One Question to test feminism

So, let's just take a few of the core feministic claims under inspection and see if we can construct a poignant question about it all.

Feminists claim that:

- Women are paid less than men (for reasons?)
- Women are stronger than men
- Women are better communicators than men
- Women are more spiritual than men
- Women can do anything men can do, even when (the women are) wearing high heels
- Women are better at everything than men
- We live in a Patriarchy that is ruled by men, so somen are always in worse position

Let's take ALL these claims and then ask the question;

If all these claims are true, then why would any corporation hire men for any purpose, ever?

It can't be because men are expendable cannon fodder, so the world can afford to throw them into risky, highly dangerous, dirty, uncomfortable jobs, like oil rigs work, large-scale fishing, repairing and maintaining infrastructure (sewers, electric cables, even very high up the pylons), carrying heavy objects, clearing fallen trees off the road, sewage stuff, road maintenance and so on and so forth, now can it?

So if men are always seen as more worthy than women (or it wouldn't be a Patriarchy, now would it?), MEN would be sitting in all those comfy office jobs with 'sexist air conditioning' and all, while women work waist-deep in the sewers trying not to faint from the smell.

If women are stronger and better than men at everything, AND you get to pay them less AND they are more expendable than men (otherwise, it's not a Patriarchy), then..

WHY would any corporation or workplace EVER hire men?

They would lose a lot of money and get a worse worker that somehow is more valuable than the more competent workers (women).

So WHY would anyone ever hire men, if all these claims (or even some of them) were true?

A corporation is NOT going to choose some kind of 'you go, boy' (do you ever hear this? Why do you hear 'you go, girl' so much in a patriarchy, but not this version?)-attitude over MONEY and PROFIT.

Corporations are many things, but they are not stupid, when it comes to money. If it comes down to _ANY_ principle (as long as they can get away with it), a corporation will ALWAYS choose profit over it. We all know this from the shady history of corporations, where they pollute, destory nature, support wars and dictatorships (Nazís had Hugo Boss uniforms, Volkswagen cars, engines, etc. and IBM systems as well, just to mention a few), use child laboir (just look at what Nike at least used to do in other countries)..

..and we're supposed to believe any corporation would choose 'men's rights' / 'brotherhood' / 'you go, boy!' over PROFIT?

What kind of sense does that make?

There is no 'brotherhood', just by the way, and NO corporation respects 'men's rights', not to mention this is probably even YOUR first time even hearing/reading 'you go, boy!' as any kind of statement or cheer, but I bet 100 dollars you have heard the gender-opposite more than once.

Until feminists can answer this one question, there is no reason to take ANYTHING they say seriously, because it doesn't make any sense.

Also, 'women need men as much as fish need a bicycle', but for some reason, women behave as if they can easily and fully depend on men's support when it comes to unpaid bodyguards, alimonies, child support, 'not having to work' and so on and so forth. Women have such high expectations of what men are 'supposed' to do for them for free, a plain-faced post-wall hag can, without blinking, seriously, expect to find a man that makes more than two million dollars a year and that wants to marry her.

(So she can divorce him and magically, man's money becomes hers - it almost never works the other way, although we live in a PATRIARCHY, for some reason..)

.. So yeah, great movie.