How did women entering the workforce in a big way during and

>1950s
Man can afford to solo provide for family

>1970s
Pays good enough on shitty jobs to work

>2010s
Slave wage, you get to survive on double wage.

My family income is around 150 grand and we barely scrape by in our city.

>>1929782
And people say Marx was wrong.

>>1929766
>>1929766

women for put into the work force so the government could get even more money in revenue taxes and everyone with any sort of experience knows that they are, for the most part, shitty at any sort of advanced job and are only good at menial work like secretaries, and even then they do nothing but engage in catty and gossipy behavior.

There are of course exceptions to this though. But all of this was promoted under the guise of liberal value showboating and virtue signaling.

>>1929782
>2010s
>Slave wage, you get to survive on double wage.

somewhat similar, now college age kids who are in massive student debt and are lucky if they can get a job at McDonalds are cheering on the idea of more jobs either going over seas or more immigrants flooding into the country for an even cheaper wage.


Westerns are pretty fucking stupid and would probably slit their own throat if some focus group tested cool 20 something mix raced lesbian told them to.

File: the_black_pill-600x494.jpg (25KB, 600x494px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x494px

>>1929766

Theres still no actual rebuttal to this other than "misogyny" and petty bickering over semantics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw

wage labor strangles the life from women and everyone else. it's spread to the female sex is not to be praised, nor is it noble or even desirable.

>>1929817
A youtube video is not an argument.

>>1929810
By "Western" you mean American here right?

laws are still structured around the idea of women being stay at home moms and men the bread winners.

third wave feminism wants to keep those old laws that still benefit them. then make new laws that make it punitive to be a man.

there is no point in getting married or having kids as man. when the wife can divorce you at the drop of the hat. get the kids, the house, and a chunk of your income for decades.

then you find out your pay is cut. because wage equality laws mean everyone is just being lowered in pay instead of a few being raised.

>>1929867

>petty bickering over semantics

>>1929868
Yes, that's what Western always means despite Europeans being nothing like Murrisharts societally or culturally. They're like China to us and we scoff when they refer to us as part of their 'civilization'.

Why did people think "dual income" was ever a good thing?

>>1929879
The video itself doesn't provide any solid arguments aside from pseudo-science and unsourced evolutionary psychology hypothesizing.

>>1929886
When everything is so expensive that it's necessary.

T. Working poor since time immemorial.

>>1929890
>>petty bickering over semantics

>>1929817
Does this mean we will see in the near future a strong push by women for polygamy in the West? I could definitely see that happening as more women reach their 30s and all the "good" men are already taken.

>>1929766

Research the June Cleaver Effect if you want a real answer from an economic perspective.

>>1929902
>June Cleaver Effect

I googled this and couldn't find anything. Mind explaining in more detail?

>>1929886
>>1929894
This, the idea of a woman doing nothing other than caring for children and running a household while the man provides 100% of household income is a rare thing historically. Outside of maybe a few generations in the early 20th century, women worked on the farm, or at the loom, or some other kind of activity. Even during the 20th century it was common for women to work party time while raising children, or full-time once they got older. It could be argued (not my opinion however) that we've taken a step back now that women have to work again.

>>1929901
I don't think so. With modern emphasis on individuality I don't think polygamy can be socially popular, nor would it last for most of the women involved for long when they get jealous over another. They're just going to either settle down for some damaged or crazy goods or die alone and depress like people do now.

>>1929782
>>1950s
>Post war economic boom. Workers are scarce and have lots of bargaining power.

>>1970s
>Europe and Japan recover from the war and start competing with American workers. automation stars to eat away at clerical jobs like bank tellers and switch board operators. Start of the neo-liberal revolution.

>>2010s
>China has taken all the low-skill labor intensive jobs (and some of the high-skill technical jobs) that Americans used to do. Workers have very little bargaining power.

>My family income is around 150 grand and we barely scrape by in our city.

Try moving to a shittier city.

>>1929766
In terms of economics, women receiving fairer pay, and being more present in the workforce, in conjunction with the manufacturing work moving overseas, helped to create the stagnation in American wages. It wasn't the largest factor, but it was one of the reasons why capitalists moved production to places like China, Mexico, and now into Africa.

Im willing to bet you will start seeing a lot of social programming or whatever you call it for "open relationships" in the next 5 years.

something where the girl gets the beta provider and also gets to fuck Chad/Jamal, and the beta will be the one who will defend it the most

>>1929926
Do you think something like a Bachelor tax on single men could be implemented as well? Wouldn't be too surprising if Hillary gets elected.

>>1929817
The problem with this video, is that from a evolutionary standpoint it shows the islamic culture as the stronger and more dominant culture. So, why would they not want this culture to take over?

>>1929938
>So, why would they not want this culture to take over?

Because Western libertarian ideals, history and culture will be eradicated if Islam conquers the West. The West was doing just fine socially up until about a century ago, no reason to passively throw it away just because some people and ideas went too far in a few places.

>>1929936
>Do you think something like a Bachelor tax on single men could be implemented as well?

maybe. Mussolini literally did just that to improve the birth rate in Italy. single men were taxed harder, couples were taxed less and even given money by the state if they were poor and had kids.

>>1929938
>So, why would they not want this culture to take over?

because its just right about one thing and wrong about everything else. Its also barbaric and would lead the world into ruin if it dominated it.

>>1929918
He probably couldn't get that wage in a shittier city.

That's a problem. You can live very well on 150k in nice small town USA, but you're not going to have an easy time ever finding a job paying that wage without moving to a population center.

>>1929883
That's because Euros on 4chan are arrogant and are quick to criticize without admitting their countries own faults. Much like Americans.

So no, in essence you're both exactly the same.

>>1929913
I'll just add that what HAS changed is that women are now in a better position to develop marketable skills and receive fair compensation in return, so rather than homogenisation of the workforce leading to cultural change it could just as much be the reverse.

>>1929894
>phoneposter

>>1929941
>Because Western libertarian ideals, history and culture will be eradicated if Islam conquers the West.
It makes no sense to abandon liberal ideals because someone is threatening them (although in the real world liberal ideals are a much bigger threat to Islam than vice versa). That's like commiting suicide because your afraid your neighbour could kill you in a fight.

>The West was doing just fine socially up until about a century ago
Society in the 19th and early 20th century was chaotic as fuck. I don't know where this meme comes from but it's not from a knowledge of history.

>>1929965
Did you misread? I was agreeing with you.

>>1929936
Rome did it, so yea probably.

Women being convinced that having a career is more important than a stable marriage and children is the biggest catastrophe to hit western civilization since the black plague

>>1929926
>>1929936
>>1929938

worse than that, Im starting to see this really creepy pedo tier trend among social media (mostly among minorities) where they dress up little girls like slutty 20 year olds. And you have old men commenting on how attractive they are.

Its the most skin crawl inducing cringy thing I see normies do and it makes me thing we are in a state of societal decay

>>1930030
>where they dress up little girls like slutty 20 year olds.

Pretty sure that's been going on for awhile now. But if it is increasing in frequency, as you say, what does that mean? That society will soon deem it socially acceptable again for a older man to marry girls who are in their teens?

File: june+cleaver[1].jpg (26KB, 654x490px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 654x490px

>>1929909

>Mind explaining in more detail?

In short, June Cleaver is mom from the series "Leave It to Beaver!" which was a popular tv show during the 1950's. June does a lot of work preparing meals, running errands, taking care of kids, cleaning the home, etc but because none of that is monitored by the government, it doesn't appear as part of GDP.

There is a good chance that modern-day June Cleaver would not being doing those things, though. Instead, she is working a job during the day. This gets factored directly into GDP because the government monitors all business activity. Does this mean that June is working harder now? Not necessarily. It just means that the type of work that June does now is monitored and reported to the government whereas before all the work that June Cleaver did was housework that doesn't appear as part of GDP because the government can't monitor or record everything a housewife does during the day because that would just be really creepy.

Why does this matter? Because it creates an illusion of massive GDP growth that has to be accounted for when you compare GDP growth over time. Now let's be clear, am I saying that the GDP hasn't actually grown since the 1950's? No, that would be silly. But it hasn't grown as much as it appears to have grown. Sure, June is just 1 woman, but she represents 50% of the population.

Another thing, June used to do a lot of work preparing meals for the family herself. Again, this work she does is NOT factored in GDP because the government isn't spying on June in her kitchen. However, when modern day June goes to the store to by a pre-prepared meal from Giant, that does get factored into GDP because Giant has to report its economic activities to the government under law. So in this instance, June is actually doing LESS work than she did in the 1905's but it gets factored into GDP whereas the stuff she did at home before did not get counted towards GDP.

>>1929916
Polygamy works but it only does when all the parties are fine with it and are for it.

t. Know a guy in one for 15 years with a kid from both women.

>>1930040
Interesting, one problem though is that wouldn't a 1950s housewife's shopping and expenses related to cooking, cleaning, entertaining kids, etc. also be factored into GDP back then? Even 60 years ago women were buying all the necessary ingredients for meals at supermarkets (and also buying frozen foods). Or would that have been included as part of the man's earnings and expenditures since married women didn't have independent incomes?

>>1930018
Actually worse, since the aftermath of the Black Death at least resulted in positive things to happen to Europe.

>>1930060

I don't actually have a good answer for this. I'm basically just telling you what I was told in an introductory macroeconomics course. So after this point everything I say is just speculation. Your comment earlier about not being able to find any more information online is true for me as well, which makes me think that my professor just gave this phenomenon his own nickname for it. He never really gave any kind of qualifier for how much of an impact the effect has, simply that it exists and we should be aware of it. So it might be a minor effect that is easily compensated for or it might be a huge deal, I honestly can't tell you for certain either way.

>>1930060
>included as part of the man's earnings and expenditures since married women didn't have independent incomes?
Yes that part. The man earned, and the women spent the man's earnings.

>>1929766

Find how how many people are in the US workforce, double it overnight and imagine how that would affect wages.

>>1929901

>Does this mean we will see in the near future a strong push by women for polygamy in the West?

Feminist call it polyamory.

>>1929782
People are dumb and have it backwards. Women were forced to work for economic reasons.

>>1930192
Fug, is it already being pushed?

>>1929913

prior to the 20th century there were very few formal jobs available to women though. In terms of employment (where you get paid a regular salary for having a regular job with an employer), you could be a teacher, a nurse, a maid, a cook, and a nanny and that was essentially it. The vast majority of women may have helped out with the farm work or done craft work to sell on the side but this is not formal employment.

so women worked informally, but in terms of jobs very few of them worked prior to the 20th century. there is a difference.

>>1930284
They were pretty heavily employed in textile mills beginning in the 19th century too, but that was usually limited to a few major industrial centers.

>>1930291

yes. the point remains that this idea that 'career women' isn't new because women have supposedly 'always worked' is wrong. some women did work, but they were a small minority.

>>1930305
I agree for the most part, but it really depends on the location, demographics and period that you are looking at. In mid-19th century New York City, for example, most working-class Irish immigrant women were working for wages as servants or other menial occupations. But yes, the vast majority of women living in rural Illinois at the same time were not doing anything but serving as housewives.

File: men united as one.png (689KB, 1221x1080px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 1221x1080px

>>1930207
i hope so
the anger will be planet-busting :^)

>>1930305
>>1930284
>>1930284
>>1930305
Yeah brah of course there's a difference between formal employment in its current form, and the way women (also men, but particularly women) worked in the past. I was trying to point out that comparing the current situation to what immediately preceded it needs to be done carefully because a situation where women don't work is a historical aberration. It's important to understand how things were earlier this century but hold up a distorted view of the 1950s situation as some kind of ideal or norm is distracting and innacurate.

If anything the confinement of women to the home was one of the driving forces behind the movement for workforce equality because it coincided with the growth of capitalism. Capitalism values money-earning ability above all other attributes, which led to the view in many that traditionally important contributions such as home labour were far less important than actual monetary income. In this sense the contributions of men came to be viewed as more important, and thus women's position suffered as a result.

>>1929938
>The problem with this video, is that from a evolutionary standpoint it shows the islamic culture as the stronger and more dominant culture. So, why would they not want this culture to take over?
Actually the problem is you equate evolution with being a moral force, and think that competing evolutionary strains are obligated to bow out and concede defeat when subject to evolutionary pressure.

File: aryastark.jpg (57KB, 640x517px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x517px

>>1929766
>>1929782
>>1929938

more like

Hey bitches
now that you can vote, here is some shit you can have so you can elect my ass.

>free child care in the form of pre K and K-12 education.
no the 13 yrs of education won't get them a job at anything other then walmart or mcdonalds, but hey, they can opt for 4 years of student loans to learn how to be communists, then they can be a telemarketer.

Best part? You don't have to raise your kid for most of the day, go get a job to pay the taxes needed for such a good system.

>Oh, you can divorce your husband for no reason. We will also extort money from your husband to pay for your whoring.
"I don't love him" or "I want food stamps" are valid reasons.

>Did I mention that we will pay you to be a single mother? We will also pay for your abortions.
Go ahead and spread your legs bitches, daddy government will take care of your shit. Also, we will make sure to teach that slut shaming is wrong in our 4 year college system.

>Student Loans for anything.
Want to get in lots of debt for a useless degree? Are you a women who is very submissive and easy to leave an impression on? Well here is a 4 year program of authority figures for you to submit to.


Democracy, was a mistake.

>>1930379
You sound really bitter, mad you can't get any and never went to college lmao

File: democracy kronstadt.jpg (278KB, 900x1342px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 900x1342px

>>1930388
>military vet
>college grad in econ (GI bill, paid for by you faggot)
>devout catholic
>monarchist/anarchist. (natural hierarchy)
>married.

Nah, I'm good. I just see the state pure stupidity. Men and women are not equal, but the state is used to rectify this with interesting and stupid results.

File: laffingastronaut.gif (1MB, 290x189px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x189px

>>1930334

>>19304 I never really did understand the idea of an anarchist monarchy. To be considered a functioning monarch, wouldn't that person have to operate a bona fide state apparatus?

It seems like the big problem we need to deal with is giving out loans for bad investments.

If someone wants to take feminist studies and there's no feminist study jobs, then it should be restricted to people who can pay for their education in feminist studies because they want it, not because it's supposed to be an investment, or those who can earn scholarships from organizations that support feminist studies.

>>1929949
in europe, couples are already taxed less today

Did women work outside the home in large numbers in the Soviet Union and other communist countries?

>>1930388
Not an argument

>>1929901
Its already happening
The 20% Chads are getting 80% of the women

>>1930725
Yeah but there's a big difference between de facto polygamy and de jure. Once it's officially legalized the West will truly be beyond repair.

>>1930725
>The 20% Chads are getting 80% of the women

This has always been true though. The real number is 33% of the men get 67% of the women.

>weaker sex
>have to push affirmative action and quotas everywhere

and even then girls cant compete with men

How can people still believe in 2016 that the West is a patriarchy?

>>1930751
If you're sufficiently ideological, anything is possible.

>>1930334
I love these images. There's another one where they had this girl tell her 5 year bf she used to gang bang in college and he just gets her to leave. No anger, no crying, just 'this isn't what I signed up for, bye'

File: 1446285052237.jpg (499KB, 1155x811px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1155x811px

>>1930788

>>1930827
>purely physical
Awesome. Seem I mixed the two up. There's another one about college banging, but that's totally the one were he just deapans and backs out.


Fun (?) fact: Women define cheating emotionally and men define cheating physically (on average)

I genuinely think it has everything to do with the evolutionary growth of mating behaviours. Women never had to consider the idea that their children are not their own, instead valuing the stability and support of a partner rather than the necessity of passing on their genes. To a male however the concept of physical cheating means that they may lose a change at reproduction this cycle and worse would have to waste resources on offspring that isn't theirs.
tl;dr
Women are geared to care about whether the help and money is being split between a competitor. Men are geared to care about whether the genetic continuation of their line is secure.

>>1929960
t. Vague shade of brown

>>1930853
I agree, but with a caveat. I think the woman in that picture simply wasn't honest with herself and was in some serious well of self-deception.

If you are in a committed relationship, and suddenly feel the need to fuck other people, chances are you aren't really happy in it, and are just lying to yourself.

>>1930827
Sometimes I wish adultary was still criminalized. Because most often people don't get the "sweet revenge" like this guy got when his girlfriend broke down. Nothing too serious as a punishment, just being tied up in a square with people throwing rotten vegetables at you or something.

>>1930869
That is true but it assumes no societal influence. In the basic societies humans are all monogamous unless disaster creates gender imbalance.

As things developed then the 'harem' thought process started appearing. You could take it any of four ways. She is a bad person. Society has geared her to value carnal diversity to the point where she genuinely felt she was missing out. She was unconsciously seeking new mates. The general unrest and decline in her environment triggered an inclination for polygamous pairing.

Tangential perhaps but the effects of the stability of a familial environment, down to hormone intensity and production cycles proves without doubt that people are far more sensitive to such things than social science would like to advertise.

>>1930893
>but it assumes no societal influence

It really doesn't. Even from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense for a woman to constantly seek a better mate; the question is simply whether or not people are honest to themselves about that fact.

>>1930874
Legalising such actions is stupid. People will always react within a margin of error. That is to say if you say that it needs to be dealt with in court some people will get physical. If you make it a public/physical punishment then some people will escalate from that standard too (look at the middle east)

As it stands there is still a level of punishment and humiliation that is quietly 'accounted for'.

>>1930897
That's if you're view it from a vacuum. Mating behaviours aren't purely based on reason. If they were almost all animals would breed in the exact same fashion or at least have almost indistinguishable approach behaviours.
Humans are by nature a pairing animal. This is very hard to dispute from a empirical point of view.

>>1930905
>Mating behaviours aren't purely based on reason.

They are precisely *not* based on reason. Reason would suggest a woman should stay with a man who is strong, has a lot of resources and is a good father, but that's not what women do for the most part; they want the exciting and Machiavellian character, because these people are highly adaptive, to the point of pathology, but they know how to succeed in a dominance-hierarchy.

Women love to drink and sleep around. Women do not want rights for just having rights, they want rights to have a comfy life, just like previously, the (male) peasants demanded more rights (typically less taxation) to have a comfier life.
It runs out that women are very good at getting to make them partying, drinking and cumming.

>>1930898
Punishment like what? Women and Chads can easily find a new partner even if they cheated.

Reminder that women have strong animalistic traits they hide under manipulative lies. Reminder that feminists want society to return to pic related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jupr_hLO9BQ

>>1930911
Not all women want Machiavelli as a partner. Further, that is a very societal view of the process. I think that breaking the process down is the best way to form an accurate evolutionary model.

If you're assuming that the nature was developed over time than the most basic elements are those from the furthest back. Those elements were 1:1 pairings. Obviously you'd vie for the best partner but a pairing is a pairing, not a match on mating season.

The respect of power (in the fashion we're referring to it in) is likely a result of inter-societal conquering. The 'my husband is dead and I might be to if I don't learn to love his killer' mentality. I do not think it is 'core' to the human sexual evolution so much as it is a relatively recent addition. One which is more prevalent in some groups compared to others.

>>1930928
>Not all women want Machiavelli as a partner.

No, but they want to fuck him, and fucking people for most of history until the invention of the birth control pill usually meant getting pregnant.

All of these things are at humanity's base sexual nature. Now, you can supplant and destroy that if you are sufficiently draconian in your social engineering; the question is how far do you want to go in your social engineering in order to destroy human nature?

>>1930934
> how far do you want to go in your social engineering
What is Abrahamic religions?

>>1930951
Yes, that is one way to control women's and men's sexuality.

And it worked for about 2000 years approximately, out of a evolutionary history of several tens of millions of years.

Related: 80% of US divorces are now filed by women

http://www.divorcesource.com/blog/why-women-file-80-percent-of-divorces/

>>1930951
Monogamy is the basic human nature. You literally cannot prove that wrong through any historical view point. It is an anthropological fact.

>>1930934
Again I do not think that is entirely the case and history would tend to agree. Early human development did not have the resources for women to procreate with security when unpaired. This is a later iteration on the baser nature. I will not deny it is an element now but it is not the core. It is what you'd define as engineering. Just as much as Abhramic versions of pairing are engineering.

>>1930927
>attacking the male
Classic over-investment. Competitors are unavoidable in life, suffering a traitor is a choice.

>>1929766

unmitigated disaster

marxist rhetoric in the 60s-70s was amazingly 1984-like

to men

>WORKING IS ALIENATING, IT DESTROYS THE HUMAN SPIRIT

to women

>WORKING IS EMPOWERING, IT'S EMANCIPATING

>>1930973
Literally political schizophrenia.

>>1929782
>difficulty living on 150,000
LITERALLY KILL YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING UPPER CLASS FUCK

>>1931002
Relative poverty is worse than absolute poverty m8, ask any economist.

>>1930973
This is completely misleading and you know it.

Working for the profit of someone else whilst being exploited leads to alienation. Working for your own enterprise or a community enterprise is uplifting and revolutionary.

>this thread
>misogyny
>r9k memes
>poly conspiracies
>marxism conspiraces
>black pigeon speaks shitposting
RIP in piss /his/

>>1931020
>Working for your own enterprise or a community enterprise is uplifting and revolutionary.

Well this isn't mostly, what happened. Women were just thrust into the same alienating world as men.

>>1931028
And?
most marxists wouldn't be satisfied with female working conditions

>>1929941
>The West was doing just fine socially up until about a century ago,
Oh, wow. That's has not an ounce of truth into it, man.

>>1929949
Nobody wants improved birth rates except Muslims. World is fucking collapsing over so many people.

>>1931033
>most marxists wouldn't be satisfied with female working conditions

No, but they still wanted them out in those working conditions anyway.

>>1931034
b-but women were pure
b-but poor people being horribly oppressed in terrible working conditions is fine when women don't wear short skirts...

>>1930125
>>1930060
The phenomenon you're talking about is the work-labour distinction within a feminist point of view, I believe.

>>1930358
That reminds me to the WWII situation, in which the industry was obligated to use female workforce since the men were in war. How does that evolve into the 1950s situation?

>>1930202
Women have always been forced to work for economic reasons, the only ones who could afford not to were rich heiresses and trophy wives who would have (typically female) servants do all the work.
What's new is that more and more women are officially working for wages in the same way as men, and handing over housework and childcare to specialized female workers. We're at a weird point where the average household is affluent enough to afford "servants" (might include household appliances as well as service workers) to handle most tasks but only if the wife also earns a decent wage.

>>1930751
Because socially the men are still superior and it is hoped that with enough pedagogical action (which is flawed by the statu quo every single time), counter balance fees and quotas, women will not be in a subservient position anymore. I resist calling it a patriarchy because there's no economical or legal basis into it as of now (quite the contrary), and it stablishes fog into the real, actual patriarchies, like the Vatican state or most Islamic countries (what a shocker).

I personally call it the decadence or shadow of patriarchy. It's going to take a while to erase it, and people will be complaining about it all the way through in their slacktivist's couchs.

>>1930962
>Monogamy is the basic human nature.
No it isn't

>You literally cannot prove that wrong through any historical view point. It is an anthropological fact.
There are tonnes of primitive societies that are not monogamous. Many of them don't even understand that sex leads to pregnancy. You're projecting a post-agricultural norm onto the pre-agricultural past.

>>1931041
>No, but they still wanted them out in those working conditions anyway.
No, they wanted them not to be forced out. Marxists generally want to improve working conditions, not make work illegal or otherwise impossible. The same applies for women.

>>1931124
>muh Marxist conception of history

>>1931131
I'm sorry, but the whole reasoning for leftists pushing for female emancipation was because the nuclear family was oppressive.

And while that might've been true, it's not like they escaped any oppression by becoming cogs in the machine like the men had been as sole breadwinners.

>>1931132
I'm not a marxist though. This is basic anthropology. Just the other day we had a Brazilian linguistics student on /his/ who lived with the paraha tribe in the Amazon. They don't practice monogamy, they swap "wives" all the time and are just generally fucking quite a lot.

The reason the transition to agriculture is important is because once land ownership exists, it matters who inherits what, hence descent is managed.

>>1931066
Women working in traditionally male-dominated jobs during the war years was an unusual occurrence, plus once the war was over the male workforce return and a lot of those jobs based on wartime economy didn't exist anymore. When the 50s came around the West was having a population boom along with an economic boom, which for a rare time enabled the men to earn enough to support their young wives who were raising larger families.

Another factor that has been overlooked in this thread (weird, because it's very obvious) is that around this time companies really started figuring out how to market products. Ordinary people today live in far larger houses, eat a larger range and volume of food, buy far more imported products and generally spend more on luxury comfort/entertainment/status purchases than in the past. I'm sure it would be theoretically possible for one income earner to support a family if that family consumed luxuries to the level they did several generations ago. Of course competition and relative wealth is a huge thing and can't be ignored in practice, thus it is often necessary for the woman to also work full time in order to fund these new expenses (e.g. laptops, school trips, expensive professional clothes etc.).

And before someone jumps on it yes I know the relative costs for essential expenses such as housing have increased, but I'm not discussing that because it's already been covered.

>>1931124
I am very much not. I have literally spoken to Anthros about this. I used to think like you but they talked me down again and again. Facts are facts, the only way to avoid that is to be an idiot.

>>1931144
Yeah, it's basic anthropology if you're a Marxist.

You should perhaps not accept The Origins of the Family, Property and the State by Engels as your equivalent of the Bible.

>>1931136
>I'm sorry, but the whole reasoning for leftists pushing for female emancipation was because the nuclear family was oppressive.
Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition. The nuclear family still exists btw, but now marriage is seen as a union of equals.

> it's not like they escaped any oppression by becoming cogs in the machine like the men
They haven't achieved absolute freedom but it's as step up. Absolute freedom is probably impossible but that doesn't mean people should accept every situation they find themselves in.

>it's a lets blame women instead of capitalism episode

File: chicken.jpg (47KB, 480x682px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x682px

>>1929883
>despite Europeans being nothing like Murrisharts societally or culturally
We are black too?

File: 1404690087380.jpg (128KB, 724x390px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 724x390px

>>1931159
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition.

Yeah, but what constitutes oppression is completely relative and not at all as intuitive as you think.

Case in point: Pic related.

Women want euqual rights so they can also have equally to suffer as working drones and slaves desu.

Don't get all this white knighting ITT.

>>1931153
I don't believe you, unless we're mixing up two connotations of monogamy. Humans pair up to mate and are in that sense monogamous. That doesn't change the fact that polygamy exists in more societies than not, and mating partnerships are not for life. Especially in pre-agricultural societies. Y-DNA analysis shows a relatively recent shift from polygyny to monogamy. Population of a society and monogamy are positively correlated, suggesting a link between agriculture and monogamy. Lack of agriculture is the most consistent predictor of polygamy.

Saying humans are naturally monogamous is especially retarded because human sexuality is quite adaptable relative to other primates so the idea that humans are strictly anything is questionable.

>>1931154
>The Origins of the Family, Property and the State by Engels as your equivalent of the Bible.
Never read any work by Marx or Engels but nice try.

>>1929782
>150 grand
>barely scrape by
You from Zimbabwe?

>>1929766
>women weren't part of the workforce before 1970
Women NOT being part of the workforce is the unnatural "norm" imposed by conservatives. From feudalism to the industrial revolution women have been part of the workforce. But occasionally (usually in peace time) men have tried to force them out

>>1931171
This is why feminism is a movement rooted in the middle and upper class. Middle and upper class jobs are desirable, seen by the majority, men and women, as being preferable to domestic labour. For lower class women, being able to work the same jobs as their husbands was never so attractive a concept.

>>1931171
>Yeah, but what constitutes oppression is completely relative
true, but irrelevant. Choice or at least the illusion thereof matters. Also the fact that your picture shows a mine worker is ironic.

>>1931171
This honestly. Anon's pic is literally flawless. There is no such thing as an individual who enjoys success and independence as a result from there labor. It's a myth. Everyone who has a job is a coal miner. We are an economy, civilization, and planet of coal miners. Women on the other hand receive orgasmic pleasure from household work and never have to worry about raising unruly children, maintaining and feeding a household on a limited budget, or being beaten bloody by the husband that drank all his wages away

>>1931249
>This is why feminism is a movement rooted in the middle and upper class

Which is also why as George Orwell accurately described in the Road to Wigan Pier; middle-class and upper-class people who claim to be socialists/communists are neither, they are simply resentful people who hate the rich.

File: Fags.jpg (1MB, 1620x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1620x1080px

>>1931236
>>1931144
>>1931124
>I'm a degenerate and need science to justify my sinful and hedonistic behavior.

My wife has a degree in antropology. Only a couple of shithead tribes like you discribe exist.

Monogamy is practiced bythe pygmy manlets niggers in Africa, goat fuckers in Mongolia, 99% of native American tribes, fucking aztecs and shit, ect.

You are literally saying some degenerate bullshit to sound intelligent.
> "piff, our preconceived notion of family is not natural man..... like free love was how we lived in the past.."

find me a fucking modern source for your trash from a real anthropologist. Even most polygamy cultural are mostly monogamous,

>>1931258
I know you're being sarcastic right now, but the point of the picture is to make you realize that unlike women who have cushy office jobs and refuse to have children until their biology dictates a 500% chance of the child having autism, men are the reason the lights are on and the buildings don't collapse on your head.

But this, of course, is irrelevant, because everything that matters in this world is that wretched cunts who make 500 thousand dollars a year can continue whining about being oppressed.

>>1931236
I am talking about pairing. I am not talking about over the span of societies I am talking in basic proto-communities and cultures as well as early societies. I am observing what humans did before society changed the behaviour overly.
We are a pairing species. Society has changed that but most society pairs anyway, even if the methods and ends have warped somewhat.

Bullshit it does. If you're talking about common genetic ancerstory studies a lot of those stem from conquering other groups, a point I have already addressed and you didn't respond to.

The adaptability of humans is inherently associated with the environment. The idea being that without an usual circumstance to adapt to we would still have a base line behavioural pattern. You throw the term retarded around but you sure are making a lot of unfounded supposition out to be fact.

File: A girl pulls a tub of coal 1842.jpg (171KB, 1038x465px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1038x465px

>>1931245
>But occasionally (usually in peace time) men have tried to force them out

Exactly.

>>1931249
>For lower class women, being able to work the same jobs as their husbands was never so attractive a concept.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>1931266
>find me a fucking modern source for your trash from a real anthropologist. Even most polygamy cultural are mostly monogamous,

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

>According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous and 4 had polyandry.

>muh dejenurasee and sin
LARPing faggot. Stopping being such a child. Throwing a tantrum because science doesn't support your christcuck delusions.

And before you start again, I'm pro-monogamy

>>1931266
>Monogamy is practiced bythe pygmy manlets niggers in Africa, goat fuckers in Mongolia, 99% of native American tribes, fucking aztecs and shit, ect.
All post-agricultural you retard.

>find me a fucking modern source for your trash from a real anthropologist.

Roes, Frans L. (1992). "The Size of Societies, Monogamy, and Belief in High Gods Supporting Human Morality"

What We Know and What We Don’t Know About Variation in Social Organization: Melvin Ember’s Approach to the Study of Kinship

Dupanloup I, Pereira L, Bertorelle G, Calafell F, Prata MJ, Amorim A, Barbujani G (2003). "A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity". J Mol Evol.

took like 30 seconds of googling and looking on wiki. Lazy and stupid.

>>1931290
>wikipedia
Fucking nice. I guess the anthropologists that he, and I, have been speaking with are wrong and some aggregate spergs have a better grip than academic papers do.

>>1931295

Pygmins aren't post agricultural and are very strict on their rules for polygamy.

>>1931301
for Monogamy.
Pardon.

I still see a corelation with succesful societies and Monogamy because basically all of them are Monogamious.

>>1931304
He won't listen. He's injected the meme that Cheif Ogg -heavy club- Unk gets all the bitches as if people were lions. There's no helping him now.

>>1931301
>Pygmins aren't post agricultural
Yes they are, and they have been since the Bantu expansion over 2000 years ago. Many pygmies still hunt, but they do so as members of the wider Bantu system, often as slaves.

>I still see a corelation with succesful societies and Monogamy because basically all of them are Monogamious.
Yes and you will also see a correlation with agriculture. We've been through this.

>>1931309
He is right and you are a memester.

t. the dude you replied to

>>1931300
It names the original source in the quote you retard.

File: Rosati_harem-dance.jpg (962KB, 1920x1181px) Image search: [Google]

962KB, 1920x1181px

>>1931300
>I guess the anthropologists that he, and I, have been speaking with are wrong and some aggregate spergs have a better grip than academic papers do.

When you get your ass beat, the proper course of action is to slink away for a nice long sulk, not try to defend your stupidity.

>>1931324
And yet here you are.

File: 1478524462658.png (147KB, 849x321px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 849x321px

>>1929766

>>1931283
>when you miss the point this hard

I should've known better than to expect intelligence from a feminist.

File: keep-calm-and-do-damage-control.png (38KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x700px

>>1931328

Stay down.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12962309

>>1931436
Not him, but that paper makes perfect sense to me though, considering that humans today have twice as much female genetic material as male.

The question is whether or not monogamy is superior to what we have now, e.g a society where 40% of children are born out of wedlock.

>>1931466
>ociety where 40% of children are born out of wedlock.
And those are majority underclass.
Here in specially the middle class very sticks to the conservative ideals.

>>1931483
Yeah, but the middle-class barely has any children.

>>1931483
I think we are up to 50% now.

>>1931466
Monogamy is by far the superior template, as one man to one woman significantly decreases the violent competition between males. Furthermore, a greater proportion of males have an invested stake in the success of the society if there is a lower disparity between the highest and lowest strata. In a polygamous society, males with distinct resource/size/etc advantage have much greater access to women, so subsequently there is a lack of women for lower run males to get with thereby depriving their interest or stake in the success of that social order.

This is completely foregoing the investments many children need in modern world, what with huge monetary costs for good education, proper nutrition, etc etc that just can't be met resource wise with a woman being suckled on the government teat or occasional beta boyfriend/stepfather that's occasionally in the picture in an almost always adverse environment for the child. Psychologically, two parent household leads to stable societies, and well adjusted kids based on many metrics.

>>1931493
I agree, but I personally think that monogamy is doomed at this point, and it has been for a very long time, and now we are reverting back to some kind of stone-age sexual relations.

Think about it, a man doesn't even need to have a job to get access to sex as long he has Tinder and looks somewhat okay physically, and if women are willing to give it up that easily, they shouldn't expect a man to commit either.

>>1930725
It's not polygamy whatsoever because both parties are promiscuous

>>1931023
Not an argument. You can't refute anything you highlighted.

>>1931514
Is this dysgenics in terms of intelligence?

>>1930426
2/10

>>1930426
>(GI bill, paid for by you faggot)
>"""Military Vet"""
>Doesn't know how GI Bill works
okay

>>1930426
>cringe: the post

>>1931971
>Is this dysgenics in terms of intelligence?

What do you mean?

>>1932003
I mean that if this continues future generations might be more attractive but they'll also be less intelligent and less inclined to maintain the previous high standards required of complex civilizations.

>>1931097
>Because socially the men are still superior

I disagree. It's pretty obvious that after this election(at least if you live in America) that white women now control social aspects in our society. Women in general, especially white women, are now the most privileged class in the US.

>>1932043
This is true and it will only get worse after 8 years of Hillary Clinton, then another 8 of Michelle Obama, then another 8 of Chelsea Clinton. Although that may be broken up a bit by the insertion of a Hispanic male/female somewhere in that timeline.

Actually, nevermind, the country probably won't last that long into the future.

>>1929766
Women were already in the workforce (at least in the UK), the big movements in the 60s and 70s were about getting them proper working rights.

The "male provides, woman watches the home" meme is a 1950s American invention.

[spoiler]this isn't any sort of feminist statement, I'd be more than happy to remove women from the workforce to mitigate the huge labour surplus most western nations currently have.[/spoiler]

your Mother's ass got fatter

>>1929920
For every manufacturing job lost to offshoring more than two were lost to automation.

File: 1461536409723.jpg (37KB, 652x558px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 652x558px

>>1929782
>My family income is around 150 grand and we barely scrape by in our city.
Are you perhaps retarded?

>>1931011
Relative poverty or not, 150k/y is more than enough to "scrap by" anywhere on this planet. Am I meant to believe that a couple HAS to pay at least 100k in rent and then use the other 50k to pay the bills and groceries to survive?
Is there some gated community where the median household income is far above 150,000 a year and they pay their drivers and maids 75,000 each (and their drivers and maids get to live in the community)? Please explain.

>>1932163
You obviously don't understand what relative poverty means.

If you make 150k/year and everything is fucking expensive like in my country, it doesn't really matter if you're richer than some unknown Guatemalan tribe that nobody knows about does it?

I mean, if you live in the capitol city of my country, your mortgage is 40k a year easy.

>>1932186
Correction: If you own a house in the capitol city of my country it's 40k a year easy.

>>1932186
Clearly I do. I'm asking in what millionaire's paradise you live if 150k isn't enough to do more than "scrap by".

>buying a house in the capital is expensive
It's also a luxury. If you can even think about buying your own dwelling you're doing quite well for yourself.

>>1932198
>Clearly I do

Clearly you don't, because you keep arguing as if you don't understand what it means.

>>1932198
>>1932202
Imagine for a moment that the only way to get a good job is moving to a city where everything costs a fortune; thereby actually not increasing your standard of living at all, because the money you earned from getting the city job goes to the upkeep of living there.

>>1932202
What part of "there is no place on this planet where it costs more than 150k a year to survive, except perhaps some gated communities for the ultrarich" don't you understand? How much do you think the garbage truckers and janitors in your city earn?

>>1932210
>How much do you think the garbage truckers and janitors in your city earn?

Not a lot. They probably earn precisely enough to buy food and pay rent.

>>1932209
If you know of a place where a janitor earns 75,000 a year, please tell me. I have a strong back, work hard, I'll clean your shoes with my tongue for just 5000.

>>1932118
>>1931244
>>1931002
tfw rural peasants on my /his/. Please get gentrified from my board.

>>1932224
I'm asking how their salaries compare to the 150k/year your family makes, you drooling retard.

>>1932163
We pay 30% in taxes, 20% in loans from assets (not even shitting). Since we had to default in 2008, we pay 30,000/year on our mortgage. And we are paying for the living expenses and cars of four people.

This is one of the reasons I never feel bad for 99%ers that never took risk.

>>1932231
I wouldn't know. What I do know is that if you make 150k dollars in my country, you pay 50% in taxes, which means you only effectively have 75k to use.

>>1932239
>we pay 30% in taxes
Lucky you.

Other than that, it seems you got fucked by the banks for trying to live above your means.

>>1929810
>Westerns are pretty fucking stupid

This.

When you can't even keep your own women in line, then there's no hope left for you...

>>1932249
Uh no, we defaulted on a 900,000 apartment building in the detroit suburbs. After evicting over ten of our tennants for doing drugs and getting sued by the rest for basically having white skin, we had to defualt. The lawsuits against us never worked because they were bullshit, but you know that's not enough to stop chimps from trying. We worked our asses off trying to appreciate the value of the land, but our niggers tennants would always light it on fire. They even did this when we tried to renovate the neighborehood houses for free.

We went back to check on it a few times.

The banks replaced us with a proud black man that died of a cocain overdose pretty fast. Somebody strangled a dog to death with rope and left the body in the front lobby for 4 straight years. The building isn't even safe enough to house druggie homeless men.

Google "fullerton manor detroit" and you can see for yourself what it looks like now. I bet the banks are glad they forced us to default.

>>1932239
>Living in a state with such high cost of living.
>Not living in the lowest cost of living state possible
>Being good with money
Okay

>>1932239

t. Wannabe Trumpfuck

A leveraged acquisition of rental property in pre-08'... and in Detroit no less.

When you could have just invested in REITs.

>>1932239
You do realize the 1%ers diversify investments to reduce risk, right? Big investments aren't a good game for the 99%ers unless you have a really good reason to buy. This is why I will never respect the 99%ers, they put all their eggs in one basket and expect to become 1%ers by winning the lotto and they think they're smart for doing so.

>2016
>still working for a wage

lmao

>>1931046
Both your strawmen apply to literally every corner of the world.

Face it 19th and 20th century western civilisation is the pinnacle of human achievement.

>>1932387
>living anywhere where you make less than 100 grand a year
Haha

>>1930111
Funny enough if less women have kids that means the next generation will have higher wages because there's a lack of human labor. But instead we have modern transportation methods that can bring every immigrant to the West.

>>1929766
But they entered the workforce in the 1800s... married ones maybe not but that was really the point where change started

>>1932103
>citation needed

>>1929766
>How did women entering the workforce in a big way during and after the 1970s affect the economy and Western society and culture?

Cut the value of our labor in half and created the conditions to one day require most households to have both parents working in order to support the family.

Broke our banks and destroyed the family unit, which is the foundation of power.

>>1930038
we can hope

>>1933805
>Living in a place where your 100k doesn't equal 50k in a lower cost of living state.
>Not being able to rent a two story house for less than 1k a month
>Not being able to fill your fridge for less than $100
>Not being able to travel 20 miles in under 20 minutes
>Not being apart of the SEC
It's not even funny, I just feel bad for you

>>1931159
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition.
This is false and screams of victim olympics. And was it not "oppressive" to the man who had to be sole sole provider and often work in the most dangerous occupational positions?
>They haven't achieved absolute freedom but it's as step up.
To feminists who actually buy the bullshit oppression meme yes.
>>1931171
>>1931249
>>1931256
>>1931258
>>1931272
>http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/

File: Bridget-Jones-online-image1.jpg (46KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 615x409px

>>1929926
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Jones%27s_Baby

File: 1446366485668.png (125KB, 1344x1263px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1344x1263px

>>1930751
>>1931097

>>1935150
...woah...

>>1935126
>This is false
No it isn't

>and screams of victim olympics.
buzzwords

>And was it not "oppressive" to the man
Yes it is, but in a different way. That's why people say feminism is good for men too. Men can now be Nurses or stay-at-home Dad's or do other cushy jobs like that if they want to.

>who had to be sole provider and often work in the most dangerous occupational positions?
He didn't "have" to do any of that because he was a man. He had to it because he was poor. I don't know if you've noticed but leftists aren't all that fond of wage slavery either. That's a liberal thing.

>To feminists who actually buy the bullshit oppression meme yes.
To people who value freedom you mean.


>http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/
Read that entire article and not one word of it was relevant.

>>1935150
>that plot synopsis

JESUS WEPT

Amazing how many autists here got totally derailed from the main topic based on some guy's 150K comment. Which by the way is true for people trying to raise a whole family in a major US metropolitan area. (emphasis major)

>>1935178
>No it isn't
Yes it is.
>buzzwords
>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Victim%20Olympics
>That's why people say feminism is good for men too.
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/pump-and-dump/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/the-sexodus-part-1-the-men-giving-up-on-women-and-checking-out-of-society/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/09/the-sexodus-part-2-dishonest-feminist-panics-leave-male-sexuality-in-crisis/
>Men can now be Nurses or stay-at-home Dad's or do other cushy jobs like that if they want to.
The majority of men do not want to be that and want to work in jobs without quotas, unnecesary and unearned competition on a meritocratic basis.Women and also society at large will still expect and support men that go outside the home and work. And as I posted in the article you wrongly claimed irrelevant; men make up the majority in hard/dangerous occupations outside the home. Society not only wants, but also needs men for these jobs.
>To people who value freedom you mean.
>>1935169
>Read that entire article and not one word of it was relevant.
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition.
>They haven't achieved absolute freedom but it's as step up.
>facts blowing out your victim Olympics aren't relevant
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/fair-sex/

>>1935247
>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Victim%20Olympics
Urban dictionary is the home of buzzwords you meme.

>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/pump-and-dump/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/the-sexodus-part-1-the-men-giving-up-on-women-and-checking-out-of-society/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/09/the-sexodus-part-2-dishonest-feminist-panics-leave-male-sexuality-in-crisis/
Posting le redpill blogs and Breitbart just solidifies your meme status. If you like I can explain further but it would take us very far off topic. (though that seems to be what you are trying to do)

>The majority of men do not want to be that
If you don't want to do it then can you justify forcing women to do it? If they want to stay at home then they can make that choice for themselves.

>quotas
Quotas are a problem but a relatively tiny one. If you think it's unfair that a small number of men are denied a small number of jobs for their gender, why do you think it's fair that nearly all women are denied nearly all jobs because of their gender.

>Women and also society at large will still expect and support men that go outside the home and work.
Those are called gender norms and if you don't like them you can team up with the feminists who are trying to destroy them. You have more in common than you would ever admit. Personally I'm divided on the issue, and I think both the feminists and your opinions are shit.

> men make up the majority in hard/dangerous occupations outside the home.
That's cool mate but it's still irrelevant

>Society not only wants, but also needs men for these jobs.
Again, irrelevant.

>b-but men are important
yeah no shit sherlock.

>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/fair-sex/


>another meme blog
>
>
>

I bet you're underage.

>>1935388
>Urban dictionary is the home of buzzwords you meme.
Buzzword your're embodying by going on SJW opression bullshit and victim olympics
>Posting le redpill blogs and Breitbart just solidifies your meme status.
>I'm butthurt at truth that disproves my bullshit claims, so I'll just call them memes.
>f you like I can explain further but it would take us very far off topic.
You've explained enough for it to be clear you don't know a damn thing you're talking about.
>(though that seems to be what you are trying to do)
Don't falsely state that I'm trying to go off topic when I'm only responding to bullshit you've posted. You don't get to spout bullshit then whine that other people are going off topic when they refute and debunk it. You made your bed with bs claims, now you're just assblasted you have to lie in it.
>If you don't want to do it then can you justify forcing women to do it?
I never justified forcing women to do anything. What seems to be going over your head is that women weren't 'forced' to do anything. They chose to.
>If they want to stay at home then they can make that choice for themselves.
And like I just stated they did
> If you think it's unfair that a small number of men are denied a small number of jobs for their gender, why do you think it's fair that nearly all women are denied nearly all jobs because of their gender.
I never said I thought it was fair. And it's not just not fair I doesn't exist. You're seriously saying I have meme status and your itt spounting debunked SJW memes?
>(cont.)

>>1935592 (You)
>>1935388
>(cont.)
>Those are called gender norms and if you don't like them you can team up with the feminists who are trying to destroy them. You have more in common than you would ever admit.
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition.
>They haven't achieved absolute freedom but it's as step up.
>Read that entire article and not one word of it was relevant.
>Projecting this much
What part of any of what I posted leads you to believe I have anything in common with feminism. If you couldn't tell by my posts I think feminist bullshit can fuck right off. And again you're going to tell me that when you're the one spouting SJW memes?
>Personally I'm divided on the issue, and I think both the feminists and your opinions are shit.
>Facts that debunk feminist bullshit and lies that I've also spouted are shit.
So you admit that you're not just and idiot but a fence-sitting idiot who also just called their own opinions shit.
>That's cool mate but it's still irrelevant
What part of:
>The majority of men do not want to be that and want to work in jobs without quotas, unnecesary and unearned competition on a meritocratic basis.Women and also society at large will still expect and support men that go outside the home and work. And as I posted in the article you wrongly claimed irrelevant; men make up the majority in hard/dangerous occupations outside the home. Society not only wants, but also needs men for these jobs.
Did you not understand. And if I wasn't before I'm damn sure now you haven't read a single word of what I posted because no one can be this stupid.
>Again, irrelevant.
>muh irrelevance again
>another meme blog
>I'm butthurt at the truth so I'll call it memes, again.
>I bet you're underage.
I'm not so you'd lose that one. I bet your're retarded. From all the bullshit you've posted that's one I know I'd win

>>1929938
My problems with Islam are a) Worship of a false god, b) imperialistic (i.e. civilizational "zombie") and c) multiethnic.

I don't have a problem with political Islam and think morally they are largely justified. Death to the West.

>>1935388
>>The majority of men do not want to be that
>If you don't want to do it then can you justify forcing women to do it?
How would meritocracy be forcing women to do anything? It is liberals forcing businesses to stop hiring based on merit.

Unless you want to go full commie and claim Uncle Jerry's lumber yard that he built from the ground up isn't his property then you have to come up with a good justification for forcing him to do something, and you don't besides spurious accusations of sexism.

>>1935592
>victim olympics
is a buzzword. well two words, but whatever.

>You've explained enough for it to be clear you don't know a damn thing you're talking about.
The offer stands. I think you're doing serious harm to yourself.

>Don't falsely state that I'm trying to go off topic when I'm only responding to bullshit you've posted.
Your responses were off topic. I take it back though, I don't think it was deliberate. I just think you've been caught up in a meme sphere where you're unable to separate individual topics from broad narratives. Hence posting all of the irrelevant shit.

>What seems to be going over your head is that women weren't 'forced' to do anything. They chose to.
That is not true. You're going full revisionist now. But you've piqued my curiosity. If you believe that women have always had the freedom to enter the workforce, does it bother you that they are exercising that right? If so, why?

>What part of any of what I posted leads you to believe I have anything in common with feminism.
Well it started when you were complaining that men had to do all the hard work. You clarified that this was due in part to social pressure, I'll quote:
>Women and also society at large will still expect and support men that go outside the home and work.

Now, there are two reasons you could have brought this up in a list of grievances about society.
1. You're not happy with this state of affairs, and you believe people are being forced to play certain roles and conform to certain norms as a result of social pressures. This would put you in league with the feminists who believe the exact same thing. This leads me to believe your differences with feminists aren't differences in principle, but simple identity politics.

2. It was completely off topic and irrelevant like the other stuff you posted, and you're just lashing out at the SJW boogeyman because of the black and white narrative you have been sold by propaganda outlets such as Breitbart.

>>>cont.

>>1935736
>>>cont.

If you can come up with another reason you were complaining about gender roles then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that..

>a fence-sitting idiot who also just called their own opinions shit.
Very often to people entrenched in identity politics caution can look like fence-sitting. The issue of how societal pressure can be beneficial or harmful, as well as moral or immoral are complicated, and I'd need to read a lot more science before I came to a proper conclusion. The one thing I'm sure of is that societal pressures should be exercised for the benefit of the society as a whole and not one particular ingroup, which is why I'm opposed both to feminists and you, both of whom are advocating for elimination of restrictions on their ingroup and establishment (or reestablishment) of restrictions on the outgroup.

>What part of.....Did you not understand.
I understood every word, you were pretty clear. The issue is that very little of it is relevant.

>>1935704
>How would meritocracy be forcing women to do anything? It is liberals forcing businesses to stop hiring based on merit.
It wouldn't. I'm fully in favour of meritocracy. I believe quotas are a very delicate tool and should only be used in extreme circumstances, and I believe that there are few places outside the middle east where circumstances are extreme enough to warrant them. I'm worried by the opposition to meritocracy from so called liberals (who are in this instance acting quite illiberally)

as for the rest of your comment, property is a can of worms I'm not willing to open right now.

>>1932270
>invest in an apartment building in detroit
>whine about being ruined because of black people
Hilarious.

File: elvis tells it like it is.jpg (28KB, 300x375px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x375px

>>1935790
Shit, it's still funny 3 minutes later.
>they took a 1 million dollar loan so they could try to rent apartments to jobless crackheads
Can't make this up

File: 1475539701538.jpg (30KB, 308x531px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 308x531px

>>1929766

>hey let's just massively increase the workforce pool and expect wages to stay the same/increase
>hey let's push women into the workforce and start redefining the ideal woman as a successful professional instead of a homemaker and expect birth rates to remain acceptably high
>hey let's put women into the workforce while hammering in the idea of 'equality equality equality, you're all identical' so now when earnings discrepancies appear we'll blame it on sexism rather than individual choice, giving more power to feminist movements, and now when women don't get as far ahead they'll chalk it up to sexism rather than personal failings/choices, in turn continuing the demonize men, particularly white men since they're usually the senior management

On a side note, I will never get how feminists can reconcile,
>a. women were oppressed in the past in the workforce and due to sexism were unable to be promoted, given a proper education or a fair wage, meaning the pool of skilled women is much lower than that of skilled men due to experience gaps and educational gaps
with
>b. the only reason why more CEOs aren't women is because sexist men on the board of directors are unwilling to hire women

I mean, if 'a' were true, then there would be less women eligible for promotion to senior management, while if 'b' were true it would imply that there are just as many eligible women and they're simply not being hired because of their sex. Which is it?

>>1935736
>is a buzzword. well two words, but whatever.
And again one you're embodying
>I think you're doing serious harm to yourself.
>Projection agai.
>Your responses were off topic.
>Responding accurately to what I post is off topic
> I take it back though, I don't think it was deliberate.
Refuting your bullshit and victim olympics was indeed deliberate.
>where you're unable to separate individual topics from broad narratives. Hence posting all of the irrelevant shit. Hence posting all of the irrelevant shit.
When those individual topics are a significant part of said broad narrative and provide very valid reasons for why things are happening in said narrative, it is very much relevant.
>That is not true. You're going full revisionist now.
>women in the workforce
>revisionist
>>1931088
And I swear you're either not reading or are legitimately retarded.
>If you believe that women have always had the freedom to enter the workforce, does it bother you that they are exercising that right? If so, why?
Not when quotas or other bullshit is enforced and puts less qualified women in positions over more qualified men, or when shit like the wage gap myth is complained about, standards are lowered, etc. If women want to work they deal with what that entails and quit whining about the consequences of what they chose to do.
>Now, there are two reasons you could have brought this up in a list of grievances about society.
It's not a grievance. It is an acknowledgement of the way society works, as a large number of them have in the past as well, for very good reason worth being respected, learned from and properly discussed. And not being written off due to 'sexism' or any other nonsense .
>This leads me to believe your differences with feminists aren't differences in principle, but simple identity politics.
My difference with feminism lies in it's propagation of lies and bullshittery. If it wants to keep bitching and spouting bullshit, it can fuck off and die.
>(cont.)

>>1935866
>>1935736
>(cont.)
>It was completely off topic and irrelevant like the other stuff you posted,
>muh irrelevance, again
And your seriously retarded, not reading or both.
>and you're just lashing out at the SJW boogeyman because of the black and white narrative you have been sold by propaganda outlets such as Breitbart.
>legitimate reasons are lashing out
I'm "lashing out" at feminisms blatant lies. And it deserves every bit of it.
>>1935782
>If you can come up with another reason you were complaining about gender roles then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that..
I've given you plenty. Whether your cognitive dissonance allows you to accept that or not is not my problem.
>Very often to people entrenched in identity politics caution can look like fence-sitting.
>Personally I'm divided on the issue, and I think both the feminists and your opinions are shit.
I called it that is because you said you were in between, Which is what fence sitting is. Only in your case you're in between with facts on one side and horseshit on the other.
>The one thing I'm sure of is that societal pressures should be exercised for the benefit of the society as a whole and not one particular ingroup
When some people have earned benefits then they deserve to be given them. People that earn nothing either stop bitching and start attempting to or, if they failed, stop bitching, deal with it and shut up.
>which is why I'm opposed both to feminists and you, both of whom are advocating for elimination of restrictions on their ingroup and establishment (or reestablishment) of restrictions on the outgroup.
I'm not 'advocating' for any of that. I'm advocating for feminism to fuck off with it's lies and bullshit and meritocracy to be respected. Well, if you mean by 'elimination of restrictions' that people get what they earn or 'establishment of restriction" that others who haven't earned anything, deal, and get jack shit; then I guess you could say I'm advocating for that.

>>1935866
>And again one you're embodying
no. According to your own link """victim olympics""" means "minimize or oppose even bringing up discrimination/disadvantages of other groups" which I have not done, I've explicitly acknowledged the oppression of men, especially working class men, in the past.

The reason I call this a buzzword is because you are not attempting to describe anything accurately, you are trying to desperately sling shit hoping that some of it will stick to the grand wall of SJW bullshit that your worldview depends upon. You've gone to your list of Breitbart or redpill approved buzzwords, picked one out and thrown it with little thought of the meaning or context.

>Refuting your bullshit and victim olympics was indeed deliberate.
You have refuted nothing. All you've done is open up several more arguments, so that each of our replies takes two posts. You're diverting, either deliberately or because you can't help it.

>When those individual topics are a significant part of said broad narrative and provide very valid reasons for why things are happening in said narrative, it is very much relevant.
You're still doing it btw. When you post links about "what would happen if men didn't show up for work" you are not refuting or even addressing any points, as nobody claimed that men were not important to the workforce. It is a complete non-sequitur. You are trying to demonstrate the value of men (which I have never disputed), I assume because you feel it is under attack. You have been sold a black and white narrative, and according to this narrative any point for men is a point against women and vice versa, so it doesn't matter if you're on topic. (reminds me of the oppression olympics you're always on about).

>Not when quotas
I agree with you regarding quotas etc. So to clarify you are not opposed to women being in the workforce on principle? Don't digress now, just answer the question.

>>>cont.

File: 1478634300342.jpg (746KB, 2000x1685px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 2000x1685px

>>1929766

>he fell for the feminist meme

>>1930334
Although she's a fucking moron who's getting what she deserves, I can't help but feel like she's at least attempting to fix the situation (Even if it's because she couldn't get any when she went overseas). That said, as a man, if I hear the term open relationship or any other stupid shit like that, I'd probably just dump the girl quietly. Openly wanting to be with other men is not a sign of a healthy relationship, even though people are still going to be attracted to others.

>>1935915
>I'm "lashing out" at feminisms blatant lies. And it deserves every bit of it.
You're lashing out at your boogeyman, not at any arguments in this thread. You are attacking straw men with died blue hair because according to your black and white narrative, you are not a feminist, therefore everyone who disagreed with you is a feminist, therefore you can ignore anything they are saying and attack generic talking points from your narrative.

>I've given you plenty
just one actually. no. 2

>I called it that is because you said you were in between
I'm not "in between" it is not a sliding scale, and my opinion is different from both yours and the feminists. My issues regarding it have nothing to do with gender so I fall outside your little black/white paradigm.

>I'm not 'advocating' for any of that.
You haven't directly, but you've criticised my for opposing it which leaves me suspicious.

> I'm advocating for feminism to fuck off with it's lies and bullshit and meritocracy to be respected.
Okay well you should go and call up feminism and tell her to stop doing that instead of going off topic here.

>Well, if you mean by 'elimination of restrictions' that people get what they earn or 'establishment of restriction" that others who haven't earned anything, deal, and get jack shit; then I guess you could say I'm advocating for that.
Do you think women should be pressured into doing things against their will because you think it will benefit men? And I mean by virtue of being women, not because they are poor and have no choice.

Chances are you'll answer no, but that is what I've been against all along and you have been arguing with me for being against it.

>>1935959
>no.
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition.
>They haven't achieved absolute freedom but it's as step up.
Yes. You've been spouting the women are victimized/oppressed bullshit for a while now.
>The reason I call this a buzzword is because you are not attempting to describe anything accurately
Well I'll give you that i could have chosen a better one. In order to define your bullshit properly I guess I should have called it oppression olympics to be more technical.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQYiSTPhz4M
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVc1mDxMik
>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/oppression-olympics
>you are trying to desperately sling shit hoping that some of it will stick to the grand wall of SJW bullshit that your worldview depends upon
I'm not desperately trying to sling anything; the 'shit' im 'slinging' is more than deserved and earned.
>You've gone to your list of Breitbart or redpill approved buzzwords, picked one out and thrown it with little thought of the meaning or context.
The meaning and context more than fit. you're semantically arguing which one, like you have Lamborghini Murcielago and are are arguing whether it's navy blue or navy blue plus one indistinguishable shade. Like thy're both the same. What you've posted is still bullshit.
>You have refuted nothing. All you've done is open up several more arguments, so that each of our replies takes two posts.
>i'm assblasted that my SJW tier bullshit's been called bullshit so I'll say that anon didn't refute anything.
>You're diverting, either deliberately or because you can't help it.
I've already said:
>Refuting your bullshit and victim olympics was indeed deliberate.
>you are not refuting or even addressing any points
>projecting again this hard.
>(cont.)

>>1936161
>>1935959
>You're still doing it btw. When you post links about "what would happen if men didn't show up for work" you are not refuting or even addressing any points, as nobody claimed that men were not important to the workforce. It is a complete non-sequitur. You are trying to demonstrate the value of men (which I have never disputed), I assume because you feel it is under attack. You have been sold a black and white narrative, and according to this narrative any point for men is a point against women and vice versa, so it doesn't matter if you're on topic. (reminds me of the oppression olympics you're always on about)
>muh irrelevance again
Go read my posts and the ones I was responding to again. What I posted was completely relevant and also accurately responding to your posts. Again don't bitch because you want to post bullshit then get mad when you get called out.
>So to clarify you are not opposed to women being in the workforce on principle? Don't digress now, just answer the question.
I wasn't going to digress on anything I said. If it's not qouta'd, they can hack and don't bitch about the consequences, etc. Ok with me.
>>1936105
>You're lashing out at your boogeyman, not at any arguments in this thread.You are attacking straw men with died blue hair because according to your black and white narrative, you are not a feminist, therefore everyone who disagreed with you is a feminist, therefore you can ignore anything they are saying and attack generic talking points from your narrative.
>>1931159
>>1931256
>>1935169
>muh relevance again.
>just one actually. no. 2
Plenty.
>I'm not "in between" it is not a sliding scale, and my opinion is different from both yours and the feminists.
Even if it is you've spouted bullshit just the same.
> My issues regarding it have nothing to do with gender so I fall outside your little black/white paradigm.
>You haven't directly
I haven't at all.
(cont.)

>>1936161
>You've been spouting the women are victimized/oppressed bullshit for a while now.
*were
and it's not bullshit, it's fact. Control of womens' income, property, legal status and access to the workforce was granted to their husbands in various countries across both common and civil law systems. This is a fact.

>“Oppression Olympics” refers to arguments in which inequalities faced by a group are dismissed for being considered less important than those faced by another group.
That has not happened. Since you love your buzzwords so much, here's one for you.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

>I'm not desperately trying to sling anything; the 'shit' I'm 'slinging' is more than deserved and earned.
Deserved and earned by different people in different arguments on different websites. They have literally nothing to do with the conversation we're having. You see it as relative because you have bought into a narrative. You've attempted to link me into this narrative so you can use throw stock arguments (sling shit) instead of actually addressing my points.

>The meaning and context more than fit. you're semantically arguing which one, like you have Lamborghini Murcielago and are are arguing whether it's navy blue or navy blue plus one indistinguishable shade. Like thy're both the same. What you've posted is still bullshit.
Nice try, Ingsoc but you can't make up definitions as you go along and you can't paint me into your strawman feminist corner.

>>1936216
>>1936105
>I'm not "in between" it is not a sliding scale, and my opinion is different from both yours and the feminists. My issues regarding it have nothing to do with gender so I fall outside your little black/white paradigm.
There isn't a paradigm you're speaking of there's your bullshit and my response.
>but you've criticised my for opposing it which leaves me suspicious.
I've rigthtly criticized you for spouting SJW levels of ignorance.
>Okay well you should go and call up feminism and tell her to stop doing that instead of going off topic here.
As I've said 'm not off topic and you have no right to call me so just because your assblasted. Personalizing feminism and telling me to call won't do you any good either because You and I both know I can't do that. I can however call out it's bullshit here as I've done and yours, as I've also done and were also completely relevant.
>Do you think women should be pressured into doing things against their will because you think it will benefit men? And I mean by virtue of being women, not because they are poor and have no choice.
No and again they aren't.
>Chances are you'll answer no, but that is what I've been against all along and you have been arguing with me for being against it.
I've been arguing against your spouting the equivalent of SJW oppression memes.

Women was a mistake.

>>1936216
>Go read my posts and the ones I was responding to again
I'm going to go through this step by step.

I said
"Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition."
you said
>This is false (lie)
> screams of victim olympics (meaningless buzzword but ironic given the next sentence)
>And was it not "oppressive" to the man who had to be sole sole provider and often work in the most dangerous occupational positions? (whataboutism)

I also said "They haven't achieved absolute freedom but it's as step up."

and you said
>To feminists who actually buy the bullshit oppression meme yes. (oppression of married women is a demonstrable fact, which I will prove in a second)

So far we're still relatively on topic, but this is where you go full retard. You post a link about a hypothetical situation where men don't work, presumably to demonstrate the importance of men in the workplace. Completely irrelevant.

In the following post you mentioned
>quotas
probably irrelevant to the historical fact of restrictions on women's access to the workplace, possibly an attempt at whataboutism (or oppression olympics as you call it)

>social pressure on men to work
same as above

>men doing dangerous jobs
definitely irrelevant to the historical fact of women facing restrictions on work

>Society not only wants, but also needs men for these jobs.
same as above

So yeah. I said that women have historically faced restrictions on access to the workplace. You said that men are really good at certain jobs and that gender quotas are bullshit, which is nice but doesn't even remotely refute what I said.

>Even if it is you've spouted bullshit just the same.
lol, I haven't even stated my opinion and you're calling it bullshit. I only said it was different to feminists and anti-feminists.

>>1936247
>There isn't a paradigm you're speaking of there's your bullshit and my response.
your choice of media and your strawmanning suggests there is. Take a look at yourself.

>I've rigthtly criticized you for spouting SJW levels of ignorance.
I've made one claim, that is correct. Everything else we have been arguing about I've agreed with you because you're not actually arguing against me, you're arguing against some archetypal feminist.

>As I've said 'm not off topic
see my other post. I've spelled it out for you.

>No and again they aren't.
Great, so I presume you're glad they are no longer under the control of their husbands with regard to legal status, work etc? Or maybe you're indifferent.

>I've been arguing against your spouting the equivalent of SJW oppression memes.
No you've been arguing against memes that I never spouted.

>>1936228
>and it's not bullshit, it's fact.
It's bullshit
>Control of womens' income, property, legal status and access to the workforce was granted to their husbands in various countries across both common and civil law systems. This is a fact.
Read>>1935247 again.
>That has not happened.
>>1936161
Iv'e already said I should have called it call it oppression olympics in order to better label your retarded shit
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Except I have refuted and disproved your initial argument, several times.
>They have literally nothing to do with the conversation we're having. You see it as relative because you have bought into a narrative. You've attempted to link me into this narrative so you can use throw stock arguments (sling shit) instead of actually addressing my points.
I have addressed your points and am literally still addressing them right now. Your just doing the equivalent of plugging your fingers into your ears and going "la la la la can't hear you"
>Nice try, Ingsoc but you can't make up definitions as you go along
I didn't.
>and you can't paint me into your strawman feminist corner.
>I'm painting you into a corncer by calling your bullshit, bullshit and giving good explanations why it's bullshit
>>1936286
>"Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition."
you said
>sacrifice any ambition
>This is false (lie)
Not only is this a lie but is demonstratably untrue.
>"So far we're still relatively on topic, but this is where you go full retard.
You're spouting oppression memes and I've gone full retard.
>probably irrelevant to the historical fact of restrictions on women's access to the workplace, possibly an attempt at whataboutism (or oppression olympics as you call it)
>propbably
>irrelevant
>more muh irrelevance
>(cont.)

>>1929766
Rise in tertiary industries; demise of secondary and primary

>>1936330
>>1936286
>(cont.)
>men doing dangerous jobs
>definitely irrelevant to the historical fact of women facing restrictions on work
>women facing restrictions on work
For a good reason that much of that work is and was hard and dangerous. That women actively did not choose to do and that they left for men to do in favor of different work.
>First up, the entire power grid is down. 100% of power plant operators, distributors, and dispatchers are men. Now, it’s possible that there are a few women working in these occupations, but however many there are, they do not make up even 1% of the total workforce, so statistically, 100% of the workforce is male
>87.4% of police and sheriff’s patrol officers are men. 96.6% of firefighters are men. 68.8% of Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics are men, so if it all goes tits up and you get hurt, there’s a small chance you might make it to a hospital.
>Nothing will be built or extracted from the earth in terms of raw materials. 97.5% of that workforce is male.
>If men took a collective day off, we would instantly be without power, without the means to communicate, without protection, without water, without trucks bringing us the food and products we take for granted, because men are the ones who provide all those things.
>Where in our culture do we EVER see that acknowledged? If women took the day off, with the sole exception of NURSES, nothing would happen. No one would die. The world would continue to function. The hair salons and primary schools and retail clothing stores would close, and the male management structure would have to find some way to answer their own phones for a day, but essentially, nothing would happen.
>You will often hear feminists barking on about male privilege, usually in a well-lit room, comfortably warm, with her iPhone close at hand, buzzing with updates from her latest #mensuck Twitter feed, with zero awareness that every single one of those luxuries is provided by men.
>(cont)

>>1936392
>>1936286
>(cont.)
>http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/
>social pressure on men to work
same as above
>Society not only wants, but also needs men for these jobs.
>same as above
Except that it's not
>I said that women have historically faced restrictions on access to the workplace
>You said that men are really good at certain jobs and that gender quotas are bullshit, which is nice but doesn't even remotely refute what I said.
Except that it does. Because the majority of those jobs were again hard and dangerous.
>I haven't even stated my opinion and you're calling it bullshit. I only said it was different to feminists and anti-feminists.
Except you've stated it several times and it still is bullshit. What you're even doing now is stating your opinion.
>>1936309
>your choice of media and your strawmanning suggests there is.
No, as I've said. there is.
>you're arguing against some archetypal feminist.
And your bullshit which you've consistently kept saying is different when all you've done is said the same things.
>see my other post. I've spelled it out for you.
You've spelled out fuck all
>No you've been arguing against memes that I never spouted.
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition. The nuclear family still exists btw, but now marriage is seen as a union of equals.
This is literally the SJW oppression meme and marriage=servitude bullshit.
>Great, so I presume you're glad they are no longer under the control of their husbands with regard to legal status, work etc? Or maybe you're indifferent.
In your very post, more oppression memes

>>1936330
>It's bullshit
*sigh*
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

for common law systems
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

for civil law systems
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_power

>Iv'e already said I should have called it call it oppression olympics in order to better label your retarded shit
You're the one who brought up men, you're the one who's doing the oppression olympics.

"And was it not "oppressive" to the man who had to be sole sole provider and often work in the most dangerous occupational positions?"
t. you

>Except I have refuted and disproved your initial argument, several times.
do it again then, or copy and paste one of your abundant refutations.

here's my argument, as a quote
>[the nuclear family was] "Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition."
now, refute it.

>I'm painting you into a corncer by calling your bullshit, bullshit and giving good explanations why it's bullshit
You're calling someone elses bullshit my bullshit.

>>1936392
Posting irrelevant shit twice doesn't make it relevant you retard.

I KNOW MEN DID HARD WORK AND IVE NEVER ARGUED THEY DIDNT, OR THAT WOMEN WANTED TO

get that into your head, you are not arguing with me, you're arguing with a strawman.

>Because the majority of those jobs were again hard and dangerous.
Doesn't change the fact that legally men had control over their wives' income and access to the workplace. They could have a 100% death rate and it would not change that fact. The law doesn't disappear because the work men did was hard.

>No, as I've said. there is.
A minute ago you said there wasn't. Get your shit together.

>You've spelled out fuck all
I can't make it any clearer for you lad.

>This is literally the SJW oppression meme and marriage=servitude bullshit.
A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.

>In your very post, more oppression memes
A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.

>>1930827
> not throwing away anything, just cutting his losses while he can

This part always makes me smile.

>>1936451
>you're the one who's doing the oppression olympics.
>t. you
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition. The nuclear family still exists btw, but now marriage is seen as a union of equals.
>Great, so I presume you're glad they are no longer under the control of their husbands with regard to legal status, work etc? Or maybe you're indifferent.
t. you.
Literally no you.
>do it again then, or copy and paste one of your abundant refutations.
>now, refute it.
I literally just did in the argument you're responding to
>You're calling someone elses bullshit my bullshit.
No, I'm calling your bullshit bullshit.
>>1936496
>Posting irrelevant shit twice doesn't make it relevant
And calling relevant things irrelevant doesn't make them irrelevant
>get that into your head, you are not arguing with me, you're arguing with a strawman.
In every single one of you're posts I am responding to, I have argued and am arguing with you.
>(cont.)

>>1936544
>>1936496
>(cont.)
>I can't make it any clearer for you lad.
You can't because you haven't made anything clear
>Doesn't change the fact that legally men had control over their wives' income and access to the workplace. They could have a 100% death rate and it would not change that fact. The law doesn't disappear because the work men did was hard.
>A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.
>A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.
https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/fair-sex/#traditional-marriage
>(cont.)

>>1936565
>>1936496
>(cont.)
and...
>muh privliege
Your privilege argument has been handled to
>Commenters have often mentioned that if men didn’t show up for work one day, the entire world would screech to a halt, and today, using data from the US Department of Labor, I want to take a look at just how true that is. Hearing about “male privilege” is so common in the media, but what is hardly ever mentioned is just how many of our own privileges are a direct result of the work that men do.
Perhaps the reason men have historically had the privileges they do is because they EARN THEM BY MAKING OUR LIFE POSSIBLE?
>http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/women-were-not-oppressed-by-not-having-the-vote/
To throw in voting "oppression" too since I saw all but that one.
And for this one
>A minute ago you said there wasn't. Get your shit together.
Show me in that post where I have been inconsistent, because I have absolutely been consistent with all of my arguments thus far.
I said there is. I meant there is

>>1936565
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/fair-sex/#traditional-marriage
This article doesn't deny the existence of couverture, in fact it makes explicit reference to it. I also keked at the bit about anglo-saxon marriage. Honestly not sure if you read this before you posted it, but it doesn't refute that women were denied access to the workplace. In fact it makes explicit referenct to a time when that was the case.

"The English wife of tradition, so thoroughly a femme covert, is being displaced by a gadabout, truculent, irresponsible creature, full of strange new ideas about her rights"

>muh privliege
Never used the word privilege. You think I did because it is a common feminist buzzword and you can't think outside of your narrative. Of the six times "privilege" has been used in this thread, five of them are in your posts.

>http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/women-were-not-oppressed-by-not-having-the-vote/
This is the funniest shit I've read all day

>Show me in that post where I have been inconsistent
gladly

>There isn't a paradigm you're speaking of- you
"your choice of media suggeste there is"- me
>No, as I've said. there is.-you
"A minute ago you said there wasn't"- me

>>1932198
>I'm asking in what millionaire's paradise you live if 150k isn't enough to do more than "scrap by".
Or maybe currencies have different value you retard

>>1930059
How much he make?

>>1936656
>This article doesn't deny the existence of couverture, in fact it makes explicit reference to it.
It also says women were freer in the past as much as today, which goes against that "oppression" argument you posted and continue to post
>Despite popular cultural notions, which tend to hold that today’s women’s rights are a product of culminating progress, women of the middle ages actually enjoyed rights comparable, though not directly correspondent, to those enjoyed by women in western culture today. …
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition."
It's not "sacrificing any ambition" if you chose to do it and still have the freedom to do things you like.
>Honestly not sure if you read this before you posted it, but it doesn't refute that women were denied access to the workplace. In fact it makes explicit referenct to a time when that was the case.
And as I posted above, the reason for that has already been covered.
>(cont.)

>>1938042
>>1936656
>(cont.)
>Never used the word privilege. You think I did because it is a common feminist buzzword and you can't think outside of your narrative. Of the six times "privilege" has been used in this thread, five of them are in your posts.
>Doesn't change the fact that legally men had control over their wives' income and access to the workplace. They could have a 100% death rate and it would not change that fact. The law doesn't disappear because the work men did was hard.
>A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.
>A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.
You literally just did, and have before, posted the equivalent of the male privilege meme.
>There isn't a paradigm you're speaking of- you
>"your choice of media suggeste there is"- me
>No, as I've said. there is.-you
>"A minute ago you said there wasn't"- me
>there isn't
I stand corrected on my spelling, grammar nazi. FTFY then. And, even now, as I said there still isn't a paradigm just your bullshit.

>>1938042
>It also says women were freer in the past
Yes, Ingsoc, freedom is slavery.

The article says that, in Anglo-Saxon England women had the right to divorce, to own and sell property, and to not be raped. First of all that is not nearly as free as today. Second of all, that is I R R E L E V A N T, as anglo-saxon England was an early medieval society with descent based extended family structures, and the marriage-based nuclear family didn't emerge as a viable family unit until after the renaissance. Clutching at straws. The fact that you have to reach so far back into the past shows how desperate you are.

>as much as today, which goes against that "oppression" argument you posted and continue to post
Is it the word "oppression" that's triggering you so much?

>It's not "sacrificing any ambition" if you chose to do it
They did not have the choice, their husbands did. Get this into your head.

"A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other."

>You literally just did, and have before, posted the equivalent of the male privilege meme.

Do you deny that women's access to the labour force was controlled by their husbands? Answer the question and stop diverting.

File: abe simpson does a 360 and walks away.gif (1MB, 453x344px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 453x344px

>walk into the thread
>every single post is an essay

>>1938114
>I R R E L E V A N T
>muh irrelevaance again
> The fact that you have to reach so far back into the past shows how desperate you are.
And the fact that you want to keep going on with your SJW teir oppression bullshit shows how desperate you are.
>Is it the word "oppression" that's triggering you so much?
When your spouting bullshit memes for the 100th time it gets a little annoying
>They did not have the choice, their husbands did. Get this into your head.
Get into your head that they did and could choose. That historically men have had the rights/"privileges' they've had for doing important and dangerous shit, that not all men had these rights (slaves,etc.), women have majoritarily been a protected class, and many women even got rights before men; and quit your stupid oppression olympics.
>Do you deny that women's access to the labour force was controlled by their husbands?
In places were a certain group of assholes were making life hell for everyone including women and treating like them like literal subhumans, maybe and even then they could choose to do things. Other places they could definitly choose. Quit overgeneralizing and blaming a significant amount of men for what some assholes who just happened to be men did to some women they were associated with.
>Answer the question and stop diverting.
I've answered your question, I'm answering it again and I haven't diverted. Fuck off with your oppression olympics

>>1929782

Before or after tax?

>>1930897
From an evolutionary stand point, doesn't it make sense for everyone (regardless of gender) to constantly be seeking a better mate?

>>1938464
>And the fact that you want to keep going on with your SJW teir oppression bullshit shows how desperate you are.
I apologise for staying on topic.

>When your spouting bullshit memes for the 100th time it gets a little annoying
In future let me know your trigger words so I can avoid hurting your feelings again.

>Get into your head that they did and could choose.
No they didn't. You're in denial of reality here.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

This is the law? Do you understand what the law is?

The law is not something you can choose to follow, it is something that is enforced by the courts and the state.

>In places
I'm talking about the West, from the early modern period when the nuclear family came to prominence as the base of family structures, to the period when these laws began to be appealed and amended, from the mid 19th to mid twentieth centuries, depending on the specific laws, countries and legal systems. I'll stick to strictly legal issues here, though there are others.

According to the law, whether or not a woman worked was the husband's decision. That is a fact. I've given a source that demonstrates that, and even you've given a source that demonstrates that here:
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/fair-sex/#traditional-marriage

I can get the specific quote that mentions coverture if you like.

>I've answered your question
Nope you've diverted and I'm going to have to keep narrowing it down until I get a straight answer. I'll try and be as specific as I can.

Do you deny that women's access to the labour force, in the west, during the period in which the nuclear family was prominent but before the rise of the feminist movement, was legally placed into the hands of their husbands.

Do you deny this, yes or no? Yes or No, no bullshit answers, I've covered the place, time, everything. Just give me a straight answer for once.

>oppression olympics
Ironic you would accuse me of this given your arguments but I'll let it go

>>1929766
It held off the collapse of the middle class and the crisis we have now by a couple of decades.

>>1929766
They provide a shit ton more white collar labor than used to be available. I'm not sure what effect that has had on wages, though.

>>1940020
>I apologise for staying on topic.
If by staying on topic you mean bitching about your oppression meme and nebulous sexism then yeah you've been doing that quite a bit.
>In future let me know your trigger words so I can avoid hurting your feelings again.
>projecting this hard again
Don't call me triggered because your oppression olympics whining is bullshit.
>No they didn't.
Except they did
>You're in denial of reality here.
Holy how desperate and retarded are you to be projecting this hard again.
>This is the law? Do you understand what the law is?
Of course.
>The law is not something you can choose to follow
Actually it is.
>it is something that is enforced by the courts and the state.
And can be chosen to be followed, certain sets of consequences may apply for 'breaking' some enforced by higher authorities but it still can be chosen to be followed.
>According to the law, whether or not a woman worked was the husband's decision. That is a fact. I've given a source that demonstrates that
And to you all the other instances of women choosing their occupation and how they lived are not facts. Which is a lie.
>Nope you've diverted
>More projection
I've done no such thing. As I've said before I'm accurately responding to your posts.
>and I'm going to have to keep narrowing it down until I get a straight answer.
I've given you one already. I'ts not my problem whether you accept it.
>no bullshit answers
No bullshit answers were given
>Just give me a straight answer for once.
I have and I'm not going to re answer this quest with anything more or less than the correct answer I've give again. some? yes, each an everyone? no. And they sure as hell chose and could choose
>(cont.)

>>1941212
>>1940020
>(cont.)
>Ironic you would accuse me of this given your arguments but I'll let it go
>Ironic
>Spouts the SJW teir meme that women were oppressed to the point of sacrification of all ambition, forced to do thing against their will and had no choices and keeps on about it
>projecting this much again
I'm accusing you of this because this post and the others you posted reek of oppression olympics and SJW tier arguments and you just keep going on about this horse shit when other anons have debunked your shit already and not counting the facts the you just refuse to acknowledge.

>>1941212
>If by staying on topic you mean bitching about your oppression
oppression is the topic, yes. Specifically in relation to married women and their ability to work.

>Don't call me triggered
You are triggered

>Except they did
nope

"A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband."

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

>And can be chosen to be followed, certain sets of consequences may apply for 'breaking' some enforced by higher authorities but it still can be chosen to be followed.
Is this your argument? lol, sure they could ""choose"" not to follow the law, just as I can "choose" not to pay taxes, or a slave could "choose" not to work.

You're a freedom hating faggot. I'll give you an example. If the government made criticising them punishable by law, you can still """choose""" to criticise them and go to jail. It's still not free speech, and it's still an oppressive law. Grow the fuck up. If you have any principles at all stick to them instead of abandoning them just because you don't like feminists.

>And to you all the other instances of women choosing their occupation
A woman could choose their occupation if

A) They weren't married
or
B) They had their husbands permission

Even if a woman's husband let them work she could not enter into a contract or keep the salary. She was not permitted anything that we would call employment.

>some? yes, each an everyone? no.
Well technically you're correct. The queen of England was not subject to the laws of coverture. Everyone else was.

>And they sure as hell chose and could choose
They couldn't. Their husband could choose not to press charges. That's it.

>>1941230
It's ironic because you are guilty of the thing you are accusing me of.

">Oppression Olympics” refers to arguments in which inequalities faced by a group are dismissed for being considered less important than those faced by another group.

This is from your own source here:
>>1936161
>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/oppression-olympics

Now let's retrace our steps. This argument started here:
>>1935126
I said:
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition.

Your response was
>This is false and screams of victim olympics.
(lmao at the hypocrisy)
>And was it not "oppressive" to the man who had to be sole sole provider and often work in the most dangerous occupational positions?
as well as posting this link
>http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/

Here you are clearly attempting to "dismiss the inequalities being faced by one group as being less important than those faced by another group"- you are engaging in "oppression olympics" by your own definition.

I have never denied that men faced hardship and oppression in the past. I'm well aware of that. The thing is, as I've been saying all along this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This is not about whether the oppression of men was worse than the oppression of women. You've tried to make it about that and I've consistently been forced to drag you back on topic.

This is about whether or not the oppression of women existed. You've consistently denied that it did.

>>1936660
People generally assume quantities are expressed in USD, Third World scum.

>>1936097
>>1930334
this 2bh

>>1930060
Because shopping doesn't factor in the extra labour she will do with what she buys.

>>1941317
>oppression is the topic
And you've been posting the equivalent of SJW memes
>You are triggered
Excpet I'm not
>nope
>denying reality as you falsely said I did, again.
>Is this your argument? lol
To yours here:
>The law is not something you can choose to follow, it is something that is enforced by the courts and the state.
yes, and it is entirely correct.
>You're a freedom hating faggot
And you call me triggered? No where in my posts can you you imply I am. I didn't now hating SJW/libtard bullshit, lack of accountability, stupidity, and lack of knowledge or proper application of historical context meant I hated freedom. You've proven you're a libtarded faggot, especially if you as I incresingly suspect you are: the same poster who posted all those retarded feminism threads. Like this one
>http://desuarchive.org/his/thread/1837454/
And even if you aren't like I've said to them and you again. Fuck off with your bullshit.
>Grow the fuck up
Fuck off with your libtard tier shaming language.
>If you have any principles at all stick to them instead of abandoning them just because you don't like feminists.
Not one of my principles have I abandoned or not stuck to.
>A woman could choose their occupation
This far is correct
>She was not permitted anything that we would call employment.
>denying reality again
Accept they were, again.
>The queen of England was not subject to the laws of coverture. Everyone else was
"Everyone else" is far to broad a brush to paint with. "Everyone else" was also living under different circumstances and with different kinds of shit.
>They couldn't.
Except when they could and did.
>Their husband could choose not to press charges. That's it.
Except that that's not just "it".

>>1941400
>It's ironic because you are guilty of the thing you are accusing me of.
Except I'm not.
>(lmao at the hypocrisy)
>projecting this hard again
>Here you are clearly attempting to "dismiss the inequalities being faced by one group as being less important than those faced by another group"- you are engaging in "oppression olympics" by your own definition.
Except in no way was I. I called it "oppression" to parrot your so called "oppression" and to mock what SJW's call it all the time, which your posts sound so similiar to. I said here >>1935866
>It's not a grievance. It is an acknowledgement of the way society works, as a large number of them have in the past as well, for very good reason worth being respected, learned from and properly discussed. And not being written off due to 'sexism' or any other nonsense .
Also way to ignore the other posts I was responding to in >>1935126 . And as far as those so called "inequalities" are concerned, as you and especially as feminists find them; many of them are less important and the majority of them as well as the the "oppression" you and they so often bitch about didn't exist at all.
>I have never denied that men faced hardship and oppression in the past. I'm well aware of that.
And I have repeatedly covered not only that but it's relevance to what you've posted.
>The thing is, as I've been saying all along this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>muh irrelevance again
Fuck off with that "irrelevant" shit. Everything I've posted has been entirely relevant.
And this especially as I've posted here
>>1936392
>>1936434
>>1936593
again.
>This is not about whether the oppression of men was worse than the oppression of women. You've tried to make it about that and I've consistently been forced to drag you back on topic.
>Except nowhere in my posts have I made it about that and the topic is not your bullshit and SJW teir memes.
>(cont.)

>>1941909
>>1941400
>(cont.)
>This is about whether or not the oppression of women existed.
And as I've said as you and feminists like to describe it, it didn't.
>You've consistently denied that it did.
Yes, Why?: As I just said above.

>>1941855
>And you've been posting the equivalent of SJW memes
Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings. I can't change the past.

> I didn't now hating SJW/libtard bullshit,
See, this obsession you have with "SJW/Libtard shit" is blinding you from the truth.

>lack of accountability
???

>stupidity
I've set out my argument and provided proof. There is nothing more I can do. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean it didn't happen.

>and lack of knowledge
Please enlighten me.

>or proper application of historical context
you've been jumping all over the place from anglo-saxon England to the 21st century, trying to disprove the fact that married women were femes covert. I've been entirely specific as to date, location, subject realm of discussion. There is no more context to give. I am 100% certain you didn't know about coverture and are trying to move the goalposts to hide the fact that you were talking from a position of ignorance.

>meant I hated freedom.
you've shown contempt or derision for the power the law has to take away people's freedom.

>the same poster
lol, no

>shaming
"shaming" is libtard tier language

>This far is correct
I've already proven that it wasn't. You've provided nothing to back up your claims.

>"Everyone else" was also living under different circumstances and with different kinds of shit.
I've told you when and where the laws applied. A handful of people might have been able to work extra-legally, maybe. Surely seeing as you're so knowledgeable you can give me some legal cases where coverture was exempted?

>Accept they were, again.
Provide me with an example then. An industry where women were provided employment contracts and a salary that was their property independent of their husbands, before the repeal of coverture laws. Any country, I'll wait.

>Except when they could and did.
When was that then

>Except that that's not just "it".
Okay, what were some alternatives then?

Oh yeah, and answer my question, yes or no?

>>1941917
At least you've stopped your oppression olympics, fair play for that.

>And as I've said as you and feminists like to describe it, it didn't.

what do you call this then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coverture
https://www.britannica.com/topic/coverture

>>1941965
>Surely seeing as you're so knowledgeable you can give me some legal cases where coverture was exempted?
Actually, I'll do your job for you.

According to the Collins' legal dictionary, women were allowed to enter into a contract if they were in danger of starvation.

So if you were starving or the Queen of England then you could work.

>>1929782
>150k
>barely scrape by

I live on 1/15th of that.

>>1941965
>Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.
>See, this obsession you have with "SJW/Libtard shit" is blinding you from the truth.
I'm just fine with the truth. You however, seen to take much issue with it.
>lack of accountability
>???
The things I posted about here >>1935915,
>>1935866, >>1936392, >>1936216,
like going on about "oppression", sexism and other SJW tier horseshit as well as what i posted about not wanting to deal with consequences etc. also alluded to/gone over again in these posts by other anons here
>>1935865
>>1931088
And to what was posted in the article in my post here >>1935126. As well as your bitching about your "oppression" memes and getting assblasted when you get called out. tdlr go back and read
>I can't change the past.
And yet in your posts you tried to
>I've set out my argument
You mean you've spouted SJW meme tier arguments and bullshit.
>there is nothing more I can do.
There's nothing you can do because you haven't done anything.
>(cont.)

>>1942338
>>1941965
>(cont.)
>Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Barely anything of what you posted with your meme teir "oppression" bullshit is true or actually happened as you state it
>Please enlighten me.
Reread my previous posts
>you've been jumping all over the place
from anglo-saxon England to the 21st century, trying to disprove the fact that married women were femes covert.
>projecting this hard again
I absolutely have not been and as I've said before have been entirely relevant.
>I've been entirely specific as to date, location, subject realm of discussion.
And spouted bullshit oppression memes. And I've given you proper answers.
>There is no more context to give.
Because you spouted memes, barely gave any, and when you did set it up in the context of nebulous bullshit "oppression, sexim" and other retarded memes.
>I am 100% certain you didn't know about coverture and are trying to move the goalposts to hide the fact that you were talking from a position of ignorance.
And I'm 100% sure you're retarded
>you've shown contempt or derision for the power the law has to take away people's freedom.
Nowhere in my posts have I shown any such thing
>lol, no
Ok then. Like I said then still fuck off with your bullshit and oppression olympics.
>"shaming" is libtard tier language
Call it whatever you want. Fuck off with it, as with your oppression olympics
I've already proven that it wasn't.
You've proven fuck all
>You've provided nothing to back up your claims.
>This level of projection
>maybe.
Not maybe. Yes.
>Provide me with an example then.
>When was that then
>Okay, what were some alternatives then?
Don't shift burden of proof' to me and ask me to do your research for you when you've been going on about "oppression" memes. If you really wanted to know that badly you should have researched them before spouting off your memes.
>Oh yeah, and answer my question,
I did.
>yes or no?
>>1941917

>>1942338
>>1942338
>like going on about "oppression", sexism and other SJW tier horseshit as well as what i posted about not wanting to deal with consequences etc. also alluded to/gone over again in these posts by other anons here
remember what I told you about strawmen. Where have I exhibited a lack of accountability?

I've stuck by my argument and provided proof for my claims.

>>1935865
doesn't refute my facts

>>1931088
>What's new is that more and more women are officially working for wages in the same way as men
directly supports my claim

>>1935126
Your article doesn't address the historical fact of coverture. This is pure oppression olympics

>“Oppression Olympics” refers to arguments in which inequalities faced by a group are dismissed for being considered less important than those faced by another group.

You're a hypocrite, accusing me of something you yourself are doing (and you say I'm projecting, lmao)

>Barely anything of what you posted with your meme teir "oppression" bullshit is true or actually happened as you state it
Again, if the O-word triggers you I can call it something different. The fact is that coverture existed.

What's the issue? Do you think that denying a woman the right to enter into a contract, own property, receive a salary and requiring her to get her husband's consent does not affect her ability to be employed?

>I absolutely have not been
Would you like me to link you?

>I've said before have been entirely relevant.
Anglo-Saxon England was a different legal system to Post-Norman England. It is not relevant. The fact that 96% of men are fucking firemen or whatever does not change the fact that coverture existed. Your own sources mention coverture, you know it happened now stop denying it.

>barely gave any
I've mentioned the time, location, legal system

What more context do you need? Ask and ye shall receive.

>oppression olympics
see:
>>1941400

>You've proven fuck all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

>>1942359
>Don't shift burden of proof' to me and ask me to do your research for you
The burden of proof isn't on me.

My claim: coverture existed (coverture covers oppression, access to employment etc.)

My proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

You've claimed there were cases where this did not apply, and I'd like you to prove that claim. We've already established

>yes
So are you denying that coverture existed?

Are you denying that it removed women's legal personhood, her right to own property, enter into a contract and recieve a salary?

Or are you denying that stripping someone of their rights is oppression?

>>1929782
>>1931011
>>1932239
>>1932270
So let me get this straight. You took a million dollar loan to buy an apartment building in one of America's worst cities to rent it out to a bunch of crackheads.
Then you evicted them and got sued and defaulted on your loan.
You pay 30k in mortgage, own and maintain 4 cars and complain about barely scraping by with 150k and calling yourself a wage slave.


It's clearly the fault of the system.
That's not even relative poverty, that's just your whole family being a bunch of dumbasses. If you want relative poverty, go live somewhere in Eastern Europe *

*Moldova and Ukraine not included.

>>1929782
>barely scrape by on 150k

The fuck? I earn 30k and live comfortably, where the fuck do you live, Buckingham palace?

File: IMG_5602.jpg (160KB, 794x610px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 794x610px

What kind of woman even wants to work once she has kids?

Why would she not want to make a home for her family?

>>1943074
it's bound to happen since housework takes a lot less effort now than it used to. you don't have to manually wash all your family's clothes, dishes, have to make clothes, etc. once the kids are old enough to be in school you're going to have plenty of free time. might as well be making money with that free time. that's the source of women suddenly entering the workforce in large numbers. only way you can change it is if you get rid this technology

>>1943074
>What kind of woman even wants to work once she has kids?
the non-cucked kind obviously

>>1943086
>once the kids are old enough to be in school
That is the problem right there.

>>1943101

Good goy, outsource your parenting to daycares

>>1943107
Do you propose getting rid of schools or giving all women busy work by constantly pumping out babies like a haredi jew?

>>1943121

Not even him but

>not wanting your wife barefoot and pregnant constantly

Are you a faggot son?

>>1942558
>remember what I told you about strawmen.
I'm not strawmanning
>Where have I exhibited a lack of accountability?
I was talking specifically about subjects I talked about
See
>The things I posted about here
>I've stuck by my argument and provided proof for my claims.
You spouted memes and provided barely anything but one particular instance, both of which don't occur to everyone, all women, etc as you and especially as SJW's like to claim.

>doesn't refute my facts
You mean your memes
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition.
>They haven't achieved absolute freedom but it's as step up.
>>1936496
>Doesn't change the fact that legally men had control over their wives' income and access to the workplace.
>>1938114
>They did not have the choice, their husbands did. Get this into your head.
>>1941855
They couldn't.
>>1940020
>Do you deny that women's access to the labour force, in the west, during the period in which the nuclear family was prominent but before the rise of the feminist movement, was legally placed into the hands of their husbands.
>hey let's put women into the workforce while hammering in the idea of 'equality equality equality, you're all identical' so now when earnings discrepancies appear we'll blame it on sexism rather than individual choice, giving more power to feminist movements, and now when women don't get as far ahead they'll chalk it up to sexism rather than personal failings/choices, in turn continuing the demonize men, particularly white men since they're usually the senior management
I've already done that. What is does do, however is give you choices to answer which you're blaming your oppression memes on.

>directly supports my claim
>more and more
not none
>(cont.)

>>1946467
>>1942558
>(cont.)
>Your article doesn't address the historical fact of coverture. This is pure oppression olympics
>projecting this hard again.
And except facts and statements from the department of labor aren't oppression Olympics. That article is exactly as I said I did here
>>1935866
>It's not a grievance. It is an acknowledgement of the way society works, as a large number of them have in the past as well, for very good reason worth being respected, learned from and properly discussed. And not being written off due to 'sexism' or any other nonsense .
>You're a hypocrite
>projecting this hard
I am not and have neither posted anything that that indicates I am. You're a liar.
>accusing me of something you yourself are doing
Not only am I not doing so, you are in this very post in replying to
>(and you say I'm projecting, lmao)
Because you've not only done so repeatedly, but are doing so right now
>Again, if the O-word triggers you I can call it something different.
Call your SJW teir shit whatever you want. Again, I'm not triggered because you post bullshit.
>What's the issue?
Your memes
>Do you think that denying a woman the right to enter into a contract, own property, receive a salary and requiring her to get her husband's consent does not affect her ability to be employed?
See
>>1946467
>>1931088
again.
>Would you like me to link you?
No. Your useless SJW meme tier argument links aren't needed.
>It is not relevant.
>muh irrevelence again
Reread my previous posts where I explained exactly why and how it was.
>The fact that 96% of men are fucking firemen or whatever does not change the fact that coverture existed.
It absolutely changes the "facts" of your memes. As I've said before the majority of men have made up the majority or dangerous important occupations, given the reasons why that is as well as the reason why other work; including vocational occupations were left to; choosen by; or decined by women
>(cont.)

>>1946551
>>1942558
>(cont.)
>Your own sources mention coverture, you know it happened now stop denying it.
See
>>1941909
>>1941917
for one my answers to this already
>I've mentioned the time, location, legal system

>What more context do you need? Ask and ye shall receive.
See
>>1946467
>You spouted memes and provided barely anything but one particular instance, both of which don't occur to everyone, all women, etc as you and especially as SJW's like to claim.
>see:
See above and reread my previous posts
>>1942614
>The burden of proof isn't on me.
Yes, it is.
>My claim:
>>1931159
>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition.
>>1931159
They haven't achieved absolute freedom but it's as step up.
Was SJW tier memes that tried and failed to use coverture to back
>My proof:
Was nothing that backed up your bullshit SJW oppression memes.
>You've claimed there were cases where this did not apply
>claimed
proven
>and I'd like you to prove that claim.
I did
>We've already established
>So are you denying that coverture existed?
>Are you denying that it removed women's legal personhood, her right to own property, enter into a contract and recieve a salary?
>>1941917
>Or are you denying that stripping someone of their rights is oppression?
When they already had the right, weren't stripped of anything at all, chose to or not to work, when so labelled "inequality" is demonized yet actually didn't exist at all and the hardships like listed under that were faced equally or worse on others along with the responsibilities they also carried; it is not "oppression".
And/or, such as in the case of voting, when those rights did not apply to them and a host of others/they got them before others/ it's still not your SJW oppression meme.

>>1946467
>one particular instance, both of which don't occur to everyone, all women
It's not one instance it was the law. It applied to everyone unless there is an explicit exemption (as in the case of the queen). If you claim there were more exemptions, or that there was another type of marriage then you need to prove that claim.

>>Oppressive because it forced women to stay at home and sacrifice any ambition.
I've proven this. If you don't like wiki I can get another source.

"A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband."

>They haven't achieved absolute freedom but it's as step up.
They didn't have the freedoms mentioned above, now they do.

>hey let's put women into the workforce while hammering in the idea of 'equality equality equality, you're all identical' so now when earnings discrepancies appear we'll blame it on sexism rather than individual choice, giving more power to feminist movements, and now when women don't get as far ahead they'll chalk it up to sexism rather than personal failings/choices, in turn continuing the demonize men, particularly white men since they're usually the senior management

I don't care about equality, I don't care about earnings discrepancies, I don't care about sexism, I don't care about personal failings or white men and I'm not going to care about whatever bullshit you bring up next time you want to avoid the issue

Women's access to the labour force was legally placed into the hands of their husbands, yes or no?

>except facts and statements from the department of labor aren't oppression Olympics
"Oppression Olympics” refers to arguments in which inequalities faced by a group are dismissed for being considered less important than those faced by another group."
from your own source

>>1946551
>No. Your useless SJW meme tier argument links aren't needed.
I'm talking about YOUR arguments. The only definition of "oppression olympics" I've used has been yours

>When they already had the right
A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband.

>chose to or not to work
see above

>inequality
Equality is when the law is the same for both the man and the woman. That was not the case.

> hardships like listed under that were faced equally or worse on others along with the responsibilities they also carried; it is not "oppression".
“Oppression Olympics” refers to arguments in which inequalities faced by a group are dismissed for being considered less important than those faced by another group.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/oppression-olympics

>And/or, such as in the case of voting
m8 I never brought up voting, I'd love to argue about that too but there is literally not enough time in the day.

>when those rights did not apply to them and a host of others/they got them before others
“Oppression Olympics” refers to arguments in which inequalities faced by a group are dismissed for being considered less important than those faced by another group.

>>1946638
Could you actually write arguments instead of linking to a million posts? If you need to make reference to something copy and paste it, you're just avoiding the debate.


>See
No, not "see" what more context do you need?

>Yes, it is.
What more proof would you like? I've given you the fucking law, this isn't some wishy washy shit about "roles in society" this is the literal law.

>proven
Show me the law that exempts women from coverture. Show me the cases where coverture does not apply.

Poorly.

Too much to fit in one post, but it changed the entire social dynamic between the sexes, both in and out of the workplace.