you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Yay, normalized over-consumerism disguised as marital quirks!

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    And misogyny, because it assumes 'she' will want things that don't matter but you have to be ok with it to make her happy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    If that whole scenario wasn't fabricated, how is it misogyny to give an anecdote about his marriage?

    And where did he say what his wife cared about doesn't matter? He only said he doesn't care as a response to his wife asking if he also hated the bowls, and that he never gave the bowls a thought. Do all members in a relationship have to be gungho about everything?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    If you say that some women want some things that don't matter is because you hate women! Obviously!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    I'm saying it assumes women do it while lots of people I respective of gender do it. Could be in regards to different things for individuals

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Ok. Next time someone tweets something they better say "husband/wife" every time. Otherwise people will think they hate men/women! Good to know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    That's why there are neutral words like partner

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Tbf, even if he'd have used "partner," those who want to read misogyny into things still will, they can just be shut-the-fuck-up with a "hey you don't know, maybe he's gay."

    You're still right though, he should put himself in that position so people can't use it to manufacture outrage.

  • source
  • parent