r/NotHowGirlsWork

Link to whole article. https://www.mylearning.org/stories/where-are-all-the-women/womens-positions-in-history

This is genuinely one of the most bizarre takes I’ve seen about gender.
“Men have to meet a criteria for love while women are loved unconditionally” is not only baseless, it completely falls apart under even the slightest examination.
Women do not spawn into the world with an unconditional-love subscription attached to their birth certificate. Being a woman does not guarantee that parents, friends, partners, or society will love you regardless of what you do.
And historically, the idea that women were simply loved unconditionally is especially ridiculous. Women’s social acceptance and value were often tied to very specific expectations regarding marriage, motherhood, domesticity, sexuality, and family. There were plenty of criteria women were expected to meet.
Meanwhile, men have never had some universal checklist that determines whether they are capable of being loved. Men can be loved for being funny, intelligent, kind, creative, talented, attractive, compassionate, interesting, successful, or simply because someone loves them.
Obviously, people of either sex can experience conditional love. That’s not remotely the same thing as claiming one entire sex has to earn love while the other receives it automatically.
The commenter has taken a complicated reality about human relationships and reduced it to:
Men = earn love.
Women = receive love.
That’s not an insight.
That’s just bullshit.

No shit it's easier when you're not pregnant, recovering from childbirth, dealing with crazy hormone shifts, PPD, breastfeeding and pumping, and ignore your kids to play videogames lol

I am so glad I aged out of the dating world before all these idiots became a thing. Like, I know they were always there, but at least I didn’t have to see their garbage everywhere.

Terf logic is so fascinating.

I never liked the spaghetti joke, but his response to it is insane. He really sat there and tried to analyze every aspect to “prove his point” to a debate no one was arguing with him

Guy compared being a virgin or not to shoes in a bowling alley. They really think a penis or penises will somehow permanently change a vagina .

Incels fail to understand that even if it came down to it, dying alone is preferable to being with them.

Directions use teenagers (underage) to make csam but can get away with it because teenagers are seen as the acceptable children for adults to be with with.

Especially since kids become "adults" in their teen years.

As soon as a child has teen in their age or going through puberty society sees that as an invitation for adults to date them.

They wouldn't do this with a Middle Schooler because that would cause backlash.

Throughout the 80s,90s you might see a smaller child being put in movie with adult men but as years went by it caused backlash,so, they changed it but still kept it by using teenagers.

All movies like this do is normalize child sexual abuse and being prey on by adults.

It's made to be a fantasy for people who are attracted to children.

It was the NY post. About 20 of the comments were in the same vein before I had to quit reading.

Edit: apparently Nancy Grace has gotten a ton of tattoos since she fell from...well anyway, these are comments on an article about her new painted visage.