The lordcucks at the BBC allow another gem to be published:

Viewpoint: 'Why engagement rings objectify women' I have been married twice in the past, and may marry again, but I have never had or wanted an engagement ring. I believe engagement rings are anti-feminist. They symbolise an attitude which is in complete antithesis to the idea of an independent woman - signifying that the woman with the ring belongs to another person.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45797780

It has come to the point that literally any woman can offer her "opinion" and no matter how ludicrous, illogical, random, and dumb it is, as long as it is feminist, it will be published.

Seriously what the fuck is this horseshit that is being allowed to take up space on the BBC in the form of an article?

Why do women completely lack the ability to view an issue holistically? They ONLY focus on how it MAY be against women, then when they find ANY argument whatsoever they spout it.

This imbecile is saying that wedding rings objectify women. A) Bitch just doesn't wanna wear them so she can feel less guilty when she cheats B) you are being given something that costs thousands of dollars that the man is paying for, so how come you completely and conveniently ignore that? Isn't the man "objectified" by having to work for a month of his life like a slave just so he can buy YOU the ring? See we can also play the "objectify" game. It is not hard to spout a word.. see "objectify"... again.. "objectify" not so hard to say a word is it?

Then she goes on to spout this nonsense:

In fact, the whole ritual of proposing marriage bothers me. The pantomime of a man kneeling down and asking for a woman's hand seems absurd to me. It puts her in a passive role, and asking her in a very public way - such as live on stage or in front of cameras - makes her even more vulnerable.

Literally wtf? The "passive role" is bad here? I wonder how this bitch would feel with the pressure of having to work for a month to save up for a ring, put up with her dumb demands for months, then have to humiliate herself by going on her knees and risking being rejected after all that investment. The "passive role" is a benefit in this situation. Dumb greedy whores can never be pleased, they will ALWAYS SOMEHOW spin it to show that whatever tradition is "anti-woman" and they don't consider the male's perspective AT ALL. Isn't it "anti-male" to be like that?

Marrying someone is not just a romantic gesture - it is a mutual agreement. It has economic and legal implications.

yet she also said this:

I believe engagement rings are anti-feminist. They symbolise an attitude which is in complete antithesis to the idea of an independent woman - signifying that the woman with the ring belongs to another person.

If you like being so independent then why do you need to enter an "economic and legal" agreement with another person, why did you get married twice and plan to again? I thought you were independent? You just bashed engagement rings because they are the "antithesis" of an independent woman, how come you are not living up to your dumb fancy words such as "anthithesis" now? So if you want to enter an "economic and legal" agreement then isn't a wedding ring also a type of "agreement" that goes both ways? Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself? You can't pick and choose what is only beneficial for you. What a dumb bitch...

I can't believe the BBC and pretty much every other major organization gives these absolutely illogical imbeciles a platform.

Women seriously need to stop being fed this feminist garbage, it starts from kindergarten these days. Literally 99% of feminist "ideas" or "opinions" go like this: an issue/tradition/norm is looked at ONLY from the female side, and women are told to analyze it in a way to find ANY POSSIBLE way that it may be anti-woman, then they are told to use fancy words such as "sexim" "antithesis" "objectification" "misogyny" to describe it. That is not how you analyze issues... you look at the WHOLE picture from BOTH sides then you see if there is a significant imbalance, after considering EVERYTHING about that issue and surrounding it while keeping in mind how it is tied to gender roles overall in society, then if it is still "anti-woman" be my guest and mention it.

But I guess it is not so surprisingly for an organization like BBC to allow this shit when a few guys, just to show how retarded and rampant radical feminism has gotten in our society, on purpose handed in reputable higher academic journal articles (what PhD professors use to submit their work) by using hitler's book Mein Kampf and switching "jews" with "men" and saying stuff like how "dogs mounting each other proves that patriarchal violence still exists in human society" and it was ACCEPTED by those academic journals. Here is the article if you don't believe me: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/10/dog-rape-and-mein-kampf-feminist-text-why-we-hoaxed-journals-terrible