Why is PHILOSOPHY such a SAUSAGEFEST my m8 says it's the

>>7644101
It isn't, there have been a number of female philosophers - sure they aren't all household names, but they are out there.

>>7644101
every field involving extraordinariness will be dominated by men for more or less the reasons you gave
also just distribution of ability which results from the factors stated (more male retards; more male geniuses)

>>7644101
Sounds like you're projecting your mommy issues OP

>party arky
that's exactly it, unless you prove women are genetically less able to write philosophy, which you won't and can't do

>>7644112
yes, but they seem to be a tiny minority.

>>7644114
still, in most fields there's at least some amount of women. i mean there's been female novelists, scientists etc for some time now yet there are pretty few female philosophers. i'm wondering what's so explicitly male about the discipline of philosophy beyond what i've already stated.

>>7644118
you better fucking believe i am, but that doesn't mean there can be no validity to my observations

>>7644125
> you can't prove there's no god so there definitely is a god
anyways it really seems to me this is something that's less patriarchal suppression and more simply something that comes more naturally and easily to men. like, say, um, doing their hair, for women.

File: brownperson.png (121KB, 215x223px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 215x223px

>>7644140
>like, say, um, doing their hair, for women.
dat muhsoggynee

>>7644125
There is scientific and popular dispute about whether there are sex differences in cognitive abilities and whether they are relevant to the proportions of men and women who attain high-level achievements, such as Nobel Prizes. A recent meta-analysis (Lynn, R., and Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices: a meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481–498.), which suggested that males have higher mean scores on the general factor in intelligence (g), proved especially contentious. Here we use a novel design, comparing 1292 pairs of opposite-sex siblings who participated in the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY1979). The mental test applied was the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), from which the briefer Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores can also be derived. Males have only a marginal advantage in mean levels of g (less than 7% of a standard deviation) from the ASVAB and AFQT, but substantially greater variance. Among the top 2% AFQT scores, there were almost twice as many males as females. These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences in intellectual eminence.

>>7644148
we're not talking about intelligence in general.

>>7644140
there are many female philosophers
there are few at the absolute top for the aforestated reasons

>>7644151
intelligent people are more likely to come up with philosophical innovations
i posted that because it's all anyone can prove

>>7644152
>there are many female philosophers
the % of philosophesses amongst philosophizing people in general seems low. i don't see them at college, not as students and neither as professors. i'm not sure what kind of hidden mid-level-philosophical-class where women are plenty you would be referring to

>>7644160
fair enough

>>7644140
>doing their hair
>comes naturally
doing hair is a textbook example of a skill obtained through being socialized as female
how do you even know what philosophy is I have no idea

>>7644213
first and foremost it was a JOKE, you dope, but nonetheless: de-fucking-batable, mate. there's a plethora of studies that tend to show nurturing, caring behaviour is inherent to females rather than males. and i'm using the term females because this has been shown to be a tendency in humans as well as in our closest relatives (bonobos and other great apes). converesly, competetive and protective behaviour (protective as in stomping an unhinged wildebeest into the ground to save your peers from harm, rather than as in caring, nurturing) seems to be innate to males.

our bodies are built around this. men build muscle faster, women have a higher % of bodyfat. men have less pain receptors. women have (in some regards) better immune systems, their hearts are less susceptible to disease and failure; women are, simply put, more adapted to a sedentary, calmer, perhaps also more enduring lifestyle. by extension it makes sense women will tend to care about their body more, tendentially (in a cosmetic / ornamental way).

it's certainly not as clear an affair as you make it out to be.

>>7644140
Have you ever considered that women don't have an interest in philosophy?

When will the gender equality meme end?

>>7644245
Hopefully soon. It's getting really boring. Who a writer is is utterly secondary to what they have to say.

Try reading any philosophy but a woman and see

>>7644243
yeah but "why" is what i'm asking

>>7644245
it's a tool used by an elite to further divide the masses and seeing as inequality (economic and otherwise, not necessarily between genders) is growing: probably not anytime soon.

>>7644256
>any philosophy but a woman
no woman, but cry

>>7644101
>>7644258
Men seem to make better philosophers, leaders, and thinkers. Why? A more dominant personality, less of an inherent tendency towards submission, a more confrontational attitude, less governed by emotion... probably more, but that's just my guess.

>>7644258
>inequality is growing
You're wrong, anon. Income disparity has been narrowing since the 70s onwards. Please do some actual research before spouting ignorant opinions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg

>>7644264
oh boy you sure must feel proud of having a dick

>>7644101
Because the evil patriarchy is paying womyns 30¢ less than a man's dollar, severely crippling them and making them unable to think of good things.

>>7644277
Do you disagree that men tend to be better leaders and philosophers?

File: chart_rise_of_super_rich.top_.gif (12KB, 475x238px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 475x238px

>>7644270
> "do your research"
> posts a fucking TED link by some euro clown that is very vaguely related to the question at hand, at best
here's some shitty graph off google. that's all you get unless you back up your ludacrous claim with something other than a link to some popsci cabaret act.

Is philosophy a man's world?

>>7644258
Because they are less inclined to analytical and more to social.

>>7644291
not for long... stay in there bro, we can make it.

File: 10-26-15pov-f1[1].png (95KB, 938x890px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 938x890px

>>7644270
No, you're wrong.

>>7644287
>>7644325
Everyone's getting richer. The 1% may be raking it in but poverty is on the decline.

>>7644411
>everyone's getting richer
>at a completely different pace
>this is not inequality
"r"tard

>>7644413
Epic insult bro. Why is income inequality a problem when everyone is getting richer, just at different rates? We have less people in poverty by the year and you still manage to complain.

>>7644417
that wasn't even the point. what the fuck are you banging on about. this was all kicked off by
>>7644258
and makes sense in relation to it. jesus fucking christ.

>>7644419
It implied that the elite were shafting us despite the current system improving prosperity across all social classes.

>>7644421
implications yours, not mine

can we end this now

redpilled /r9k/-/pol/-hybrid coming through to lecture you brainwashed liberals:

Men are smarter than women. But not only that, but men are also more inscribed into the symbolic text than worthless whore women. Men can experience the true depth of subjectivity and its perils, and they are more able to experience the spiritual, ethical, and existential aspects of being human.

Women simply are not as human as men. They are more like animals. Like dogs, or children even. They cannot ever be as insightful or deep as a man, because their experience doesn't allow it. They simply cannot experience the depth of being human, because there's no depth to them.

They're only worried about looking hot to Chad (Chad means an alpha male with a massive cock, probably not an intellectual like me, but women don't care about that because they're stupid and worthless). If it were not for the vagina they would be worthless.

Let's face it; men built civilization while women rightfully should be kept as male property. That's the way it has worked and which has given us so many innovations and technological wonders. Women should know their place.

>>7644431
OP here, sorry to provoke this. really hope it's pasta.

>>7644441

any type of talk about women on any part of the internet provokes this though im pretty sure its pasta

>>7644441
>>7644450
I wrote it myself, you idiots.

Have you even read Schopenhauer's 'On Women'?

They deserve nothing but contempt, they're only concerned with cock and appearance. They cannot truly reflect on existence. This is a fact.

Women these days have taken upwards of 500 dicks by the time they're finishing up on high school.
Giving them the vote and allowing them to stray from their human nature as housewives is the greatest calamity to befall Western civilization.

See where the West is headed today. Women have sex with blacks and we're expecting to applaud it? Whiteness is disappearing, many men like me are not considered worthy of romantic relationships because we're not Chad Thundercock.

And romantic relationships? They don't exist any longer because of feminism. All women want is to exploit men financially and emotionally, because they're incapable of loyalty, trust, and true love.

They'll dump you the second Chad shows up, that's a fact.

>>7644456
>>>/r9k/

>>7644469
Actually /pol/ is my home board. Does the redpill trigger you, kid?

>>7644456

yes ive read schopenhauer, terrible appeal to authority and bunch of nonsense from yourself

>>7644473
get a life

>>7644474
>>7644476
>liberal-feminist 'argumentation'

Why am I not surprised. I bet you're butt bothered women too

>>7644417
Because that wealth is produced by all of us, yet only a few get the lions share.

>>7644495
The people at the top get paid more because they have a higher level of responsibility. A frycook isn't going to be burdened with debt if McDonald's goes under. Franchise owners and CEOs will.

>>7644469
>>7644476
>not one single refutation of his point
If it's so ridiculous, why don't you prove him wrong?

>>7644641
you seem to be unaware of what a corporation is designed to do
>>7644174
well then i dunno which uni you go to but the majority of my phil profs were women
however the majority of the profs teaching upper-level courses or graduate seminars were men
so the ones with a name were men, the well-paid grunts, women

>>7644643
it's not a question of wrong
he wrote in so cartoonish a fashion that i actually laughed and i can't believe it had any other purpose
if you believe our friend isn't a ruseman you engage him

discuss the history of philosophy on >>>/his/

>>7644101

first of all, the last thing that philosophy needs is a movie made by woody allen showing a male teacher taking advantage of his role as a father figure to a younger student in order to explore a sexual relationship with her.

secondly, actual person studying philosophy at the graduate/doctoral level here. i don't have time today to make a big debate but the OP is right, philosophy is a big sausage fest at the academic level. there are very well respected female philosophers but they are in the minority.

> i think it's more a certain love for the quantifiable and hence amassable (bitches, knowledge, power) inherent in men and missing in women. i think a big factor is conquering truth itself by persuading your folks to accept your philosophical terms and quirks (which have to be the biggest, baddest terms and quirks around) by means of being slightly smarter or at least more cunning than your barrel dwelling contemporaries

is a grade a bunch of horse shit and you should feel ashamed for thinking something as stupid as this. there are dozens of factors of why philosophy is male dominated, some of them pernicious and some of them banal. historically, philosophy has been male dominated so it's not like the tide is going to turn overnight. philosophy departments are mostly men, and in turn (in general) take male students on as phd candidates. it's better than it was but universities like Texas A&M have noticed this discrepancy and have basically made it ridiculously attractive to apply to there--they literally advertise that they 'highly encourage women and minority applicants' to apply to the program and offer them sex and race-based scholarships not available to cis scum like myself.

secondly, american philosophy has been dominated by analytic philosophy, which is very much a STEM kind of field and doesn't really attract women to the field.

third of all, there has been a great number of scandals in recent history of really shitty sexual abuse/discrimination/etc happening in philosophy departments, which has tarnished the reputation of american philosophy as a whole. there is a blog entitled "what it is like to be a woman in philosophy" or something out there. it's basically a tumblr-style roll call of complaining (there are writings both of the "microaggression" level of worth and also extremely articulate and disheartening stories obviously written by very intelligent and well-meaning women) but it is actually quite well known in the professional philosophy circle and is widely considered to be a very shameful topic.

anyways, typically horrible red-pill discussion as always on /lit/. hope you all can get outside some day

>>7644689
i think people don't understand how sexist academia really is, sure womyns got the literature dept on lock, but for a lot of shit it's a bunch of sexist dicks...i work in education and notice the stem guys are also teasing girls about how they suck at math or only get into grad school because they got affirmation action, but pervesely women love the guys who tease them like that and think it's so charming (on the other hand the muslim arabs who actually rub their shoulders and get in sneaky gropes creep them out) so it's weird, the STEM dudes are clearly sexist but unless a guy is physically rubbing his crotch against her ass, the chicks seem to think it's cool to be teased by some macho stem dickhead....so what do u want me to do about it? i'm just some humanities nerd, stem "geniuses" aren't going to listen to my scolding....

>>7644689
if you'd stop trying to ooze progressiveness you'd see you're not that far off from previously stated opinions, you just emphasize different things
>secondly, american philosophy has been dominated by analytic philosophy, which is very much a STEM kind of field and doesn't really attract women to the field.
you didn't emphasize this, but obviously this leads to why -- and the answer is hidden in the moderate "redpill" discussion (don't take cuntish trolls seriously, it makes you look retarded)
i know philosophy (and academia) in general teaches us to show oneself as different as possible but that's not a good way to actually have your opinions heard in normal situations

>>7644725

This is retarded. I'm not red-pill or any of that shit. I'm in drag school in a STEM but not in US so my views may be different. I literally have never seen someone tease girls that they can't into math. Not saying it doesn't happen but STEM people are the most autistic people I've met . They have no concept of teasing and that women like it.

Seriously now, what is in this age holding women from achieving great feats of artistic or scientific accomplishments. How long are people going to blame males for females lack of accomplishments. How about some personal responsability? I come from a very poor family and climbed the social ladder throw academics and I did it because I worked hard.

>>7644771

forgot to say that I didn't cry and blame my poor financial status on society, parent or other people.

It seems that if we were to say the road to success is filled with light stops, people think for men that road is filled with green light stops while for women it's filled with red ones. Which is bullshit, an kinda sexist, each individual person will have a road with a mix of red and green.

>>7644101
>thinks philosophy is about quantity l
>capitalism has infested his thinking at the most primal level

>>7644771
>I come from a very poor family and climbed the social ladder throw academics and I did it because I worked hard.
>worked hard

he fell for the i'm successful because i work hard meme, your success just comes the fact that ur a privileged cis white male

I'm sure there's some great female philosophers out there. Right now though I'm trying to read the classics and work my way through.

I detach philosophy from the gender/race/sexuality of the philosophers. These people are handling ideas much greater than our petty vanity, so I just don't believe it's important.

>>7644897
ain't judith butler a womyn? oh wait, she argues gender doesn't exist so maybe not

>>7644771
there's more to STEM than Computer Science you ridiculous nerd...engineers are macho as fuck, deal with it.

I study philosophy and while there are a few more men than women, percentage wise, the men are just as foolish as the women. From anecdotes, I found the top 3-5 people in class has solely been men, and I found that women tended to be more interested in 'feminist' issues. While women being as generally foolish as the men, but majorily women being interested in this, it comes off as if this discipline is muddy and non-critical.

My point is, a lot of sillyheads from class are interested in marcism, feminism and gender issues, but since they're generally unlogical, their presentation of the idea also comes out unlogical and incoherent.

Oh, but more women than men do homework religiously. That could be the party arky keeping women down, making them do what the authorities says (teacher), while it benefits them in the end

>>7644912
She can argue all she wants, it won't make it any more sure.

>>7644920

lol, engineers are some of the biggests autists ive ever met

>>7644920
I study philosophy and I'm going on exchange in the US next year. Ive only had philo courses here, but going to take math and Comp Sci over there.

I hate the current 'philosophy is a human science' meme

>>7644942
that's because ur a low test low sperm count homo so u only chill with other low test low sperm count homos

>>7644101
Because philosophy is love of knowledge and owning lots of shoes and getting perks for letting men cum in you isn't 'knowledge'.

All women care about are women. That's why.
>History Student: PHD in Gender Violence in Ancient Greece
>Scientist: Works in fertility/IVF research
>Philosopher: Gender and Queer theory

There are women philosophers out there, it's just that they deal with a shockingly narrow range of subjects. Women aren't really interested in anything that doesn't relate to their reproductive organs.

>>7644984
>Philosopher: Gender and Queer theory

I shuddered.

>>7644988
It's complete schlock but I'd say it counts as philosophy.

>>7644101
Women are inherently subjective. Men are too to some degree, but definitely have an easier time thinking objectively. That's a skill required for philosophy, which is why the most famous philosophers are all male.

File: fuckingdisgusting.jpg (306KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 2000x1000px

>>7644984
>PHD in Gender Violence in Ancient Greece

>>7644942
Oh man, I accidentally joined an engineering department for my masters. The 'spergs was off the charts.

>>7644101
it's mad that in easy a she played a character who was meant to be not attractive/popular. hate films that do that

>>7644994
Honestly strikes me as more of a sociology subject. In my Uni I think it's under sociology

>>7645016
>meant to be not attractive/popular
I think this is an exaggeration. She didn't come off as unpopular, she just wasn't one of the 'popular girls'.

>>7644101
Emma Stone looks so much better as a blonde omg

File: 1453475277167.jpg (158KB, 1080x1053px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1080x1053px

>>7644984
I hadn't given that much thought before.
It's not that women are majorily overrepresentated in women studies, but that the majority of women in e.g. philosophy are in women studies.

Means absolute shit though.

File: 139483627938.png (563KB, 569x802px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 569x802px

>>7644641
>A frycook isn't going to be burdened with debt if McDonald's goes under
>CEOs will

>>7644125
it's the opposite, unless you can prove scientifically that women are oppressed in the field of philosophy then it's a fact that they are less capable in the field

>>7644754

what the bloody fuck are you on about

>>7645117
>trying to use logic on a woman
stop oppressing her

>>7644413
Hey guys! It seems like someone in here might have thought inequality is a problem. The truth is probably more that we care about the prioritization of wellfare, rather than the relative distribution of it alone.

Imagine someone A being on a tall mountain and someone B being at sealevel. If A is injury prone due to lack of oxygen, and we have an oxygen tank, we should provide him with it, rather than B. Is that because A has less oxygen than B? Because A is higher, and therefore has it worse?

In some sense yes. But of course, A's problems would still be there even if B came up to the same altitude. If the Equality principle is true, we wouldnt need to help A if B got in the same position as him, but thats clearly not true. We need to help A because his needs are prioritized in the scenario.

>>7645138

this better be bait

>>7645149
It was more sarcasm than bait

>>7644984
This so fucking much

>in grad program
>80% women
>"what are you researching"
>History of Women's Cat Fancying in Victorian Britain
>History of Women's Confessional Literature
>History of Women Writers in the Spanish Revolution
>History of Women's Sexuality
>History of Women's Holocaust Narratives
>History of Women Musicians in Renaissance Italy
>find some of the people who have penises
>"what are you researching"
>Comparative medieval economics
>Interwar diplomatics
>Early modern military revolutions
>Methodology/theory
>Labor history
>History of higher education
>History of scholastic natural science

EVERY FUCKING TIME

>>7645188
It thought it was pretty funny.
It's a relief to get out of the PC bubble of uni

>>7645191
>History of women's cat fancying in victorian britain
Painfully accurate.
>>7645193
How bad is it where you study? Got any good stories?

women are more self centered
this has even been proven in studies, who compared male vs female comedians and the jokes for their topics. men usually had a wider variety of topics, while the women usually only talked about thinks that directly affected or related to them.

I thought lit was meant to be educated? What's with all the misogynist brodudes...

>>7645225
Do you think that's because of nature or nurture, m9?

>>7644101
you cant spell happenis without saying:

>>>>"Ha, Penis!!!!!!"

>>7644984
marie curie was amongst the first to research radioactivity.
rosalind franklin provided the necessary xray data to create the first model of DNA.
i only know one chick studying philosphy. she's doing her dissertation on something nietzsche related.

i'm a huge redpill by /lit/ standards but to say women havent done any work of importance in science is stupid.

Women don't want to do the philosophy and especially don't want an advanced degree in the philosophy because they feel that such intelligence will be intimidating or otherwise a turn off for a potential mate.

Conversely, men want to do the philosophy because they think women will want to have sex with them if they have an advanced degree in something trendy and continental.

This also explains why so many women philosophers are lesbians.

>>7645233
Most dudes harbour some level of annoyance at women. It isn't hard to make that annoyance surface.
>>7645235
Not him, but it's probably some of both (if you agree with his point, that is). People who say it's ONLY nature or ONLY nurture are looking at it from a black and white perspective.

>>7644148
>Among the top 2% AFQT scores, there were almost twice as many males as females

Ok, but even so, that means that there's something like a ~1.5:1 ratio of men:women at the upper levels, which still isn't seen at all in these fields. So even if men /are/ more intelligent, they're still highly overrepresented for extraneous reasons. To try and pin the absence of women in academia on innate lower intelligence is to ignore these extraneous possibilities, and thereby the ways in which nurture, rather than nature, may be a cause of the problem.

>>7645251
>marie curie was amongst the first to research radioactivit

she only got the research gig because of her husband and then ended up killing herself with radiation, pretty weak "feminist icon" brah

>>7645235
>sexual dimorphism is a modern construct
>gender roles didn't organically evolve from the different traits of humans in early hunter gatherer societies
>>7645251
Nobody said this, you're strawmanning. We're talking in generalisations, and the reason women ~~generally~~ don't contribute as much as men is because they tend to be more self centred. Exceptions to the rule don't disprove the rule, this is pretty elementary logic.

>>7645233
Here's where you're wrong. Being well-educated in your world = going through leftist institutions like college and university. That's brainwashing. If you drop out before being too brainwashed by the Judaic-feminists Marxists that run such institutions, then you'll find that you're closer to truth. And coming to places like /r9k/ and /pol/, and among other dropouts, you'll see the light. There are infographics that are distinctly anti-academic (i.e. non false) and you'll find that all the beliefs that are natural to so-called "uneducated" people, i.e. that men are inherently superior to women, that whites are inherently superior to non-whites, and that a certain group of Bolshevik-Jews run the world. Capitalism would function without contradiction and class struggle if only it weren't for the lizardian Jews. Now these redpilled people have soon ousted the Marxists from 4chan, and driven them back to plebbit. This is where you find the true intellectuals of our time. But those that aren't validated by liberal marxism in universities.

>>7645251
They have, that's not what he's saying; he's saying they have contributed significantly less. The ones that have contributed are more outliers.

>>7645265
Is that greentext implying that it's both or...? Sorry, a bit confused.

>>7645271
Bro I'm closer to for you than against you, but you sound like a pretentious right cunt. You think way too highly of yourself.

>>7645278
I'm saying that gender roles are largely a result of innate biological differences between men and women, though I will concede that there will be the occasional example of an exemplary woman being held back by these (organically based) gender roles.
>>7645289
He's clearly memeing

>>7645265
>they tend to be more self centred.
every human being is. it just shows differently. you could just as well argue women are much less self centered because they tend to be more caring and more nurturing. whatever you think about the syrian refugee crisis, most of the helpers were women.

>>7645274
fair enough

>>7645293
men aren't self-centred. Men are loving and giving, whereas women only care about themselves.

This is biological fact and has been demonstrated by science again and again

>>7645308
why do i even read these fucking threads

>>7645293
Helping the Syrian "refugees" is hardly a selfless act, it's virtue signalling of the highest order. It shows a lack of insight and a desire to appear compassionate above all else. Convincing people to cross the Mediterranean in rubber dingies is not humanitarian. Nor is enabling the sexual abuse of the locals because you were too browbeaten by the press to engage your critical thinking skills. For the record, it's a migrant crisis, not a refugee crisis. A large portion of these migrants aren't even from Syria.

>>7645314
>Why do I reply to b8?
FTFY

>>7645318
i lolled when i saw that all the muslim rapists in germany were from places like morrocco and turkey not syria, so much for "regugees", also HOW THE FUCK can a male of military age be a refugee? you ain't a refugee u coward, ur a fucking DESERTER, defend yo homeland bish

>>7645318
This. If a woman does a charitable act or an ostensible act of care towards other people, it's solely for status and to post it on facebook or get validation.

If a man does the same, it's because man is an ethical being. Women simply aren't.

Here's my take.

Historically, say up to the late 19th century, it was expected for women to just take care of the home and the children, therefore not encouraging them to work on a phylosophical treaty or leaving much free time for it. Remember that writing was still mostly done by rich people with tons of leisurery hours and trips then. Since this was the expected behaviour, even if there were women reflecting on the philosophical issues of the day (which there likely were), they would not have been published, and thus no documents of those women remain to our days. SO up to that point the "patriarchy keeping da womyn down" argument is accurate.

Then in the beginning of the 20th century many female philosophers were published and for people interested in modern philosophy they are as well known as the male counterparts.

So why are there no notable female philosophers today? I reckon for the same reason that there are no notable philosophers altogether. They exist but they aren't exposed to the public, because as positivism has risen to the category of collective religion of our civilization (talking about industrial capitalist civilization here) philosophy has retreated into a few fairly obscure corners: epistemiology, ethics of medicine and biology, fringe anarchism and totalitarianism, transhumanism, etc. Older philosophical themes were more pressing as they dealt with daily life subjects, and so influential/well exposed people (businessmen, politicians, psychologists, etc) got into it. I.e. older philosophy has more marketing appeal.

In my opinion, these newer obscure subjects simply attract a kind of single minded personality which has nothing to do with gender and is rare to find altogether.

>>7645318
>>7645333
the amount of mental gymnastics you niggers do is breathtaking.

>>7645333
>If a man does the same, it's because man is an ethical being. Women simply aren't.

the funny thing though is that all the "red pill" fedora men always want to find a woman who is their "equal" or something, even the most liberal chadberg knows women are never going to equal men, so just accept that they are weak and you will have to care for them, everyone KNOWS this, we just don't say it out of politeness to let women save face, now stop being gauche, we all know women are useless, but we're polite...

>>7645333
I would argue anyone of any gender involved in helping the "refugees" was a self centred asshole interested solely in virtue signalling. I should clarify that I do believe women are capable of genuine charity, but the migrant crisis is a terrible example. Not to mention, my original point was about women in academia. They're only interested in studying subjects directly related to women and womanhood.
>>7645342
Nice canned response. You have no argument to counter my point on the migrant crisis.

>Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

>This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.

>>7645342
It's true. The amount of self righteousness on the left is incredible. They don't really care about anyone else outside of some superficial feeling of being altruistic and "sticking it to the man."

>>7645352
>I do believe women are capable of genuine charity

Good one, cuck

>>7645367
HAHAHA, BASED FUCKING SCHOPENHAUER

worthless roasties ABSOLUTELY BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

BTFO. LIBERALS GO HOME

>>7645352
>Nice canned response. You have no argument to counter my point on the migrant crisis.
you had no argument to begin with, you had opinions. to take a "it's nature" position then go on to say women are definitely, without a doubt less selfless is idiotic. you're seeing everything through your rosy redpill glasses. if you were honest with yourself you could come up with a dozen examples of how men can very well be more selfish on the spot.

your whole problem is that you are quite willing to rationalize any potentially selfless act by a women into something selfish while you fully accept your delusional romantic image of the ethical man with even reflecting upon it for a second.

this is my last post. have fun typing out that witty elaborate rebuttal.

>>7645390
Are you deliberately misinterpreting my post? I was talking about academia, women frequently choose "women-centric" fields of study over other areas.
>this is my last post
Oh, okay then.

>>7645405
it's because their brains don't lend themselves well to serious fields. They aren't as equipped intellectually because of their biology.

Tell me: If men were to start doing work in those fields, do you not think women would soon be rendered superfluous and cucked out of the field?

>>7645251
>but to say women havent done any work of importance in science is stupid.
Good thing that's not at all what was said, but I guess you'd need reading comprehension to know that.

>>7645420
Whoa there buddy, you said that other post was your last post. Hate to be the meme police but a promise is a promise. See you in another shitpost thread, thanks for playing

>>7644984
Thank feminism for that.

>>7644101
I'll be honest, I really want to go for Joaquin's look in that film when I'm in my 40s.

read this if you are serious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_white_men

>>7645483
what "look" wearing a lacoste polo? why wait till ur 40 bro u can get one of those macy's for 50$ right now

File: 1454010325302.png (21KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 900x900px

>>7645496
>that's a real fucking wikipedia page

>>7645496
>literally dismissing the entirety of western canon because you hate whitey
What's it like being a chauvinist?

>>7645496

>criticism of great man theory gets lumped in with that crock of shit

wikipedia is terrible sometimes

>>7645528

Criticism of great man theory is about as valid as DWM

>>7645541

lol great man theory is rightfully disregarded

File: 1454051176641.png (230KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 640x360px

>>7645556

>>7645556
>I get all my opinions from my professor: the post

>>7645588
This.

>2016
>not getting your opinions from unsourced infographics and .jpgs on /pol/

>>7645700
>Everyone who disagrees with me is from /pol/
Keep on digging that hole anon.

>>7645704
Bit of banter lad, calm yourself

>>7645117
>Applying Aristotelian scientific methods in 2016
>Disregarding that it's probably an emergent phenomenon caused by a number of social factors

Nice one

>>7645335
I feel like my post was a bit underrated but w/e

>>7645836
reads like a dumb whore female roastie

>>7645836
there's been significant brain drain in the latter half of the thread. i wouldnt worry about it.

>>7645879
That's liberals for you

>>7645865
thanks for the input

>>7645879
ok

Women are braindead