Actually, it has been identified as one of the bigger issues. Lack of childcare options means one parent needs to stay home, means one income, means lots of women tend to just work a few years in office exclusively to find a good husband and then drop out of everything (cue the incel population who understands that if they can’t have a huge income, they might never get laid). Also, single income participates in the terrible work culture where staying at one company forever is the better option because people who leave get burned everywhere. And this lifestyle, this work identity, this lack of prospectives, is a big part of why young people are losing hope fast. This vicious cycle has been pretty well known forever, and childcare has been recognized as a major starter of it for a while.

Housing in Japan is often a culture of 3 generations living in the same home, single income participates in that too, but there are housing options - Japan has a notoriously high number of empty homes, abandoned and falling apart; we don’t have any perspective right now on what direction this could go if the demographics started improving. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone ever bring up that education had any particular problem, as far as I can tell they get what they need. In all of those fields there’s probably a bunch of issues about outdated standards everywhere, but there’s no big issue about entire spans of population dropping out of education or housing or feeding.

Yeah, Japan is notoriously deep in a hole about that: the total lack of child care support has long been identified as a major drive for all the gender inequalities they have (employment high up above everything else, then salary), which is super bad. There have been talks about something like child care for a few years, and apparently only now they’re actually doing it - they’ve been extra dragging their feet for a long time, and if they’re doing it now, it’s only because they finally accepted that their known demographics disaster will not be miraculously fixed by checks notes doing nothing. Hell must be freezing over right now.

When the Avengers go back to the past and Past Thanos learns that Future Thanos succeeded but still failed, Past Thanos says clearly that means he didn’t genocide hard enough, erasing half of all life was too kind, and he really needs to erase all life and start from scratch - which does sound very familiar. Sorry, I vote full genocidal, even if not specific to one or some cultures.

Iron Man 1: Rich selfish asshole has a wake up call

More precisely, the wake-up call being: the weapons that he sold to the US military as a war profiteer have ended up in the hands of the enemies and he gets blown up with a missile that has his name on it. It was rather on point.

Can confirm, my experience says there’s been a massive increase in Teslas on the road in my region these last ~3 years, and lately VWs (ID3, 4, Buzz) are increasing too. There’s other brands too that are also going up a little, but they’re less easily identified at a glance if you don’t know the models.

Rogan leaving his podcast for this would be an incredible net positive.

but at least they would not personally execute my whole family just because I’m not a muslim who listens to music.

Man, they are literally executing anyone they see for just existing in Gaza. Americans, health workers, ambulances. They literally said that babies born in Gaza are already terrorists. They make prisoners confess that they are Hamas by threatening to drone their whole family. So yes, they do execute your whole family just because they live there.

but the developers of the Switch 2 understand that most people don’t play console games with a handy table nearby and ready to go

at the very least, you gotta wear pants.

So close to understanding how your players play!

Let’s not forget he’s only saying that because he’s not running anymore. He was perfectly happy propping her up above all others in the last 8 years, the same way Trump was propped up, except he won (until last summer when the left came back). Everyone else on the right is mad because they wanted to do the same in the next cycle, as usual - even some on the left are also a bit unsure, probably because they also expected to do the same for themselves after Macron is gone (the left has a much better chance than the right against the far right). Hell, even his current Prime Minister is making barely veiled comments about it - the same guy (among a few others) whose party was also punished for something similar, except on a far, far lesser scale, thus without ineligibility sentencing.

You’re not getting it. Macron does in fact control the legislation.

Sure it’s not what the president is supposed to do, there’s a prime minister and speaker for that to decide what laws will be voted on in what calendar. Except when Macron forces his pick on both (and straight up ignores when a new national vote says the left wing opposition gets to name the prime minister), forces the voting calendar, forces passing his laws by skipping a vote he knows will fail, etc.

The 5th French Republic has laws like this that give the president some exceptional powers to get over the head of the parliament. And Macron uses those exceptional powers all the time.

So yes, Macron does do all the things you say the president doesn’t do. And that’s why people are mad at him.

I’m looking forward to Greenpeace telling the judge to go fuck themselves be more respectful and not pay squat. Any day now.

No one has said anything about any of that, you are making up this argument out of nothing, no one has tried to define what a man or a woman is - except you, actually. You are moving the discussion and muddying what is even being argued about, so you can pretend I’m a conservative for some reason and the doctor is as bad as an anti-vaxxer. Even though you’re the one who tried to declare what a man or a woman is, when that wasn’t the subject at all. You are projecting.

Has y = man

No y = woman

No. You are conflating chromosoms, gender, sex. The PhD is telling you that you are wrong. You are claiming that you know better than them. The whole meme is about you, you have Dunning-Kruger, they have a PhD.

??? No one said it determines your gender. We’re telling you that it happens. Obviously there are XY people who grow up to be cis men, trans women, but also cis women, and surely trans men as well, or anything inbetween, with any form of gender expression you can think of. You’re the only one making this all up for some reason.

That there are men (xy) with female parts

This is your misunderstanding right there. XY is not automatically a man. You are the one making the claim that chromosoms define if you are a man or a woman, and the PhD and the other guy are telling you that there are people born with XY who are cis women with female genitalia. You are wrong.

they talk about xx becoming xy

No, they are saying no such thing. They are telling you that there are people born with XY but who have female genitalia and grow up to be cis women. No one told you that some XY people changed to XX, or XX to XY. This does not happen. This is not what the PhD said, and this is not what the other guy explained to you. You are wrong. And you keep claiming that everybody else is wrong, without ever questioning your own understanding.

… And you still don’t understand it, and you assume that everyone else is wrong even after it was explained to you. That quote is correct and it does not contradict what the PhD said. In fact, it illustrates exactly what they said.

You’re the only one here claiming that the PhD is equating gender, sex, genitalia. The PhD says no such thing. The person the PhD is responding to is the one trying to equate gender, sex, genitalia, chromosoms, reducing it to “there are only two sexes, male or female.” The PhD is telling that person that they are wrong, and chromosoms do not determine what comes out in the end. The PhD is correct an you are misreading them, and it has already been explained to you that the PhD is saying, verbatim, that chromosoms do not determine gender or even the sex. If you think that contradicts the PhD, you are still misunderstanding and assuming that the one who’s wrong must be the PhD and certainly not you. But you really really want to say that the PhD is equating gender and sex, or that the explanation that was given to you is contradicting what the PhD is saying. At this point, you’re just trying to obfuscate what the PhD is claiming and what you are defending, and somehow the PhD is the one who’s wrong and as bad as anti-vaxxers.

Once again: the PhD is correct, you misunderstand what they said, someone explained to you what the PhD was saying, and that explanation is not contradicting what the PhD said. The PhD and the explanation are both correct and they are saying the same thing. You keep trying to pretend that you know better than the PhD and the PhD must be anti science somehow, instead of wondering if you’re not completely missing the entire discussion. The only way you are going is trying to devaluate science.

Or the thought the phd must have meant something else

But sure the phd is wrong if he meant that; just like those anti-vax doctors and anti-abortion doctors

The PhD is not wrong. The PhD meant what they said, but it is not what you think they meant or said. The mistake is yours, and you still insist that maybe it’s the PhD who’s wrong and meant something else they didn’t say - even after somebody else correctly explained what the PhD said and meant, to which you wrongly responded “that’s not what the PhD claims.”

And yet, when someone explained to you what the PhD said and meant, your response was:

So not what the phd claims

And just now you were still comparing them to anti-vaxx doctors “if they meant that”, when they clearly didn’t mean that, and you were already told what they meant. You’re still pretending that maybe they said something wrong. They didn’t.

It’s crazy how you’re still insisting that “the PhD is wrong if he meant that”’ rather than figure out that no, what you think they meant is not what they meant, it is not what they said, you are the one misunderstanding what they said. It has to be the PhD’s fault, certainly not yours.