If they truly intended it to be a neutral question, then they used a particularly bad choice of phrasing.

Most people understand the CIA is a tool of imperialist violence/authority, but framing that as “how does it feel to x” is clearly a condemnation of the association being pointed out, which in this case would only matter if that association itself in some way taints the topic it was brought up in response to… I.e. the definition of feminism by Steinem.

Sure, because they cared about controlling the direction of the political movement, same way they influenced the Civil Rights movement. But once again, unless they are implying that the definition of feminism as offered by Steinem, quoted above, is part of a CIA influence op, or tainted by their influence, then what’s the point of bringing that up?

Are you implying that feminism is a CIA initiative?

Absolutely.

If you’re a guy, you’ve heard guys talk about women when none are around. Maybe it’s coworkers, maybe it’s family, but the culture of misogyny is not some on-the-wane thing, it is alive and well.

Bruh, you done been black pilled.

Torn on this.

On the one hand, it’s great that Europe is building a coalition free(er) of US influence.

On the other hand, talking about admitting Canada and even possibly Australia as (pseudo) members despite being in no way Europe, certainly adds fuel to the perception that it’s less “European Union”, and more “White People Union”.

I hate to say it because I’m on the side of cars being both an effect and a cause of major negative social issues, but he’s right that you’re dismissing the fact that society forces people to interact with it as it dictates unless you have the money to force otherwise, whether that’s building a whole-ass off-grid house because you have the money, taking a helicopter instead of a car because you have the money, or taking a bike instead of a car because you have the time (which is only going to be the case if you have the money to not have to rely on a time-sensitive wage-based job).

The alternative is often being jobless, which usually means being unhoused, which has so many negative knock-on effects involved that it certainly should not be held up as a reasonable alternative.