Someone cleverly reversed the roles of women and men throughout history and it's simply a brilliant must-read.

If men put themselves into women's historical shoes for a hot second, how would they handle the heat?

Author and Twitter user extraordinaire, A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) shared a thread describing an alternate future where men experience the social and political reality that American women have experienced in the U.S.

It's brilliant.

"Try to imagine men's reactions," Moxon wrote, "if it was known for a fact the next 45 presidents would be women, and after those 240 years, a man running was considered 'identity politics.'

We would lose our entire minds."

Try to imagine men’s reactions, if it was known for a fact the next 45 presidents would be women, and after those 240 years, a man running was considered “identity politics.”

We would lose our entire minds.

We take women’s patience far too much for granted.

— A.R. Moxon (read pinned tweet) (@JuliusGoat) April 24, 2019

"We take women's patience far too much for granted," he added.

Indeed. First of all, I find it hilarious when men—white men in particular—decry "identity politics," since the reason white males have dominated U.S. politics is because they systematically excluded every other identity for centuries. Miss us with that, dudes.

Second, take a moment to imagine 45 female presidents in a row. Just let that sit for a minute. DANG.

Moxon then moved from the presidency to the Supreme Court to continue the point. Four out of 113 justices? Come on, now.

Try to imagine men’s reactions, were it known that of the next 113 SCOTUS justices, only 4 would be men, and none of those w/b appointed before 2205, and even then women’s complaints about male appointees would be “why don’t they just appoint the person best qualified?”

My God.

— A.R. Moxon (read pinned tweet) (@JuliusGoat) April 24, 2019

It's not just political positions. Women have legally been pushed down and held back in all kinds of ways.

Moxon elucidated his point by pointing out how men would feel if they were denied the right to vote and had their bodies regulated by the government.

Try to imagine men’s reactions if we weren’t allowed to vote from now until 2170.

And if even in 2270 women were passing laws in 28 states to catalogue our ejaculations and prosecute those deemed unnecessary.

Would that seem bad.

— A.R. Moxon (read pinned tweet) (@JuliusGoat) April 24, 2019

Then he pointed out the denial of higher education for completely ridiculous reasons...

What if it were known men wouldn’t be allowed into colleges for the next 100 yrs b/c women claimed it would make us go crazy and be bad for fragile penises.

But 100 years later 6 men would be elected to a 100 seat Senate and they’d call it The Year of the Man.

would that be ok?

— A.R. Moxon (read pinned tweet) (@JuliusGoat) April 24, 2019

...and the further ridiculousness of celebrating a tiny percentage of our country's Legislative Branch being made up of women.

(Quick history lesson: The Year of the Woman was 1992. Twenty-four women won House seats that year as well. Twenty-four out of 435, or about 5%. Not to take anything away from the women who won those seats, but that was what constituted the Year of the Woman? In 1992?? Good gracious.)

Oh, he wasn't done. There's more.

Ahem. I'll just leave this one right here.

What if we men knew there wouldn’t be a male candidate for the presidency for 240 years, and even then he’d lose to the 2260 version of Roseanne Barr, who’d been taped bragging about assaulting men during the campaign—but the media talked about what a scary time it was for women?

— A.R. Moxon (read pinned tweet) (@JuliusGoat) April 24, 2019

And after all of this unreal history, no iteration of the Equal Rights Amendment has ever been passed.

What if men needed a wife to own property for the next century or so.

Or to open a bank account?

And divorce is illegal.

But no fear, 100 yrs after that there’ll be a Constitutional Amendment declaring men are full people.

It’ll fail. But still—We’ve come a long way, baby!

— A.R. Moxon (read pinned tweet) (@JuliusGoat) April 24, 2019

But...but...nope. This history and legacy of gender inequality is ridiculous, and it's time to come to grips with it.

"I know, these are crazy hypotheticals," wrote Moxon. "Insane. It would never happen. It would be insane to treat a gender that way."

Yep.

"But if it did, wouldn't it matter?" he asked. "Wouldn't it need correcting? Man. We'd need to rethink everything."

I know, these are crazy hypotheticals.

Insane. It would never happen. It would be insane to treat a gender that way.

But if it did, wouldn’t it matter?

Wouldn’t it need correction?

Man.

We’d need to rethink everything.

— A.R. Moxon (read pinned tweet) (@JuliusGoat) April 24, 2019

Double yep.

Since mostly male legislatures continue to make dangerous decisions about women's health, too many people still can't fathom having a female president, and women still only make up 20% of congress a full 27 years after The Year of the Woman...yeah, we need to rethink everything.

Thank you, A.R. Moxon for making the point so beautifully.

from Upworthy https://u.pw/2PXiwsp