More Men = BAD

Aaod · 2013-01-16T17:49:19+00:00

Kind of helps illustrate why women in big cities can't find a man. They are out some place else in a rural area working physical labor where the gender proportions are reversed. Where are all the men at? Uhhh out in places like South Dakota working physical labor because you screwed them out of an education.

ilovenotohio · 2013-01-16T17:33:20+00:00

Well, there's a shred of science behind this. Not that men in general are bad, or that more men are bad, but that more men without women are bad.

A lot of social scientists are worried about what's going to happen to China in 15 years, when they have 30 million more males than females.

So in this case, so many men together will encounter limited resources, and thus, violence will arise.

It's an economics problem more than gender, but the economy IS gender.

buster2209 · 2013-01-16T19:54:51+00:00

Many (women) said they felt unsafe.

Well, males better modify there behaviour then because women feel unsafe...

Christ, they get pissed when we ignore them, then they get pissed when we give them attention... #rolleyes

yahoo_network · 2013-01-16T19:25:08+00:00

I see something else in this map: women are going to the cities where they can lead the wine and cheese life.

SteelCrossx · 2013-01-17T04:34:54+00:00

The image of two men in expensive clothes being leered at through a window by a group of women struck many as sexist, tone-deaf, and worse.

The existence of the critics' own social narrative is apparent immediately. Both groups are smiling and making eye contact. All of the skirts are even fingertip length or longer, acceptable in school or church. This is clearly a complaint with an agenda.

Title	More Men = BAD
Author	deltron80
Upvotes	20
Comments	16
Date	January 16, 2013 4:15 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/16ouu0/more-men-bad/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/more-men-bad.1604221 https://theredarchive.com/post/1604221

Comments