[ Rules / FAQ / Discord ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / cgl / x ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

News: Our giveaway with Kroma is over! Please click here to find out if you've won!
Please read the rules! Update to rule #7: 08/17/2018

1514508913083 (1).…

A world without males Anonymous 22715

Let's pretend men don't exist and we could reproduce on our own!

How would things be like?

Do you think the world would be less violent? Less capitalist? Are any things you think that would be worse? What would be better?

Anonymous 22716

>>22715
Hmm, hard to say. There would probably be less violent and sexual crimes.
A lot of women world leaders do pretty good, Merkel for example. But there are some bad ones, too, like the Myanmar leader.
A lot of modern technology was made by men, but one could argue that women have been discouraged from academic pursuits because of the patriarchy. I know that may sound overtly SJW, but it's worth entertaining I think.

Not really sure what kind of conclusion to draw.
Regardless, I like duality in my life currently. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anonymous 22717

anatole.jpg

I know I say I hate men a lot and I still do, but the world would be really boring without men. How about a world without ugly men, or a world where all men are enslaved instead?

Anonymous 22718

>>22717
How would we enslave them though?

Anonymous 22719

Instead of men there would be butch lesbians and nothing would change

Anonymous 22721

Screen Shot 2018-0…

>>22718
We would have to keep the male population low for it to be viable. A good way to reduce the male population while keeping the female population high is having a mandatory male draft and inciting war. However, the change of power would need to occur relatively quickly, as within a few generations, the ratio of men to women would steadily return to 1:1. I won't get into how to start a war as it is something that would naturally occur without our intervention. The main point is taking advantage of such a situation, so let's assume for now that a war has begun. How do the women in the warring territory gain power? The majority of change would need to occur silently. We would need the passage of laws supporting women over men while there were significantly less male voters.

Anonymous 22723

I would think the world would be much more peaceful. Much less crime. However we would probably advance more slowly due to being less competitive. With too much peace things become stagnant.
I dislike men and avoid them for the most part, but at the very least I can appreciate them for the things they've made.

Anonymous 22726

it would be a cool world some r9k bloke would probably get off to being his fetish

Anonymous 22728

If all men suddenly disappeared the first thing that would happen would be billions of women following them into death as all the infrastructure of modern society falls apart with no men to maintain it.
After that I think the few surviving women would form primitive tribes. The centers of these tribes would be women who know how to hunt and forage and otherwise survive on their own. These capable women would basically become the new men, leading and taking care of other women. Only, I'm not sure women would want that role. Men were happy to be a tribe leader and take care of a bunch of women because it meant he'd get to have sex with all of them. But on I don't really see that same motivation working for your average woman.
If the tribes do manage to survive, assuming they managed to form at all, things would probably then be pretty boring for the rest of time as the women don't really build or create new things, just survive day today. Until some global eco shift or huge scale natural disaster rendered the Earth inhospitable for humans and killed off the last of them.

Anonymous 22737

>>22728
Amen.


I don't understand this hate for men.
A world without them would have a fast ending for the most of us.
The survivors would die out because we need men.

Wanting man entslaved or their numbers forcefully hold down is terrible and makes women who want that not better than the redpill guys.
I met as many bad men as i met bad women.

Anonymous 22738

>>22715
“Less Capitalist”
Hoo, boy.
“Less violent”.
It would be worse. Girls bully girls relentlessly; women sabotage each other in the workplace constantly - if all the social capital and prestige was solely among women it would intensify by at least an order of magnitude. I have many brothers and while they are much, much more physical they fight much less.

Anonymous 22739

A bit off-topic, but I want everyone to die out.
We are all awful and there's no point being here. I'd kms if I wasn't a coward and a fellow human addicted to the sensory interest generated on earth.

Anonymous 22742

>>22721

Maybe some kind of highly infective smallpox or influenza strain with virulence factors somehow activated by male specific features like presence of an SRY gene product

Anonymous 22743

>>22739
Who are you to decide whether I'm awful and deserving of death?

Anonymous 22745

>>22739
My mama is a saint!

Anonymous 22747

>>22719
laughed in a library from this

Anonymous 22748

>>22738
Pretty much this. There would be a much stricter hierarchy that is decided by social status (basically a huge popularity contest). A lot of people forget that girls can be cruel and judgy even the ones that claim that “everyone is beautiful just that way theyare and we shouldn’t judge them!”. Although I think there would be a lot less competiveness and obsession over looks. Lots of girls dress or do their make up a certain way to appeal to guys, but now that men are gone, they have no reason to unless they just like dressing like that for themselves.

Anonymous 22752

If I lost the men in my life I'd literally jump off a bridge the same day. I don't get this hatred for men.

Anonymous 22753

>>22752
Me neither, I think a better question to ask would be "what would life be like if we didn't have to reproduce" I think that way a lot of bad things about men would disappear

Anonymous 22754

>>22728
>all the infrastructure of modern society falls apart with no men to maintain it.
>women don't really build or create new things,
You sound male and/or idiotic, sorry.

Anonymous 22756

Can this thread be deleted, it's full of LARPers.

Anonymous 22758

>>22756
Ok point out the LARPers then

Anonymous 22761

>>22759
I didn't bring up feelings, I said you sound male and/or idiotic. It's not a "feeling" any more than saying "The sky is blue" is. It's a very simple observation. I think this lack of nuanced thinking is a much larger issue.
I'm sorry about whatever feelings must have consistently blocked you from Googling "female inventors", "women and agriculture", or "women and labor force" for so much of your life, but as someone who believes in self-determination, I believe that you can do it if you just push yourself hard enough. It must be hard not having your biases confirmed, but I believe in you. If you disagree with consisted, documented history, please feel free to post your counter-evidence for the world to see.

Anonymous 22765

>>22761
A small number of women with skills and experience in some of these industries isn't going to be anywhere near enough to stop the massive chain of problems caused by all the men disappearing.

Anonymous 22767

>>22765
The source of those massive problems would be the sudden disappearance of half of the world population.

Of course there would be a difficult adaptation period when people have to be retrained for jobs.

I wouldn't assume things would be automatically better or worse, just different. And not based on shallow stereotypes like "wow how can women run the world if they're too busy being bitchy"?

This hypothetical is honestly boring.

Anonymous 22770

>>22767
No, because men would survive just fine without women. Assuming the same reproductive power is given them.


You really underestimate how much work goes into maintaining all the modern conviniences that keep you comfortable and alive if you keep dismissing it as "oh we'd just learn to do it ourselves"

How? Who's teaching you? How are you surviving while you try to learn? How many women will even be physically capable of some of these jobs even if you survive? Have you thought through any of these steps with any level of depth or do you just picture it happening in your head with no details because you think "men aren't so special. We can do all that too".(YOU CAN'T SIT WITH US)

Anonymous 22774

I can't compete in a Stacy World and I'm not a lesbian so I'd probably go be a nun and join a hermitage with other social outcast women for platonic company. Could be comfy.

Anonymous 22775

>>22770
>men would survive just fine without women

idk why incels and woman haters take this proposition for granted. a hellish lord of the flies type scenario seems just as likely under such circumstances

Anonymous 22776

>>22775
All that would happen is the sexbot industry would explode.

Anonymous 22783

prison_yuri.png


Anonymous 22786

>>22770
>No, because men would survive just fine without women.

lol there are literally online communities of men who mentally destroyed themselves just because they never got a hug from a woman. Best part is they insist they're doing fine or that they no longer wish/desire to interact with women

males = original tsunderes

Anonymous 22807

>>22770
>men would survive just fine without women.
that is not true, it is like saying women can survive just fine without men.

Of course a group of one sex or another can survive. It is not witchcraft, but i think it has a reason that we have two sexes.

Hell yeah, men are idiots and just giant babys and women are crazy and emotional, no sex is better than the other.

Women and men are different, in many ways, but I believe that is made from years of evolution so we can complement each other.

I hope you guys get my point.

Anonymous 22813

monjas-usa.jpg

There are communities doing that just fine. (With strict discipline)

Anonymous 22814

>>22813
being a cloistered nun sounds like it would be very chill tbh. i'm 100% for this idea.

>>22770
i know grown-ass men who can't even operate a washing machine, you really think those guys would be 'just fine'?
when my granddad's wife died he ate out for the next thirty years because he refused to learn how to cook. his elderly (female) neighbor felt so sorry for him that she would come over every week to clean his house because he refused to do it. yeah, sure, men will be fine on their own. just let their stubborn asses live in filth, ill health, and misery.

Anonymous 22818

Kneipe_Corps_Suevi…

>>22814
The point is that without any women enforcing privacy, the lowlife men would just be swept up by other men who have their shit together. They'd be used as literal minions and probably enjoy it because they don't have to worry about much and are taken care of.

Men in a nutshell. It only needs a handful of tricksters/schemers/"wizards" who have oversight and some others who are bold and charismatic.

Around here we also have some concepts like that where "homeless" University students are swept up (and given a cheap home) by fraternities who are more or less civilized but teach them how to function at least in basic concepts, until the older ones graduate and get own homes and then teach the young ones in occasional meetings.

I guess if it just was one house with everyone living in it forever it would become the epitome of barbaric, but at least it would work somehow

Anonymous 22821

1946._SX360_QL80_T…

>>22818
idk where you live, but where i'm from, fraternity brothers are regarded as scumbags. they're arrogant, inconsiderate, throw loud parties and don't clean up after themselves, and they bully the younger members of the frat.
plus, most of them don't learn to function even in those basic concepts, at least not in the long run. they get their degrees, marry their girlfriends, and then go straight back to being as messy and lazy as they want because they have a domestic servant to take care of them again.

like the frat communities that you're describing sound fine to live in, but i think you're really underestimating the number of pic related that exist. those lowlife men are lowlifes usually because they have no skills, social or otherwise, and i find it hard to imagine that the other men who have their shit together would pick them up and transform their lives without them being able to demonstrate some sort of value.

Anonymous 22827

The thread topic seems to have slid towards a men-only planet.

Men without women would create some sort of cannibalistic human sacrifice oriented culture where dying in war is considered ideal and funerary customs involve turning their skins into war drums and where human bone scrimshaw is the most common form of art. On the plus side there would be personal jetpacks and flying cars, on the downside there would be no license restrictions or insurance for either, fuel efficiency would be considered a cowardly concept and seatbelts would not exist even as a concept. Even our current world has detonated more than 2,150 atomic bombs, mostly more or less safely in test sites. In Man World, and I'm reasonably sure no man on earth would disagree, they'd have easily tripled that number, but a nontrivial percentage of those would not have been tests. Only 4 United States presidents have died by assassination in the current world, 2 shot by far right conservatives (Lincoln and Garfield) and 2 shot by far left communists (McKinley and Kennedy); only one of those was shot after women gained the vote. We can probably quadruple that number for Man World, and without women's civilizing influence on radical leftwing politics illegalism and Propaganda of the Deed such as assassination would be much more common political activities. The Cold War would have gone nuclear and surviving nations would have functioning Orion nuclear engine spaceships, which they would use in their resource wars where they struggle to get control of the solar system's remaining fissile materials so that they can win the next set of nuclear wars. Feminine concepts such as restraint and public order are the only reason there are stop signs, speed limits, and blood alcohol level restrictions on the roads. The whole nightmarish scenario would look a lot like Warhammer 40,000, but with everyone acting like Orkz. I mean heck that's the whole idea of Warhammer's Orkz, there's a reason Orkz are asexually reproducing fungi, men without women and without biological restraints.

Physically, if men still needed a male partner to reproduce with, I don't really know. Men are much more attracted to pale skin than women are, and much more attracted to blue or light colored eyes. They'd probably be larger and have tougher bones and stronger muscles due to the constant personal warfare of all against all that is the natural state on their planet. And since they'd be cannibals they'd probably have better digestive adaptations to drinking blood.

So basically gay vampires with jetpacks.

Anonymous 22828

>>22827
Good post tbh

Anonymous 22829

>>22827
i think you just really like warhammer

Anonymous 22834

>>22827
Man World sounds fucking badass

Anonymous 22835

>>22834
bear in mind it would also be extremely gay in a prison kind of way

Anonymous 22836

>>22835
How so? Are you sure? Men are actually more empathetic than women in terms of morals and ideals, for example all great moral undertakings have come from men (ending slavery, rule of law, etc). Women are pretty vicious and don't really care either way. I think a world consisting of men would be highly moral and just. If Man World has the same demographics as now, Europeans would just dominate the Earth and without women to impede them they would never let their empire fall. I don't think it would be as warlike as you claim because one tribe or group would quickly pull ahead of all others and maintain stability, much like in our world (Pax Britannica and then Pax Americana).

Anonymous 22843

>>22836
>men are more emphatic and have better morals because they ended slavery.

That's not how it works, there were and still are plenty of men that didn't want slavery to end. It's not like woman we're be able to end slavery anyway because they had no power to do so.

Anonymous 22855

>>22716
>Merkel
>a good leader
thats funny m8

Anonymous 22864

>>22829
Warhammer is a direct reflection of the male soul. To create a perfect male android we could build a sexbot and train its neural net on Warhammer source materials and pornography, and the result would be functionally indistinguishable from a biological male. The only question is why on Earth anyone would want to do that.

Anonymous 22893

>>22855
>muh muslims
Germany is objectively one of, if not, the most economically successful European country.

Anonymous 22897

>>22893
Solely because of the German people, and not because of their leadership.

Anonymous 22901

i work in a female-dominated industry (i'm surrounded by women and talking to women all day) and overall it's a very pleasant environment with little to none of the backstabbing and gossip-mongering that men imagine would happen in a world without them. if anyone is unpleasant it's usually in a way that's stand-offish rather than outright bitchy.
then you have male-dominated spaces such as fraternities like >>22818 mentioned which produce some of the most obnoxious and rude specimens of humanity that i've ever encountered.

uncanny coincidence, huh

Anonymous 22915

>>22897
I'd like to see you explain how Germany is an Anarchist utopia, Anon. Also haven't all the leaders of Germany been German people? Yes, yes they have.

Anonymous 22956

>>22915
>random ridiculous strawman
Ok retard.

As long as you at least somewhat harness the German people's industriousness, you will have a successful country. The particulars of their leadership is irrelevant and they would obviously be a billion times better off without Merkel and with someone who instead was NOT trying to slowly genocide them.

Anonymous 22960

>>22901
i don’t think backstabbing and politics and gossip is a male or female thing, it’s a shitty internal culture thing. we’re too quick to attribute shittiness to what people are rather than who they are, i think

Anonymous 23219

>>23218
>it was men that decided slavery was bad
http://spartacus-educational.com/REslaveryW.htm
>it was men that decided world wars should probably not continue
it's also men who started said world wars, what's your point?

Anonymous 23220

>>22915
Hitler was Austria tho

Anonymous 23229

>>23220
Austrians are, in fact, Germans.

Anonymous 23230

>>23229
True.
t. double citizen

Anonymous 23231

>>23229
Saupreißn/German dichotomy.

Anonymous 23232

>>23229
Alright, von Bismarck

Anonymous 23639

>>22786
lol, that's a good point

Anonymous 23641

It would be the most miserable place ever.
What a horrible thread.

Anonymous 23646

I think a new gender binary would form around masculinity/femininity and it'd be much the same as it is now, only not as based in biology.

Anonymous 23649

>>23641
I agree. This thread was probably made as b8 to make the site look bad

Anonymous 23652

>>23641
>>23649

Do you actually believe that?
This site is built around not having men post here. Why would you intentionally seek out an online society without males if you think a real world society without males would be miserable?

Anonymous 23656

>>23649
it isn't bait, i made it because i was bored and the chan was slow. i don't hate males but i agree with >>23652

Anonymous 23658

I like boys too much, I enjoy their company and I think they are cute

but all the alpha males and incels and "nice guys" can die off thX

Anonymous 23660

>>23652
Not her, but just because I like to post there doesn’t mean I have a desire for all men to disappear. Posting here is something temporary, then I go back to reality.

Anonymous 23665

>>23658
What about the nice guys without the quotes?

Anonymous 23666

smile.gif

>>23665
is this even a real question lmao

Anonymous 23667

>>23665
well no, i appreciate actually nice people…

Anonymous 23670

>>23669
uh well im (>>23666) not even >>23658

Also.. what the fuck is this. lmao, reported asf.

Anonymous 23671

>>23669
Uh I'm not the same person and no, I don't like kids. I like adults. What the fuck? How did you get this from what I posted?

Anonymous 23672

>>23670
how tf do you report lmao

Anonymous 23673

>>23672
click drop down arrow at the top right of the post you want to report. you'll get a little boxy at the bottom that says "file-delete" and "reason:(text box) - report". Type in the reason you are reporting (or dont if its obvious!) and click report! ta dah!

Anonymous 23736

>>23652
Yeah, I believed it until OP stepped in to correct me. I didn’t specifically seek out this site because it’s female-oriented. I found it off lc and thought there’d be like-minded people here (there are).

I agree with >>23658 , I’d miss the company of qt guys. and making sweeping generalizations is dumb

Anonymous 25223

>>22893
Because Germany had the richest country in history rebuild it and dump money into it as a bulwark against the Eastern Bloc
bing Marshal Plan

Anonymous 25227

>>22716
Aung Suu Kyi did nothing wrong

Anonymous 25323

>>22721

I think a better solution would be to have a more or less polygamous society, where you and your girlfriends share one really really hot guy and the rest of the men work manual labor jobs somewhere far removed from society. That would keep just enough men around to keep things interesting but not too many. They wouldn't have any political power obviously.

Anonymous 25328

>>22715
I think less sex crime would happen but battery and murder would skyrocket without men to vent on.
Maybe less war, but I have no real evidence myself to suggest why that would be true.
Traffic would be worse.
I think mostly everything else would be cool though.

Anonymous 25344

>>25328
>murder would skyrocket
Wh-what?
Men are responsible for the overwhelming majority of murders right now.
http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
(p. 136)
Although in the Virgin Islands it's 50/50, so we might want to stay away from there.
What do you mean by men to vent on? To get angry at or abuse? Are we sure most women beat their husbands? I have doubts.

Anonymous 25349

>>25344
When I have a problem with other women I can't vent about it with other women because they'll gossip about it and I'll get shit on down the line about it so I talk to a guy friend or bf about it since they barely care about it.
A world without men is just a time bomb of escalating frustrations, our murder rates would match men's in a short amount of time

Anonymous 25350

>>25349
the men i know are the ones who spread the most gossip, but then again, I hang out with mostly men, and they are very bitchy types of men

Anonymous 25353

>>25349
It sounds like you just know unhealthy women and have a healthy bf lmao
>>25350
Most men I know are also backhanded and into gossip and drama. I worked with mainly (straight) men for a few years in a fast food restaurant of all places places and the backstabbing was unreal. I didn't expect it.
Anyway it's more an unhealthy-person thing than a woman-thing; men betray each other to get ahead all the time. Men can also be manipulative.

The cure for this is to just be honest about your distaste for an individual when it's safe to do so. If it's a boss or something, complain to someone not employed there so they can't ruin your job. ez

Anonymous 25354

>>25353
>backhanded
I meant underhanded obvs kek
Before I get called out for stupidity.

Anonymous 25356

>>25353
Just seems to be a tendency no matter where I go. Not to say its always that way, but more like a rule of thumb

Anonymous 25543

idk op, life without a power grid, indoor plumbing and mechanised agriculture sounds kinda uncomfy, maybe deadly

as much as I hate to admit it, they kind of run things around here

Anonymous 25544

>>25543
Not for long.

t. aspiring tradeswoman

Anonymous 25546

>>25545

mind = blown

Anonymous 25558

>>25543
How do you think things functioned while men were fighting during the world wars? Begone, robot.

Anonymous 25560

The world's population would return to a sustainable number. Women would have children when they were ready, instead of being forced into marriages (child marriages, arranged marriages, shotgun weddings) and then the societal expectation that once married, they have to start having kids. They would be able to enjoy their youth/careers and wouldn't think about children until later in life when only one or two children will be possible anyway. The quality of life for those children will be vastly, vastly improved as older mothers will already have large savings and houses purchased. Older mothers will also be more mature, therefore superior to younger mothers and only very serious mothers would go through with carrying a child. There will be no accidental children as mothers will have to go through an artificial insemination process. They won't have to suffer from rape and the pressure religious organisations and families put on them to birth and keep the child. People wonder why women in impoverished countries "keep having children" when they can't afford them, but they never seem to ask why their fucking trash husbands keep impregnating them and making them suffer more. With a reduced world population, the lives of everyone will greatly improve because we will have more food, better access to essential facilities and we would be doing less damage to the earth via climate change, deforestation, pollution etc. It would also be a much safer environment for women to raise children in. Imagine letting your kids play on the street until dark because you don't have to fear kidnappings, murderers or paedophiles as much as the majority of violent crimes are committed by men.

People who wonder "B-But what will we do without big, strong, handsome men?" are men who feel threatened by the idea. Just like they're threatened by feminism and the concept that women can live, work, travel, have kids, make decisions etc. without them. It fucking terrifies them that something they desire to control so much, can actually survive just fine without their influence. Actually, thrive since women who don't marry are happier and less stressed. Do people honestly think that men are the only group of people who can climb a telephone poll or plunge a toilet? Sorry, but society without men would be a utopia and if it bothers you, maybe try to be a more useful member of society or treat women better if you want people to start seeing it as a dystopia.

Anonymous 25561

>>25560
Older parents are more likely to produce children with genetic or chromosomal abnormalities, and screening tests for such defects aren't perfect. We're getting better at it of course but they aren't perfect.

Anonymous 25562

>>25561
Older as in early 30s, not 40s.

Anonymous 25563

IMG_8126.PNG


Anonymous 25564

>>25563
The average age to have a first child in my country is 31.

Anonymous 25565

>>25564
Good for you. Hope you have a robust social services system, children with autism are heard to take care of I hear.

Anonymous 25567

>>25565
For the record, this poster is not me.

My posts:

>>25561
>>25563

Anonymous 25568

>>25564
This is pretty characteristic of Western Europe I think. When you stratify the US population by graduation from a four year college, you arrive at a similar mean value for the age of women at the time of their first child's birth.

Certainly I believe women must possess reproductive autonomy, but in order to make informed decisions we must also recognize that our biology is optimized for a different sort of life history than those common in wealthy post-industrial societies.

Anonymous 25569

>>25563
Don't people on (the functional end of) the spectrum often gravitate toward STEM careers? We'd need more STEM girls in this world, so that's fine. This study also didn't seem to mention severity of the disorder, although I only skimmed over it.

Anyway, if that table is right and say every woman has a baby in the 30-34 range with older male sperm even, so ~14/1000 babies had autism…that's only 1.4% of people having autism. Right now it's 1/59 people (in the U.S.), 1.7%. Things wouldn't be too different.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6706a1.htm

Anonymous 25572

>>25565
>>25568
So what, "older" women who are emotionally prepared to have children and actually want them would know those risks, and even if their kid did have autism or whatever, they'd be better fit to parent them than some 21 year old who got knocked up.

Anonymous 25662

>>25560
The world would be so much safer. It's hilarious when guys try to use the b-but we protect you excuse for why we would need them. Protect us from what? Other barbaric male thugs?

Anonymous 25836

>>22814
>i know grown-ass men who can't even operate a washing machine
This is dumb though because I can reverse that and say i know women that can't even operate a nuclear power plant. Teaching that halfwit man to using a washing machine takes like 5 minutes, but teaching that woman how to operate a nuclear plant isn't going to be quick. In OP's scenario, men would outlast women because they already dominate almost every field, even the ones that are majority female.

Anonymous 25838

>>25837
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/strong-women-did-lot-heavy-lifting-ancient-farming-societies
A good question to ask is, "when did they start doing that, exactly"?

Anonymous 25841

I'd honestly rather live in a less scientifically advanced society than one filled with violent psychopaths.
Just weighing the pros and cons of each society, for me personally this is what I'd prefer.

Anonymous 25853

>>25836
>This is dumb though because I can reverse that and say i know women that can't even operate a nuclear power plant.
this is such a horrible comparision, anon, a nuclear power plant takes more than one person to run unlike running a load of laundry, kek

>Teaching that halfwit man to using a washing machine takes like 5 minutes, but teaching that woman how to operate a nuclear plant isn't going to be quick.

nta but…like…that's the point…the simple task of laundry can't be completed by a man. once again, a power plant isn't run by a singular person, kek

Anonymous 26179

>>22715

okay, I know I'm going to take everyone's hatred here.
I just want to clarify some points.

Many of the social networks have been invented by men, but in the end those who use them most are women.

For example Instagram, a platform to share your lifestyle, and suddenly a group of girla just want attention through likes.

Would you really like to live in a less technological world but without the need to be dealing with the problems of men?

I also believe that most of the problems in the world are caused by men.

I am not against anyone's opinion, you are all right in everything.

Anonymous 26181

>>26179
Exceedingly few of the problems in the world are caused by people.

Anonymous 26398

>>22807
I like this answer best. :)



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ / Discord ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / cgl / x ]