Also I've seen a lot of bios with something in the lines of "het partnered women DNI" and it makes me laugh so hard because, again, I'm literally almost double your age and if you think I don't have good enough criteria to know who tf I'm dating, then I'll laugh even harder.

Sure, young girls are hypersexualized and will date any loser, but.... that's kind of a part of life too, people fuck up, especially teens and young adults, I know you girlies have a superiority complex and know you're just so much better than the girls who socialize with men, but trust me, you're literally not helping anybody here, I have no clue how tf you're supposed to help other women and make feminist literature if you don't talk to women from all walks of life.

This childish cancel culture is so tiring istg.

"no i won't talk to you because boys have cooties!!!"

This is exactly why so many of us are frustrated with feminists who date men. Because you have this idea that you hold some special knowledge to find a Good Man™️, implying that women who end up with abusive and dangerous men just aren’t as smart as you are.

How can you assure a woman who’s experienced domestic abuse that it wasn’t her fault, because no woman can ever predict if a man will end up being abusive…but then turn around and say “well I have good criteria for the men I date, so I’ll be fine”. Did she not have good enough criteria? Was she too stupid to see red flags? Is she just “hypersexualised and will date any loser” as you said in your post? But you’re better than her, you’ll make a good choice. You’ll find the nicest guy ever who’s super duper feminist and will never lay a hand on you. All those women who ended up unlucky just didn’t have your superior abuse screening skills.

Also, if you think that 4B is about getting women to “give up their love life for literally no reason at all”, you don’t understand the 4B movement and haven’t been listening to feminists. There’s many reasons feminists give for 4B, including but not limited to: there’s really no “love life” to be had in the first place because men are misogynistic, you can never know what man will make you breakfast in bed vs which man will kill you in a fit of rage, you can never know for sure which men are laughing at their friend’s rape jokes or simply staying quiet, and men have spent thousands of years treating women like domestic servants and have not yet unlearned this so a truly equal heterosexual relationship free of this power dynamic is nearly impossible.

It’s not just “boys have cooties”. It’s “men are dangerous to women, and get even more dangerous when they’re romantically/sexually partnered with women. Women and girls should, as a class, refrain from putting themselves in dangerous relationships with them until they—men and boys—work together as a class to stop being a danger to women and girls”.

Because last time I checked, it takes me almost zero effort to find perfectly healthy, sane, friendly and empathetic women to date. They just fucking walk to me every day. Probably one in every three woman would be fine for me to marry (assuming they liked me too), and even then I would exclude the other two only because of inherent interest/value/personality differences, not because there was anything wrong with them otherwise.

But I am supposed to use every single brain cell, observation skill, communicative tool and bit of wisdom stored in me to find a dude that is not a loser?

So heterosexual partnership is only reserved for extremely intelligent and mature women who have the patience and the skills to sift through countless of men?

That would inherently mean most women aren't going to find one, and that's not because most women are stupid or immature, but because THEY WILL QUICKLY RUN OUT OF GOOD MEN.

If only around 1% of straight men are worth dating then trying to be oh-so-clever to find one of those is NOT going to solve the fact that 99% of straight women will be left dating losers. If they choose to stay alone instead, you, out of ANYONE else, should understand why. You went through the lot and ditched them all, didn't you?

the issue is men. “rich people” and it’s majority males. “criminals” and it’s males. i’m not understanding how people aren’t recognizing this.

And I remembered how when I was really into old movies as a teen and I religiously watched every piece with Audrey Hepburn in it and I got my flabbers completely gasted when such a breathtaking actress would be paired with the most ugly looking old dudes you could find on the planet earth.

It’s like women were never allowed ugliness even in the slightest and now, since we’re contributing to at least half of the movies’ and shows’ revenues men are outraged we want to see male characters who are at the very least not revolting - I would prefer not to see them at all, but that’s a completely different story. Like even now you see people thirst over this old pedro guy and the wonky chef from “the bear” but the moment a woman’s jaw is slightly too square or a nose not perfectly straight she’s labelled a 6/10.

- use said chinese philosophy to raise a class of military that are allowed to exploit the lower classes, are known for raping children and women

- isolate the country to let military brew in nationalist propaganda and allow it to massacre civilians for practicing foreign culture e. g. Christianity

- when forced to open borders, quickly start to imitate America and shit on the chinese who gave you half of your culture without ever even colonising you, invade Korea who also played a tremendous role in creating Japanese culture, over an almost 1000 beef and portray them as inferior for some reason

- side with nazis and lead dozens of massacres, brutally rape and torture women, children, sometimes men, exploit civilians for work in inhumane conditions even in axis counties like Thailand (also kill one of my ancestors but yknow. in the grand scheme of things)

- after losing the war, jump on America's dick and pour all the money you have left into economics instead of constantly expanding military force and ignoring the lower class's needs

- market yourself as a country of technology and progress and paint the same military class that was the driving force behind pre-meiji eras most war crimes as noble warriors defending their daimyos honor

- turn the proto-feminist lolita movement of women infantilising themselves as a response to conservative demand to 'mature' i. e. stop enjoying your hobbies and become a man's kitchen slave, into a racist pedophilic stereotype-fetish and demand grown women to be sexy children even at work place

and how any time women are given greater freedom to choose, birth rates across the population fall to replacement level? which is inherently sustainable?

and in some places, birth rates are falling BELOW replacement level, which is even MORE sustainable considering the outsized resource use of people in the same places????

and how we are part of a system, and even when we aren't trying, we act in a way that balances it??? how it is men who are the problem!!??