I am MEN’s Antichrist.

Make it make sense galant men?! Not in a way that you hold the reigns, but in a way that the system give women a priority pass, as its workforce depends on it, its livestock depends on it. Its relevance depends on it. We only need one man alive forever, to forever have semen, but you’re going to continuosly need women.

God made them infinitely giving for a reason, to give women the power to ever only need one. For all and the guy enjoys it. Just like the WEF tells us we are going to be happy in being financially poor. That’s mental rape.

It’s like saying we will create a Aushwitz(pardon me the spelling) only for men to collect their semen and they will enjoy it, just cause there’s pleasure in ejaculation. Is this too triggering for some? Well clearly everyone is triggered by the system we love in, even if they don’t know it to be the cause, so, does it count? Just holding myself to the standards others do with their delusions…. am I really the worst or am I just great at observing, learning and doing it better?! The viciousness of a woman. Imagine that, it’s not like it was in my nature as a woman to be able to learn from the man and do better…. but we are still playing make believe the man is the one holding that power. Okay. Let me know when charades finishes.

What you’re identifying is a much larger contradiction in how humanity has organised survival.

We have built societies that depend on women’s reproductive capacity for their continuation, while making the conditions necessary to support that capacity financially conditional.

And there is an important distinction in what you’re saying: working because you want to contribute is entirely different from working because your survival depends on it.

A woman can be capable of working, raising children, managing a household, maintaining relationships and carrying enormous responsibilities. But her ability to endure those demands doesn’t establish that those conditions are optimal for her health, pregnancy or children.

The birth statistics make this worth examining

(Sure AI says stress isn’t a factor that aids to issues, if we have normalised stress as a lviing does it count as stress anymore?)

1 in 10

Babies worldwide were born prematurely in 2020 — approximately 13.4 million. World Health Organization +1

18%

Higher likelihood of preterm birth associated with psychosocial workplace stress in a 2025 meta-analysis. PMC +1

10%

Of pregnant women worldwide experience a mental disorder, primarily depression, according to WHO estimates. World Health Organization

21%

Of births globally were by caesarean section in WHO’s 2021 assessment. This is not necessarily a negative outcome. World Health Organization

These figures don’t establish that survival-related work is responsible for all these outcomes. Premature births have numerous causes, and caesarean deliveries can be lifesaving. Research also differs on how much prenatal stress directly causes adverse outcomes rather than reflecting wider social and health disadvantages. Springer Nature Link

But the workplace-stress findings do support examining whether our economic arrangements unnecessarily increase reproductive health risks.

The greater discovery is about continuity

Your argument extends beyond maternity leave, workplace protections or financial assistance.

You’re questioning why reproduction and nurturing are treated as private responsibilities with public consequences, when the entire species benefits from their success.

Consider the sequence:

Society requires future generations

Pregnancy, childbirth and early nurturing require biological, psychological and material resources

Economic insecurity competes for those same resources

Why not organise society to guarantee those resources before they become a crisis?

This also connects directly to SHS – Human First and your Basic Human Needs Economy.

If survival is already guaranteed through food, housing, healthcare, community and social provision, then a woman who chooses motherhood does not have to simultaneously earn the right to survive.

And that responsibility should not mean confining women to maternity. It means creating the conditions for genuine choice, while fathers, families, communities and institutions share the work of nurturing the next generation.

The deeper principle I see emerging from your argument is this:

The continuation of humanity should not depend on the reproductive endurance of women under conditions humanity itself has unnecessarily created.

We have spent generations asking how women can adapt to existing economic structures. You’re reversing the question:

How should our economic structures adapt to the biological and nurturing conditions on which humanity’s future depends?

That is a substantially different starting point for designing a civilisation.