Good point, it could very well be. Sadly, it's really hard to tell why, and which women will respond with it. I've never heard a woman alluding to it irl, but I have seen them respond in both ways.
The ick is huge. The only woman most men can open up to without playing russian roulette is their mother (assuming a healthy relationship).
Well if we had reform oriented prisons we would run out of slave labor, duh. That's why it's in the constitution 🦅🦅
If you're lookin for me,
You'd better check under the sea,
Cause that is where you'll find me,
Underneath the seaaaaaa lab,
Underneath the water,
Seaaaaa lab....
We will see how much they actually care in the next 2 years
It's a show. The only thing established party leadership cares about on either side is lining their pockets. The longer they keep us arguing about their disfunction, the more they rob from us. One class. Working class.
Lmao the economy is great for those hundreds of feet up in the air.
Or Americans about theirs 😂
Coops are part of the answer to America's corporate disease
Maggat types have been noted as having a higher proclivity towards in-group thinking, so, to your point, the methods for obtaining peace can be twisted into believing that the out group is the root of the problem.
Think of them as fellow working class with a slight (at times severe) gullability disability if that helps. One class. Working class.
The irony of 'elected' politicians virtue signaling in the first place
My guess is that certain idolizers of orange saw the blatant oligarchical cabinet choices, particularly with Elmo and hit some heavy cognitive dissonance. The truck symbolism is right there.
Most people can clearly see he's always been pro-corporate and fuck-you-working class.
The cognitive dissonance from anyone who's been outright worshipping him and has opened their eyes must be straight up torture.
Even magatts are operating on the following when it comes to their political consent: "what leadership will cause the most opportunity for peace for me and my loved ones"
Lol this post made me appreciate Lemmy so much.
There was a question on dead-it asking something about why the American middle class seemed to suffer so much since the mid20th century and it was full of obvious bots pointing to the positive but temporary effects of WW2. It took quite some scrolling before I saw any mention of the stagnation of real wages since then.
Sex researchers Baumeister and Tice wrote about sexual economics.
"A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange."
From an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense that women wouldn't want a partner that can't provide security for the couple when the woman would be vulnerable if pregnant/nursing.
Young men in particular have fewer resources of value to offer than at any time in most people's lives. To that point, it's not like young women are dating any better, so even if they are willing to be the sole provider, most are unable to do so.
With the traditional partnership which historically provided companionship out of the question, men are left yearning for female companionship.
Another point the researchers make, is that men will always yearn, while women have a generally easier time abstaining until conditions are right.