After finishing skimming through this thread I’m convinced that fashion people are all crazy. They can literally label the same thing ugly on Tuesday and high fashion on Thursday.

Start by blocking the person jis ke peeche pura twitter sar pe uthaya hua he 🤷‍♂️

The problem is Vivek wouldn’t even be caught dead saying that. He’s such a coconut that he’s far more likely to advocate for the Lord’s Prayer and than even remotely leaning into his heritage.

The same sick, self-reinforcing mentality is at work here: the idea that men are inherently lustful beings and that women and girls can do little more than accommodate that reality. The conservative response is to cover up little girls. The 'liberal' response is to create women-only spaces. Different solutions, same underlying assumption: that male behavior is an immutable fact of life and that the burden of managing it falls on women and girls. And instead of challenging that mentality, both end up accommodating it.

To oppose Israeli terrorism, do you really have to become an apologist for the Taliban and TLP? Who’s stopping you from doing the former without defending the latter?

All women would leave religion if men disappeared, right??

Take that trip, buy that BMW, do whatever you’ve been putting off. We only have 5 years 😭

And this woke 1.0 rubbish about “empowerment” and “choice” needs to stop. What are the odds that a woman in a full niqab is exercising some pure, unconstrained personal choice, versus being conditioned by a conservative patriarchal society to erase her identity? Now compare that with the Western convert who puts on a niqab to make a radical feminist statement to the liberal elite. One is the exception. The other is the norm. Yet somehow wokes and Islamophiles build their politics around the exception.

It does not but you look like a racist. These women are standing on their property, which is not subject to any public rules - not that they’re breaking any laws anyway.

I resigned from Summit Agricultural Toolworks today. I enjoyed my work and loved the people, but my PLOW team was working on a new generation of plows to make farming much faster and cheaper, and I think agriculture is already progressing too fast, so I had to quit.

Two ways to look at this. Patriarchy and misogyny have created a society where nurturing and caregiving are seen as things only mothers can do. But proverbs like this also reinforce the very idea they’re highlighting. They make fathers seem incapable of raising children, as if a child cannot receive the same love and care from a father. The irony is that language meant to highlight women's unequal burden can also perpetuate the same gender roles that created it.

How can some men have such gutter mind? Like what goes wrong in your life to think like that?

I don’t judge people. I judge their ideas. Maybe that’s your problem. You might want to reflect on that while sitting on your moral high horse, handing out sincerity certificates and conducting litmus tests that lost their legitimacy, if they ever had any.

People waiting on my tweets to get material for their TL because that’s the only way they get any engagement.

Gatekeepers and snobs make simple things intentionally confusing. Engels said property led to patriarchy, and Lerner said patriarchy led to property. It's a disagreement about order and cause, not an endorsement of the narrative people have shouted from rooftops for years: that "men created patriarchy," as if men sat down and designed it. Neither Engels nor Lerner says that. Engels said patriarchy grew out of economic forces: once there was property to pass on, men took control of the household and of women to secure their heirs. Lerner said control over women's sexuality and reproduction came first and became the model for owning land, goods, and slaves. She was explicit that men and women both took part in that process over thousands of years, even though men held the power and gained the most. So neither of them made the "men created patriarchy" claim. Both treat men as the main drivers and beneficiaries. Neither treats patriarchy as something men invented on purpose or as something natural to men. That's the simplified gotcha by those who come from an essentialist angle. Just own up to it and don’t try to walk and chew gum at the same time. Lerner in particular wrote the book to show patriarchy is historical, not biological, which is the opposite of an essentialist lens. Simple framing sometimes works on social media, but when challenged, instead of shooting the messenger, maybe read the texts again. PS: People who went to good schools and were around books from a young age don’t use tacky gifs.

Me when someone puts ketchup on scrambled eggs

Waise to you are big on guilt by association. But by your logic, overlapping on a single issue means shared identity. Then you're simultaneously Hamas, the IRGC, the Taliban, and an antisemitic Christian nationalist, since each agrees with you on something.

Some greatest hits Hindutva comments I got on my recent post 😭