Feminist writer complains that men who refuse to date 'woke' women contribute to the radicalization of terrorists

Submitted by Mastodon on Thu, 2020-01-23 22:02

Article here. Excerpt:

'Feminist writer Vicky Spratt says that men avoiding a romantic interest in "woke" women is helping to usher in the radicalization of terrorists.

In an article published on Refinery29, Spratt voices her concern over British actor Laurence Fox, who caught the ire of many feminists and leftists after saying that there is no such thing as "white privilege," and that the United Kingdom was not an inherently racist nation.

In one of Fox's most recent interviews, he discussed dating and revealed that he will not date "woke" women who want nothing more than to affect justice in the social sector.

In an article titled, "The Dangerous Rise Of Men Who Won't Date 'Woke' Women" Spratt says that Fox's ideals are dangerous, and part of a larger, more insidious trend that is bent on radicalizing terrorists across the globe.'

Like1 Dislike0

Comments

... not to share.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2020-01-24 00:22

. . . refusal to placate bonafide emotional terrorists is terrorism. Go figure.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Sat, 2020-01-25 04:37

while eating my breakfast waffles the waitresses were complaining how men no longer want to date and finding some guy to marry is next to impossible.

mgtow is working. now, how soon before the lawyers start making laws where taxes will be levied on 'men only' to pay women for not being marriageable anymore? or maybe force some sperm donations? or make sex with robot women illegal? some form of forced compliance is coming, mark my words. you will pay for them to be taken care of 'in the manner they have become accustomed to'. their life goes to chit w/o men paying their bill$.

Like2 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Mon, 2020-01-27 03:56

... occurring in some way. Caesar Augustus, worried abt the dearth of children among the upper echelons of Roman society, laid a yearly tax on men of noble birth past a certain age who were unmarried.

The problem wasn't senatorial rank and aristocratic young men not wanting to marry. The problem was single women of their class didn't want to get married. The major reason was property laws. Property owned by women passed legally into the ownership of their husbands. Thus a Roman single woman could own property, typically inherited from a dead relative, so long as she stayed single. This deterred young senatorial rank women from marriage.

Was Augustus too stupid to understand this, or too naive? I don't know. I do know this: even if Augustus had understood the forces at work, I very much doubt he'd've responded by laying taxes on unmarried upper-class women the way he did to the men.

Like1 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2020-02-01 00:39