Why aren't women interested in femininity anymore?

File: 1428085531014.jpg (19KB, 500x327px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x327px

it takes commitment

(?)

Some girls are still
come to california where everyone is cute

Because men are such pussies these days that we have to step into their role.

They are. You must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.

>>17680507
Sure they are. But they're also interested in redefining the hell out of it until it's not clear what exactly "femininity" entails.

there gay lol

>>17680507
What is your definition of femininity?

>>17680507
They are being manipulated by the media
Women don't have a lot of experience with the whole working, voting and managing your finances yet that's why they are less likely to get loans by the banks
Who could blame them? We men had thousands of years of preparation, there isn't any affirmative action to life

>>17680521
This

It's too vague to answer meaningfully.

Men are all about femininity until they wake up one day and realize that their wife/girlfriend has essentially turned into the same woman as their mom. The woman they fell in love with is no more instead, in her place, is a doting maternal woman just like your mom used to be. That is the future of your hyper feminine woman. Will you be ok with that?

>>17681313
"I never want to be like my parents", the post.

>>17680507

Liberal Progressive SJW movement with their retarded gender views, and wacky gender roles. (Fine with women working, voting, etc.)

Personally I find femininity in a woman beyond beautiful and endearing and attractive.

This shit with chicks acting like dudes and getting buzz cuts and earrings and piercings all over to be disgusting and wearing some weird ass punk clothing to be off putting as hell.

Inb4 personal tastes.

File: 1476554377901.jpg (9KB, 210x255px)

9KB, 210x255px

Maybe it's different out of college, but most women I meet seem to be obsessed with shit like Broad City and other millennial shit. The new fad is to be "alternative", even though everyone else is doing it so it's actually mainstream.

>>17681313
Sounds like you have your own issues if you conflate the mother of your children, with your actual mother. Besides, my mother wasn't exactly very feminine anyways.

>>17680507
What? All girls do now is fuck, party and watch netflix.

Where did things go wrong...

Because putting up with men's bs, vanity, and unreliability isn't worth it, and it's easier to be your own man.

>>17680507
Because by femininity, you mean servility, and most people want to be independent in some way.

Most girls are still interested in the things that define "feminine" to most of society, but also want to be able to be independent and do whatever they want. Same as most guys are still into things considered "masculine", but don't want to have kids at 20, then spend the rest of their lives working to support the family. People want to be independent, and to enjoy life generally.

I used parenthesis because people have differing definitions, too, not because I don't think they're valid constructs.

>>17681436
I wish I could find a straightforward girl like you.

All the ones I ever meet are self indulgent narcissistic social network freaks.

>>17680521
And super duper hos

>>17682067
We are out there, you just need to look at places where people are doing something actually useful and productive. The girls you described were immature adolescents full of insecurities. A lot of them will grow out of it, a lot of them won't.

They are, it's only that men are in general such pussies nowadays. They'll go feminine for the right alphas.

>>17680507
I just like skirts dude.
Now is hell to find em even in summer

>>17680507
why dont u stop generalizing women?

>>17681313
of course I would want the mother of my children to act that way.

>>17680507
Because they no longer need men to survive, and white knights force other men with guns, and rape to subsidize the women who would otherwise be dead or ostracized in previous civilizations.

>>17680507
Good question, but first we need to ask. What is femininity?

We all know what masculinity means, but we don't know what femininity is or what it means to be a woman. That's why we are confused.

most of the women i know are feminine. its only really the edgy hambeast metal girls who are not from my experience

File: 1476553707525.jpg (106KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 604x604px

>>17680507
No fucking clue. I miss women wearing skirts and dresses so bad. I'm ok with yoga pants though.

>>17681372
>This shit with chicks acting like dudes and getting buzz cuts and earrings and piercings all over to be disgusting and wearing some weird ass punk clothing to be off putting as hell.

This so much. Not to mention them being gross and burping and farting in front of you and thinking that it's cute. I'm a dude and even I don't do that shit.

>>17683359
If you dont burp and fart in front of people trust me you're not a dude

>>17683389
You're right, you're a human being that wasn't taught proper respect or manners.

>>17680507
women are interested in femininity when it benefits them.
See, e.g.:
>women shouldn't approach men
>women shouldn't take initiative
>women shouldn't ask men out
>women shouldn't make the first move
>women shouldn't be assertive
>etc.
Personally I'd take a girl with hairy pits and no makeup if she actually accepted two-way equality and getting rid of gender roles, but obviously that's not a thing. The problem is women want equality when it benefits them but traditional gender roles when those go in their favor

>>17683431
Holy fuck this. Every feminist I know, EVERY FUCKING ONE, supports traditional gender roles in dating when benefits her. They'll bitch about "muh patriarchy" and "muh traditional gender roles" all day but when it comes down to it, literally ALL of them still think men should have to ask women out and be assertive and take all the initiative. Complain about femininity all you want but women put WAY more pressure on men to be masculine than the other way around

>>17680507
Some women are, some women aren't.
Some men wear cargo shorts, polos, and boat shoes, while some wear T-shirts with a Skyrim logo and denim jeans.
Everyone is entitled to like what they like.
I know a lot of girls don't wear dresses/skirts because 1) It's autumn and cold. 2) You are considered unheigenic and unfeminine if your legs have hair on them and are exposed.
Personally I don't bother shaving my legs because I just get razor burn (the hair is blond and straight, but I shave my labia majora, anal area, armpit hair, and arm hair around once every week or teo), and I wear skirts occasionally in the summer, but lots of girls I know see it as "shave or wear jeans".

>>17683446
This is me >>17683451
I don't feel this way, I think?
I'll talk to my boyfriend first, tell him issues without making him play 20 Questions: Angry Girlfriend Edition, and I ask him questions about his day and everything without him asking me first.
Personally, I am more submissive, but I don't think feminism necessarily means you should be dominant. To me that aspect more so means a woman should be able to be dominant in a relationship (ie breadwinner) without it being looked down upon. That being said, I also support men who prefer submissive roles, such as a stay at home father. I'd rrally consider being in that situation if my career was very important to me and my partner really wanted that. But I don't feel this is a taboo issue since stay at home dads have become more norm.
I also think if a woman/man want to be in a stereotypical I Love Lucy marriage, great! Everyone should have the right to pursue the consenting relationships they want without being judged.

Anyway, women with double standards? Yes.
I support the equal rights act which will take away women's privledges in divorce. I HATE womrn getting special privledges because of our gender, as if we need it. It's so pathetic. And the same goes for "minorities". I don't think minorities should recieve special privledges either. I think everyone should be regarded equally, except when considering a child's financial income for example for a scholarship. Does that make sense?
Just trying to clarify not all feminists believe women are superior and wish Amazonian society took over. Some, such as myself, really want equality.

>>17680669
Women's fault.

We're not allowed to do any of the traditionally manly shit like rape and pillage or smack a woman for giving you lip or work jobs that actually get your hands dirty and make you feel like a man because a "real" man is first and foremost supposed to be able to provide her security (a.k.a. buy her shit) and the only way to make a decent living anymore is with office wagecuck jobs or being a doctor, lawyer, or investment banker and punching someone in the streets over an argument is assault now rather than two men fighting it out like men and what's the point of treating her like a lady when feminism has made it not only acceptable but basically her duty as a woman who doesn't settle for less than everything she wants to spread her wings (and her legs) far and wide and have every right to let you take her out for dinner so she feels like a special snowflake and then go sleep with some fuck boy one hour later but that's okay because men do it so why shouldn't she be able to even though it requires zero effort on her part and how dare you call her a whore because no one is allowed to make her FEEL that way and slut shaming is a part of rape culture and she wants a man that gets that and knows that feminism is just about equality and certainly in no way about embittered man-hating complacency masquerading as activism and you need to be sensitive to that and emotionally mature and in tune with your feelings and hers but not TOO sensitive because she still wants you to be the five o'clock shadow wearing 8" dick strong silent type when she wants a masculine touch in her life because its so much energy playing at being a man and enjoying all the privileges of it while also being completely allowed to comfortably retreat to feminine ineptitude, emotional outpourings, or general unaccountability whenever she feels like wearing a skirt is better suited to getting what she wants than wearing pants.

>>17683477
>boyfriend
How did he become your boyfriend? Did you approach him? Did you make the first move? Did you ask him out on the first date or did you think he should ask you out because he's the man? You waited for him to ask you out didn't you? Because like most feminists you support traditional gender roles when it suits you, and he would never be your boyfriend if he wasn't more assertive than you, because you think men should be assertive

>means a woman should be able to be dominant in a relationship (ie breadwinner) without it being looked down upon.
>should be able
>implying this is a right women need or want
99% of women don't want that and neither do ~50% of men. True equality wouldn't ask for the RIGHT to be dominant but the RESPONSIBILITY to take as much initiative as you expect

>Just trying to clarify not all feminists believe women are superior and wish Amazonian society took over. Some, such as myself, really want equality.
Just to clarify, aside from very rare exceptions, YES (almost) all feminists do believe women should be treated better than men and have less responsibilities than men. You may not want an Amazonian society but the vast majority of you still want all the rights but none of the responsibility. Until I see feminists asking men out on dates and taking the initiative I will assume your movement is full of shit. Male egalitatians and MRAs actually want to get rid of traditional gender roles and most of them want to date women that treat them like equals. NONE of the feminists I know want full equality in a relationship. Nor do any of them want to admit that traditional gender roles continue to exist because WOMEN want them, not men

>>17683486
>its so much energy playing at being a man and enjoying all the privileges of it while also being completely allowed to comfortably retreat to feminine ineptitude, emotional outpourings, or general unaccountability whenever she feels like wearing a skirt is better suited to getting what she wants than wearing pants

Western women in a nutshell. Get yourself a FOB asian cutie. So much better.

File: yhw52dq.jpg (105KB, 1311x338px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1311x338px

>>17683486
KEK pic-related is you isn't it?

>I would never date a man who treated me like an equal but I think it's ok for OTHER women to date guys that treat her like an equal
t. Every Fucking Feminist

You're the reason traditional gender roles exist, not the """Patriarchy"

>>17683502
I responded to him online. He posted looking for a girl into a certain kink that is looking for a romantic relationship. Sent him a message with pics of me and some info and we eventually exchanged numbers.
I initiated meeting because one of my college classes was cancelled and he got off work around that time and I saw it as a good opportunity.

I consider myself a feminist and egalitarian though. I think feminism is a branch off of that, just like equality among races. Sure, some black people feel that they are superior to white people (Black Lives Matter, Black Panthers), but not everyone believes that. Not all Muslims want to kill the whitie Christians.
You're talking about extremists, in my opinion.

>>17683537
Meant to reply to >>17683477

>>17683541
What? I just meant I'm submissive like as a kink...So in bed. I want to be treated as an equal outside of that realm.

>>17683541
Also. I never said anything about a patriarchy. I believe men have disadvantages in society as well.
For example, I'm really anti-circ because it's illegal to cut off a baby girl's clit (the anatomical equivilent to foreskin), but men are referred to as disgusting by men and women if they are uncircumcised. It is a fucked up tradition considered a "passage of manhood". Yeah, being raped on your wedding night at 13 was also a passage of womanhood, but people don't do that anymore either huh?
I also think it's fucked up how unless a mother is a meth addict, she'll get full custody of children and then suck her ex husband dry and purposefully not get married to keep getting money. (My ex was a divorcee whose wife did this, minus the kids. Also my mom's friend purposefully bought expensive shit while getting divorced so he'd pay for it. She also has a PhD and refuses to give up her housewife life even though her sons are in highschool)
And yes, I think it's fucked for women to expect gifts and never give them.

>>17683540
>feminist and egalitarian
If you're a pro-egalitarian feminist then you're definitely in the minority, most feminists hate egalitarians. Being an egalitarian means you agree that sexism against men is a serious issue, which is as anti-feminist as it gets. If you're being honest you sound like a Christina Hoff Sommers "equity feminist" type, which aren't very popular among most feminists

>>17683540
Messaging him first already puts you ahead of 90% of feminists, most of them won't even do that.
Initiating meeting gets you ahead of 99% of feminists, because I have literally NEVER met a feminist who's willing to accept that responsibility. Good for you but don't kid yourself, very very few feminists or women in general would ever initiate meeting a man like that. I know guys that are legit Chads and have still never been asked out

Femininity is kind of a moving target. If you're asking why it's not like it was in the early 60's with housewives, I think the answer comes down to money.

>>17683537
Also, my boyfriend isn't aggressive. He is a nurse who makes average income and isn't ripped. He's actually a liiittle bit chubby.

Sorry for triple posting. Just kinda upset me with everyone assuming.

Anyway, my point is
I wear skirts and dresses when I'm not on my period (very sensitive to cold when I am), it is warm, not raining (gets cold), and I don't feel like having my legs constrained.
I'm really into the faux suede skirt trend and I have maybe 5 of those kind? lol. In the warmer months, I sometimes will wear them half the time.
I like skirts, and I don't shave my legs to wear them (because honestly who's looking at my legs or cares what a stranger thinks of their legs)
HOWEVER, many girls I am either friends with or just acquaintances with sort of acknowledge my legs having hair and tell me they'd never wear a skirt without shaving. Even if it's day-old prickle. I've even heard girls apologize to me because I looked at their legs and apparently there was stubble (not that I could tell).
I don't believe in le patriarchy lelele because this isn't thr dark ages.
I just think some girls are stupidly self conscious about dumb things that don't matter (like butt size or boob size or a tenth of a millimeter of hair on their legs)
Why? Well, why do some men feel they need to be /fit/ to attain a girl? I'm not talking like...stop being obese, I'm talking washboard abs. (Which I find very unattractive. It just comes off as being self absorbed.)
It's just a popular image of feminity and masculinity.
And although skirts are feminine, shaving your legs takes like half an hour. And if you do it every night before you wear a skirt, it gets exhausting.
I'm not saying a girl HAS to, but a lot feel they should.
That's just how it is.

>>17683587
Feminism means equality between men and women. That's literally the textbook definition.
Why wouldn't that fall under egalitarianism?
Why wouldn't I point out discrimination?
It's like saying you believe in racial equality but only believe in black-targeted crime.

>>17683606
Have you ever talked to a feminist? Yeah feminists claim they support gender equality. And most people on /pol/ claim they aren't racist. That's why we don't take people at their word. In reality, most feminists hate equality. You can point to dictionaries all you want but in practice feminists have typically been opposed to MRAs and egalitarians because most feminists don't think sexism against men exists. And the few feminists who break away and want equality for all, like Christina Hoff Sommers, are hated by mainstream feminists.

Anyways I have to go to bed but you should seriously reconsider calling yourself a feminist. Feminism is incompatible with egalitarianism. CHS calls herself a feminist because she was a feminist 50 years ago, but unless you're also 70 years old you have no reason to cling to a word that hasn't meant equality for decades

>>17683606
A lot of people on here have a real grudge against feminism, so obviously take whatever you read on here with a grain of salt -- frankly, I'm sure you already were going to. I'm not telling you to uncritically accept what >>17683640 etc is saying.

But please realize: a lot of feminists ARE pretty deeply opposed to terms like 'egalitarian.' Saying "I don't really consider myself a feminist, but I am an egalitarian" or even "I consider feminism just one branch of egalitarianism" would be deeply offensive to quite a few. If you're really interested I can point you to a couple of articles saying exactly that. I'm not just talking out of my ass.

Their reasons for feeling this way are varied but a reasonably fair summary might be: "the patriarchy/privilege/sexism still heavily favors men, and terminology like 'egalitarian' draws a false equivalency between the minor disadvantages that men face and the serious ones women face."

If you can see how that might make a lot of men (and some women) raise their hackles, well, that's part of why it's hard to get men to identify as feminists.

>>17683640
>>17683606
>>17683690
Feminism has never meant equality. You're just in the bargaining stage of denial to believe, for instance, that first wave feminists weren't the SJWs of their time.

Equality between the sexes already exists naturally. Feminism is just the expression of a societal deathwish. Deatomisation.

>>17683690
To prove my point, you utter a statement like "the patriarchy still favours men" (I know you were paraphrasing but you presumably agree with it), but it doesn't seem like those are the words coming out of a particularly thoughtful person's mouth, because we'll what would the world even look like without patriarchy?

It wouldn't exist. Civilisation is patriarchy.


Same thing as with religion and how people oftentimes will bring up the correlation between for example Christianity and historical violence/oppression. Well, Christianity alone was responsible for constructing 99% of the modern world.


You people are fish in water. Feminism as a proposition is bogus.

>>17683690

>You're really interested I can point you to a couple of articles saying exactly that. I'm not just talking out of my ass.
Not them and I believe you but I've been asked for sources before and didn't have any so I'd like the links if you don't mind thanks

>>17683703
Your whole post is shit
>Equality already exists naturally
Are you retarded?
And many early second wave feminists like CHS, Warren Farrell, and Karen Decrow did support equality. But obviously other feminists had different ideas

>>17683690
Yeah. I know a lot of men hate feminists becausethey chalk it up to "man haters" and feminists chalk up egalitarianism to "woman haters". Christians chalk up Muslims to Christian-haters, Muslims chalk up Christians to Muslim-haters.
It's a never ending cycle. Of course people won't like people who supposedly don't like their people! Lol
Good luck to some of you being alone in life alongside the man-hating straight women.
You're just as bad as them when you stoop as low as to insult strange women online via assumptions you pull from a stereotype.
Sounds familiar to some extremist women calling all men (fill in the blank)
Whatever. This is so off topic.
Everyone just love eachother and tell your girlfriend she doesn't have to shave to wear a skirt/dress/shorts.
/thread

>>17683703
>>17683720
Odd how you instantly assumed I myself was a feminist. Why?

I'm not even going to get into the rest of your post right now, but I'd really appreciate an answer to that one question, if you're still reading this thread.

>>17683736
> /threading your own post because you're such an obnoxious asshole social conditioning to you is literally air

>>17683751
I was under the impression you were explaining to the other guy why 'egalitarian' is not feministic in enough to supplant 'feminism' as the official moniker.

>>17683733
I am definitely interested to know why you'd call that retarded!

I am guessing it's because you have not gone the full way with it yet.

>>17683755
Reread the post. I don't think I said anything that implied I *agreed* with that stance. If anything, I think my last two paragraphs were lightly critical of it (and of feminism, or at least some feminists).

>>17683733
Here are a few, with particularly relevant bits quoted.

https://www.progressivewomensleadership.com/feminism-why-not-egalitarianism-or-humanism/
>It’s called Feminism because the gender being denied personhood and subjected to oppression is female

https://usilive.org/opinions/why-i-call-myself-a-feminist-and-not-an-egalitarian/
>For men, being a feminist means acknowledging that they are the winners of a discriminatory system. It means realizing that they have been sexists and enjoyed their gender privileges … I believe it is important to keep the word feminism ... we will only be free from patriarchy when men will accept to be called feminists.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/feminism-vs-egaltarianiam
>It is my personal belief that referring to the movement for women’s rights as feminism serves to remind us that this fight is about women. I feel that the term "egalitarianism" erases women from the picture. Calling this movement "feminism" reminds us who is to benefit from the reform.

https://youngvagabond.com.au/feminism-vs-egalitarianism-whats-the-difference-and-why-does-it-matter/
>Calling yourself an egalitarian instead of a feminist might seem like a noble stance ... However, taking this kind of non-confrontational position can be at best hypocritical, and at worst, counterintuitive to the pursuit of equality.

http://fembotmag.com/2015/02/06/so-if-its-for-everyone-why-is-it-called-feminism/
>Many people argue that feminism should change its name to something more inclusive, but why? Why do we need change the name of a movement, which benefits everyone, that happens to have a feminine connotation, just to appease people who cannot stand that a movement is not just focused around them?

>>17683800
Pop quiz hot shot how can you not be a feminist if you're knee deep in these feminist articles you cited.

That's like fighting a war against war.

Addendum to be clear: I'm not claiming the authors of those pieces are representative of feminism as a whole. None of them are particularly fringe, though, either, and I could have easily linked half a dozen other similar pieces if not for the 2000-char limit. It's also worth noting that a couple seconds' googling finds a slew of other articles written by feminists who have absolutely no problem with the term 'egalitarian' etc -- I'm not saying that ALL feminists feel this way by any means, just that some of them do.

>>17683812
Mate why do you care what feminists feel.

It's literal autism. To even give any credence to the distinctions they attempt makes you yourself autistic.

That's how I'm gathering that you're a feminist.

>>17683810
Five seconds and a search engine, dude. Granted, I was confident I'd find plenty of articles like that because I've read many similar articles on feminist sites in the past.

I was pretty interested in Norse mythology and medieval Scandinavia in middle school. I'm not a viking, though. See how that's possible?

>>17683829
One thing is culture, the other is ideology. Literally opposites.

>>17683800
>It is my personal belief that referring to the movement for women’s rights as feminism serves to remind us that this fight is about women. I feel that the term "egalitarianism" erases women from the picture. Calling this movement "feminism" reminds us who is to benefit from the reform.
See, if they're at least consistent I can accept that sort of logic even if I think it's retarded.

But I can't help but think of this lecture some feminists shut down via shit like pulling fire alarms. Some guy went to this lecture to figure out why his friend committed suicide, and one of the protestors started screaming about how feminism cares about male problems.

At the same time these people are reaffirming the fact that womens problems come first. So if you're out to resolve male problems, why would you ever go to feminism?

>>17680507
I don't care about the rest of the fighting in this dumb thread. But I'll add my two cents by saying that how much femininity I bestow on a man depends on how much I trust him... for many in society now treat feminine qualities such as grace, empathy, affection and motherly nurture as if it was a weakness... and readily take advantage of it. I offer my submissiveness to a man who will realize that it is a gift and not something to be taken for granted.

>>17680507

When you say women, which women are you referring, certainly not the ones you know.

>>17683867
Do you honestly think it's supposed to make sense?

I'm confused. I see guys like this often and it's like they've just got no clue. Like have you ever been around a woman before? They do not use language or thought in this way, where everything is supposed to ultimately be consistent.

They throw things at you. They do not hand them over.

>>17683845
I have absolutely no idea how you figure that, or how it's even supposed to be relevant. Have you ever had a conversation before?

I'm not sure why you're so bent on untangling my WEB OF LIES and proving that I'm SECRETLY A FEMINIST, but I'll save you the trouble. I'm not one. I deliberately don't call myself one or associate with feminism as a movement for a whole host of reasons, none of which I'm going to get into here or now. Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you want from that statement.

>>17680507

What does this question even mean?

>>17683876
>Like have you ever been around a woman before? They do not use language or thought in this way, where everything is supposed to ultimately be consistent.
I feel like my experiences are not standard since the few women I do hang out with, are other competent STEM fags.

>>17683879
Man I'm just giving you a heads up that even paying attention to feminism is harmful. That's all. Of course I'm not trying to tell you you're somehow a feminist if you don't think yourself one. I was making a point.

Well i like women that look like women....and havr attractive features but with more of a guy atittude and style....

>>17683885
Hate to say it but if a woman in your eyes is competent in your field, generally speaking that means you aren't.

Like the abuse of thinking is still there, it would just be more subtle, which means you yourself lack subtlety. Think on it.

>>17683889

Would you be offended if a woman said they like men who looked like men....cause as I recall you call those kind of men "Chads" over here and whine about them all day.

>>17683892
How old are you?

File: 1463137905420.jpg (29KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x480px

>>17683892
>Hate to say it but if a woman in your eyes is competent in your field, generally speaking that means you aren't.
They're maintaining a 3.5+ GPA. I'm fairly confident in their abilities, and I don't think that reflects negatively on me.

>>17683901
Adhering to a gender role in appearance is hardly the same thing has having a large sexually dimorphic face or body.

>>17683909
29.

That doesn't mean so much. Women are submissive so diligence comes naturally for them when it involves affairs which require no real brainpower (coursework the perfectly rote example).

>>17683912
Meant to link you there.
>>17683919

>>17683880
Are you serious? You have to be either a kid who has no concept of generational culture shifts, or have no experience with women whatsoever in order to NOT realize women aren't as feminine as they used to be.

Being feminine as a woman now is looked at as being weak, or "failing" somehow. Op, keep in mind this is largely a westernized way of thinking. As an American who has traveled the world and lives in Europe, I can tell you this isn't as big of a problem in any other country besides America - from my experience anyway.

Conversely, being masculine as a male in America is also frowned upon, which upsets the fuck out of me. If you are masculine as a male, you are looked at as brutish and arrogant, just for being confident and wanting to be the leader in a situation. But you know what? If you really are masculine, you won't care about the opinions of others. It upsets me that so many men are 'allowing' themselves to be held back from being masculine, but I couldn't care less how upset people get from my own actions.

>>17683919
Largely* sexually

>>17683919
You write like a teenager.

I'm not convinced you're actually that old, but if you are, you plainly don't have enough life experience, and you're frankly not smart enough, to be making statements like
>if a woman in your eyes is competent in your field, generally speaking that means you aren't.
or really to say any of the things you've said.

File: 1436936129889.png (73KB, 201x226px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 201x226px

>>17683919
>Women are submissive so diligence comes naturally for them when it involves affairs which require no real brainpower (coursework the perfectly rote example).
I'd love to see you take a course in Dynamics or some such.

>>17683930
Someone's insecure.

Spend a little less time away from your phone. Maybe then you'll start writing like me.

>>17683935
Dynamics is pretty general as far as specialisation goes.

>>17683923
>aren't as feminine as they used to be.

Either you're 50 or you're some moron who stays in their basement all day idealizing what they think "femininity" I fear I still don't even understand what you mean since you're still whining about nothing solid in particular.

>>17683951
What he's referring to is innocence. Pretty clear honestly.

The reason why that's not clear to you is because femininity doesn't mean innocence to you in the first place, because there's nothing really truly masculine inside of you to make you not innocent,

>>17683919
>Adhering to a gender role in appearance is hardly the same thing has having a large sexually dimorphic face or body.

Lol nice double standard dumbo.

>I want my women to look like women

So by your logic men who aren't muscular look like women to you huh?

>>17683948
In this thread you've made several wild leaps of logic, massive generalizations that the vast majority of folks I know who're actually employed in technical fields would openly laugh at, a couple outright non sequiturs, and you've demonstrated some of the worst reading comprehension I've seen on here. You write like a teenager.

>>17683956

>Innocence

Another vague word thrown into the mix. What does this also mean? Do you mean timid and shy? Cause there are a lot of timid and shy women out there.

>>17683606
The ultimate goal of feminism is to maximize female sexual agency while restricting make sexual agency.

Pay very close attention to how feminists speak and you'll see their real goal: to have access to only the most attractive men and shut out out the unattractive ones.

>>17683960
It's not a double standard. It goes both ways.

Musculature isn't the sole defining feature of a masculine appearance in modern times. Put a lanky guy in a well tailored suit and he will so fine. Just in the same way that a woman who lacks curves can still look graceful in a dress.

>>17683963
You see it as a leap in logic because you lack substance and common sense. Get rid of your phone and don't get a new one for a week. I'm serious.


Also, my reading comprehension is fine, I just didn't bother reading the thread.


Anyway, you seem a little upset.


>>17683965
There's really nothing vague about it. It's scary to think you kids these days are so emotionally limited that ideas like innocence need to be boiled down to their least common denominators like timidity or shyness. Have you really never seen wonder in a newborn's eye? Terrible.

>>17683979
Women are not quite so focused in their intentions. You're viewing them as though they had a comparable level of testosterone running through their blood.

>>17683989
>Have you really never seen wonder in a newborn's eye? Terrible.

Are you actually mentally present? You want grown women to have the innocence of newborn babies? Are you sure you haven't been binge watching too many of your chinese cartoons cause usually the people I see crying about "pure waifus" are neckbeards from /a/ who take this kind of obsession to new heights.

If your definition of femininity not existing is you rarely seeing women wearing sun dresses in the dead of winter then you got more issues on your plate than can be addressed in one 4chan post.

>>17684008
I was explaining the other anon's notion of femininity to you. Because you had questioned it.

Never said nor implied anything of what I wanted. Though I have not watched anime yet and I don't particularly intend to so maybe I'm unable to appreciate your tendency towards all or nothing.

I can tell you this, however. Purity is sacred as it is scarce. Pushing to eliminate it just because it seems to have fallen into scarcity among recent times is only you shooting yourself in the foot.

>>17683956
If he's talking about innocence, what do you have to back that up?

We're more sexually aware? This is a good thing, it stops stuff like AIDS from being the issue they once were.

People are interested in sex? People have always been interested in sex, we're having less sex than the last two generations did.

You're just chucking vague words in there, to the point where I think that >>17681446 might have had it right.

>>17683963
I agree entirely with you, and lets be honest, there's no way he's 29, just claiming that because he thinks it makes him look better, instead of more retarded.

>>17683989
>You see it as a leap in logic because you lack substance and common sense. Get rid of your phone and don't get a new one for a week. I'm serious.

Anon, if it's as simple as you're saying, and you're as smart as you're saying, it should be easy to explain.

It's not hard to explain other simple shit, like why a kid shouldn't touch the stove while it's on, or why you shouldn't drink bleach, or why exercise is important.

>Also, my reading comprehension is fine, I just didn't bother reading the thread.

Kek, sure. Don't jump into a discussion you haven't even read, moron.

> It's scary to think you kids these days are so emotionally limited that ideas like innocence need to be boiled down to their least common denominators like timidity or shyness. Have you really never seen wonder in a newborn's eye?

I can safely say I've only ever seen newborns pissed off and hungry or sleeping.

Toddlers are exciting, but do you really want a potential life partner to be like a toddler? Please watch less anime, child like people are fucking annoying in real life.

>Women are not quite so focused in their intentions. You're viewing them as though they had a comparable level of testosterone running through their blood

Testosterone doesn't make you more focused though, what are you talking about? You really should stop making statements based purely off shit you've read here

Women aren't men, but today's world forces them to act in ways they weren't biologically made, just like all of us do.

We're a victim of our own success, complaining about it won't fix it either, women and men just need to adapt to the circumstances we've made.

File: 1467114859040.gif (313KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 512x384px

>>17683963
I don't get why you guys are wasting your time on this. The guy claimed the majority of college requires no brainpower, he outed himself as either trolling or retarded.

Reminds me of this one ditz that thought all you do is apply the same few equations over and over again.

>>17683965
Do you often have trouble comprehending information?

It's concerning that you are really having such a difficult time understanding this.

>>17684035
Sexual awareness causes AIDS more than it stops it. I'm not denying it stops it in some respects, but there's just no argument that it doesn't also cause it by making sex more accessible and thus compelling people towards it.

The point isn't people being interested in sex. That's a strawman. You can compare this whole thing with diet and appetite. Of course everyone's interested in eating. The point is glamourising food leads to obesity. It's a matter of degree.

>and lets be honest, there's no way he's 29
I can't cope with unfamiliarity: the sentence

>Anon, if it's as simple as you're saying, and you're as smart as you're saying, it should be easy to explain
Common sense is common because it's self evident.

>Toddlers are exciting, but do you really want a potential life partner to be like a toddler? Please watch less anime, child like people are fucking annoying in real life.
An infant's innocence and a woman's femininity are related but not the same.

>Testosterone doesn't make you more focused though
Not directly. Nothing is direct when it comes to biology, but roughly speaking that is what it's there for. Ever heard of tunnel vision? The experience exists residually from fight or flight mechanisms. If you had to take a guess between oestrogen and testosterone, which do you think would be more responsible for a fight or flight mechanism?

>>17684060
It really doesn't. You read something, you understand how it's done. You repeat it on a test, perhaps simply on a more general basis. Where is the work involved in that?

I guess you could argue that the extrapolation requires mental work, but that would only be relative to the generality of your initial understanding.

>>17684076
>Sexual awareness causes AIDS more than it stops it

Are you legitimately retarded? Are you arguing that teaching people about how to have sex in a safe way somehow increases the spread of STD's? Or do you think that teenagers 70 years ago weren't still fucking each other, that they just didn't know what sex was?

>The point isn't people being interested in sex. That's a strawman.

It was a question, retard. It can't be a strawman if I"m asking if that was what you meant.

>I can't cope with unfamiliarity: the sentence
>Further proving my point

You're 17, at the absolute oldest, and it's obvious to everyone reading this shit.

>Common sense is common because it's self evident.

That supports the claim that what you're saying isn't common sense anon, as it's not self evident.

>An infant's innocence and a woman's femininity are related but not the same.

How? How are they related?

>Not directly. Nothing is direct when it comes to biology, but roughly speaking that is what it's there for.

No, it's not. It's there to promote protein synthesis in areas with androgen receptors, and for things such as sperm development, regulation of energy and regulates the HPA response when challenged (generally your cortisol levels after victory or defeat, not if you feel threatened).

It has nothing to do with your ability to focus day to day. And you know that women require testosterone to be healthy too, right?

>If you had to take a guess between oestrogen and testosterone, which do you think would be more responsible for a fight or flight mechanism?

Neither are responsible for flight or flight, in the slightest, both genders experience a flight or flight response when threatened at similar levels, because it's caused by completely different chemicals.

Stop getting your knowledge of biology from /fit/, you look like a moron.

>>17684097
Note, low testosterone levels can make you feel fatigued and hard to focus as a result of that, but it doesn't directly impact your ability to focus, and women aren't so lacking in testosterone that they go around tired all the time.

I also don't mean to imply that it's the only chemical relating to energy levels in the body, that would be retarded.

>>17684060
Yeah, I'm out of the thread. I don't know if he's in high school or if I've been responding to bait, but either way I'm out.

>>17684097
You're not going far back enough. There's a reason why syphilis can't be compared to AIDS. There is no such thing as teaching somebody to be promiscuous safely, let alone children (sort of sick when you think about it, really). Sometimes, by attempting to intervene with a problem, you only succeed in its exacerbation.

And statistics is not powerful enough a logic to account for that. Because it is dealt in trends.

>It was a question, retard.
A rhetorical one.


>You're 17, at the absolute oldest, and it's obvious to everyone reading this shit.
Looks like the 21 year old is a little angry!

You're fuckin 17 man you stupid little 17 seventeen year old!!!

>That supports the claim that what you're saying isn't common sense anon, as it's not self evident
It is. I can say 2 and 2 makes 5 too bud. Doesn't change anything.

>How? How are they related?
Same way men and women in general are related.

>It has nothing to do with your ability to focus day to day
The effects which you listed are prominent though not discrete. Nothing in biology is. You can't boil down the effects of a chemical to words, only generalisations. And the generalisation that testosterone is related to focus is accurate.

>both genders experience a flight or flight response when threatened at similar levels, because it's caused by completely different chemicals
Testosterone is responsible for motivation. Motivation as in motivity as in movement. Now, regulation of energy...

>>17684102
Women aren't as physically active as men, so in effect, yes, they do 'go around tired all the time'. It's simply their default state.

>>17684130
Bye!

>>17684146
>There's a reason why syphilis can't be compared to AIDS.

Which would be?

>There is no such thing as teaching somebody to be promiscuous safely, let alone children (sort of sick when you think about it, really)

Oh, so you actually are retarded then. I bet you think needle exchange programs make more drug addicts die than if they were all removed too.

>A rhetorical one.

Wow gee thanks for telling me what I was thinking when I wrote that.

>You're fuckin 17 man you stupid little 17 seventeen year old!!!

Kek, at what point did throwing a tantrum seem like a good way to convince people you weren't underage?

>It is. I can say 2 and 2 makes 5 too bud. Doesn't change anything.

Sure, and that's wrong. But interestingly enough, by your definition of common sense, what you just said isn't it, because it isn't self evident to anyone but you.

>Same way men and women in general are related.

So, they're both personality aspects, in the same way that men and women are both genders?

>The effects which you listed are prominent though not discrete

The effects I listed are the fucking effects it has.

>You can't boil down the effects of a chemical to words, only generalisations

What are you even saying? You realise that boiling down the effects of hormones on the body to words and understanding how they work is literally the focus of a major branch of medicine, right?

>And the generalisation that testosterone is related to focus is accurate.

The only way it's accurate is if you say "Having a healthy amount of the appropriate hormones and nutrients will help your focus". Otherwise you can say that anything in the human body is what causes focus. And you've not yet explained why more testosterone is better.

>Testosterone is responsible for motivation. Motivation as in motivity as in movement.

But it's not, you're just taking /fit/ memes as fact now.

Your last point is just flat out not worth replying to. It makes no sense, that's all that needs to be said.

>And statistics is not powerful enough a logic to account for that. Because it is dealt in trends.
>statistics is not powerful enough a logic

>You can't boil down the effects of a chemical to words
Pls keep posting, holy shit

>>17684158
>Which would be?
Different culture.


>I bet you think needle exchange programs make more drug addicts die than if they were all removed too.
Sex and drugs are not interchangeable here. That's obvious. You have to acquire your desire to abuse substances. No such acquisition of desire is necessary to have sex.


>Wow gee thanks for telling me what I was thinking when I wrote that.
A backpedaling lad he was.


>Kek, at what point did throwing a tantrum seem like a good way to convince people you weren't underage
Son I'm just speaking your language.


>because it isn't self evident to anyone but you.
This sentence just doesn't havery any meaning to me so your point is invalid.


>So, they're both personality aspects, in the same way that men and women are both genders?
Yeah, I mean if you can catch onto the implication there then I see nothing wrong with that.


>You realise that boiling down the effects of hormones on the body to words and understanding how they work is literally the focus of a major branch of medicine, right?
But not a branch of philosophy. Application requires only approximation.


>And you've not yet explained why more testosterone is better.
When you pick it apart like that you start coming across abominations like 'consciousness isn't real', it's just chemical epiphenomena', and so forth.

You just have to take a step back and make the connection that testosterone makes sense in that light.

A verified example is autism. Autism in some schools is thought to be mental decoherence resulting from neurological hypermasculinity. Work your way backwards from there. Not such a leap.


>But it's not, you're just taking /fit/ memes as fact now.
I've never been there.

>>17684208
>Different culture.

That's far too general to be a reason. Explain how.

>You have to acquire your desire to abuse substances. No such acquisition of desire is necessary to have sex.

So, let me get this straight. You agree that people inherently have the desire to have sex. Yet you think that teaching them about how to do this in a safe, responsible manner somehow will increase the risk of STDs? Do you see how little sense that makes.

>A backpedaling lad he was.

How am I backpedalling? You came in and simply claimed my intentions were something. I said they weren't. I didn't go back at all.

>Son I'm just speaking your language.

Well, at least you're not claiming to be an adult anymore.

>This sentence just doesn't havery any meaning to me so your point is invalid.

>If I pretend to be retarded that makes him wrong!

Seriously. Just explain it to us. Don't go on about how it's common sense, things that are common sense are easy to explain by nature.

> I mean if you can catch onto the implication there then I see nothing wrong with that.

So, they have about as much relation as Ted Bundy's urge to kill and femininity then? Both are personality features.

If you don't think that's the case, stop dodging the fucking question and just answer it.

>But not a branch of philosophy

Holy shit. Are you seriously trying to claim that Testosterone is somehow philosophy instead of medicine?

>
When you pick it apart like that you start coming across abominations like 'consciousness isn't real', it's just chemical epiphenomena', and so forth.

Picking it apart like asking you to please explain your logic?

>Autism in some schools is thought to be mental decoherence resulting from neurological hypermasculinity.

It's a theory that it's related to over-exposure to testosterone in a pre-natal state, not neurological hyper masculinity. The same as there was a theory that MDD was caused by lack of serotonin.

That also doesn't support what you're saying.

>>17684241
>That's far too general to be a reason.
No it's not.


>You agree that people inherently have the desire to have sex. Yet you think that teaching them about how to do this in a safe, responsible manner somehow will increase the risk of STDs?
People do not inherently have the desire for promiscuity. Promiscuity is perversion. Teaching people about sex is encouraging of promiscuity, not disencouraging. If a person isn't promiscuous, the only resource they need to be safe is the consultation of their common sense. Trying to teach common sense is exactly what destroys it.


>You came in and simply claimed my intentions were something. I said they weren't. I didn't go back at all.
You had questioned what I meant in reference to innocence, and implied that the attribution was faulty. You asked if 'people are interested in sex' and then went on to confirm the they 'have always been'. So yes, your question was rhetorical.


>Well, at least you're not claiming to be an adult anymore.
I am 29. If it helps you sleep at night I was 28 just a month ago.

>If I pretend to be retarded that makes him wrong!
t. you.


>Seriously. Just explain it to us. Don't go on about how it's common sense, things that are common sense are easy to explain by nature.
The opposite of what is true. Go on, explain right from left.


>So, they have about as much relation as Ted Bundy's urge to kill and femininity then? Both are personality features.
Well grim.


>Are you seriously trying to claim that Testosterone is somehow philosophy instead of medicine?
What I meant was, philosophy requires perfect conceptual rigour. Medicine simple requires application and results.


>Picking it apart like asking you to please explain your logic?
Not all logic can be explicated. Incompleteness and that.


>It's a theory that it's related to over-exposure to testosterone in a pre-natal state, not neurological hyper masculinity.
Same exact thing. The endocrinal intrauterine environment encodes it.

>>17684303
>No it's not.

It really, really is. How do the different cultures change this? What cultures?

>People do not inherently have the desire for promiscuity

Says who?

>Promiscuity is perversion

Of what?

>If a person isn't promiscuous, the only resource they need to be safe is the consultation of their common sense. Trying to teach common sense is exactly what destroys it.

You could just explain it anon, because you're entirely appealing to emotion here.

>You had questioned what I meant in reference to innocence, and implied that the attribution was faulty. You asked if 'people are interested in sex' and then went on to confirm the they 'have always been'. So yes, your question was rhetorical.

I asked what you meant and gave my reply to the two reasons I could think of. Nowhere did I say that you said it.

>I am 29. If it helps you sleep at night I was 28 just a month ago.

Sure you were.

>t. you.

Ebin.

>The opposite of what is true. Go on, explain right from left.

Right is a definition for another direction than left. It has nothing to do with common sense, and everything to do with definitions. Definitions aren't common sense. Left and right would mean nothing to a person who isn't English.

>Well grim.

So you agree then, that innocence is as related to femininity as an urge to kill?

>philosophy requires perfect conceptual rigour. Medicine simple requires application and results.

This is not philosophy. It is not relevant here. We're talking about medical science, and you've said such stupid shit as what's been quoted >>17684159

You are wrong here, and you can't explain any different except for making vague allusions to philosophy.

>Not all logic can be explicated. Incompleteness and that.

Stop dodging the question. This is an objective thing you should be able to answer if it's true. Why is more testosterone inherently better?

>>17684363
>Right is a definition for another direction than left.
Ya blew it.

>Same exact thing. The endocrinal intrauterine environment encodes it.

They're completely different anon, you were talking about a persons masculinity or testosterone as an adult being the cause of autism. This is not the case, the THEORY (read, we don't know it's true) says it could be related to being exposed to too much testosterone before you're born.

Please stop acting like using fancy words makes you look like any less of an idiot, your entire point here is "Because autistic people might have had more testosterone at some point in their lives, that means testosterone is what causes focus", which is just ridiculous you have no evidence it's true, and you're essentially saying that correlation does equal causation.

This isn't something where you can't explain the logic for it anon, this is explicitly something that could be tested for, and if it was the case, you would be able to provide some citation or reason why it should be so.

But, it's not, you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about, and you're just resorting to dodging questions and trying to confuse the other person (Which won't work) into giving up.

Fuck off back to /r9k/, you absolute moron, you cunts are what's ruining /adv/, and has been for the last few years.

>>17684373
But anon, it is. Right is literally just a word for a direction, that differs to the definition of the word left, which refers to another direction. It isn't common sense, because someone who's never been taught it would have no fucking idea which was is which.

>>17684378
The common sense isn't in the words but the parity between the directions to which they refer. It's over. Cheerio!

>>17684398
Yes, it's common sense that different directions are different anon, that is something that explains itself. The explanation is inherent to the definition. Saying that innocence is femininity, without explaining what you mean by innocence, isn't, as it doesn't give a clear image to anyone but you of what you mean.

>It's over. Cheerio!
Probably a good idea, you should be doing your homework anon, it's very important to get a good education so you don't make a fucking fool of yourself like you did in this thread.

>>17683867
Here's the protest you're talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

And here's the entire speech they were protesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4

The funny thing is Warren Farrell (the MRA giving the talk) used to be a very prominent feminist himself. Then he started advocating for men's issues too and most of the other feminists turned on him. Farrell is proof that feminism is NOT the answer to men's problems, because most of them opposed Farrell when he tried talking about men's issues.
Some feminists argue that the protesters are just extremists, but even if that's true most of the "good" feminists have the same opinions they just aren't as loud about them. I doubt there was a single feminist in the audience supporting Warren Farrell.

And yes the constant double-talk of "but feminism is for men too!" combined with "women are the one's who suffer so we should ignore men's issues since they have privilege" is obnoxious. Did you follow Emma Watson's HeForShe speech? In her speech she goes on about how feminism is for men and that men should be feminists because feminists care about men's issues. Of course the speech was for the UN's HeForShe campaign, which is the opposite of that. HeForShe is about how women are the only sex discriminated against and that men need to use our privilege to help women. And they still point to Emma Watson as one of the "good" feminists