From a purely philosophical standpoint, why should I as a man

what do you mean by "true equality between genders"

From a metaphysical standpoint I don't give a shit.

>>2647721

Because most likely you need a 2nd set of income to support any sort of family if you want one.

From a philosophical standpoint "equality" is a value that slaves hold.

File: stupid women.jpg (23KB, 440x330px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 440x330px

>>2647767

Except it's due to feminism that we now NEED two incomes to support a family.

And odds are once you have a kid, your wife will continually whine that she doesn't want to work and should stay at home raising the kid (i.e. the kid watches tv all day while she fucks around on Facebook...)

from a philosophical standpoint I'd much like to know what she's up to

>>2647721
What's she doing? Checking to see if there's a penis down there?

>>2647786
Nope. The good times of manufacturing weren't gonna last at all.

>>2647786
>Except it's due to feminism that we now NEED two incomes to support a family.

lol, no it's not. It's due to capitalism and scientific advancement.

Capitalists wanted more labor, plus the birth control pill was invented = Feminism suddenly rears its head. Pure coincidence.

>>2647796
She got lotion on her pussy

>>22647721
From a philosophical standpoint I'd like to know who this gorgeous woman is.

>>2647786
even before then working class women would take jobs sometimes to help support their family. I know one of my great grandmothers worked in a factory for a number of years and another who grew vegetables not only to cook but also to sell around town. housewives with little to do but raise kids and clean is a fairly new thing that never was common for those in poverty and only happened thanks to factories taking work out of the home and inventions like the washing machine simplifying housework significantly

>>2647815
Luisa Zissman (sp)

>>2647767
>wanting a family

File: productivity-and-real-wages.jpg (295KB, 2400x1536px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 2400x1536px

>>2647799
>>2647817
>>2647817
>
> Double the avaliable number of workers
> Real wages flat-line
> Pure coincidence

Notice the dates of adoption;

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

>>2647721
Someone unspooked wouldn't favor a man over a woman.

>>2647854
that also coincides with a major change in US economic policy. also how do equal rights amendments cause women to be more likely to work? the only consequence of equal rights amendments that I know of is it being used in Hawaii's supreme court to legalize gay marriage, before it was nationally obviously

>>2647721
Because at least some (most in all likelihood) women have talent and denying them the use of that talent disadvantages us as a society.

File: Glaceon.jpg (2KB, 104x108px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 104x108px

>>2647786

Don't blame women for industrialization.

Blame your dumb-shit ancestors for selling the farm and moving to a city to work for wages like faggots.

Now the jobs are gone and you have no farm.

>>2647981
Even before the legal emancipation of women, talented women were still given their due place in society.

It's not like pre-1910 women were treated like blacks were in the Old South.

Because if you actually believe that you're welcome to explain people like Marie Curie.

True equality means pure competition.

Competition is what drives us to become the best we can be. To try and become better at something than everyone before us. This is what drives and pushes people to discover new things, and build the most sophisticated things possible. As a result we can build computers and discuss philosophy with randos on japanese image boards.

So let the ladies have their equality and then push yourself to win over them so they have no excuses.

File: OUQMr15.png (65KB, 1183x481px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1183x481px

>>2647854
>the continual growth of women in the work force before 1973 has no effect
>the fact that there is no correlation between the percentage of women in the workforce and wages means nothing
really activates those almonds

>>2648019
Meanwhile my family kept the then useless land and now I am personally rich as fuck because they paid me a huge fortune for all the property I inherited from both sides.

So much BS we had to put up with that land and no it's paying off now.

>>2647767
>>2647786
You don't need two incomes to support a family.
You really don't.

>>2647854
fraudulent statistics that don't take into account fringe benefits

You shouldn't support it, especially if you have any love for the female sex.

>>2648050
You do in my country. In fact, doing anything other than renting a small apartment with a folding bed is impossible in my country without two incomes.

>>2648059
wtf do you live

>>2648032
>le fixed number of jobs maymay

>>2648068
The land of the Vikangz.

>>2648050
The average cost of living for a family of four is $77,612 a year in the US.

Average income per capita is roughly $30,000 a year. If you want to live even remotely comfortably, the average american household needs two sources of income.

>>2648079
yeah you're fucking wrong.
Buy/want less useless shit
Vote for politicians who will deregulate the building and selling of housing.
It's that simple.
Our ancestors raised much larger families on one income.
It wasn't because the necessities of life were cheaper, they generally weren't except maybe for housing (see above). They bought a lot less shit. It's that simple.
You don't actually NEED almost any of the shit you own, including whatever device you're using to post this from. But we live in a world where everyone expects a certain standard of living likes its some kind of constitutional right.

>>2648083
I want sources and definitions on this.

>>2647802
>what is supply and demand
you can't have mommies as wageslaves and a one paycheck family axiomatically.

>>2648104
>Our ancestors raised much larger families on one income.
>It wasn't because the necessities of life were cheaper

Yeah you know absolutely nothing.

>>2648143
Thanks for the data proving your assertion.

>>2648176
You mean in contrast to all the data you provide yourself?

kys

>>2648183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrtoSx-NbLQ

>>2647721
How anyone could look at that image in OP and not see the superiority of the human female... I don't know.

Why are women always so vulgar in such a...vulgar way? Like when men are vulgar they are vulgar but when women are vulgar they are VULGAR.

File: IMG_4320.jpg (371KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1280x960px

>>2647721

Because in today's world, we don't "have to" present ourselves as women and "do" femininity like our mothers and grandmothers did. If you piss us off, we'll just leave womanhood behind in droves, like a lot of these younger teen FtM "tranny boys." The medical industry has come a long way in that it's a lot easier to get on Testosterone than it is to make yourself more "beautiful" as a woman. And from the perspective of someone who has been through hysterectomy exactly 1 year ago, I have never for a moment missed Aunt Flo or the expectation to have or want kids. We have the power, as white women, to conspire with the darker forces that seek to wipe your little "superior race" off the planet, muahahahahahahah!!!

>>2648250
Well to be honest the woman is a nymphomaniac and a complete whore that frequents sex parties and is bicurious.

I mean to each their own. I would definitely bang her but i would totally pass her up over a woman that looked like her but wasn't promiscuous.

Obviously she doesn't care, she can get any man and I'm near the bottom of the totem pole...just saying i guess.

File: IMG_4321.png (1MB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x1136px

>>2648311
Goes this way.

>>2647796
>why can't i hold all this vagina

>>2647721
Because if you don't like some shitbag boyfriend beating on your sister or your dad beating on your mum, you should probably support rights for women.

>>2648043
>tfw grandfather died his seven kids sold the farm and decided to contest the will, starting a long and expensive legal battle
>tfw now grandfathers kids and grandchildren are all wage slaves
>grandfathers siblings descendants are all living the dream on multi-million dollar properties and don't even need to farm it themselves as big corporations literally rent the land off them to grow food

>>2648714
What if they are cunts though and deserve it?

File: 1491702423338.jpg (203KB, 1508x1252px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1508x1252px

>>2648714
Excuse me what the fuck are you saying?

Are you saying it's ever been legal to assault someone? But that's a lie.

Women have the same rights as men go be free from assault. This assault is not a gender RIGHTS issue. It's a social one.

Next!

File: IMG_6648.png (826KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 750x1334px

>>2648714

t. male feminist

>>2647767
Read the Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren. 2 income families are a total meme.

>>2647721
there's no reason to do anything

>>2648714
>Implying if you were actually a man you wouldn't have an urge to see any female relatives smacked by now.

>>2648733
Mine was for housing developments and a ton of it to be exact.

>>2648032
>Not knowing that the US closed the Gold Window and burned Bretton Woods in 1973

Dumbass

>>2648079
new somalia?

File: Into-the-trash.jpg (58KB, 650x429px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 650x429px

>>2648714
Feminism is nothing but a social attention-seeking-through-victimhood device. It does absolutely nothing to address the overall issue of violence - which by the way is actually necessary in some cases, such as in self-defense. Intentionally directed physical and psychological abuse is a criminal offense, regardless of what gender combination is involved. Both men and women are capable of inflicting violence on each other. All that is required is that one be vulnerable to that violence and that the other be willing to take advantage of that fact. It's time you woke up.

File: 1487544057543.png (506KB, 552x566px)

506KB, 552x566px

>>2649089
look, it's another alt-rght nazi pissbaby mad that he can't own women anymore. sorry we hurt your priviledged white male fee-fees ;_; now you know how womxn feel every minute of every day due to rape culture and toxic masculinity/whtieness

>>2649102
Ooo nice counter argument! I'm really going to rethink my stance on the issue now!

>>2649121
you're views are too morally rephrehensible to engage with. sorry not sorry

File: steel legion.jpg (333KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 600x800px

>>2647721
You shouldn't egalitarianism is a failed meme

>>2649136
>>2649121
>>2649102
>>2649089
>/pol/ argues with /pol/ troll

File: 1487638719203.jpg (270KB, 552x566px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 552x566px

>>2649102

Take it back to /pol please.

File: 1255234112313.jpg (51KB, 353x339px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 353x339px

>>2649488
>i can call dumbass white people rednecks on /his/
>I can't call dumbass black people niggers on /his/

There is no reason for the double standard

>>2647767
>>2647786
you are a fucking idiot, feminism didn't kill the house wife, industrial labor did. women never used to cook clean and feed the kids and thats it. they had real jobs and money to pull in around the house. they basically owned the textile industry. (in the sense that they where the most commonly employed in it)

>>2649507
women not making homes and raising children creates all new industries for capitalism to get their share of the raised cost of living. Domestic work is unpaid to be untaxed. But working women, that doubles the workforce, the taxbase, and halves the wages in one easy trick. Women's Lib is porky code for cheap labor.

>>2649507
>Industrial labor did
>Its immoral to break up the family to send kids to work
>its completely moral to break up the family by having both the man and woman work
>women are convinced that exchanging a life of staying at home, cleaning, cooking, and raising kids is worse than being a wage slave who might die at their job while their kids are running around either also being wage slaves or joining gangs
>corporations like the increased productivity and support the campaigns made by early feminists who literally had the modus operandi of "work sets you free"
I mean the goal of thousands of years of trying to improve the lives of the family unit was based around trying to keep women away from dangerous jobs so they can raise the kids and because most women got worn out from extreme back braking work. If you had told a Sumerian women that she didn't need to die in the fields and could instead stay at home and sew all day , which do you think she would choose? They basically became slaves in those textile factories and commonly burned to death/ lost fingers because of poor safety protocols. When they went home they were still "wives" as well, they didn't see the notion that marriage was a patriarchal conspiracy to control women as making sense.

Feminism is literally going against thousands of years of technological evolution to shill for corporation to lower the real wage and shift the cultural mores of society to expect everyone in the family to be a wage slave under the notion that "work makes you free fuck staying at home and raising children please help me and my profits - i mean - set yourself free"

>>2649537
ah, so there is a direct relationship between number of workers and wages? maybe we should go even further and have only half of men work at a time. half the work, double the pay, the working man gives half of the wages to a non-working man. they take shifts of 5 years, where one man works and the other takes a 5 year vacation. now that would be paradise.

File: 05b4b44f25f4415ea8a28f4a08c8551a.png (137KB, 1920x1636px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1920x1636px

>>2649537
>durrr
no moron, women not making homes happens because industrial labor takes over textiles and farming so they have litterally nothing to do all day. stay at home moms are a fucking meme and only the product of a truly decadent society. Women had less rights and education through out history but we weren't jobless pregnant microwaves. only the most opulant of fags could afford a trophy wife that did nothing but drink wine, clean, and play the harp inbetween cooking food. Real women worked with the husband on jobs around the farm or land, where involved in various industries as far apart as burning seaweed, weaving and bleaching, preserves, writing, and paper production.

>>2649552
>she didn't need to die in the fields and could instead stay at home and sew all day
do you mean factories? women could no longer stay at home and sew all day you fucking retard. women where not idle hands in male dominated house holds of premodern society, they had jobs and income to roll in and in all means worked what anyone back then would have considered a job, not stay at home no income moming.

>>2649559
>.Real women worked with the husband on jobs around the farm or land, where involved in various industries as far apart as burning seaweed, weaving and bleaching, preserves, writing, and paper production.

Yes but the women never really wanted to do those jobs and the jobs they did do in society were intentionally made to be the easiest jobs available. You think women back then weren't just as envious of upper class women as lower class women are envious of upper class women today? High class women were also expected to be highly intelligent to take care of the husband's affairs when he was gone, this was especially apparent under the manorial system but this was still true in ancient Rome and Greece and many other cultures around the world.

File: images.jpg (5KB, 131x90px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 131x90px

>>2649559
>what is food service
>what is daycare
I could go on but these industries would not have ballooned so much if women did this for their own and not be wageslaves and pay others directly and indirectly through taxation to do it for them. It also make for more dysfunctional generations to deny small children this pairbonding process.

>>2649565
Nigger do you honestly thing those textile factories are the same as fucking sewing a blanket in your spare time how stupid are you? Women worked when they had to, not because they wanted to and thats always been historically true. This propoganda that women ought to work because "fuck the family unit, remember your ancestors who were textile slaves trying to feed their kids and keep their families together and find a new husbad well fuck that just be single and work all day lol you'll be happier that way when your 40 and hit menopause"

Women ideally wanted to be idle hands and not have to work all fucking day.

>>2649573
wow, the poor were envious of the easy going lifestyle of the wealthy. that's very insightful. that doesn't mean that sitting on your ass all day is necessarily a better life. people need busy work to keep themselves from being bored and depressed. remove most of the time and effort required of housework like we have now and women will feel the need to do something else.

File: 1489076267879.jpg (251KB, 912x300px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 912x300px

>>2649573
>people didn't ever want to work.
wow based and excellent observation you have there.
Heres a nugget of a question though. if women worked back then even though they didn't want to in order to pull in enough income, what exactly are you doing insisting that feminism destroyed this? women have always worked. of course there are exceptions, wealthy and coveted. but as a whole we all can't be billionairs and want for nothing. Heres your fucking answer, feminism did not kill the house wife. industrial labor moved labor away from the house. nowdays with telecommunications it has never been a better time in the last 300 years to be a house wife. You can work from home as women used to. feminism didn't destroy this idea, they saved it. accidentally and with great regret sure but they did all the same.

>>2649580
>durrr
see >>2649583
and >>2649582

you fucking retard
>>2649577
those where services that bloomed before the advent of modern feminism and modern telecommunications. it's called having a nanny. women have aspired to have such a thing for all of human history, just like not working.

f>>2649583
feminism is the remora of industrialization, bring down the power grid, bring back the patriarchy.

>>2649588
>what was second wave feminism
checkers with a pigeon everyone

>>2649582
>people need busy work to keep themselves from being bored and depressed.

No they need hobbies that doesn't mean

>hey are you sad?
>why not become a wage slave in a hazardous environment and forsake the notion of having a family later in life or waiting until you're 30 and are edging on being too old to be attractive to most males
>if these males complain you're too old then fuck them they're patriarchal shills come work for is we need the profits plz
>just ignore the fact that we are de facto trying to force you back into the labor force at the cost of raising your children
>just put them in daycare lol

Yeah its just corporate propoganda being enforced on women for muh profit. How women keep falling for this meme that men actually enjoy having to go to work all the goddamn time is beyond me.

>>2649593
>durr what is english
try posting something other than a non sequitor.

>>2648027


>Competition is what drives us to become the best we can be

Competition with one's self.

File: PURGE.png (3MB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1440x900px

>>2649588
>daycare existed in the past
>because something existed int he past means it was a good thing and positive outcome for children

DEUS VULT CRUSADES EXISTED IN THE PAST THAT MEANS THEY ARE A PRIORI GOOD, SECURE THE HOLY LAND

>>2649606
>durr
you've moved the goalpost onto another planet. incase you've forgotten you dumbass chucklefuck, we are discussing if feminism and female employment destroyed being a house wife. so far as I have proved, they haven't. much to your whiny bitching.

>>2649583
>feminism saved the family unit

How much of a retard do you have to be to buy this absolute propoganda that just by reducing the total cost of the basket of goods within a society makes that society better off?

Ever heard the phrase

>money can't buy you happiness

>>2649594
>hazardous environment
nigger it's not like women are all going to work in construction. hobbies will perhaps satisfy some bored housewives, but not all of them will have passions that match them. what about women that enjoy being in a competitive work environment, etc?

>>2649614
>feminism saved the family unit
whoa there retard. I said they saved the house wife, by forcing equality and education, women now have the skills, if they so choose, to work from home and be house wives. ever heard the phrase stop taking shit out of context?

>>2649612
No really haven't you just bit the corporate b8 a little to hard. I used something called a reductio ad absurdum on your assertion that

>nannies existing the past = nannies good for the outcomes of children

Women still have to work when they have to work for the benefit of the society and to preserve their family, paying someone off to half assedly raise their kids whlie they ignore their kids to sit around and do nothing all day is not benefitting the society.

Your a priori assumption of what makes a happy life is basically

>fuck stress and fuck boredom
>your self is all that matters

Feminism has absolutely destroyed the notion of being a housewife because it calls marriage in itself a patriarchal institution designed to control women. Industrialization =/= feminism.

>>2649622
no feminism is self-promotion of the white collar supremacists. The values of traditional masculinity have been transfigured and assigned to women. Feminism has unity among with those who don't want to LARP as men.

>>2649625
>nannies existing the past = nannies good for the outcomes of children
has nothing to do with anything you dumb whore, nannies predate feminism, ergo, nanny popularity is not a consiquence of feminism.

>durr feminism calls marriage itself a patriarchal institution
feminism also says penis in vagina sex is rape. Remind me about the time when feminism killed sex and people stopped having children? oh wait, theyre still having sex and kids to this fucking day. shut the fuck up you are cancer.

>>2649626
>durr
again, either post something that's a cohearant reply to the post you quoted or shut the fuck up

>>2649616
Yes they are are we're sending them to fucking afghanistan and war ffs, and your example of the textiles mills are notorious for killing/ maiming little girls and women.

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

Plus your criterion of "lol we're doing it for profits to feed the family" justifies child labor, your realize that right? i mean none of this has to do with feminism in the first place.

>what about women that enjoy living in a competeitive work environment
>enjoyment = good for society

really nigger

>>2649634
>h wait, theyre still having sex and kids to this fucking day.

No no no feminists are not having children its the people who are anti-feminist who are having the children holy shit how stupid are you. do you not hear about the birth control and abotion rants daily? Did you miss that part of your own statement where people won't sleep with feminists for fear of being called a rapist on her whim? Stop defending the goddamn cancer that is feminism.

>nannies predate feminism

You're missing the point you moron, nannies becoming more prominent in society due to feminism is not evidence of the family unit being maintained, its the opposite.

>>2649635
>enjoyment = good for society
you dumb fucking nigger, go kill yourself you goal post moving piece of shit. none of this shit matters, its about weather in todays world it is more possible or less possible to be a house wife because of income restrictions or lack there of. and the answer is a resounding no thanks to feminism freeing up the work place for women to work, and telecommunications making it possible to do so from home again. There is nothing stopping any woman from doing this except the requisite need to find a man who isn't a piece of shit like you who is too obsessed with pushing their shitty agenda over the facts of the arguement in question. AGAIN the only reason women even went to factories in the first place to be wage cucks is because the FACTORIES stole all their work. Also by now I'm guessing you are typing things on a computer made in such a factory so why dont you kindly turn it off and stop feeding the system you claim is destroying our society.

>>2649646
>No no no feminists are not having children its the people who are anti-feminist who are having the children holy shit how stupid are you. do you not hear about the birth control and abotion rants daily? Did you miss that part of your own statement where people won't sleep with feminists for fear of being called a rapist on her whim? Stop defending the goddamn cancer that is feminism.
wrong nigger. feminists existed more than just today, they have decendants.

>>2649634
>women are wagecucks now because social engineerings
>wtf where'd the latchkey kids come from
>better hire some teenagers
rinse and repeat
Working women end up costing more than they earn in the plurality of cases. They bring the tax rates up because lolsocialism, they have to pay for the services such as food, daycare, cleaning that were formerly performed internally. They have to pay for work clothes, commuting in both time and gas, it just isn't logistical for most women to be careerists.

>>2649635
>what about women that enjoy living in a competeitive work environment
>enjoyment = good for society
I didn't say that, I'm countering your simplistic idea that all women want to be lazy NEETs. now tell me, how many NEETs are actually happy and haven't turned into depressed, anti-social slobs inching towards killing themselves. also, you have yet to prove that women working is bad for society

>Yes they are are we're sending them to fucking afghanistan and war ffs, and your example of the textiles mills are notorious for killing/ maiming little girls and women.
women were also sent to warzones in WWII. until recently women couldn't even serve in combat roles (which I would probably agree with you that they don't have the physical endurance for being in combat). your factory example isn't relevant because that isn't the working conditions women are in today in the West. when they do work in horrid conditions making shirts in east asia it isn't feminism that is leading them to do it, it's economic necessity. yes, working in horrid conditions is better than your family starving.

>>2649647
>goal post moving

I'm not even, thats called you being wrong, projecting you moving the goalposts. I already told you

>feminism shifts the idea of women even getting married
>feminism shift the moral ethos of a society to expect women and men to both be earners in the family unit dropping the overall real wage

Which you conflate with industrialization. You even said at the beginning of this argument that the house wife has already been killed

>>2649507

So you arelady admitted that its less possible for a house wife to exist in todays society, but the more important concept is that feminism reduces the overall desire for house wives to exist in the first place. Yes, indoctrination counts as preventing people from following a certain path. That counts.You saying the a reduction in the real wage and the consumer price index does not mean house wives are more likely to occur or are more possible. No, the small amount of jobs women can do from home does not make the occurrence of house wives more possible either because they are not fucking housewives if they are working, unless the definition of a housewife to you is locking yourself in your work room while the nanny takes care of the kids.

>>2649662
>women are wagecucks now because social engineerings
no you retard, they are wagecucks now because real engineering

>>2649680
>wage reducing may may
Why must all men work then if we can double wages again by halving the work pool again?truly this>>2649558 would be paradise

>>2649650
>feminists existed more than just today, they have descendants.

Sure if you want to call the blood soaked Jacobin mess that was the French Revolution the ancestors of modern feminism go for it bud, but before then the concept of radical gender egalitarianism didn't exist in western culture.

Feminists then were probably killed in the Thermodorian Reaction, feminists today are either hyper sluts who never have kids or landwhales that never have kids.

>>2649680
holy shit, you know what, no I'm getting some fucking food, you are so delusional and stupid your post no longer even reflects the content you are replying to. you aren't just so stupid you deserve to be beaten to death with as many glass bowls as it would take to kill you, but you are so lost in your garbled delusions that you have no idea what anyone is even saying around you. like a fucking deranged creationist screaming why do you hate god at someone who said they believe in evolution.

>>2649695
This is why people (even socialists) advocated against immigration, the principle is sound, your hyperbole is trash. You must disdain the working class like the Bourgeoisie's little helper you are.

File: 1469410237299.png (247KB, 468x519px)

247KB, 468x519px

>>2649695
>the law of supply and demand doesn't apply to labor

wow, really made me think

File: 1480919901302.jpg (95KB, 600x540px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x540px

>>2649712
it's not hyperbole, it's exactly what you claim: half the work pool and the wages will be magically doubled.

>Bourgeoisie
Jesus, no wonder you're cancer: you're /pol/ and /leftypol/. this picture has never been more relevant

>>2649719
it does, but you are vastly simplifying the issue. if all women stopped working wages wouldn't simply double. while you are halving the workforce you are also shrinking the economy on an enormous scale

>>2649724
this is clearly policy that does not benefit those it has been advocated for.

>>2649670
>staying at home, finding hobbies, raising your children, and attending social clubs to raise the culture of your society
>the same as being a porn addicted shut in

Are you fucking serious. Lemme guess

>hurr the women of the 1950's were actually miserable because of not being a wage slave inherently

Is that the only factor you can think of that made women then miserable? It had nothing to do with consumeristic pop culture pushing hedonism, men and women moving all the goddamn time to work in corporate jobs in a neighborhood built by said companies for cheap that have no history to them?

The only factor was women not working sure whatever you say pal.

>it isn't feminism doing this its industrialization

Again, i already told you that the problem with feminism is that it intentionally creates an artificial economic incentive based on propoganda of corporate work inherenently leading to happiness. The women in these poor communities were, previously to their sweatshop work, farmers. They were still low class, and you still had the high class who didn't work all fucking day because that was the end goal of the low class working all the time in the first place.

Telling women that single motherhood is good, divorce is fine, children suck, you need to work until you are forty, and you need to engage in as much sex (without children) as possible to be happy to protest against traditional mores is not a class imperative unless you are a hardcore marxist, that is just indoctrination.

File: 1412425861793.png (772KB, 674x7920px)

772KB, 674x7920px

>>2649729
women mostly are employed taking care of other women's children. This should be insourced and not subject to either the company's profit motive or state's central planning.

File: 14812312414123.gif (780KB, 325x203px) Image search: [Google]

780KB, 325x203px

>>2649704
>holy shit, you know what, no I'm getting some fucking food, you are so delusional and stupid your post no longer even reflects the content you are replying to. you aren't just so stupid you deserve to be beaten to death with as many glass bowls as it would take to kill you, but you are so lost in your garbled delusions that you have no idea what anyone is even saying around you. like a fucking deranged creationist screaming why do you hate god at someone who said they believe in evolution.

You literally have no argument in your incoherent mess of sheer propaganda. After i disagree with you and you couldn't figure it out, instead of asking me you just go

>yeah well fuck you if you don't believe in what i believe the only reason is because you are hardcore fundementalist who won't debate

Nigger i used to be a communist I know these argument like the back of my hand just because you're too stupid to follow them does not mean i am fundementalist.

>>2649747
employed taking care of children while they're at school most of the day or when they become teenagers who are fairly independent? even for young children women have plenty of time to care for them and work a part time job. If you're so concerned about women not spending enough time with their kids when they need to how about we increase the time period of paid maternity leave?

>>2649765
because that's just asking for special treatment and crying equality? why not paternity leave? If women stopped trying have their cake and eat it too that would be a start

>>2649774
I have no problem with paternity leave. at least one parent should be home after a baby has just been born.

>>2649786
statistically speaking based on child rearing studies its more important for the mother to be present, but then again its more important that both are around the child as much as possible for the first 12 months.

>>2649822
probably true, especially considering it's better to have breast milk than formula. just addressing the fairness issue, which is quite ironic when that poster was advocating for special treatment for women to shield them from the dangers of the workplace.

File: 1489318802567.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

>>2647721
>it's an /r9k/ thread

>>2649483
How is what i said remotely /pol/ in anyway? Being a opponent to feminism isn't politically incorrect, its a legitimate stance; shared by many others, including women too i might add.

>>2649507
>>2647817
>>2647854
>>2647894
>>2648104
>>2648083
>>2648311
>>2648314
>>2648714
>endless appeals to tradition
>muh economy
>actually thinks that the 1950s in the U.S. were some kind of baseline for human society
>/r9k/-tier misogyny
>flat out bait

Are we getting more refugees from /pol/ lately?

>>2649913
Politically incorrect =/= not a legitimate stance. anti-feminism is very much a /pol/ thing, especially the language that you use

>>2649920
Appeals to tradition aren't bad, appeals to the a priori rather than the a posteriori are bad, which is something feminists do as well.

Appeals to anti-tradition as an inherent value is just as bad as appeals to tradition as an inherent value.


>disagreeing with you on the historical materialist conception fo what makes a man a man and what makes a women a women
>misogyny

lurkmoar reddit feminism is horrible, tumblr and /pol/ please go

>>2649963
>Appeals to tradition aren't bad
>Appeals to anti-tradition as an inherent value is just as bad as appeals to tradition as an inherent value.
...so both appealing to tradition and against tradition are good?

>>2649558
given the size of the welfare state, we are getting close to that, so you aren't wrong...

>>2649970
>.so both appealing to tradition and against tradition are good?

And they can also be bad. Lrn2 logos, and look up the difference between a priori and a posteriori.

>>2649929
well, feminism is retarded, you don't have to be /pol/ to understand that, you only need like a pair of functioning brain cells

>>2647981
>women have talent and denying them the use of that talent disadvantages us as a society
>women first and foremost have an undeniable and superior talent in being mothers and caring for babies
>being a housewife and not pursuing a professional career is patriarchy and oppression! we need strong, independant women! you can have children and family later (ooops, you're out of time because you hit the wall at 35, and nobody really wants you anymore because your beauty and fertility is gone, also you are emotionally exhausted and unable to bond with someone after riding the cock carousel for 15+ years, tough luck, you better start whining about where all the good men gone)
What did he mean by that?

>>2648311
>wanting to become a (fake) omega male starting right from the bottom of dominance hierarchy
top life goals m8

>>2649102
>rape culture and toxic masculinity
Is this really how low /his/ has got? I thought this was a serious board. Or did I get trolled hard?

>>2649634
>feminist society having kids
You couldn't be more wrong. Everywhere in the West the native white population has total fertility rate of 1,4-1,7 =they are NOT having children at a sustainable level.

>>2647721
she looks so beautiful, but what is she doing?

>>2650144
>she

File: 1464636730562.png (301KB, 306x458px)

301KB, 306x458px

>quick /his/, sell me an is-ought

>>2647721
true equality doesnt exist period. whether its between men and women or women and women or men and men. the value is that women are allowed to explore their potential and contribute likewise instead of being automatically pidgeonholed into certain roles. easy example is woman are suffering med school and dealing with shitty patients at their shitty GP/pediatrics office while i stay home and play vidya and such because thats what we're both good at

>>2647721
So I can watch men beat up women in cage fights ofc

I think only 1/10 people ITTare remotely stable as individuals on a psychological or social level. At most.