The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Jello Biafra]

You're ignoring that single women earn more.

I'm not ignoring this. The issue is that the research indicates that men earn more for getting married and women earn less when they become mothers, and at least to some degree it's because of those decisions. Single women might earn more, but there's little research that they're being rewarded for being single (as opposed to not being punished for not being single) but instead due to other reasons, such as being better educated, as a group.

Men are permitted to earn more if a woman approves of them, that's not privilege,

It's not the woman who is doing the approval that is giving him the money.

it's one of the mechanisms for subjecting men to gender roles and basing their lives around women.

Are you under the impression that if there were no gender roles that people would not get married and have children?

Notably, that also involves the funds presumed to be going partially to the woman, and also children.

Are you assuming that the money mothers make does not also go to her family?

[Jello Biafra]

Question: Can patriarchy theory be used to explain the unequal treatment received by both men and women in various facets of society?

Yes, but it needs to be fleshed out more to do so.

[Jello Biafra]

At what point in the 3rd wave movement will modern day feminists consider their goals as accomplished?

1st wave feminists accomplished their goal by giving the women the right to vote as well as legal ownership.

2nd wave feminists considered their mission complete by liberating women's sexuality, workplace/wage equality, family, and reproductive rights.

Gleaning from various circles, it seems the third wave has very, VERY varied objectives.

I don't know that either wave considered their goals as accomplished. They both tried, and failed, to get an Equal Rights Amendment passed. You might be better off with asking what the specific goals of the '3rd wave' are.

[The BlAAtschApen]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 1976999567

I have to agree here. Shaming and stereotyping men to be virgin because of a hobby is extremely harmful. For both men and women.

[Costa Fierro]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1543652405711848&id=597441976999567

I have to agree here. Shaming and stereotyping men to be virgin because of a hobby is extremely harmful. For both men and women.

"Heteronormative bullshit". Should we really take the false concern of a two-bit "feminist" seriously?

[The BlAAtschApen]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1543652405711848&id=597441976999567

I have to agree here. Shaming and stereotyping men to be virgin because of a hobby is extremely harmful. For both men and women.

"Heteronormative bullshit". Should we really take the false concern of a two-bit "feminist" seriously?

There is no we. I take it seriously, and I'm not affiliated with you.

[Brynx Jul]

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

[Cekoviu]

Dear Lord, that's crazy.

The thing that bothers me is that 3rd wave feminism is so insane, none of their off the wall beliefs surprise me anymore. "Rape culture", patriarchy, toxic masculinity, intersectionality.....all these ridiculous terms and lies, and women fall for that shit.

Do you know what those things mean? They sound all SJW-y, but when you actually look at the definitions, it's pretty hard to say they don't exist. Patriarchy is debatable, though.

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

Since you haven't specified a country, I'm going to assume you mean around the world. Well, let's see:

• The right to vote. Saudi Arabia (until recently) and Vatican City.
• The right to dress the way they want. Often found in Islamic countries that enforce Sharia law.
• Until very recently, the right to drive cars. I am not sure if Saudi Arabia was the only country to have that restriction or not, so it could still exist.
• The right to be considered an entire witness in a court case. Yes, you read that right. Women are considered half a witness in Yemen.
• The right to testify at all in court cases, also Yemen. This applies for sodomy, adultery (wtf?!), libel, and theft.
• The right to have an abortion. It's still completely outlawed in El Salvador, Malta, the Dominican Republic, the Holy See, and Nicaragua, even to save the mother's life. There are plenty of other countries where it's completely outlawed except to save the mother's life as well.
• The right to have a miscarriage. The aforementioned countries may sometimes interpret their incredibly restrictive abortion laws to include miscarriages.
• The right to leave their house without their husband's permission. Yemen again.
• The right to not be charged with a crime when they're raped. Most notoriously found in Morocco and Saudi Arabia.
• The right to be paid as much as men for the same job. Many countries around the world.

I'm sure there are many more that I haven't listed, but those are the most egregious displays of misogyny.

[Galloism]

Athletes have disproportionate voice in the public sphere and drive policy to a significant extent, in business, law, and public perception.

Just like all rich people.

This could also be said about celebrities, but either way by broadening your definition from 'nfl and nba stars' to 'athletes', you're watering down the privilege you're alleging black people to have.

Well, I was using athletes as a shorthand for nfl and nba stars (obviously, there's more athletes than that, but it was simpler to say). And yes, that could also be said about celebrities, but there are celebrities of all stripes.

It's a stupid way to define privilege when "literally dying more because of your gender" is counted as a privilege.

Not at all. In the example, it is the men making the decisions, but even if you ignore the decisions that led to the ship sinking and just to who gets in the lifeboats first, and say that social pressures lead the men in the example to only having one choice (to sacrifice themselves to save others), one choice is still better than no choices.

One choice IS no choices. It's literally having no choice.

They would be more privileged than THOSE non slaves, because those non slaves are definitively worse off and are probably as incapable of escape as the slaves (see: the company town).

I'm not sure that we could come to a common agreement of what privilege is in this case.

Here's the thing: you're defining privilege as something that men suffer from. As in literal suffering is now privilege.

This is a crazy notion.

We know women have disproportionate control of the social norms now,

We don't know this.

The evidence is fairly strong:

That's quite an assertion. How exactly does one study who primarily enforces social norms? I'd be interested in their methodology.

Well, we know that all girls schools are more strict on gender roles as it comes to girls and that men are more likely to enforce gender roles when women are around, while women enforce them all the time, and it's generally women, not men, who are repulsed when men are not invincible. In response to this, many men have sought out help from within their own gender, where they're less likely to be judged and gender shamed.

Of course, the alarm has been sounded that men seeking relationships where they won't be instantly judged is bad and dangerous for women.

Because reasons.

Yeah, because it's a lot easier to dislike the man that played Hillary than it was to dislike Hillary - because she's a woman.

But they discovered that they did like the 'real' Hillary less.

Right, but they could only "see" the flaws when a male actor played Hillary. What does that tell you?

Sure, and I agree, but we make a lot of assumptions based on guesswork and previous notions. It's a shortcut in our brains and it's something that's going to happen as long as the shortcut is usually right.

It's like how if you see a crying little white girl being held by a black man and he's walking out of the park with her, you're probably going to assume that's a kidnapping. If you see a white woman holding a crying little white girl walking out of a park you're probably going to assume the girl got tired or upset or something and mom's taking her home.

Why? I mean, the black guy could be step dad, or a good family friend, or any of a number of people. The white woman could be a kidnapper.

But you've made a shortcut. Guesswork.

Sure, and I don't think that most of the employers here are consciously discriminating against women (or at least mothers), but at the same time, I do find the discrimination to be problematic.

I agree, but if you really want to end the discrimination, you've got to stop making the guesswork mostly accurate. This is a biological mechanism - it allows us to make snap decisions that are mostly right. Unfortunately, until you address the sexist discrimination against men in the workplace, this is not going to happen. Men are disproportionately punished for taking time off. Someone needs to take time off. Therefore women take time off because they're punished less. Therefore women are seen as taking more time off when they become mothers. Because women are taking more time off, men are working harder to make up for it. Therefore men are seen as more dependable available workers.

It's a vicious circle.

[Wysten]

The thing that bothers me is that 3rd wave feminism is so insane, none of their off the wall beliefs surprise me anymore. "Rape culture", patriarchy, toxic masculinity, intersectionality.....all these ridiculous terms and lies, and women fall for that shit.

Do you know what those things mean? They sound all SJW-y, but when you actually look at the definitions, it's pretty hard to say they don't exist. Patriarchy is debatable, though.

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

Since you haven't specified a country, I'm going to assume you mean around the world. Well, let's see:

• The right to vote. Saudi Arabia (until recently) and Vatican City.
• The right to dress the way they want. Often found in Islamic countries that enforce Sharia law.
• Until very recently, the right to drive cars. I am not sure if Saudi Arabia was the only country to have that restriction or not, so it could still exist.
• The right to be considered an entire witness in a court case. Yes, you read that right. Women are considered half a witness in Yemen.
• The right to testify at all in court cases, also Yemen. This applies for sodomy, adultery (wtf?!), libel, and theft.
• The right to have an abortion. It's still completely outlawed in El Salvador, Malta, the Dominican Republic, the Holy See, and Nicaragua, even to save the mother's life. There are plenty of other countries where it's completely outlawed except to save the mother's life as well.
• The right to have a miscarriage. The aforementioned countries may sometimes interpret their incredibly restrictive abortion laws to include miscarriages.
• The right to leave their house without their husband's permission. Yemen again.
• The right to not be charged with a crime when they're raped. Most notoriously found in Morocco and Saudi Arabia.
• The right to be paid as much as men for the same job. Many countries around the world.

I'm sure there are many more that I haven't listed, but those are the most egregious displays of misogyny.

I think he was talking the western world

[Cekoviu]

Do you know what those things mean? They sound all SJW-y, but when you actually look at the definitions, it's pretty hard to say they don't exist. Patriarchy is debatable, though.

Since you haven't specified a country, I'm going to assume you mean around the world. Well, let's see:

• The right to vote. Saudi Arabia (until recently) and Vatican City.
• The right to dress the way they want. Often found in Islamic countries that enforce Sharia law.
• Until very recently, the right to drive cars. I am not sure if Saudi Arabia was the only country to have that restriction or not, so it could still exist.
• The right to be considered an entire witness in a court case. Yes, you read that right. Women are considered half a witness in Yemen.
• The right to testify at all in court cases, also Yemen. This applies for sodomy, adultery (wtf?!), libel, and theft.
• The right to have an abortion. It's still completely outlawed in El Salvador, Malta, the Dominican Republic, the Holy See, and Nicaragua, even to save the mother's life. There are plenty of other countries where it's completely outlawed except to save the mother's life as well.
• The right to have a miscarriage. The aforementioned countries may sometimes interpret their incredibly restrictive abortion laws to include miscarriages.
• The right to leave their house without their husband's permission. Yemen again.
• The right to not be charged with a crime when they're raped. Most notoriously found in Morocco and Saudi Arabia.
• The right to be paid as much as men for the same job. Many countries around the world.

I'm sure there are many more that I haven't listed, but those are the most egregious displays of misogyny.

I think he was talking the western world

Should have mentioned that, then.

[Ostroeuropa]

The thing that bothers me is that 3rd wave feminism is so insane, none of their off the wall beliefs surprise me anymore. "Rape culture", patriarchy, toxic masculinity, intersectionality.....all these ridiculous terms and lies, and women fall for that shit.

Do you know what those things mean? They sound all SJW-y, but when you actually look at the definitions, it's pretty hard to say they don't exist. Patriarchy is debatable, though.

Can someone tell me what rights women don’t have that men have?

Since you haven't specified a country, I'm going to assume you mean around the world. Well, let's see:

• The right to vote. Saudi Arabia (until recently) and Vatican City.
• The right to dress the way they want. Often found in Islamic countries that enforce Sharia law.
• Until very recently, the right to drive cars. I am not sure if Saudi Arabia was the only country to have that restriction or not, so it could still exist.
• The right to be considered an entire witness in a court case. Yes, you read that right. Women are considered half a witness in Yemen.
• The right to testify at all in court cases, also Yemen. This applies for sodomy, adultery (wtf?!), libel, and theft.
• The right to have an abortion. It's still completely outlawed in El Salvador, Malta, the Dominican Republic, the Holy See, and Nicaragua, even to save the mother's life. There are plenty of other countries where it's completely outlawed except to save the mother's life as well.
• The right to have a miscarriage. The aforementioned countries may sometimes interpret their incredibly restrictive abortion laws to include miscarriages.
• The right to leave their house without their husband's permission. Yemen again.
• The right to not be charged with a crime when they're raped. Most notoriously found in Morocco and Saudi Arabia.
• The right to be paid as much as men for the same job. Many countries around the world.

I'm sure there are many more that I haven't listed, but those are the most egregious displays of misogyny.

I agree with many of these being womens issues in those areas however;

1. In some countries, there are all-women shortlists, often in safe seats, effectively denying men the right to run for parliament in those areas. This is a result of feminism, and shows that applying feminism to saudi arabia may not bring equality, merely a different type of sexism. Democratic equality can't be said to be a right men have that women lack, even if taking a global view.

2. In many countries, mens dress code is more socially regulated and constricted both in the social and business spheres, as well as by law in parliaments. (Often, women may dress as they please in legislatures, but there is a strict male dress code. In the UK, women can dress as they please and bring bags, men cannot.)

3. Women still can't drive cars in saudi arabia without a male chaperone. This is a legitimate one.

4/5. The justice system in many countries is anti-male, and often, the right to due process for certain crimes committed against them by women is denied. This also follows on from feminism. In some cases on university campuses, extrajudicial tribunals deny males accused of the right to cross-examine or bear witness in testimony in their own defence when accused of sexual assault or rape, most egregiously, in cases where both people claim they were raped, and even if the male claimed first and the female filed a counter claim after being informed of it, as in the case of several rape victims who were expelled from university when the tribunal dropped his case to pursue the womans against him, and most notoriously where the womans case admitted she raped him and he was still expelled. (Likely because the point of the tribunals isn't justice, but feminist anti-male lynchings.)

6. Men don't have bodily autonomy either in any country on earth, and many countries still have the draft. Abortion rights, while positive, isn't an equality measure unless the country has LPS for males and no draft system, if it's advanced on family planning grounds, and if it's advanced on autonomy grounds, likewise. This isn't an example of a right men have that women lack.

7. Natural bodily functions for males are also in some cases penalized, eg, public erections, and statutory rape or rape causing child support obligations. So it's arguably not an example of a right men have that women lack.

8. This is a legitimate one.

9. As pointed out above, the child support obligations and university campus courts throw this into question. Notably, penalizing men after a mock trial for being raped is a thing thanks to the feminist movement. It was recently overturned by the Trump administration, though was under fire from courts for violations of due process anyway. The child support penalties still remain, and failure to pay will land you in prison. This child support system is likewise the result of feminist activism.

10. Women often earn more than men when single, and this reverses only after marriage, especially as a result of maternity leave and working less hours.

Taking the global view, it's still ambiguous if men have rights that women lack in most circumstances.
In any case, these rebuttals point out that even where it is the case that women lack more rights, applying feminism to the situation will not resolve the problem of unequal treatment of the sexes. (Though that wasn't part of the question, I think it's worth acknowledging.)

[Galloism]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1543652405711848&id=597441976999567

I have to agree here. Shaming and stereotyping men to be virgin because of a hobby is extremely harmful. For both men and women.

Ugh, Clementine Ford. She's a horrible person.

She quite literally defends justifies hatred of men as a class, daydreams about committing genocide against men, and literally signs books with messages about killing men.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1543652405711848&id=597441976999567

I have to agree here. Shaming and stereotyping men to be virgin because of a hobby is extremely harmful. For both men and women.

Ugh, Clementine Ford. She's a horrible person.

She quite literally defends justifies hatred of men as a class, daydreams about committing genocide against men, and literally signs books with messages about killing men.

Notably, a single one of those statements by a male about women would be grounds for public ostracization and firing. But the system keeps her on.
Almost like our institutions tolerate sexism against men as normal, but not against women.
Hmmm.

[Galloism]

It really won’t. And “explaining that we use a sexist unethical definition to obfuscate the data” is only an interim step to changing it.

If that is how you see it, sure.

You think this is a fair representation?

Yeah, you misunderstood me. I didn't say there was a fair representation of the data. Where did you get this idea?

Again, only as an interim step to fixing it.

Again, if that is how you see it, sure.

This response has unfortunate implications.

This is important. If you think women almost never rape men, and it’s like a unicorn raping a Keebler elf, what level of evidence would you take to convict?

Again, you are still really misinterpreting what I was saying. I didn't say there was a fair representation.

Yes, yes I do. I don't see the point here. Maybe you misunderstood what I said.

Perhaps it needed to be said, but "it" refers to "the new york times article". I don't think that New York Times article was a fair representation of reality, even though you said it was. This is because the sexist classification led them to read over some fairly major data points.

Because proving rape in a super stringent manner is impossible in most cases. I have said this before, I am sure you have read it. Essentially, rape kits don't identify all forms of sexual violence, aren't 100% effective, and as such can't be relied upon for ecidence alone unless you want far more people to get away with rape they actually did.

So I think that if they are to ask for proof of rape in the opposite direction, it needs to be done in the same manner - attempt to get as much evidence from witnesses, etc.
I will repeat this to make sure you don't bring this up in the next post: I never said it was fair as of now. I never have, not once.

You said the article was a fair representation of reality - and it's not. In fact, the article reads off the executive summary, which uses those sexist definitions to skew reality. Because people don't read beyond the executive summary. This includes most journalists. It wasn't that the NY Times was being skewed, it's that the dodgy classification resulted in results they took at face value.

This is a really really big deal.

At least among adults, men and women suffer rape at roughly equal rates, and just like most perpetrators against women are men, most of the perpetrators against men are women. Because of dodgy classifications, it takes me hours to convince each person of this. If the CDC used nonsexist terms, because the feminist academics before them had used nonsexist terms, all I would have to do is point at the CDC data and go "see? it's roughly equal". Because they use sexist terms lifted from academia however, here we are.

[The BlAAtschApen]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1543652405711848&id=597441976999567

I have to agree here. Shaming and stereotyping men to be virgin because of a hobby is extremely harmful. For both men and women.

Ugh, Clementine Ford. She's a horrible person.

She quite literally defends justifies hatred of men as a class, daydreams about committing genocide against men, and literally signs books with messages about killing men.

But is this particular point that I brought up legit or not? Because I'd like to discuss that (the other things are horrid though, don't get me wrong)

[Ostroeuropa]

Ugh, Clementine Ford. She's a horrible person.

She quite literally defends justifies hatred of men as a class, daydreams about committing genocide against men, and literally signs books with messages about killing men.

But is this particular point that I brought up legit or not? Because I'd like to discuss that (the other things are horrid though, don't get me wrong)

Absolutely it's legitimate. It's one of the primary means by which gender roles are enforced against men.
Notably, the attacks on the MRM focused on precisely this kind of vilification, and they still have to put up with it to this day from the mainstream media and many feminist activists.

Arguably, the feminists chief rhetorical weapon "You just hate women" is a mutated sibling of this kind of gender based shaming, and carries the implication.
The point about men having sex early or unwanted is also important. What she leaves out of this though, is that it's clearly a statement about women and their preferences, it's a means of asserting;

1. Women only find men who live up to gender roles attractive
2. Men who fail to do this are rightly the subject of ridicule

Studies support the first point is true in broad trends, whether biological or cultural is up for debate. But it's a fact that can be demonstrated by studying.
The second seems to me to be a rationalization to make women feel better about it, or could be a means of abuse and control. There is no moral or ethical absolute to justify it, it isn't a fact, it's an opinion. The notion that we shouldn't automatically accept womens viewpoint as just and correct and the thing we should base our society around is never questioned. (Gynocentrism, of which feminism is merely another incarnation.)

It is human nature to hate the man whom you have hurt.

She's acting like the media shouldn't mention it. But why not, if it's true?
What they shouldn't do, is make fun of men for it, but rather, begin to interrogate women over it and ask them to reflect on their mindsets and the societal consequences of them. This is not acceptable in a gynocentric society.

I'd wager miss ford seems to be made uncomfortable because it hits a little too close to criticizing women. I have trouble believing she actually gives a shit, given her open hatred for males elsewhere.

[Galloism]

Ugh, Clementine Ford. She's a horrible person.

She quite literally defends justifies hatred of men as a class, daydreams about committing genocide against men, and literally signs books with messages about killing men.

But is this particular point that I brought up legit or not? Because I'd like to discuss that (the other things are horrid though, don't get me wrong)

No it's legit - and it's something that is often used to bring shame on men who attempt to bring us issues facing men. It's used as a weapon against them.

The ironic part is that men are both slut shamed AND virgin shamed. Which is weird, but there's literally no way to win.

[Hirota]

Ugh, Clementine Ford. She's a horrible person.

She quite literally defends justifies hatred of men as a class, daydreams about committing genocide against men, and literally signs books with messages about killing men.

But is this particular point that I brought up legit or not? Because I'd like to discuss that (the other things are horrid though, don't get me wrong)

Even someone with a capacity for horrible stuff can be right once in awhile. I can't disagree with Ms Ford on this particular point.

[Cekoviu]

But is this particular point that I brought up legit or not? Because I'd like to discuss that (the other things are horrid though, don't get me wrong)

Even someone with a capacity for horrible stuff can be right once in awhile. I can't disagree with Ms Ford on this particular point.

Stopped clock phenomenon. Pretty much everybody with horrible viewpoints has a good idea once in a while. Hitler supported animal rights, Lenin decriminalized homosexuality in the USSR, etc.

[Sernarbia]

Not what David said but your ilk seems to specialise in lying about people they don't like.

Pretty close - he said it wasn't rape when a woman forced a man to penetrate her against his will in the most common way that men are raped.

I actually think it makes sense to categorize made-to-penetrate as a form of sexual violence other than rape, and to use the term rape for sexual acts in which the victim is penetrated. In any case, it is sexual violence and needs to be taken seriously.

I suggest you read your cherry picked quotes before you use them to smear someone.

Harassing rape victims = good, calling for men who rape children to be arrested = evil and child prostitution advocacy. Got it.

Actually, he called out Futrelle for literally saying a man forced to have vaginal sex with a woman is not raped - even though that's the most common way men are raped.

Not what David said. Lair.

Oh no, he's against spousal abuse. How terrible.

Actually, first of all, the Duluth model has no evidence showing it works.

That or you just don't want it to work because you think men matter more than women.

Even the authors admit that it's used by female abusers to make the police complicit in the abuse, although downplaying its effects.

Source?

The Duluth Model protects violent women and is used by them to further abuse and punish their victims.

And again, source?

[Sernarbia]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1543652405711848&id=597441976999567

I have to agree here. Shaming and stereotyping men to be virgin because of a hobby is extremely harmful. For both men and women.

Ugh, Clementine Ford. She's a horrible person.

She quite literally defends justifies hatred of men as a class, daydreams about committing genocide against men, and literally signs books with messages about killing men.

The Daily Mail is not a source.

[Sernarbia]

Thanks, couldn't be bothered.

Gotta contain the BS and keep it at a manageable size.

Gonna move in together yet or are you not at that stage of your relationship?

[Galloism]

Pretty close - he said it wasn't rape when a woman forced a man to penetrate her against his will in the most common way that men are raped.

I actually think it makes sense to categorize made-to-penetrate as a form of sexual violence other than rape, and to use the term rape for sexual acts in which the victim is penetrated. In any case, it is sexual violence and needs to be taken seriously.

I suggest you read your cherry picked quotes before you use them to smear someone.

Actually, he called out Futrelle for literally saying a man forced to have vaginal sex with a woman is not raped - even though that's the most common way men are raped.

Not what David said. Lair.

It's like you didn't read what I said.

Did he or did he not say:

I actually think it makes sense to categorize made-to-penetrate as a form of sexual violence other than rape, and to use the term rape for sexual acts in which the victim is penetrated.

Which is exactly what I said he said:

he said it wasn't rape when a woman forced a man to penetrate her against his will in the most common way that men are raped.

Actually, first of all, the Duluth model has no evidence showing it works.

That or you just don't want it to work because you think men matter more than women.

No, we literally have no evidence it works.

Even the authors admit that it's used by female abusers to make the police complicit in the abuse, although downplaying its effects.

Source?

You mean the source LINKED TO and QUOTED in my post wasn't enough for you?

Actually, first of all, the Duluth model has no evidence showing it works. Even the authors admit that it's used by female abusers to make the police complicit in the abuse, although downplaying its effects:

We do agree that there are a small number of women who use violence resulting in police action against their partners without themselves being abused. This is not a social problem requiring institutional organizing in the way that men’s violence against women is. For these women, a separate gender-specific counseling program may be appropriate.

The Duluth Model protects violent women and is used by them to further abuse and punish their victims.

And again, source?

You mean the source linked to AND quoted in my post?

Is this a thing now? Where a post CONTAINS the source, and then you ask for source after you the snip the source from the actual post you're quoting? Is this going to be a thing?

[Galloism]

Ugh, Clementine Ford. She's a horrible person.

She quite literally defends justifies hatred of men as a class, daydreams about committing genocide against men, and literally signs books with messages about killing men.

The Daily Mail is not a source.

It's sufficient for this purpose. I also linked to the Sydney herald and and article written by Clementine Ford herself in Daily Life.

Is this fake news too?

Gotta contain the BS and keep it at a manageable size.

Gonna move in together yet or are you not at that stage of your relationship?

I'm sorry, are you trying to shame us using heteronormative assumptions about masculinity?