modern day are taking more of a leadership role and I fully support this since I beleive this will make the world a more peaceful and progressive world for all. It would be more positive than negative since from what I've seen women are wiser and smarter.
The future is female and this is a good thing
The future is female and this is a bad thing
The future is not female
Results
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Is the future "Female"? Is this a good or a bad thing for you?
Men are better leader objectively speaking. They have better strategies, better determination and better conviction towards achieving a goal they have set, regardless of it being a good or bad one. Leadership skills have nothing to do with morality. A leader must put the interests of his followers and his group at the top priority, even if it means doing immoral things. The alpha wolf would attack wolves outside of his pack, yet he wouldn't do so to those in his pack unless they opposed him. He'd do something evil if it means achieving his top priority goal. And that is why he is the alpha, the leader, as well as why he is responsible for anything bad that happens to the pack.
Women are unable to do that. They are unable to sacrifice something in order to attain something else. In case of a war, most women would lose the moment something gruesome takes place, like kidnapping and torture of a squad. They'd be willing to forfeit a war if it meant the safety of the squad of men. They also wouldn't be able to be the ones to be someone's executioner. I've never heard a good-hearted person say they'd kill someone. Yet there are good-hearted men who would kill people if it meant protecting what they want to protect. This is why men are leaders. Men are able to be cold, brutal and ruthless towards those who try to oppose them and their goals. Women aren't like that. Women want compromises and want everyone to be happy and good. But sadly, bad people will always exist and such people are only warded off by fear. All countries are afraid of the USA because trump is a loose cannon. They know that he can wipe them off the face of the Earth and is prepared to do so if he has to in order to protect his country. That's what keeps maniacs such as Kim Jong Un at bay. If the USA had a president who talked to him with a tone saying "we don't want any trouble, so let's just find a way to be friends", Un would've already nuked the USA.
Why do you think no one wants to stand up to the jacked asshole guy in the pub? It's because they're scared of him, and they're scared of him because he gives off the air that he'll murder you if you even look at him the wrong way. And I'm sorry, but women just don't have that air around them. Do you think people would be afraid to attack the USA if they thought the USA was weaker than them and wouldn't retaliate? And sure, a very small number of women would retaliate as leaders, but would they be able to commit acts which strike terror in the opposing side? Would they be able to see it through? You might say we can't say for sure since it never happened, but we can actually say for sure. You have women these days who stand up to men and even physically attack them, but they always resort to crying and giving up after getting hit back. Men fight until one of them is clearly beaten. Women give up the moment they get hit for real because they get scared and feel powerless.
That's why women will never be objectively better leaders than men. They may be better morally, wanting only good for all, but that's being foolish. Someone will always want more power and unless you're ready to do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of your interests and people, you'll lose. And if you do something bad, you'll just be a hypocrite. This is why it's impossible to be a leader while thinking of both your group's interests and interests of everyone else. And that's what a vast majority, more than 99.9% of women, want to be as leaders and think good leaders should be. They all scream out "men have started so many wars", but they don't realize that each one of those wars had a purpose. It's those same men who gave you your own country and freedom because they started a war. Otherwise every single one of you living in the USA would still be living in British colonies and not the USA. The law of nature is to kill or be killed, and it always holds true, only changing its form.
I think men should take most of the political roles because that involves more responsibility - leaders are supposed to prioritize the interests of their people even before their own needs, to the point of sacrificing their lives if necessary (Matthew 20:25-28). God didn't intend for women to have to take that responsibility, which is why Biblical military drafts only included men (see Numbers 1, Neh 4:14, Joshua 1:14, etc).
Women still have a considerable amount of power within their families, though. Women are expected to "guide the home." The original Greek word used in this passage is a combination of the words "home" and "ruler"/ "Lord". https://biblehub.com/greek/3616.htm Also, women are allowed to have jobs. The woman in Prov 31 ran a business. They're simply not obligated to have a job because husbands are commanded to provide for them (Exodus 21:10, Eph 5:28-29).
Being the primary person to influence and raise the next generation of leaders is incredibly powerful. for that reason, I actually think women have more power as stay-at-home mothers than as career-women.
I think the bible here refers to more like church leadership than political one. And jesus himself never said anything against women, in Jewish traditions women almost Have no rights at all, they're regarded as 100% inferior. So compared to the Jews of the time Christians were a true progression in gender equality. As time goes on we do have to change. As a catholic I would refer to Joan of arc and queen Isabella of Castile as two strong female Christian leaders
Saying that women shouldn't take the leadership position isn't saying anything bad about women. It's saying they shouldn't have to take that responsibility. Biblical leadership is a burden, not a benefit
The past was Male... if the future really is Female, at least history will have some sort of balance. I think it’s the product of karma, not necessarily good or bad. It’s just that everything needs to have a sense of duality. I personally do not give a shit about women being in politics or whatever else. I don’t even care about men. I’m only concerned with the youth expanding their minds and being more creative than the generations that came before them. I care about them making a change for the greater good. The way in which they carry out these tasks doesn’t matter to me as long as it’s positive and bringing peace among all types of people.
Right so the men today deserve to "bad karma" for their ancestors mistakes.
I feel we are fine (in the west) with gender equality, all that needs to be done is to end movements that tip the balance and finalize some small inequalities.
I hope I doesn't go like you said. I didn't agree with what men in the past did nor do what they did so why should I be punished?
I literally said that karma is neither good nor bad.
And I never implied that male domination was ever a mistake.
Also, the rules of karma does not give a damn about personal feelings. It is not about punishment. I said that it is about DUALITY. Two sides matching up with one another.
CAUSE AND EFFECT.
Whether it is toxic or sunshine and rainbows.
Now, if you don’t believe in karma—that’s totally fine but do not put words in my mouth making ridiculous assumptions out what I say. Thank you.
Why would making things be unbalanced be good karma?
If you believe this karma then that's fine, you can believe whatever but don't you think that if you don't do anything about it then you are just as bad as the 19th century guys?
I'd never let it slip back to being how it was in the 1900's. I hope women won't let it slip to being , the 1900's but in reverse, out of empathy to men, as their ancestors had to endure terrible things.
For the last time... karma is neither good nor bad. There is no such thing as good or bad karma. Cause and effect is neither good nor bad. It just happens. Any event that happens will have an equal reaction. That is karma. For the last fucking time.
All I am going to do is put good energy into the world by helping and working with children. THEY are the future. I will love them and guide them to the best of my ability and witness them change the world as THEY see fit as THEY grow up to be adults.
I don’t give a shit about gender politics and I never will.
If anything slips back into the 1900’s... then it happened for a reason. If it doesn’t... then it was never meant to be.
If I suffer as a woman, then so be it. If I become privileged as a woman, I do not care.
I’m doing my part by tending to the ones that actually matter; the youth.
Not grown ass cockroaches who don’t know how to love one another. I refuse to participate in any of that bullshit.
I am not sorry for my opinions regarding this matter.
I think the message behind it is good but the phrase itself doesn’t really make sense. If it just means that in the future women are going to catch up to where men already are, then the future isn’t really female, the future is male and female. Anyway I do think it’s great for women to branch out into areas that normally don’t have many of them but at the same time we need to remember that there are certain professions that are better suited for males and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We can’t have everything and women and men are different.
It's also a matter of averages. There may be careers that men are "better suited for" that some women enjoy/excel at. If the group of women who happen to be interested in that field is smaller than the group of men who happen to be interested, but everyone can work in and enjoy any career, the percentages shouldn't matter.
Men have started literal wars... Men have caused all the bad things tht have happened in the world. it’s time for woman to be in charge. the future is female.
there’s this idea that woman can't lead a country etc bc we get our periods and we’re super emotional. im sorry, it’s not like men have caused wars just because they wanted a little bit more land or killed innocent people hahahaha
that's because making those decisions have always relied on male leaders. who's to say that women would have done things differently? you can't prove that when the few ancient female rulers in history were just as tyrannical as their male counterparts
God you're innocent. The future is technology and corporatism. Most economists are MALE. close to 90% of scientists are MALE. Are you so uneducated you don't know hundreds of past Queens have start wars? It was Queen Isabella who funded the murder of 100+ million Native Americans. Two female presidents effectively obliterated the economies of Brazil and Argentina. France has a female Alt-Right white supremacist in government. Angela Merkel is on her way to fucking up germany worse than it's been in decades.
Reminder that women are human and like all humans they've done terrible things throughout history and will continue to do bad things in the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tSU2SYfCcw
Actually statistically female leaders are more likely to start a war than male leaders (though with a small sample size of female leaders it doesn't serve anything other than to disprove your assertion). War also has different meaning to female leaders than male because women's lives aren't on the line.
The sheer ignorance is saddening. "Men have started literal wars". SMH. Woman have started just as many and are just as vicious as men. Learn some history for crying out loud
For centuries men have design society in a way where they hold the most power, I won't dispute that... But flipping the coming and switching the dominant gender to female is only going to create the same problems of imbalance and corruption.
Equality is the solution. Balance is the solution... Not payback mentality.
Lol and NZ is on our second female prime minister, our first was Halen Clark and she's gone into the EU and at least been nominated for much much higher positions
I love how there seems to be this idea that if women ran everything there would be no more war when it's been proven that women are more cruel then men could ever be.
Seriously why waste your time killing someone when you can just push them to the point that they kill themselves?
They've also caused all the good things.. Like that chair you're sitting in, the roofover your head, the AC you're enjoying, the internet you're using and oh I don't know.. the fact that you didn't die from infection in infancy to name just a few.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee
the fact that you are all losing your minds because i said “the future is female” clearly shows how men just want to be on top. men have ALWAYS been on top. Since they have it is kind of fact to say that most men who have ruled have started literal wars. Women have not been given the chance to show what they are capable of and this is only because they are outshined by a man. I feel like the future is female because not only is a woman who is ranked in a high position fighting for , lets say, her people... she is also fighting against her oppressor... the man (as you guys are doing in this conversation calling woman weak etc.). she constantly has to prove herself and one small error she makes... “oh it’s because she’s a woman”... now saying that woman can't lead etc is a really stupid statement. Again when we have a man in charge... how many times have they started wars? It is time to allow woman to be in charge. to show what we are capable of... to show that we to can rule, create, and lead. the future is female because these are different times. we are becoming more and more involved in polítics and what not. sooner or later we will be 50/50 when it comes to the ratio of men vs woman. from there we will see. i believe the future is female. Hey and if you guys want to go the stereotypical route... there is actual data... at least in america.. showing that more men commit murder than woman. It is a fact that woman are less likely to commit murder based on the data... i took a criminology course in college studying crime in chicago... yes chicago so i can back up the facts if anyone needs me to prove a factual source. this proved that woman of this time are far less likely to lead a war. we are naturally less violent. (again since you guys want to streotype)
Woman when people like you say the future is female the only thing Imagine when you say that involves men on all 4s in nothing but a loincloth and a dog collar, getting viciously beaten and while on onlooking women laugh.
But by all means please try to pass "the future is female" as anything other then a thinly veiled desire for revenge.
If you seriously think women are incapable of being just as violent as men, have I got bad news for you
Though you probably will just brush me off thinking women are just innocent perfectly little Angel's completely incapable of any wrong doing outside of a man's influence
But I guess that's what happens when you think men are inherently evil and would actively call for their extermination if you didn't need us for the species to move forward.
@Malik00 LMAOOOO. okay i dont hate men. i looooooove men. i never said i hated men. i just said men are more likely to murder than woman which connects to the fact that woman are less likely to cause war... does it make you mad knowing that a woman is in charge? if so... you are sexist lol
"Losing our minds", hmm no not really, we're just calling out the gaping flaws in your misandrist ideology. You've made it clear that your objective is not equality, but dominion over men, based on some strawman construction of some all-consuming patriarchy that doesn't actually exist. I don't have the patience or the desire to refute each part of your last comment piece by piece, but I suspect even if I did, you'd just interpret my refutation through the lens of me "exercising my patriarchal tyrannical toxic maleness" or some equally absurd deflection.
@SomeGuyCalledTom men have always dominated. you want to keep it that way then? if you dont want woman to be in charge then you're just being sexist. Men are already in charge and some of them i actually like... some i dont. I go by their ideas not by their gender. but as of now i would love to see more woman in charge. how does that hurt you?
if you are not sexist why does “the future is female “ hurt you? why is seeing woman in charge triggering you? men are already in charge and im not triggered. why does having a woman in charge trigger you?
@heyitsmefan What female politicians do you support? Also why is it totally okay for you to say that women are generally better leaders, but it's bad & sexist when someone else says they'd rather have a man in charge?
One other thing I noticed is that women only seem to support equality when it benefits them. If they need to make sacrifices then suddenly equality is bad and inequality is good.
For example you don't see women complaining about how unfair it is that men have to pay more for car insurance... (men have more accidents!), but for some reason it's okay to force men to pay an equal amount for health insurance despite men visiting a doctor way less and not needing certain treatments.
@mateynine wow. just wow. woman have been oppressed for ages. ages. by man. it would be great to see more representation. i never said men are better than woman. i just said i wanna see more woman AS LEADERS GOD DAMIT LMAO 😂.
Again you twist words and contradict yourself. I have no interest in pursuing this further, since all your questions have been little more than scarcely veiled ad hominems dressed up as moral superiority. And by the way, how can you say you want a female led future, whilst also saying you treat leaders on their ideas and not their gender? Guess what-- most male leaders make mostly sound decisions. Most female leaders probably do as well. It's the sociopaths at the very tip of the corporatocracy who make life miserable down the line for the rest of us. I don't consider your argument valid because you've built your presuppositions up against the wrong target, and then doubled down to make a boogeyman out of that target. The future is not female any more than the future is male. If individuals make generally sound decisions that respect one another's rights, then the future should work out just about fine. Your need to attribute a gender-designation to any form of "superior" future is just a projection of your own biases, and in real world terms has no function except to stir up anti-male sentiment.
and guys pay more car insurance because it is more likely for a guy to crash their car than a woman because guys are less careful. i didn't say anything im just agreeing h to the stats. im getting a car and even though the insurance is expensive because im 20 its cheaper for me than a 20 year old guy because the guy is more likely to get into an accident... why? they’re immature... less careful... etc
"i just said i wanna see more woman AS LEADERS GOD DAMIT LMAO" no you said "it's time for women to be in charge" and proceeded to blame men for all of society's ills. It's kinda hard to uphold two contradictory statements when you leave a paper trail of both in plain sight.
okay ima mute y’all you guys are annoying.. if you get annoyed by the fact that “the future is female” then you’re sexist. end of it. THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!!❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
oh and calling out misandry is not sexism you might wanna brush up on your terminology since you claim to understand the subject so much better than us dimwitted tyrannical men.
@heyitsfan You completely neglected my questions with that first reply. Wow, just... wow.
I had already acknowledged that men have more car accidents, HOWEVER by that SAME LOGIC men should pay LESS for health insurance than women because men visit doctors less and don't have the same expensive treatments!
You just reinforced my argument that inequality is only 'OK' when it benefits women.
Here's the thing though: Men cause fights for benefits. They cause them to protect their pride, to protect their beliefs, to prove/show their strength, to assert dominance, to attain a certain image, to attain a certain social standing, etc. Women in general start fights because they dislike something or because they feel irritated. This is why the period joke began for female leaders. Fact of the matter is, women are extremely more emotional and volatile than men. Again, this is generally speaking, meaning it's true for most men and women, but not all. This is why most women aren't able to mentally handle stuff such as military treatment, getting yelled at, being forced to do something they don't want to do. They also have a lower acceptance threshold than men. This is why men are able to stay calm and collected in some extreme circumstances, while women will panic. This is best seen between how a mother reacts to her kid getting an injury and how a father reacts.
Men are more cold, calm, calculated and logical than women. This helps them control their emotions better. Men think with their brains. Women tend to think with their hearts and make choices based on emotions. And all of this is why men are, objectively and generally, better leaders. Not morally better, because I'm sure that a lot of women would be better leaders morally, but objectively better, because men are able to set a goal and follow it single-mindedly, regardless of what their opposition suffers because of it.
And you can see this as the common trait for all leaders in the animal kingdom, aka. alphas. The alphas think nothing of killing anyone and anything that opposes them. And that's what inspired loyalty in followers of the same ideals. If you had a leader who was ok with making a compromise on a goal, the followers would quickly lose their faith in the leader and would turn on him, electing a new leader who would again be extremely dedicated to the beliefs they all share.
@1828avaava1828 Because for every Superman there is a Clarke Kent, now in my eye's you're a Bonafide Legend, and I've yet to see you drop that guard but I think there must be 1% of you who is Clarke Kent compared to the 99% who is Superman (clearly it's too late for me to google an appropriate female superheroine who would make this analogy slightly credible! lol)
The future isn't female. In order to understand why that is you have to look through our history as humans because you'll see patterns. These ideas aren't new, they've been tried before countless times and they've failed. It's also easy to understand when you look at human nature without any ideological bias which you tend to have.
In his book "Sex And Culture", an anthropologist named J. D. Unwin studied thousands of past cultures. All of them went the same way.
He noticed thay at the beginning of any culture, those cultures tended to be patriarchal. They tend to be highly focused on family values, monogamy, conservative sexual morals. As a result they had high birthrates, strong social cohesion. Since the men all had children this gave them more of an incentive to contribute to the betterment of society and to work harder than they'd have to if they only had themselves to support.
This would eventually propell that society toward success. These cultures would get what he called "expansive energy". They'd grow in sizr and power. Often they'd outbreed less successful cultures or they'd invade and conquer them instead.
At a certain point thess cultures became highly successful, and they'd relax on those old rules. They'd start to move more towards matriarchy. They'd let go of those family values belieiving that they were no longer needed. Traditional gender roles would be enforced much less. People would have less children, low birthrates. Sexual morals would relax and people would start to sleep around more, not bother with marrying, divorce more often. Social trust and cohesion would decrease. They'd lose the expansive energy they had before as a result of all of this.
Eventually these cultures would be outbred by other cultures and replaced, or they'd be invaded and conquered.
History works in cycles and it repeats itself because people don't learn from it. This is why there are no successful matriarchal cultures. It's not because it hasn't been tried before, they just fail. Some exist today - tiny insignificant places that nobody but hardcore feminist fanatics have ever heard of, and are only tolerated because they'd so tiny.
I think we are moving more towards a matriarchal, feminised culture. It's not sustainable though. For a culture to survive it needs strong men to protect it, not emasculated weaklings who bow to women.
Well, to get some idea of what said 'Female Future' would look like, here's a list of the requested attributes, traits and terms which are now being deliberately phased out of any and all job listings and interviews here in the UK. In order to make them "gender neutral", on account of these "masculine words" being "inherently gender biased and patriarchal, leading to less belongingness and job interest among women, and perpetuating gender inequality in male-dominated fields, along with the gender pay gap", with "the mere presence of these masculine words dissuading women from applying to the area because they cue that women do not belong". And any British employers who continue to use this "masculine wording" in their job adverts will now be liable to face gender discrimination charges, and potentially criminal prosecution, for doing so:
So, what do you think? If all of the above are allegedly "masculine words"; with these words, and all of the associated traits, qualities and attributes, all currently being actively purged from the working population by the feminist lobby RIGHT NOW- what sort of world do you think we'll be left with, after/if they achieve their proclaimed goal, and eliminate all of these from the population?
Does getting rid of all these things, demanding that all of the words on this list no longer be used, and advocating that anyone who continues to do so face criminal charges for doing so, on the grounds of "perpetrating institutional gender inequality, and male dominance", and "blocking the progressive betterment through 'feminization' of our 'nurturing', 'interpersonal', , 'submissive', 'quiet', 'warm', 'yielding', 'child-like', 'communal' and 'cooperative' society of 'gentle' 'dependents' (all words which were cited as 'inherently feminine', according to themselves, and thus should be used, empathized and valued in the place of the 'masculine' ones)", strike you as a good thing, or a bad thing? And do you think that this will/would change things for the better, or for the worse?
The future is not female, because we need both genders to have a balanced society and a good future. Women should obviously be able to choose what they want to do with their lives, which in most countries they can, but most women simply don’t have such ambitions. Me included. And I’m not traditional by any means I want a job and to be a functioning part of society, but I’m just not that passionate to sacrifice most of my years to invest into a company or business. A lot of guys however do that. Either is fine. what I would rather see is women in third world countries being liberated and free.
I think saying the future belongs to any certain group is sending a bad message. Whether saying the future belongs to white people, people of color, men, women, rich, poor or even martians, it sends a message that seems like a certain group is going to take full control and that's not what I want.
"The future is unity" how about that? Instead of one group claiming the future for themselves, how about we instead achieve unity despite our different opinions so the future would belong to everyone.
Those who think it will be peaceful have not been to Going out of business sales, Black Friday, Bridal Shop Sales, etc... Women get VIOLENT when it fits their NEEDS!!!
I don't think it would be a Good or Bad thing. Why can't a Man and Woman Lead their Household Together if its the "Traditional" Household? I think as with anything lean too far in any direction the foundation will Crumble. Rather than turn this into a Woman's Rule the World Society (Remember we think and feel based on our hormonal cycle which fluctuates all month long, we need men to say hey let's wait a day or two or five and revisit this...).
C. I think this is an utterly stupid thing to say. All that we have been fighting for to achieve equality between genders will be destroyed by such wordings, because it shows bias. The future will be a cooperation between the genders, in which everyone is equal. Not male, not female.
I don't think so. It's just a temporary misandrist society which will end eventually because more people will become unhappy and realize that modern feminism is a very very bad thing. I don't mind having more women working as long as they don't totally dominate everything. What will the men do? Just die from lack of money and support? No man wants to get married out of fear of losing money and going to jail. Men will starve and die. So I doubt the future is female. It's just a temporary thing. Gender roles exist for biological reasons. I do agree that they were too strict in the past, but they must exist to some extent. If not, forget about humanity. We will have to turn into robots.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
+1 y
If the future is primarily female, then that means inequality just reversed which I'm not sure is a good thing. That aside, I'm not too concerned whether more females get into leadership roles or not. I'm concerned whether we get decent in power or not, because if we don't, regardless of if it's female or male or a mix of both, it's not gonna be a good future.
10
2 Reply
Opinion Owner
+1 y
I'm concerned whether we get decent people in power or not**
This is just some feel good buzz phrase like many more before it. There might be a ring of truth if I started seeing women glood the "trades" market". However, in seeimg 100% men sweating their asses off or standing around while sweating their asses off while building or repairing out surrounding infastructure... well, it is just a buzz phrase.
What strikes me as interesting is that women lament about fairtales being misleading as there in no prince in theif futures. Yet they eat up all these lead rolls by women that Hollywood is sble to makd out as indestructibly strong and stoic which isn't even true for most men who have the reputations as being emotionless.
Ignore it. I do. It will go away faster when it is ignored - or loses media appeal. Whichever first.
The future isn't female, the future is grim. Less and less competent people in the world, less and less responsibility is being taken for your own actions, we are slowly turning into fleshy robots that chase after money and cheap pleasures. It doesn't matter who is at the top of the tower if tower's foundation is slipping and the tower is tilting.
The past hasn't been female and neither will the future its always been male males built the civilizations with women's help I might add we each have our roles and men are builders protectors providers why do you think men are naturally stronger more aggressive and better at physical things like building fighting etc. Its biology we are supposed to be the leaders its mans purpose on earth hence why females are naturally attracted to strong men leaders providers because its biology and neither gender is less significant than the other one cannot exist without the other we need each other and we both have a part to play so sorry to tell you the future is not female the future is male and always will be
Exactly. Men lead, and women *allow* their men to lead. If the male leaders are incompetent or abuse their power, then other men will seek to dethrone them. As it always was, so it will always be.
Thats what my comment was aiming at in other words. I dont get why women want to feminize all of mens roles, i think its stupid, i like how it is and dont believe in disrupting tradition
@Cocacolaaddict bro, the world has always been female if you think about it. Who's the first person who gives you orders and teaches you and disciplines you? Your mom a female, and who's the one who takes your money when you're married? Your wife, a female. Men ran the world but women ran the men
No my mum comforted me while my dad disciplined me taught me and gave me orders women don't "take" a mans money they are given the money because at any point the man can say no more its my money and iv decided no more and nobody gives me orders especially not my mum women don't take your money it is given because you both invest in each other
The future is not female. Women will take on what roles they wish and are capable of fulfilling. That in no way means that everything is going to be 50/50 across the board. Gender roles will still appeal to them and their sexuality won't just change overnight.
Having women who are capable of filling these roles is fine. The issue with "the future is female" crowd is that they thrust women into those roles. They worship women as superior creatures and see men as toxic. That attitude in itself is toxic. That progressivism is toxic. What we need is more liberalism, not more progressivism. We need liberal people who actually stand for freedom, liberty and letting people be individuals, not this toxic bullshit.
I think that's just a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that the chair I'm looking st right now is male, neither are gendered. The future is neither male or female, it's just the time after the present (which doesn't have a gender either, by the way).
when they start growing testicles, it's all over for us. Actually, they kinda are if one looks at the hormonal charts... men's testosterone declining... relatively, they are gaining strength.
Well... if you believe the Bible... ahemm... the woman lead us into this mess by selecting good and evil, so she should lead us out of it. So they may be right. I'm not saying it is her fault.
I don't know, I've had good experiences with women leaders mostly, and some awful.
It's a very bad message, and an extremely hypocritical one. Feminists claim to be for equality, yet they wear that type of paraphernalia. How can you claim to want equality when you're calling for a future where women are above men? What kind of message are you sending to little girls? It's arrogant and sexist.
This is one of those cases where it's easy to know if it's right or wrong: change the gender and answer the question. The answer should be the same for both cases.
3
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
I mean women are already leading in some areas like more women are going to college than men especially in the Middle East. More women in Middle Eastern countries hold Phd's than men. That said the phrase sort of bothers me. I think male and female we are in it together.
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
All guys ever, "Just get in the kitchen and make me food then clean the house, clean up after me, lastly satisfy my every sexual desire. This is all you are here for. You are meant to be below men."
Back when women were housewives and men actually bought the house girls didn't work or contribute to bills at all so I think what you stated is a valid expectation under the right context.
And this "tradition" made and makes me quite sick. I for one love strong and independent women and am repulsed by dependent housewives. These boys, who say that Sound like misogynists to me.
I literally don't care. I personally won't be influenced either way. I think the future is neither female nor male... But we'll be dealing with a steadily decreasing economical state. The future is filled with increasing poverty and rising debts and it is now already. So I'm bracing myself.
Most Helpful Opinions