I don't know that I would classify it as irony because the toxic male's response is very predictable. It's closer to a paradox. If men could universally accept women choosing the bear then would women still choose the bear?
At the surface, the strongly negative male reaction appears as a subset for why the bear is chosen but upon further exploration it reveals itself as the ultimate example for why the bear is preferred; many men cannot accept female agency.
At the same time the question reveals the rawest example of toxic masculinity. Despite the toxic males perspective that unlike women, they are not highly emotional creatures, the reality they present of themselves is they are not only highly emotional but are unable or unwilling to control their emotions.
You think parents should get their kindergartens an Apple Watch?
Perhaps you think I'm referring to children past elementary school.
Regardless of what Apple says AirTags are and are not for people will use them however they see fit. For example, they are not for tracking pets but there are pet collars designed to hold an AirTag so clearly many people are ignoring Apple.
Attaching an AirTag to a child's backpack seems like an obvious way to track one's child, even if it's not supported use case.
The purpose isn't track things you know how to find but to find things that get lost; like children. There is also enough paranoia about kidnapping that I'm sure there are at least a few children in every classroom that are tagged.
I don't think the phone companies have the power you imagine them to have.
If the entire global was controlled by a single entity they could stop this but that's not the reality. There are tons of gateway providers that you have never heard of.
This is literally the job of the FCC and they are already working on it but it takes time to herd this many cats. The big ones have already done their part.
This is long and I got bored but skimming it, it sounds like he was being stubborn about returning the items because he felt aggrieved. I can't really feel much sympathy for his situation.
Amazon has definitely declined but this isn't the shinning example I was hoping it to be.
You say you're listening but all you're hearing is how what is being said affects you.
You appear to see yourself as a victim. This makes you more dangerous than a bear.
The bear won't take a women's fear of it personally. It will want to avoid confrontation.
You will definitely take it personal. You appear willing to confront them for their fear. You will demand they not be afraid of you, because you are innocent. The scenario is one of a thousand reasons they choose the bear.
The issue attracting republican women, it's controlled republican girls. By marrying their female children at a young age, they've reduced their ability to escape the indoctrination cycle.
That and they want to be able rape post prepubescent children legally when their men hit midlife crisis age.
There are 50 states, at least one of them will not look kindly on this. It is easy to tie your anti war protest to religious believes, a protected class.
Smart companies don't fuck around with hiring. Anyone that has taken hiring training knows how thin the line is.
Your search history on a corporate network is logged.
I don't know that I would classify it as irony because the toxic male's response is very predictable. It's closer to a paradox. If men could universally accept women choosing the bear then would women still choose the bear?
At the surface, the strongly negative male reaction appears as a subset for why the bear is chosen but upon further exploration it reveals itself as the ultimate example for why the bear is preferred; many men cannot accept female agency.
At the same time the question reveals the rawest example of toxic masculinity. Despite the toxic males perspective that unlike women, they are not highly emotional creatures, the reality they present of themselves is they are not only highly emotional but are unable or unwilling to control their emotions.