>>/14657/
> historically doesn’t mean literal ancient history
It's a hyperbole. I didn't mean literal ancient history.
> not even gonna bother addressing your gay bulletpoints
People who defend women are literally incapable of creating counter arguments. They fold INSTANTLY as soon as someone doesn't automatically agree with them.
Here's a Psychology tip: You're avoiding addressing them because you realize you're proven wrong, so you just run away.
> most men don’t want a woman who earns more than them, simple as
Simple as, you're wrong.
I personally don't give a shit about a woman's income.
Most men don't give a shit either.
You yourself literally admitted you'd be happy with a rich woman.
I've noticed this kind of thing ever since around 2010: Whether it's simps, feminists, leftists, those kinds of people, they're completely incapable of actually forming counter arguments. They constantly result to insults, missing the point, and will always, ALWAYS, bail out of the discussion at the first sign of resistance.