*Both seek to put up a wall, emotionally and physically...
*Both report there is a threat (Migrants and Cartel vs. Patriarchy and Toxic Masculinity)
*Both claims are refuted, saying there is no threat...
*Both emphasizes the value of "consent" or "legal immigration" both of which links to respect...
Here, the commonality between the predominantly left and right goals are to protect one's interests from an external threat.
Art Credit: ddees.com
If a middle ground and resolution is made for border protection what is the equivalent when it comes to protection from the "patriarchy" (or men which don't act the part of men; propper)?
In the context of national security, we identify that only a small portion of Migrants are actually dangerous, and others simply complicate US economy. Can the same be said about men?
That only a small number of men are dangerous, and others simply drain women's "emotional capital" so to speak...
The Truth is that in putting up a border wall (the US), can we expect more consent in crossing our borders, allowing only legal ways of entry... and in putting up an emotional wall (women) can we expect more openness and reception, provided men enter women's "sovereign space" with respect to law and consent.
Boundaries are set up for a reason, people and countries have a sovereignty that is close to sacred, and we men have not always respected it. In protecting that sacred consent, both humans and countries can choose the isolation route, or, open more ways for legal entry...
The solution is to get the two genders to like, love, trust and respect each other again.
Basically if feminists want to guard themselves against (the few) big evil men, then we also need to guard ourselves from (the few) big evil cartels.
Chat Conversation End Type a message...
Written by master Shon
