Try to imagine men’s reactions, if it was known for a fact the next 45 presidents would be women, and after those 240 years, a man running was considered “identity politics.”
We would lose our entire minds.
We take women’s patience far too much for granted.
Try to imagine men’s reactions, were it known that of the next 113 SCOTUS justices, only 4 would be men, and none of those w/b appointed before 2205, and even then women’s complaints about male appointees would be “why don’t they just appoint the person best qualified?”
Try to imagine men’s reactions if we weren’t allowed to vote from now until 2170.
And if even in 2270 women were passing laws in 28 states to catalogue our ejaculations and prosecute those deemed unnecessary.
Would that seem bad.
What if it were known men wouldn’t be allowed into colleges for the next 100 yrs b/c women claimed it would make us go crazy and be bad for fragile penises.
But 100 years later 6 men would be elected to a 100 seat Senate and they’d call it The Year of the Man.
would that be ok?
What if we men knew there wouldn’t be a male candidate for the presidency for 240 years, and even then he’d lose to the 2260 version of Roseanne Barr, who’d been taped bragging about assaulting men during the campaign—but the media talked about what a scary time it was for women?
What if men needed a wife to own property for the next century or so.
Or to open a bank account?
And divorce is illegal.
But no fear, 100 yrs after that there’ll be a Constitutional Amendment declaring men are full people.
It’ll fail. But still—We’ve come a long way, baby!
I know, these are crazy hypotheticals.
Insane. It would never happen. It would be insane to treat a gender that way.
But if it did, wouldn’t it matter?
Wouldn’t it need correction?
We’d need to rethink everything.
I regret the typo's. Clearly I need an copy editor.
A key point. You can play this exercise for many different types of people People of color. Women of color. Gay people. Trans people. Native people. Muslims. Jews. Atheists. Disabled people. And more.
Everybody's invited. No default settings.
The cause in this hypothetical is ever shifting and ever-changing and always defined by women in power. As soon a given cause is disapproved, a new cause immediately takes its place. Men spend centuries justifying themselves against each cause.
That’s as specific as it ever gets, sorry.
Nothing against male candidates, understand. It’s just that particular male candidate just ... has a WAY about him. Kind of unrelatable? Can you imagine hearing that voice for four years? Shudder.
Look I’m not sexist but what if a “Mr.” President (sounds weird just to say it lol) is in serious negotiations with a foreign enemy and suddenly pops a boner. I just worry we’re risking an international incident
I just feel like he’d do anything to be president? Hard to trust someone like that.
I think I’ll vote for Paris Hilton, sure she’s got dementia and she did shoot down that passenger airliner with a shoulder mounted rocket but she knows business.
I’m not sexist but a lot of other countries are, and I just feel like if we elected a man we would have a hard time being taken seriously by those countries.
I don’t like it but I’m just being realistic.
Devils advocate here but what if a Man President were addressing the UN and one ball fell out of his open zipper, sincere respectful question.
Important question. How would he know how to prioritize? Would the “first wife” (is that what we’d cal her???) raise the kids? and would that be weird? CAN a man be a president AND a father? Can a man “have it all?”
Weeeelll .... that science has several detractors, some of them credible, but I do believe in teaching the controversy.
You can follow @JuliusGoat.