>>720062458 'It is not sufficient to maintain that women on the average are less gifted then men on the average, with certain of the higher mental faculties, or that a smaller number of women than of men are fit for occupations and functions of the highest intellectual character. It is necessary to maintain that no women at all are fit for them, and that the most eminent women are inferior in mental faculties to the most mediocre of the men on whom those functions at present devolve. For if the performance of the function is decided either by competition, or by any mode of choice which secures regard to the public interest, there needs be no apprehension that any important employments will fall into the hands of women inferior to average men, or to the average of their male competitors. The only result would be that there would be fewer women than men in such employments; a result certain to happen in any case, if only from the preference always likely to be felt by the majority of women for the one vocation in which there is nobody to compete with them. Now, the most determined depreciator of women will not venture to deny, that when we add the experience of recent times to that of ages past, women, and not a few merely, but many women, have proved themselves capable of everything, perhaps without a single exception, which is done by men, and of doing it successfully and creditably. The utmost that can be said is, that there are many things which none of them have succeeded in doing as well as they have been done by some men – many in which they have not reached the very highest rank. But there are extremely few, dependent only on mental faculties, in which they have not attained the rank next to the highest. Is not this enough, and much more than enough, to make it a tyranny to them, and a detriment to society, that they should not be allowed to compete with men for the exercise of these functions?'
- John Stuart Mill, 'The Subjection of Women', 1869
>>720062593 Women have legal and political equality, but this is not sufficient to grant real equality in practice. This is nothing new. Just think of the situation of the freed slaves. They were equal in theory, but not in practice.
Inequality is much deeper rooted than legal privileges. It exists in the attitudes of society, and plays out in economic terms. Women are called sluts if they sleep around or prudes if they don't. Even celebrating chastity and monogamy is really just a means for men to oppress women's sexuality to keep men in power.
Broaden your outlook from the prissy white girls complaining about patriarchy. Think of the systematic rapes that happened in Rwanda as a tactic of war. Think of the common bridal murders in India. Think of female genital mutilation in Africa. Think of the subjection of Muslim women to hiding behind a veil.
And you're telling me feminism is has achieved its goals?
>>720067134 Don't get me wrong, I believe that there are lots of cases where men get the short end of the stick. I appreciate that false rape accusations have disastrous effects. The fact that women are favoured in custody battles is unfair. The fact that maternity leave is way longer than paternity leave is unfair. The common practice of circumcision is a massive problem that it being overlooked in society.
Feminism doesn't have to be a battle against men. Men's rights and feminism are compatible. They each represent one side of the coin of equality. I consider myself a men's rights activist AND a feminist.
>>720068957 I do what I can. I've spoken at events in these countries. I try to raise consciousnesses, to counter the anti-women thoughts that pervade these societies and result in the atrocities that I mentioned above, FGM etc.
After all, that's the only way to get it to stop, to encourage them to realise that it's a harmful practice.
What else can be done? It's not like we can unrape the Rwandan women. It's not like we can reattach the little girls' clitorises.
Of course my organisations give medical care where they can, but that doesn't tackle the root of the problem.
>>720062458 Lots of things. They're naturally more suited than men are to looking after young children, cooking and maintaining a home, making social connections in the community, being ornamental and decorative, being sexual partners to men (unless you're gay), caring roles such as palliative care etc
>>720062458 Femanon here. I personally love the shitstorm that starts everytime some poor faggot makes one of these anti feminest threads. Gives me a chance to see just how upset I've made everyone and chuckle a bit.
You think jokes about kitchens or showing tits bother me? It just goes to show how much power any random female holds over you, they can pull your complete attention away from a topic just by having a vagoo.
Sure, you'll act tough and cynical here, but we all know it's just a desperate overcompensation for how much of a doormat you are IRL. If you decide to lash out and act a bit sexist now and then, I can't really complain.
After all, we do pretty much run the show. Men rely on us, work for us, spend money on us, buy us houses and cars and clothes, sign prenups that we can turn around and cash in when we feel like ditching them for a younger, cuter piece of ass.
Got a kid with a girl? Don't fool yourself, it's HER kid, not yours. Piss her off and she'll take it and leave your ass, and you can pay her a nice chunk of child support for the rest of your life.
Yep, this is the power we hold over you. So you go ahead and make your rape jokes, really. I still know that when you see me on the streets you'll be watching, getting hard, and problably crying a tear or two because you know you'll always be a forever alone faggot.
>>720073707 >They're naturally more suited than men are to looking after young children I'm not so sure. Whilst it's undeniable that women are the ones who birth the children, there is nothing to suggest that it is in their biology to be better carers of the children than men. The fact that most women are better carers than most men may be due to the fact that from a young age they learn how to care for young children because that it what's expected of them. But there's no biological advantage they have over men for rearing children, and I'm certain that if men had the same training and preparation as women they would be just as good carers.
>cooking and maintaining a home This is silly. What you have between your legs doesn't determine how good you are at vacuuming.
>>720068530 I have to disagree, Men's rights and Feminism are not compatible. That should be obvious from the label Feminism. Feminist like to say that they are fighting for men's rights as well, but we all know that is an outright lie.
Where both Men's and Woman's rights can converge and hold the same flag is egalitarianism.
>>720073707 >looking after young children, cooking and maintaining a home, making social connections in the community, being ornamental and decorative, being sexual partners to men (unless you're gay), caring roles such as palliative care These are all learned skills, not inherent biological differences. The reason women tend to be better at these skills is social, not biological.
>>720075382 Egalitarianism is composed of two parts: feminism and male rights activism.
I like to think of feminism as opposition to female oppression where it occurs. Such a definition doesn't tread on the toes of men's rights, and makes it possible to oppose instances of male (e.g. circumcision) and female (e.g. FGM) oppression at the same time.
The problem is where feminists who are particularly concerned with the female side of egalitarianism are conflated with the entire movement itself. I do agree that not enough feminists also care about men's rights issues, and I think that if they did they would get broader support for female issues as well.
So you can be a feminist whilst also being a men's rights advocate. It's just that most feminists don't. It's also that most men's rights advocates don't care about the female side of egalitarianism. This is where the myth that feminism and the men's rights movement is incompatible comes from.
>>720074535 You think we dont know what you told us? When I heard a rape or go to the kitchen joke I just chuckle. I dont give a fuck if you give a fuck or get mad, that is not part of the joke. If some idiot want to work for a woman is his problem, I dont feel the need of feeling bad for him. Woman want their children? Pretty normal, males just will have more. The problem is the kids, those little shits have more mental problems with a single mom. Child support for my child? No problem, its my kid after all. Maybe others will care about the power females holds over the males, but I dont..
>>720062458 Women consistently outperform men academically in the majority of developed countries, they also tend to be more empathetic and emotionally aware of themselves, which has been a suggested reason for women having a much lower suicide rate than men. They also look better than men with much less work, have a higher life expectancy, are far less aggressive and commit far less violent crimes. Not even a feminist, but you make us all look fucking dumb when you act like a neckbeard hypervirgin misogynist
>>720076382 >Women consistently outperform men academically in the majority of developed countries do you understand why this is? men treat women with kid gloves their whole lives. women are given far more for free than most men could earn on their own. being a woman is like playing on easy mode, you get handheld through the entire game.
>>720076382 >women having a much lower suicide rate than men A more-likely explanation for this is just that women in developed countries have an easier time talking to people about their fee-fees. Men who do it get called pussies.
>They also look better than men Subjective >with much less work Entirely untrue. The cosmetics industry makes billions.
>have a higher life expectancy Because they are protected by men and tend to work less-dangerous jobs. Plus, they're more valuable biologically. It only takes one man to get several women pregnant, but a woman can only bear one child every nine months (disregarding twins and such).
>are far less aggressive and commit far less violent crimes This is true, both because of social factors and hormonal factors (less testosterone).
>>720076637 Women enter into stem subjects way less than men, so overall numbers arent representative of academic achievement. If women made up 50% of enrolled students in science based highschool and college subjects but had shit scores then it would be more fair to say they suck. Im talking about gpa, s.a.t scores and the like
>>720077240 women on the whole are catered to and given more opportunities academically than men, particularly during early childhood, so they end up smarter. boys are "tough" so they don't need intelligence, they work for what they have, when in fact both boys and girls should be catered to equally. but keep enjoying your female privilege without acknowledging it.
>>720074535 Nice false flag. If you are an actual woman, you're a piece of shit for escalating things right this and validating the (wrong) ideas that sexists hold. Good for you for figuring out a way to handle sexism, but fuck off with this bullshit.
>>720077073 >men treat women with kid gloves Not an even trade for being objectified/raped/demeaned their entire lives as well. Women want to be treated fairly, and it sounds like you want that too, why aren't you guys on the same page?
>>720078211 Be the one to support Selective Service for females. While you're at it, be the one to suggest that women's physical standards in the military be raised up to men's standards or better. Pick up that rifle and learn how to drag a 200-pound man in full kit into cover.
>>720077262 Higher life expectancy isnt just dangerous jobs, its lifestyle choices and genetics. They smoke and drink less, they eat less meat and tend to be healthier with lower instances of cardiovascular diseases. They are also less likely to have genetic diseases like colourblindness because of the double x chromosone compared with xy
As for the emotional thing, women have made it more acceptable to be emotional for themselves by being emotional, you cant just say oh thats a societal issue when the majority of differences between genders come down to social pressures
Men are at extreme ends of the intelligence spectrum. Men are either genius or dumb fucks
Women on the other hand represent a more balanced spectrum, although not as many are genius level, most women don't get as dumb as most of society's worst men. women are better at memorizing a ton of solutions, and men tend to create new solutions.
we are the same species, we have all the same components, They can read and write, do advanced mathematics, build and engineer.
To say that women are intellectually inferior to men is flat out stupidity, there is an entire world of women more intelligent than YOU right now, and you're probably angry about it. If you ever had a girlfriend or spent time with a women that gave you affection and didn't reject you. You could easily see the humanity in them and stop acting like all women are feminists and somehow ruining your life.
>>720078375 Dude, it's real simple. Women get the glory, the money, and the luxury, while men do all that difficult shit in return for much less. We reinforce this socially by overvaluing women and ta-daaaa: Ideal society.
>>720078432 I agree, which is a social issue. Anyone who considers themselves rational or scientifically minded should be all for encouraging intelligent women to enter into stem subjects. Im not talking some bs anti discrimination equal opportunity thing, im talking about getting smart people into useful roles
>>720078812 Feminists don't like that shit either. It's a shame the movement is called feminism, it's totally about equality between genders, but it's been run and pushed by women predominantly because they're so much more often the victim in situations of unfairness based on sex or gender.
>>720078821 >There are women smarter than you Why do you find strange that in more than half is the population there is someone smarter than you? Anon just said that out there you can find a woman that is smarter or more capable than you, this is not a crazy thing to say.
>>720078662 You know men aren't obligated to marry women and give them stuff right? you can have one night stands and jerk off bro.
You probably don't realize this, but constantly hearing shit like "get back in the kitchen" or "tits or gtfo" 24/7 when a female tries to give her opinion is why girls might think that men are sexist, bit shocked right?
Watched a video of a girl unboxing some computer parts earlier, she was wearing a fucking sweater and all the comments were just "tits tits tits tits" But you wouldn't care because that has never affected you, no girl wants you, and no girls are commenting "wow he has a nice dick" on mens videos
>>720079409 >You probably don't realize this, but constantly hearing shit like "get back in the kitchen" or "tits or gtfo" 24/7 when a female tries to give her opinion is why girls might think that men are sexist, bit shocked right? >"tits tits tits tits"
You are aware that the internet isn't real life, right? I highly doubt you've ever heard of or seen either of those things happen outside.
>>720078379 It's true that there are many more contributions by men. But it must be remembered that many of these contributions were made when education was denied to women as a matter of principle. Now that women have the same access to education as men in the developed world, they are making contributions just as valuable as men.
The reason that men have traditionally been more productive in society is that women have been traditionally excluded from education and politics by men. It wasn't that long ago that women got the right to vote.
Guys should just learn that marriage isn't worth it. If you want to be in a relationship that's fine, just don't ever get married. What's the point? When she inevitably gets bored of you, you're going to owe her money for the rest of your life.
No marriage means you get to keep her tight on that leash, where she belongs.
>>720078168 >Implying chads don't get objectified by women constantly >Implying ugly losers like me don't get demeaned by everyone >All women deal with rape, "objectification" (They miss it when they get old and ugly) all the time their entire lives? Kys fampai
>>720078653 >Men are at extreme ends of the intelligence spectrum. Men are either genius or dumb fucks > Women on the other hand represent a more balanced spectrum, although not as many are genius level, most women don't get as dumb as most of society's worst men. This is a crass generalisation with no evidence to back it up
The last part you said though was on point. Yet it seems to contradict what you said up top. You first say that people are biologically predisposed to have certain intelligence according to their sex, yet then you say that sex is irrelevant.
>>720079409 Women annoy in some ways, as men do, let me preface this with that, I agree with you but I understand the frustrations men feel as well.
What really pisses me off about men, and the men are invariably stupid, is when they discount a woman's opinion simply because it comes from the mouth of a woman. Women have extremely good situational awareness when they are put in an outside situation looking in a lot of the time. They also read people muuuuuuuuch better than men. They can be useful in society. I'd go on more but I'm tired and you get the point but I agree with you.
>>720080195 Well, statistically-speaking, single fathers tend to perform much better than single mothers do. Law that is based on reason, as it should be, rather than emotion, as it IS, should grant custody to the father more often than the mother.
>>720078997 Let's not pretend it's all about recovering from the physical challenges of child birth. Women are up and about way before they're due to go back to work.
Women are given longer maternity leave because it's ingrained in society that women should be the ones to raise the children and be homemakers. Women should be opposed to unequal maternity/paternity leave too, because it only serves to reinforce the myth that women are biologically determined to be care givers, which is something which ultimately serves to oppress them.
>>720080531 I didn't say sex was irrelevant. The generalization Is based off of my personal experience and some basic knowledge that has been around for a while.
I use special words for people like you who take everything literally. I didn't mean to say... >Exactly 50% of men are retarded and the other 50% are genius >All women are exactly this intelligence range right in the middle
>>720080725 Its because that law in the first place that single fathers are better than single mothers. You need to have a father who wants the child and is such a better option to the mother that the system chosser him. Also, single fathers is a very rare individual so we cant use statistics in such a small number.
>>720080788 I have met women that are more intelligent than your entire family. The women I grew up around gave me life advice and rearing that I wouldn't trade for the world. You are truthfully stupid if you have never been able to get anything of use out of what a woman says.
>>720064778 >only lists issues in third world countries Feminism will never be able to fix what's wrong where only primitives live. It's too complex for them. Yeah it sucks, but we can't help them. First world countries have their own problems to sort out just so third worlders can even continue to exist.
>>720080617 >Women have extremely good situational awareness when they are put in an outside situation looking in a lot of the time. They also read people muuuuuuuuch better than men.
These are crass generalisations. You're only antagonising men against feminism by trying to assert women's superiority, you know that right?
>What really pisses me off about men, and the men are invariably stupid, is when they discount a woman's opinion simply because it comes from the mouth of a woman.
I agree with this, as I think any rational person would. But then you shoot yourself in the foot by saying 'Oh but women are so much better than men at XYZ.' That's the kind of shit that makes people hate feminists.
>>720081197 Actually faggots are real good cooks true story. Also better hair stylists, making dresses or making suits, im not a homo but they do have those qualities women are good for fucking and grabbing them by the pussy is the start.
>>720081115 >I didn't mean to say... >Exactly 50% of men are retarded and the other 50% are genius >All women are exactly this intelligence range right in the middle
I never said that this is how I interpreted it, and it's not. I understand that you meant there was some overlap.
What I don't understand is how you can first say that men and women are predisposed to have different ranges of intelligence, and then say that everyone has the same capacity for learning regardless of sex. Surely if men and women truly did have different intelligence ranges (generally speaking), it would only be logical to actively encourage men to go into education and encourage women to go into domestic or menial roles?
I reject this. People should be treated as individuals and judged by their individual merits. It's pointless trying to search for patterns and averages, and the only purpose of doing so would be to further the cause of social engineering in response to the results.
>>720062458 Division, division, division... not a single place on the internet exists without it. Kinda seems like the media wants us to keep bickering while the world goes to shit for everyone but a select rich few.
>>720082096 If you're trying to correct someone based on their grammar just make sure you have it right next time. When your correction is wrong it just makes you look like an even bigger idiot than before. Nice winky face, down to fuck?
Why don't we just treat people as individuals. Some women have better situational awareness than some men, some men have better awareness than some women. It's pointless trying to generalise.
I wouldn't want a blind guy driving a truck just because he's male and statistically men are better drivers. I wouldn't want a woman with great vision and awareness banned from driving just because statistically women on the whole are worse drivers.
Can you see the problems of generalising when people are not collective groups, they are individuals?
>>720064778 I actually agree with this /b/ro. I rmemeber in college i did a piece on taboo and one of my subject was the women opression around the world. Sure in the US and canada women are not oppressed (somewhat) but in other parts of the world women are worth less than a goat and are objects.
Feminins pisses me off. Where I work there are no women except a few secretaries. Most hard jobs are only done by men. Go to about any factory where physical labor is required and it'll be mostly, if not 100% men that work there. Woman just complain that they don't get more easy jobs, even thought quite a few women work in offices, schools, etc. I'm a white male and I can't see the privilege they're accusing me of having. They just complain about fucking minor shit, don't give a fuck about women elsewhere which ACTUALLY suffer and are fucking rude to most men, even though they only want a few mens jobs.
>>720062458 >I dare you to try and name anything women can do that men can't do better besides giving birth. Me: "So explain why you think women are superior to men" Feminist: "We can have babies" Me: "Yeah, but I can knock up a slut" Feminist: "?...... :("
>>720083575 >Go to about any factory where physical labor is required and it'll be mostly, if not 100% men that work there.
It hasn't always been that way. Throughout history, women have been a reserve army of labour that can come out of the homes when there is demand for them, exiled back to the home when they are no longer needed.
>>720084466 First two are bullshit. Human pregnancy is parasitic and no woman should be forced to host a parasite that has a 15% chance of seriously wounding or killing her just so you can feel morally superior.
>>720084657 Why can't we accept that men are victims of the things in the pic more than women and that that is an issue, but also accept that women are vastly underrepresented in fields such as politics, law, business, and that that is also a problem?
It's doesn't have to be one or the other, we can have both.
>>720063241 Actually my dad is in the army and he said that women are better at shooting practice. Because the woman actually listen. Then men think they already know how to do it. They don't listen to the tips and whatnot.
>>720084988 >women are vastly underrepresented in fields such as politics, law, business, and that that is also a problem? I think the commonly-suggested solution is a bigger problem than the "problem" of underrepresentation. Affirmative action policies drag everyone down.
>>720085200 Affirmative action has historically been effective in challenging discrimination. I'm thinking of the 80s and 90s with African Americans and Native Americans in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Otherwise they just languish at the bottom and nothing ever improves.
Both men and women are conditioned to tend to make certain career choices.
I want a society where everyone has freedom of choice to live their life how they choose. I think we both want that.
Yet, if we really lived in such a society, we wouldn't expect to see a disparity in the numbers that there actually is. It suggests that both men and women are being discouraged from going into certain fields.
I don't see what the problem is with saying to men 'Hey, have you considered nursing? It can be a really great career' and doing the same with women with STEM. I'm not talking about affirmative action, I only mean that we should open the doors as much as possible.
>>720085489 Exactly. I didnt say you had to smell like shit, just that man smell is not as relaxing for some people. Speaking from experience, cuddled a dude once who was probably my closest friend. It was fine and an interesting experience but not the same as womanly cuddles
>>720086056 >we wouldn't expect to see a disparity in the numbers that there actually is I disagree. Humans are a sexually-dimorphic species, and that alone is going to lend itself to biases in certain fields.
Except that such a society is only possible where there are absolutely no prejudices and people get jobs purely based on merit. I don't think we yet live in a society where we can say that certain groups are not subject to systematic discrimination. Can you?
I'm sure that an enlightened employer wouldn't care about things like race or sex. But a lot of employers are not 'enlightened'. And even the ones that are may be subject to subconscious views.
>>720086056 Why the hell not? Is it so crazy to think that men and women are biologically different? Or that for some people traditional gender roles work? Why do you people think that mathematic perfection is the expected result of free choice? And even if they are discouraged from STEM (which they arent, everyone is desperate to pump up the numbers) how is that against free will if there is nothing to actually STOP them from ignoring discouragement and doing it anyways?
You cant say "That's not free choice!" just because you dont like the choices people are making.
>>720086410 You can think it's a bad thing all you want. You can say it's a bad thing all you want. The moment you try to use governmental authority to control the body of somebody who isn't you, you are an authoritarian at best, and a tyrant at worst.
>>720086749 I don't believe that unqualified people should get the jobs over qualified people.
But I believe that underrepresented groups who ARE qualified should be given priority in employment.
That doesn't mean that qualified white men wouldn't get any jobs. After all, the other groups would only be 'underrepresented' if white men were in the majority. And if white men became underrepresented because of unfair favouring of other groups, they would receive the benefit of affirmative action.
>>720086406 >systematic No. Maybe personal. But this is one problem that capitalism excels at solving: those who use prejudice are robbing themselves of better workers and will be economically disadvantaged. Thus success will go to those who are the most open minded. Successful companies dont give a shit about anything but money. They could care less if it was syphilitic gibbons they were hiring or MIT professors if the results are the same
>>720087139 >underrepresented groups This right here is racism/sexism, though. Fuck "underrepresented groups". People should be hiring/firing on an individual basis, and judging people on such, not based on whether or not the person belongs to an "underrepresented group".
>>720086555 Is not the control over the body of someone, is the control of their actions. Is evil to force someone to not defecate, but is not that I force him to use a place so the waste is not a danger for other people. But if you dont see as a human an unborn child we will never reach an understanding.
>>720086925 The fact that more and more women are going into STEM every year shows that their previous low participation numbers were not the result of biological predispositions away from science, but social conditioning to not pursue such fields.
If it were not the result of social conditioning, then no amount of encouragement could make women do something they are biologically not capable of doing.
Eventually when you get to the point where more encouragement is having no affect, that's where you know the limit of their biological disposition is.
Really I think such a disparity would be very small because biological predispositions are very weak. Women have proven time and time again that they are capable of doing things which detractors said they were not capable of because of biology.
>>720087590 I don't. A fetus is a parasite that relies on the mother for existence. It does not think, it does not feel, it just feeds, and shoves it's tendrils into the mother to ensure the highest chance of its personal survival.
Once the fetus is a baby, once it is no longer feeding on a host to survive, then I consider it "human", with all the rights and privileges that title entails.
>>720087139 This aint a boolean though. There is a gradient of qualification and excellence. But if two similar people are getting selected solely based on race haven't you become the problem you are trying to solve? Why draw these arbitrary race lines to begin with?
>>720087590 >but is not that I force him to use a place so the waste is not a danger for other people. >the abortion of unborn embryos is such a threat to everyone else in society that we need to outlaw it for the greater good
>>720087680 How do you solve that problem, though. If you say "let government enforce its power", I hate you and hope you die. If you're just advocating for more education and open-mindedness, throw all the parties and protests you want. Hell, I might even join you.
>>720087625 Capable is not the question moron. Of course the average woman is capable of all but maybe a handful of jobs (front line infantry perhaps). The question is do they WANT to? Do STEM careers make the average woman HAPPY?
Women have a higher pain tollerance. I couldn't shit out a baby or do anal like that. Plus females are far better athan dealing with shitty males. Some women love I mean love abusive, ignorant, loser men. Just remember if you don't own a woman you aren't trying.
>>720087625 Also more women are going to college every year and everyone and their dog is pushing for them to go in their. Would you call that choice? I would, but you seemed to suggest that discouragement impedes free will so would not encouragement do the same thing?
>>720087625 You are literally doing the thing you are condeming: social condition. You want to socially condition women to do something they might not normally do. How do you not see a problem with this?
So if I were to stab a womb with a knife one day before the due date to end its existence, that would not be murder simply because it's still living within the uterus? That's silly and arbitrary. It leads to such situations where doctors perform 'abortions' on babies by ensuring that their heads remain in the vagina, so it's not classified as 'born' and so the doctor would become a 'murderer'.
No, instead I believe that life begins when there is activity in the brain stem. It only makes sense. After all, we only say that someone is dead when they have no brain activity. If they have brain activity then they are technically still alive. So since life ends when brain activity ceases, it is only logical to say that life begins when that brain activity begins. (This is around the 25th week)
>>720087139 >the benefit of affirmative action Affirmative actions is the reason why there is inequality. Fulfiling racial quotas and getting a job as a result of your underrepresented background should be things completely forbidden from the world of work if we're to achieve the equality you so desperately seek. Criteria and qualifications is all that matters; if its an all white or all black or all transvestite House of Representatives - so be it. They would be qualified. But to givea job to someone just because hispanics or niggs or women aren't common in that profession is just semantic bullshit. The kind of bullshit that is slowly turning against feminism, albeit silently.
>>720088434 >that would not be murder simply because it's still living within the uterus? That WOULD be murder, or at the very least attempted murder, because you just stabbed a woman in the gut. It would NOT be multiple murder.
>>720089006 >I don't see how that's a bad thing. It's a bad thing because it is taking the agency away from the employer, and forcing them to do what you want them to do even if that isn't what they want to do or what is best for their business, all so you can "help the little guy".
You ever read one of those signs that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to any customer, for any reason"? Those are disappearing, and governmental interference and misconduct is why.
If hiring women or niggers or crackers or trannies is good for business, let an employer do so. If it isn't, don't fucking force them to. This isn't a difficult concept.
Think of Muslim women who wear a veil and willingly engage in arranged marriages. They say they want to. They think they are happy living in that way. In reality, they are blind to their own oppression and have been conditioned to think in a certain way. They are not liberated.
Now compare that to women and STEM. Women are being conditioned to think that they don't want STEM careers. If you disagree with me hear, then you're also disagreeing that Muslim women are being indoctrinated into a religion which is oppressing them.
There is no such thing as complete freedom of choice. It's a myth.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.