From an abstract standpoint why are men supposed to support equality

Because it's 2016.

supposedly it leads to a greater, more well rounded man
retaining power has its flip side of course; responsibility and social pressure

>>2846487
It would be a better argument if it wasn't a responsability shared between all men (in this context).

because it addresses civil unrest without the externalities of widespread wifebeating/anti-egalitarianism

>>2846466

Because women are narcissists who tell themselves bedtime stories so they can wear an armor of self-esteem against the intrusions of something resembling an honest accounting of their reality.

So give half of your paycheck so your five year old daughter can be raped by Jamal, your wife's new boyfriend.

>>2846466
Many many male birds sit on eggs though.

>>2846531
What's wrong with you. Serious question.

>>2846466
OH its another sad bitter lonely men blame feminism for all of their problems. I love this show.

>>2846540
blah blah blah birds aren't humans
hurf durf I was just pretending to be retarded
aggle aggle poorly constructed joke equating species of fowl to people of different colors

>>2846547

What do you mean? Our society is racing towards polygamy/haremization and you ask "what's wrong with you?" because the obvious reality of women being figurative, and literal, cocksuckers isn't supposed to intrude on fantasy?

>>2846554

Yes, importing millions of immigrants and putting women in direct competition for jobs with men would have nothing to do with the complaints against feminists.

It's just bankers chuckling on top of a New York hotel while they abuse children. That's literally all men.

>>2846563
CONT.

Can you imagine the hysterical screeching that'll develop when they legalize prostitution and come out with "good enough" sex robots?

"Sex is positive...but only on my terms!"

File: IMG_6865.jpg (501KB, 864x1026px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 864x1026px

>>2846554

Um sweetie no, feminism is objectively cancer for both men and women

File: IMG_6866.jpg (184KB, 1024x911px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1024x911px

>>2846466

There's no reason, women just nagged western men to death.

Women's rights is the terminal cancer that literally kills civilizations. Tbfh alpha religions like Islam thatkeep women in their place are literally replacing the West.

>>2846563
You still have to compete with other men in around the same position in top of competition with immigrants and non-white men(unless you support measures to bar those men out of those jobs like in previous times)

>>2846466
>male steps on an egg
>"You're going to kill our babies, you irresponsible hussie"
There, a quality post for a quality thread

>>2846487
>>2846523
More like, for a country to be truly for the people, you cannot rule out half of your voters over bullshit. It is immoral and hypocritical.

As for socially, aren't their studies somewhere that prove when women are more educated in a country, infant mortality decreases? Another thing is life under paternalism wasn't very good for most men either. You worked your self to death and could never spend that much time around your kids most of the week, outside of maybe hunting with your son if you go back far enough. If you also go back far enough, men would have to be held accountable for their crimes and their wives along with kids. That is just ridiculous and unfair to both parties. And you can image how it makes domestic violence more or an iminant danger when the in some households. After all, if his wife does bad things, he will be held accountable and he can't have that.

All and all, I don't see why men never jumped to help women get rid of this system sooner. It was grossly cumbersome...perhaps it was the thrill of being able to "feel superior" to another person by default even though in all other ways, he was far from that socially.
Kind of like how poor whites in the south consoled themselves with the "idea" that no matter how bad their lot was in life(while the rich oppressed them) they were still better than all niggers by virtue of their skin color. Sad really.

>>2846563

The majority of politicians are men and the majority of voters are men, so how the fuck is it feminism's fault that immigration is a thing, and I thought capitalism worked on the notion of competition? Isn't "muh competition, muh survival of the fittest" the justification white people have been using to fuck over and dominate other civilizations for centuries?

The best part of globalization is that white men are getting shit on by the very ideology they've been using since the dawn of history, but now it's "not fair".

>>2846656
You only need something between 10%-12% voting always the same proposals to control a democracy.

>>2846656
>"muh competition, muh survival of the fittest"
Used to be how able you are to survive, now it is how you can get a gov. officer to like your group.

>>2846656

Because women's suffrage was a mistake. They vote overwhemingly for shitty social government programs because they see all of society as infants that need to be told what to do.

>I thought capitalism worked on the notion of competition?

Capitalism =/= Capitalism. Look at how humans actually act.

> Isn't "muh competition, muh survival of the fittest" the justification white people have been using to fuck over

Oh some stupid nigger who thinks his race has never perpetuated atrocities in the past ten thousand years.

I know I know. "Gibs me dat"

Fuck you motherfucker.

>>2846712
Truly you are hysterical

>>2846717

"Truly you are hysterical"

Are you some fucking Austrian doctor from the 1880s? "Hysterical".

>>2846531
t. /r9k/

>>2846620
Your last statement made your entire post, which was kind of reasonable, completely null in mind. Congratulations.

>>2846724

I'd make more money gambling on the exaggerated view of female infidelity and pragmatism than gambling on the opposing position.

Am I right or wrong?

>>2846720
A silly comment don't make him wrong.

>>2846732

"Truly you are hysterical" is a silly comment.

Fucking women and their nagging jeez.

>>2846735
You are incoherent, that's the problems, you point is right.

>>2846742

Why don't you actually point out the "incoherency" so that you can do something other than posture?

>>2846712
>>2846745

>Oh some stupid nigger who thinks his race has never perpetuated atrocities in the past ten thousand years.
>Capitalism =/= Capitalism
this points are reeeeeeeeeee.

>>2846531
lol wat

>>2846466
Some bullshit about gender equality improving society or something.

>but... but what if you were a girl you misogynist!
I would shut up and suck penis like Im supposed to.

>>2846547
>woman denying reality

What a fucking surprise.

>>2846777
>Not sucking penis regardless

Weak.

>>2846759

How is that not a point? Niggers complaining about reparations is fucking hilarious.

Are you going to make the Bantu pay reparations for the genocide of other African racial groups in their expansion from the heart of Africa?

Are you going to make the Mongols pay reparations to most of Asia?

And there is no "pure" capitalism. There are a variety of economic and logistic systems that commonly get put into the "capitalism" box.

>>2846797
>Capitalism =/= Capitalism

explain this to me, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by this

File: irish coast.jpg (6KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x168px

Why would you want to live in a system where women are socially mandated to respect you and submit to you and not the reverse? Not very good living in a place where relation is such a mess because half the population has to live with mental blocks on their conduct and interaction with the other 50%.

>>2846782
Im not a faggot anon.

>>2846803
see
>>2846797

Opening up an ice cream shop for profit is "capitalism"
The US Petrodollar oil system is "capitalism"

>>2846797
No you made yourselves clean.

>>2846808
So why should we respect them? Because your penis gets hard from them? Because you LUV them?

Women should never be respected at all, they should always be treated like complete garbage, dont blame me blame biology for making them so fucked in the head.

>>2846819

And I get accused of incoherency!

>>2846814
and you have "autism."

But don't worry, "autism" /=/ "autism."

>>2846808
It's like those people who are so either oblivious or up their own ass that they mistake 2nd class citizens being forcefully obligated to kowtow and being subservient to the 1st class citizens as being "respect" or worse mutual "respect.

>>2846820
>I'm not the problem, half the human race is the problem!

never gets old

>>2846831
Mother nature intended for women to be the slaves of men never equals, as reality shows making women your equals makes women destroy you, stop fighting nature you beta males.

>>2846829

Women are so predictable because they think retarded non-sequiturs are the height of cleverness.

It takes the mind of a woman to come up with something so radically unfunny.

>>2846834
Yes they are but I wont explain because you are probably a woman meaning reason is useless on you.

This thread is a disaster, but I gotta admit that even the girls I hang out with and whom I respect tend to be very unreasonable.

>>2846849
And you are mister rational I presume?

>>2846843
Shut the fuck up, you are either too lazy or too dumb to explain, what is the problem being honest?

>>2846855

God, it's really all too easy to discern women by word choice and frequency.

>What is the problem being honest?
>A woman seriously asks that with no self-reflection

>>2846855
How about this? Fuck off and get out, /his/ needs to ban femanons all femanons do is shit up threads with their prehistoric thought process.

>>2846861
>easy to discern women by word choice and frequency
It's really easy to discern and American by the way he forget about the rest of the world and how other languages exist.

>>2846875

Excuses, my dear.

>>2846875
Good lord if I had a nickel for this same retarded pattern of speech everytime I argued with a woman.

What stupid animals hard to believe they are supposed to be equal to us men.

>>2846878
This is what happen when you spent all the day talking in american boards, like /pol/, you forget that native English isn't a rule.

>>2846886
You don't know a shit about Latin based languages, you know the original post about woman's speech and what he said about Sweden and Asians?

>>2846887

I wish you were here in person so I could tell you to blow me.

>>2846899
And I wish you could argue about things.

>>2846902

And I wish I could drop loads down your throat.

But we don't all get what we want.

Are traps better than women?

>>2846852
I'm not the most rational individual out there but i'm rational enough.

>>2846909
Are you idiot, you've derailed this threat to play the tough guy.

>>2846918
Your English got suddenly worst after people started pointing out your "speech pattern".

Is there anything you want to tell us?

>>2846918

Of course I'm a tough guy. And I like to play. Why not rough n' tumble?

>>2846926
Fuck your self, I'm not even the same person.

>>2846466
Why do Liberals believe in the common good, if they don't believe in God or life after death?

>>2846929
Go suck a dick.

>>2846943

But that's your job, dear.

>>2846940
Because they aren't little religious cunts, you don't need a God to be a good person.

>>2846943
Nah your on the case since dicks are on your mind .

>>2846910
No, they're fucked in the head and the hormone supplements make them think like psychotic women.

>>2846946
Are you really that dumb, to derail a anti-feminism thread?

>>2846951
Your idea of "good" is not my idea of "good" and you cannot do anything about it.

>>2846960

It's my hobby. For work I tan.

>>2846961
You can start using logic instead of a 2k old book.

>>2846966
I do, which is why your idea of good is retarded for me and I don't care about it.

>>2846990
If you spent your time studding instead of read a old book and repeating yourself, you would have a notion of what good really is.

>>2846995
>studding

Excuse me?

>instead of read a old book and repeating yourself

I don't read the bible, I use logic, if I cared about the bible maybe I would have a false notion that objective morality is a thing :^)

>>2846620
How are you going to make a good post like that and end it with a paragraph of bullshit that you just made up?

>>2846887
You clearly don't know anything about /pol/. There's these cool little flags next to names and the American majority is a lot smaller than you'd think.

>>2846531
t. virgin

>>2847072

t. stupid cunt

>>2847082
t. sour grapes

how is this board so unmoderated

i thought that was mostly a /pol/ thing

>>2847107

t. "I'm a woman"

sour grapes? Jesus fucking christ, just let me rape your mouth already.

>>2847114
You van post anything if you make it &humanities related.

>>2846466
To weed out the weak men. I for one don't give a single fuck about women competing with me.

>>2847153

That's wise words if you're an actual business owner.

If not, those are foolishly brave words. Imagine applying for a job where you meet every qualification. The interviewers seem cool and they ask you to do a dog and pony show demonstration of your skills, so to speak. Then they shake your hand and smile and see out the door.

Meanwhile some latina with tits and ass walks in and gets fired after 15 minutes of manager's looking at her cleavage. She has no qualifications but she'll undergo "on the job training"

Would you be as carefree then?

>That never happens

Oh my boy, you've never been betrayed. It's a part of the human experience.

>>2847164

gets hired*

ha ha ha

>>2846466
Real answer coming through.

From an abstract standpoint and with the intent of gathering as much power as possible, it is in the best interests of men everywhere to empower women to the same degree that they are empowered so long as they employ the family unit as a single dynastic entity than as a collection of individual entities who share common circumstances. By uniting multiple people under a common purpose and by properly distributing power and responsibility between those who are best suited to wield and carry it, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. To that end, equality and empowerment of women broadens the potential pool of candidates for the exercise of familial power and influence and broadens the pool of potential candidates for marrying in useful outsiders.

>>2847183

Here's what happens boy.

Bosses try every underhanded tactic to pool 5/10 - 10/10 around them and to either keep 1/10 - 4/10 women below them or to another department.

Humans are humans, fuckhead. You can count on their vices far more than the ideology they spout.

>>2847192
if what you're saying is true

>low-performing female-dominated workplaces fail because the boss only has incompetent people around him
>high-performing male-dominated workplaces succeed because of so much competence
>all that's left are high-performing male-dominated workplaces

but that's clearly not the case in reality, and you're a fucking retard, you fucking retard

>>2847208
>high-performing male-dominated workplaces
>
>but that's clearly not the case in reality

Tell me of an environment that isn't dominated by high-performing male-dominated workplaces.

Tell me sweet nothings if you're going to fuck me with stupidity.

>>2847216
therapists, nursing, social work, translating, accounting (!), and many, many more

basically ANY people-centered occupation is going to be dominated by women, because, as you prove so well, men are too often thoughtless retards without an empathic bone in their body

https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gender_share_em_1020_txt.htm

you're a fucking retard, by the way

>>2847230

Ah, your self-righteous chimp out reveals yourself to be a typical woman babby.

There's no real point in continuing. Fighting a woman is like dragging an anvil out of quicksand. Some things are beyond human patience and strength.

Just a reminder,

Liberating women from the normal gender roles helped nobody except the state and companies

>>2847235
You're intellectually weak. I accept your capitulation. Go scurry back to your cave, weakling.

>>2847245

What weak insults. I wish I could look down on your angry glare as your mouth is full of cock.

>>2847230
>basically ANY people-centered occupation is going to be dominated by women, because, as you prove so well, men are too often thoughtless retards without an empathic bone in their body

Actually many males do well in those jobs and actually are treated better then the women in it. A job is only considered legit if men partake of it.

>>2847192
>Projecting his own social ineptitude this hard

In all my years I've ever known a single middle manager like this (and everyone knew he was a creep) but NONE of my bosses have ever been like this. They care about hiring the best person for the job I.E the one that's going to keep their department running smoothly and profitably. Even if that means hiring some late-middle aged woman who you wouldn't even think of banging because anyone who is even semi-professional recognizes the value of hiring the right talent and not arranging female employees by how badly you want to bang them.

>>2846531
You speak as though all women are sluts. And frankly it seems very paranoid or insecure of you for you to make such sweeping generalizations and assumptions. Also men act very slutty more so than women in fact. It's encouraged in society and highly praised, yet when we do it's wrong?

>>2846820
Where's your human compassion? Even the most conservative societies don't treat women like garbage.

>>2847251
It's not an insult, it's the sad truth. Degenerate men like you are the best argument for giving women rights and privileges. After all, if society can allow retards like you rights, it would be hypocrisy not to make them universal.

If truly subhuman men like you stopped existing, women (and blacks, and all the other races) would never have had an argument for equal rights.

>>2847259

Because women would rather have a 1/10th share in a popular handsome man than full fidelity.

Men are jealous because jealously keeps competitors away from banging their pussy harem.

I'm sorry if you lack the capability for self-reflection and judgement that aren't emotionally twisted to maintaining self-esteem in accordance with a moral regime imposed from outside.

>>2847265

Look at these fucking women saying the dumbest shit. I've fucked whores with more integrity than your "holier than thou" act.

>>2847269
>>2847269

CONT.

Like really look at this pile of horseshit.

>And frankly it seems very paranoid or insecure of you for you to make such sweeping generalizations and assumptions


Most women would prefer polygamy except the top women.

>what do you mean

The top women want monogamy with a top male, not to share his seed with relative mongrels.

>>2846466
These threads are just big shit tests.

File: IMG_1467.jpg (74KB, 898x619px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 898x619px

>>2847264

*teleports behind you*

>>2847269
You're just digging yourself in deeper. What a sight, the sad person in his natural habitat. He can't form arguments, he lacks wit, he just foams at the mouth with rage because nothing else will get him the attention he so desperately seeks. A dyed-in-the-wool failure, no doubt.

But really, when are you bitches going to make me a keto-friendly plate of bacon and eggs?

>>2847282
Exhibit A: Woman in denial that most men share the same judgement as me or at least judge on a similar spectrum.
Exhibit B: The complete lack of cleverness in her communication, only the fiery breath of a moralistic dragon bitch.

>>2846839
>Women are so predictable
meanwhile you proudly post demographics polls on /pol/ that claim to know exactly how an only white male population would vote on every issue

>>2847289

Ha ha. That was such a dig. I get it because all shitlords are one user.

Ha ha oh man I can't believe women are starting to get funny ha ha.

File: 1486962988606.jpg (85KB, 537x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 537x720px

>>2846820
>we should treat women like human garbage, how we always used to!
>dont blame me for how that turned out

>>2847284
Where's the argument? You claim nonstop that men are highly intelligent and logical and just plain better, but why aren't you exhibiting these supposedly universal features of your sex?

Could it be because you aren't? Because you're miserable and angry and evidently worthless? Because you just don't have any shred of excellence in you?

Intellectually weak, like I said, but also emotionally and socially inept. If only someone could love you, you might realize just how retarded you are in all your many ways.

File: women vote.png (609KB, 1808x3731px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 1808x3731px

>>2846620

>>2847304

I'm sorry, you still aren't funny. You're not making me dinner or giving me a blowjob.

Why should I butter you up with compliments.

>>2846466
>why are men supposed to support equality between the genders?

We're not, because we're not fucking equal.

Biology dictates that our job, as men, is to protect and provide for the family we create by dropping seed in the female, and females absolutely loathe men that refuse to do their biological duty. We are stronger, and we are smarter, and are far less likely to make decisions based on emotion.

Woman do not have the capacity to reason, as men do, and they demonstrate that every single day. The should therefore be ignored in all matters concerning society, as their judgement is inferior.

File: 1483587632897.png (303KB, 627x317px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 627x317px

>>2847291
take a deep breath and look at this post you just made.

File: men pay taxes.jpg (148KB, 744x1024px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 744x1024px

>>2846620
>You worked your self to death and could never spend that much time around your kids most of the week
And now this applies to men and women
>I don't see why men never jumped to help women get rid of this system sooner
What does doubling the workforce do to wages and the cost of living?

>we need separate divisions in sports because we can't compete with men
>we shouldn't be discriminated against as cops or soldiers just because we're women

Women "logic"

>and humanities

Great thread.

>>2847312

My post has more truth than the entirety of your journal entries where you blame the musician for being a piece of shit because he abandoned Slut A (you) with Slut B (not you).

You can't see the plain truth of things. It's okay, I'm used to women denying cold reality for the warmth of narcissistic validation.

>>2847319
>What does doubling the workforce do to wages and the cost of living?

Makes the Jews even richer.

>>2847308
Someday when you're truly at the lowest point in your life thus far, I hope you think of all the people who tried to help you be someone better, and how you ignored them because you preferred to be miserable and weak because it was easy.

That day probably won't be soon, but when it comes, I hope you either have to balls to accept it and change it, or the balls to eat a bullet and save the people you know from experiencing any more of you.

File: nofault divorce.jpg (325KB, 1362x776px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1362x776px

>>2846808
gee wonder why

>>2847323
sage and report, my man

sage and report

>>2847330

Being an unwed mother should be a fucking crime.

Divorce is one thing, but intentionally bringing a kid into the world without a father has done nothing but fuck our society in the ass with a cactus.

>>2846936
Are you Latvian by any chance?

>>2847324
There has not been a single truth you've posted yet. You will either obey my command or you will remain hateful, miserable, and worthless.

Take a deep breath

Read your post.

>>2847329
>I hope you think of all the people who tried to help you be someone better, and how you ignored them because you preferred to be miserable and weak because it was easy.

See, she frames validation in a social monkey sort of way. I've validated myself in actual combat,. I know I can survive tough streets and long nights and hellish conditions.

Meanwhile this bitch has the most feeble of insults to cover her clear projection. I get it. Everyone has treated you so fucking easy throughout life.

>But I've had a hard life

Unless you were raped as a child or went through periods of long starvation as a child, you don't know the fucking meaning of a hard life.*


* - I understand a hard life can come from having shitty parents in any socioeconomic class but jesus fucking christ, get some perspective.

>>2847310
>Biology dictates that our job, as men, is to protect and provide for the family we create by dropping seed in the female, and females absolutely loathe men that refuse to do their biological duty. We are stronger, and we are smarter, and are far less likely to make decisions based on emotion.
Not every society was a patriarchy.

>Woman do not have the capacity to reason, as men do, and they demonstrate that every single day. The should therefore be ignored in all matters concerning society, as their judgement is inferior.
Generalizations. Although somewhat true, a meritocratic view on women is the best way to handle this issue.

>it's a pathetic sniveling loser screeches from his mother's basement that women are overly emotional episode
lmao wipe the spittle off your monitor bro

>>2847339

See this stupid bitch. She treats negative emotions as a "bad".

She doesn't see the utlity of anger and hate in navigating the bullshit of life.

Meanwhile she's utterly oblivious to how much negativity she projects in order to feel morally superior. Since she can't be superior in intellect, superior in bodily agility and strength, or superior in earning power, she invokes social morality as a transcendent in order to finally give validation as a grand victim of the universe.

>>2847335
Reported for announcing sage and announcing report

>>2847339
>>2847329
>>2847304
Your posts, if these are all you, are packed with ad homs and direct insults. You assume many characteristics about anon, such as that he is miserable and angry and doesn't have 'any shred of excellence', but you cannot prove any of that and have no evidence towards it at all. Do you really think that random insults are going to work on 4chan of all places? Might as well call him an autist, a racist and a homophobe, just get it out of your system

>>2846531

Jamal? I think you meant to say Donald.

>>2847341
imagine being this pathetic that you start spouting delirious lies on an anonymous imageboard purely to spite another anonymous poster because of how upset they make you

>>2847341
>validated myself in actual combat
translation: too poor and stupid to live in a decent neighborhood or a military welfare baby

>I know I can survive tough streets and long nights and hellish conditions
translation: I'm so dumb I couldn't get a job outside of night security at a corner store

>OH WOE IS ME THE MEAN STREETS THEY WUZ TUFF, I A REAL NIGGA UNLIKE DESE FEMALES WIT DEY STABLE JOBS AND SHIT

>>2847360

Imagine being a woman.

I'd commit suicide.

>>2847366
Are you admitting that you're weak willed compared to women?

>>2847364

Man, these women here are something else. Only they are allowed to have tragedy happen in their life.

They can cry about how Ted or Michael cheated on them and post on social media about trying to get self-love.

But have a man tell them something truly sorrowful and they peck at him like penguins.

Fucking women.

>>2847355
When you have no argument except "lul women are inferior gb2 kitchen &suc my dick hehe sure showed them:)" there's no reason to expect anyone to be civil in their responses. Read the whole thread, it's just one trolling fellow with a lot of time on his hands.

>>2847374

If you had the power of Zeus and then were forced to be a worthless worm wiggling on the earth, then suicide would be a rational option.

I don't think these women realize how much validation they're giving to bitch stereotypes to all the lurking males.

>>2847355
>Your posts, if these are all you, are packed with ad homs and direct insults. You assume many characteristics about anon
meanwhile you're screaming at the top of your lungs that every poster that disagrees with you must be a woman

we have direct evidence that you are clearly a miserable person and hate your own life.

> Do you really think that random insults are going to work on 4chan of all places?
when are you going to realize that? might as well call him a roastie and get it out of your system.

>>2847383
>>2847380

Stupid bitches who are arguing with posters that are not me.

Fight me cowards. I am the prey you want.

>>2847375
It's already pretty clear your life is truly sorrowful. What have you done to change that lately besides blaming other people for your problems?

>>2847389

I don't blame other people for my problems. Where did I blame my woes on any of you?

Are you projecting like a stupid bitch now?

>>2847387
sorry, my mom taught me not to hit disabled people no matter what they say or do

>>2847398

Oh ha ha that was a funny what a fucking knee slapper now I truly believe women are funny.

>>2847394
It's pretty clear from this entire thread that you believe women are politically and socially problematic (rather SJW of you to say!). Then you whine like a little bitch about how women have it so easy while you grew up on the "tough streets."

Really, all I'm getting from this at that you're one more whiny bitch among a legion of whiny bitches. And people claim women whine!

>>2847409

Oh man what a devastating takedown of my psyche.

You women are truly masters of empathy and of simulating the psychology of human minds.

I will cut off my dick and bend my knee in servitude due to how utterly final you owned me.

>>2847383
That was my first post ITT. Again you made wildly incorrect assumptions and responded with insults.

Show me your direct evidence

>>2847414
>ineptly try to communicate your time on the "tough streets" and how you've been in "combat"
>someone responds, laughing at your pathetic need to justify yourself to complete strangers
>YOU DON'T KNOW ME, YOU DON'T KNOW MY PSYCHE

>>2847422

Shh. We must not shame these women. They have thought the most profound thoughts on this Earth and it would be a shame to demean them for being fake sluts.

At least actually sluts derive pleasure from intercourse. These spinsters-in-training have found the awesome power of social validation via social morality.

>>2847426

You need to take more time before posting and think about how to make it seem entertaining as opposed to sounding like a harpy screech to all sane males.

>>2847422
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, what caused such a moral degeneration?

File: seemslegit.png (17KB, 208x43px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 208x43px

>>2847430
You need to take more time before replying, it makes you seem needy and clingy. hard to imagine how unpleasant someone like you would be in real life.

>>2847422
>family-studies.org
>freedomainradio

Is this what's considered sourcing now?

>>2847445

Tsk tsk, not a clever phrase in that entire post. No sense of rhythm or melody.

Tsk tsk, what a bad girl. Have they taught you that you can have your cake and eat it too?

>>2847450
nigga you grandstanding like that makes you look like the world's most insecure faggot.

I'm not even that person you're debating, I just saw this shithole of a thread and had to drop in to post how fucking cringe-worthy your posts are

>>2847459

A girl posing as a concerned outsider. Why am I not surprised?

No sane male would write something like "nigga you grandstanding". That sounds like trashy white bitches trying to sling ghetto slang.

>>2847450
Again with the enthusiastic reply! If you really had anything resembling social skills, you'd be involved in more than one thread at a time. Hope you have auto-update checked, one can only imagine how many thousands of times you would've clicked update by now if you didn't.

File: 1491251984476.png (1MB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x900px

>>2847431
>>2847428
>>2847422


stop shitposting and actually read the article for god's sakes. This is a textbook case of confusing correlation with causation, and also the "third variable" problem.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

One of the points brought up is that of religion-women who retain their virginity are likely to have done so for the sake of their church. The main religions we know, i.e, Christianity and Islam promote not only chastity, but in most forms hold marriage to be "till death do us part". With this in mind its obvious to see how they would be able to enter a long lasting marriage, especially considering that they would most likely be marrying a man who also possessed similar religious values, likely in an interconnected community, in comparison to a non-religious or simply less religious woman who would instead have the option to consider divorce without losing things like faith in religion, the love of their family, and so on. The happiness rankings are barely anything, but I'd also attribute that to religion, along with the fact that more sexual partners means a higher chance of kids outside of a relationship. As studies have proven, kids when not properly prepared for are incredibly stressful, and of course that same stress and more would follow if said kids were brought into a new marriage, and forced to adapt to a new father figure in their daily life. Even then it looks to me to be only around 20-25% percent, so not super large.
The STD part is obvious, so I'll simply digress and end this here.

>>2847463
>n-no! ur a gurl!
kys, edgy faggot

Delete /his/ right now

>>2847471
>>2847474

Look, obviously you aren't making me sandwiches or gagging on my dick anytime soon so I'm saying adios (for real).

>>2847478
Woman. Only such a harridan would want to delete a thread filled with honest observations and judgements on bitches.

File: 1490847936242.gif (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>2847471
>if you had more social skills you'd be posting on more threads on 4chan

you're both retarded

>>2847483
get your dick out right now

>>2847483
Again, I accept your capitulation. It's been fun.

>>2847483
>Look, obviously you aren't making me sandwiches or gagging on my dick anytime soon so I'm saying adios (for real).
Finally, Jesus fucking Christ, he ragequits when people start piling in on his dumb ass.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Cletus

>>2846466
Well, if you don't care about morality, there's still this consideration: take a look at the world. Notice something? All the places where women are oppressed are backwards third-world shitholes. The places where women have equality with men are thriving scientifically, economically, and in terms of political freedoms.

>>2847347
>Not every society was a patriarchy.

Any society worth a shit sure as fuck was.

>Generalizations
No, biology.

The fact that marriage has decreased, single mothers have increased, and the tax burden on the average citizen has increased immensely ever since females were given the ability to vote individually is a testament to their incompetence, and negative impact on our society.

>>2847431
White knights that accomodated screeching dikes and feminists instead of ignoring their tantrums and demanding they be disciplined like the children they are.

>>2847498
>The places where women have equality with men are...

Being overrun by foreigners, and bankrupted by social programs.

>>2847526
>The fact that marriage has decreased
>single mothers have increased
>tax burden on the average citizen

Prove these are directly correlated with women's suffrage. Bonus point: Prove that higher tax burdens lead to negative outcomes.

>>2847542
Prove they aren't.

>>2847540
nice /pol/ fanfiction

>>2847540
As opposed to being dirt-poor shitholes with no social programs at all.

Are you saying Pakistan or Egypt has a preferable societal structure to Sweden or France? That sure sounds like what you're saying.

>>2847552
nice reply reddit

File: whatsthatyoureretardedyousayohihardlynoticed.png (38KB, 956x540px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 956x540px

>>2847546

>>2847526
>Any society worth a shit sure as fuck was.
Irrelevant. Quit treating history like a game of civ. The fact that matriarchal societies like Native Americans managed to survive until colonialism is a testament that such societies can exist and thrive.

>durr all women are the same

>>2846466
Other societies will embrace gender equality and benefit from it, thus outcompeting your society. Humans are group animals, you can't think in individual terms. Even if you'd have more power in the short term from keeping women as eternal illiterate housewives it harms society and ultimately your long term prosperity and that of your children.

>>2847282
kill yourself

>>2847553
>Are you saying Pakistan or Egypt has a preferable societal structure to Sweden or France?

Yes, and no.

Yes, because as far as the family life goes, they're way better off. Marriage is respected. BOTH men and women are respected for the roles they serve. Children have a mother AND a father. They still respect their elders, and extended families still have value. Rape and violence against women is lower in those nations as well.

No, because they have a crazy tribal culture were government corruption is more acceptable, though the west isn't that far behind, and because of the crazy Muslim syndrome.

>>2846608
You still have to compete with other men in around the same position in top of competition with immigrants and non-white men AND ALL THE WOMEN right now already you brainless unemployed simpleton.

>>2846466
>haha looking after children sucks that's why we should make women do it amirite?
What did they mean by this?

>>2847564
>Irrelevant.

No, not "irrelevant". It's completely relevant as ALL the advances in science, tech, AND government have taken place in societies lead and ran by men.

>>2847564
>Native Americans

You mean the motherfuckers that didn't even have the brains to invent the wheel? Or steel?

You ever think that might have been because they were stupid enough to put chicks in charge of decision making?

>>2846808
>not the reverse
because living in a system where you are mandated to submit to women would be a retarded system.

>>2847564
>citing native americans as an example of a good civilization

wew

>>2846466
>Why would I not want to retain as much power as possible?
If you made a lot of money from harvesting the blood of the innocent wouldn't you want to retain as much power as possible?

If you claim to be a good person and have some semblance of morality then you should be willing to make sacrifices for it. This principle applies to equality. Why should women have less rights when they are people too?

The problem is when feminists and such try to warp morality, claim preferential treatment is equality and take advantage of women's fears of sexism.

>>2847579
>Rape and violence against women is lower in those nations as well.

Yeah, because it's not properly recorded. The same reason Sweden is alleged as rape ground zero, because their recordkeeping is meticulous. Look it up. Not to mention the endless socially accepted inbreeding and pedophilia that goes on in many Muslim countries.

>Oh, we want nuclear families AND remarkably high economic growth, but women have to be treated as second class citizens also! Why can't we just do that?

Because it's impossible. You can't be economically competitive anymore without women in the workforce. If you could, Muslim countries would have higher GDPs than they currently do.

File: ishyhddt.png (28KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 125x125px

>>2847564
>such societies can exist and thrive
>thrive
cmon now, even you know this isn't true. Even in the old world matriarchal societies were destroyed by invading patriarchal societies. It's natural selection, when you have one sex that's capable for war and another that isn't, putting the weaker sex in charge just gets your society wiped out. It's been tried over and over and doesn't stand up to selective pressure.

>>2847569
>Other societies will embrace gender equality

Only a self absorbed western idiot would be arrogant enough to believe that.

The west has been tricked into becoming wage slaves at the expense of their very culture and existence.

What happens to the value of labor when you double the labor pool? It decreases. What happens to the cost of goods when there's more competition for those goods? They increase. What happens to the cost of housing when you increase the competition for that housing by devaluing the family and marriage? It increases.

The example set by "western values" is the exact opposite of what any halfway intelligent society would call beneficial, or favorable.

>>2847347
you don't know what the word patriarchy means

>>2847616
you realize that the idea of women working didn't come from nowhere, right? It was a product of necessity both during the great depression and the world wars. If you're a society whose women aren't capable of working then you're going to have to keep a lot of your men at home to fill those jobs, or deal with an incompetent useless workforce. The simple solution is to let women work. I agree that it devalues labor but that's besides the point, that may harm the wages of the individual but the society as a whole is more resilient to trauma and war.

>>2847604
>You can't be economically competitive anymore without women in the workforce.

Bullshit.

Automation has decreased the need for labor as it is.

Our society needs mothers and homemakers more than they need best buy managers or corporate wage slaves.

>>2847616
>What happens to the value of labor when you double the labor pool? It decreases. What happens to the cost of goods when there's more competition for those goods? They increase. What happens to the cost of housing when you increase the competition for that housing by devaluing the family and marriage? It increases.
Wow, you're right. I guess population growth is also going to always be detrimental to the economy.

>>2847383
idiot

>>2847622
It's not 1939 anymore.

Encouraging women to ignore their biological duty as mothers and wives is as shameful and harmful to society as it is encouraging men to avoid the draft.

>>2847627
I know you're memeing but he actually believes that adding more people to an economy is bad for it. When in reality it's the single best and easiest way to grow an economy. He can't look outside the narrow terms of the individual worker and see the macroeconomic benefit of doubling the size of a country's workforce

>>2847627
It sure the hell is when you encourage everybody to compete for the same jobs, and allow women to vote for social programs that tax the shit out of everybody.

>>2847498
Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't third world shitholes.

>>2847622
>society as a whole is more resilient to trauma and war.

Except you're turning vast amounts of men from investing any time into this society and into investing into projects that will only bear fruit in the future.

If he had children, he might care about the future.

You see where this is going? This strategy isn't as clever as you thought.

>>2847633
none of what you're saying makes any sense.

There isn't a draft and hasn't been in generations
women don't have a "biological duty" as anything just as men don't, western countries are built on this idea called "self-determination" where you get to choose what you do with your life
you haven't demonstrated how or why women in the workforce is harmful to society, and in fact it only seems to benefit society as a whole, unless you're a romantic who longs for the days when women weren't so uppity, I guess?
and it's debatable whether avoiding a draft is immoral anyway

You're simultaneously harkening back to archaic views of society, and then insisting "its' not 1939 anymore"

>>2847604
>alleged
you are completely deluded.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that it's 90% migrants.

File: be89baf9c3b2af5392d2602263a1c05b.jpg (39KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 564x423px

>>2847609
>Even in the old world matriarchal societies were destroyed by invading patriarchal societies.

Not even that, but pic related.

Early Italian and Roman mausoleums always show the man and woman together, as equals.

The foundational myth of the republic is that the Romans expelled a king for raping a noble woman.

The rape of the sabine was an instance in Roman history where the men actually stop fighting because the women run out onto the killing field and throw themselves between the two armies, and are able to broker a peace deal.

Stop with the far-right power-fantasy. Only select cultures go out of their way to subjugate women any more than the subjugated the rest of their population.

Because women's intelligence are more valuable than a man's strength in the modern day world.

>>2847622
War time policy is for war time.

We deactivate our excess military at the end of war, as well we should have deactivated the war time emergency labor pool.

>>2847641
Yeah, see, I think you're just projecting your own life onto the rest of society. Not every man is bitter or apathetic about the future. You may be right that women working leads to them having children later or not at all, but the benefits outweigh the risks in terms of personal liberty, economic growth, and flexibility in times of crisis.

>>2847644
>women don't have a "biological duty" as anything just as men don't

Then we have nothing more to discuss.

File: 1426112216172.gif (8KB, 500x253px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 500x253px

>>2847650
men and women have the same average intelligence (different point distribution), but men are stronger, faster, and can work longer hours.

there is no such thing as modern.

>>2847650
>Because women's intelligence are more valuable

Every decision they have made for our society has made it worse.

Our police are worse.
Our military is worse.
Our families are crumbling.
The black community is pretty much destroyed.
All because of feminine "intelligence" and feminists pushing for "equality".

>>2847655

You're blind if you don't see the mass demoralization of men.

>but the benefits outweigh the risks in terms of personal liberty, economic growth, and flexibility in times of crisis.

Which mean nothing if most men feel that investing in society is a crapshoot and the game is rigged, so to speak.

Social mobility is at an all time low. Testosterone levels have steadily declined. Public schools socialize students into diets that lead to pre-diabetes and full blown diabetes.

I know the above isn't necessarily about women but there are clusterfucks of factors that are going to chain into a mother of all clusterfucks,.

>>2847648
it's not a far right power fantasy. many neolithic societies were likely matriarchal in nature, and were wiped out by invading patriarchal societies later on. That's what I was referring to.

What you're showing there is not a matriarchal society. Showing men and women as equals is not a matriarchy. Giving women rights doesn't make a society a matriarchy. Can you even name a single female roman ruler? Was there a single one besides regents during the byzantine period? You've probably picked one of the worst examples of a society to demonstrate matriarchy.

I'm not advocating for outright patriarchy or subjugating women, what I'm saying is that I can't think of a single example of a matriarchal society that competed with a patriarchal one and survived, and even if there has been, none of them have been notable.

>>2847657
okay, enjoy your fantasy world I guess. good luck getting your female breeding quotas enacted?

>>2847669

The bottom line is that our society is crumbling, and there's no fixing it.

What comes next is anyone's guess, but I imagine another "dark age", so to speak, of ethnic and political wars that will last for years until new lines are drawn on the map based on ethnic grounds, and when that day comes, all this SJW "equality" shit will be thrown in the trash where it belongs.

>>2847669
There is no "mass demoralization", all you're seeing is a phenomenon due to social media where suddenly men are becoming open about their feelings and grievances because they have a forum to speak to, often anonymously, 24 hours a day. Society is not crumbling, you're just more aware of feelings that already existed and have existed for thousands of years - insecurity and anxiety for the future.

>Social mobility is at an all time low. Testosterone levels have steadily declined. Public schools socialize students into diets that lead to pre-diabetes and full blown diabetes.
>I know the above isn't necessarily about women but
You said it yourself. None of this has to do with women. The fact that you felt the need to bring it up is quite telling though. Perhaps you're simply looking for something to blame these problems on, and you look to a rosy image of the past as a time where these problems didn't exist, and deduce the problems must've arisen from some change that took place since then, such as women being able to vote or work.

>>2847674
>many neolithic societies were likely matriarchal in nature

there are two qualifiers in that statement, "many" and "likely"
can you be more specific

>>2847648
>Early Italian and Roman mausoleums

you managed to pick the culture that produced the very word "patriarch", from the Latin pater, for father. Good job, you sure showed him!

>>2847683
>None of this has to do with women.

YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG

>>2847624
Then be poor, you dumb piece of shit. Live in a one-wage household and see how far that gets you. Have your wife stay at home raising your kids. The fact is most families can no longer do that unless one of the parents makes big money. These are not societal factors. They're economic factors. Most people would prefer to buy their food/buy clothes/use a faucet rather than growing/knitting/pumping water like the women of the house once did. Because it's more efficient, and it gives far more leisure time.

>>2847640
Are you serious? Their major cities are second-world on a good day. Their rural provinces may as well be Afghanistan.

>>2847646
muh niggers
muh brown people
we must secure the future of the white race for our children

>>2847683
>y. Society is not crumbling, you're just more aware of feelings that already existed and have existed for thousands of years - insecurity and anxiety for the future.

Wait for when haremization, sex dolls, VR simulations, and genetic engineering hit mankind like a concussion gernade.

We are in a unique position in history. You can't compare it to any time in the past because the rate of autonomous technical advancement is creating solutions and creating problems that no other cultures have had to face.

>You said it yourself. None of this has to do with women. The fact that you felt the need to bring it up is quite telling though.

You piece of snarky shit. I was illustrating this as a collection of clusterfucks IN ADDITION to the social rearrangement of the sexual life of women and men.

>you look to a rosy image of the past as a time where these problems didn't exist

The past had different problems. The present has massive cognitive pollution that tells people to pursue counterproductive strategies.

Are you going to weep for women when the artifical womb is perfected?

>>2846466
because men have mothers, sisters and daughters, who would suffer in an unequal society

>>2847694
>muh diversity
>muh equality
>we must set aside the needs of our people and our own culture to accommodate others

>>2847694
>I have no argument so I'll just call you a nazi

go to bed loser

>>2847685
I say "likely" because of course it's archaeological and thus the object of study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#By_chronology
The invasions I was referring to were the indo-european migrations

> The social organization greatly facilitated the Yamnaya people's effectiveness in war, their patrilinear and patriarchal structure. [37][note 5] The Old Europeans (indigenous groups) had neither a warrior class nor horses.[39] They lived in (probably) theocratic monarchies presided over by a queen-priestess;[38][note 6] this Old European social structure contrasted with Yamnaya Indo-European arrivals.[40]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations

>>2847691
>YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG
I was literally quoting the post of the person I replied to. But please, tell me how women are the root cause of all societal ills, how they conspire to give our children diabeetus

>>2847699
No, I won't weep in the face of human advancement, nor would I want anything to stop the march of technology. If the society of the future has no place for women then so be it, I'm just trying to explain to you how things are right now.

>The past had different problems.
>the rate of autonomous technical advancement is creating solutions and creating problems that no other cultures have had to face.
If this is the case, then why do people ITT (you?) seem to think that an old solution, keeping women as housewives or restricting their rights, will somehow help solve these new and futuristic problems?

File: gymnast3.jpg (86KB, 550x290px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 550x290px

>>2847674
>it's not a far right power fantasy. many neolithic societies were likely matriarchal in nature, and were wiped out by invading patriarchal societies later on. That's what I was referring to.
It's more accurate to say that the vast majority of societies were peaceful, with only a tiny minority of warmongerers who made life absolutely hell for everyone else. They were just as bad on male-dominated peaceful societies as they were on matriarchial societies.

>What you're showing there is not a matriarchal society.
I never said it was. I showed a society which balances masculine and feminine urges and therefore holds a key advantage over societies which over specialize in one or the other

>>2847685
>Good job, you sure showed him!
And in Rome women were allowed to own their own businesses, manage their own finances, and even initiate their own divorces. Compared to virtually everywhere else in the world, Roman women had it good.

Compare that to Athens, where women were not even allowed to leave their house unless they were attending a funeral, wedding, or religious service.

Compare that to Sparta, where women wore "thigh flashers" (a euphemism for an extremely short skirt) and liked to wrestle, run around, exercise, all under the guise that strong women make strong babies. And they were blunt: when one woman found out her son had run away from battle, she ran up to him flashing her beaver, asking if he wanted to crawl back up inside. A famous saying by a Spartan woman to her husband was "come with your shield or on it," meaning don't be a fucking pussy and throw your shield down and run away.

>>2847667
>Our police are worse.
Crime is the lowest it's ever been in America. You're blind.
>Our military is worse.
How exactly do you propose this be measured? K/D ratio? Stop being a fucking moron.
>Our families are crumbling.
Maybe yours is. Then again, people probably said the same thing when we stopped living with our extended families in one-room shacks.
>The black community is pretty much destroyed.
Like you'd know. Paternalism doesn't suit retards.

What a fucking trash post. Stop wasting our time.

>>2847710
>I showed a society which balances masculine and feminine urges and therefore holds a key advantage over societies which over specialize in one or the other
Alright fair enough, I don't really disagree with this at all. But in any case, it's definitely disingenuous to say that matriarchal societies have thrived, as the original post I quoted said. Whether pure patriarchy is more fit than a balanced society I don't know, but there are much fewer pure patriarchies around today so that could be evidence against it.

>>2847667
>Our police are worse.
Our police are fucking militarized and now every two-bit department has its own APC and SWAT team armed with military surplus.
>Our military is worse.
Yeah, you can blame military-industrial bloat, for that one.
>Our families are crumbling.
The nuclear family was a meme invented by real estate agents trying to get multigenerational homes to redefine "family" to mean "husband, wife, three kids and a dog".
>The black community is pretty much destroyed.
Like you give a flying rat's ass

>All because of feminine "intelligence" and feminists pushing for "equality".
muh correlation without causation

trash post. Even by the low standards of this thread

>>2847702
suffering is unavoidable
the mark of a coward is to surrender in an attempt to avoid it

>>2847699
>artifical womb
asap pls

>>2847709
>Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist or may have.

wow nice article there, maybe you should take a 20 second glance at the page to make sure your source doesn't BTFO your position before you manage to post again.

>>2847705
>white people stop having children
>uhh how do we pay for our medicare and social services and expectations of unlimited economic growth when we get old guys?
>...

You brought this on yourself. Rather, your white parents/grandparents did.

>>2847723
>>Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal
??? Okay, so this is just proving what I said? That matriarchal societies generally don't work and are selected against in human society. If they weren't then they'd probably exist and we'd know about them. I really don't see what your point is

>>2847710
>in Rome women were allowed to own their own businesses, manage their own finances, and even initiate their own divorces

wow, sounds like those poor Roman women had it rough under the actual Patriarchy. You know, the archetypal patriarchal society, the Roman Republic.

>the guise that strong women make strong babies

it's not a ruse you know, it's true.

>>2847734
I think their point isn't that Roman and Italian society wasn't a patriarchy, it's that women had some rights and freedoms and that made their society stronger.

>>2847730
>many neolithic societies were likely matriarchal in nature
meanwhile the source you post
>there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal

??!??!?!????

>>2847738
key word
>unambiguously

>>2847737
>Roman and Italian society wasn't a patriarchy

YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THE WORD PATRIARCHY MEANS BECAUSE YOUR COLLEGE PROFESSORS FUCKING LIED TO YOU

>>2847712
>Crime is the lowest it's ever been in America. You're blind.

Concealed carry is the highest it's been in America since they introduced laws against it back in the day.

>How exactly do you propose this be measured?

It's already been measured. Females make any unit worse because they lose more training days then men, become injured at higher rates then men, and are more likely to get kicked out on a medical then men, meaning females make running our military less efficient, and more expensive. It's the same thing in the police world.

>Maybe yours is.
No, American families are. More kids born without 2 parents. Less people getting married. More people getting divorced.

>Like you'd know
I'd call 7 out of 10 black children being born without a married mother destroyed. I'd call blacks being responsible for over 50% of all homicides in the nation despite making up less than 13% of the population a sign of the destroyed black community, and family. You can celebrate it and call it what you want.

>Stop wasting our time.

Did I make you pull your head out of the sand, honeybunch...or was it your ass?

>>2847742
can you actually read and comprehend the post before sperging out, /pol/tard? I literally said they were a patriarchy, I'm fucking agreeing with you.

>>2847725
>how do we pay for our medicare and social services

Leftists and women are responsible for that shit, don't blame "whites".

>>2847740
>when I said many neolithic societies were likely matriarchal, I actually meant that many neolithic societies were likely ambiguously matriarchal

stop saying nothing, I've forced you to qualify your entire statement a third time just by greentexting your wikisource. Go to bed.

>>2847717
>it's definitely disingenuous to say that matriarchal societies have thrived
It's disingenuous to say that any society could thrive in the era where big-men built ziggurats as a way of saying "fuck all of you, look how big this building is? It proves how strong I am". The only ones who could survive were despotisms, and it's been a long, gradual slog towards emancipation by the various members of societies in an effort to 'contain' those big-men and their inclination to destroy anything they can't control.

But that's in the late-Chalcolithic going into the bronze age, when social stratification reached some of the highest levels in history, where individual power brokers could have dozens, even hundreds of wives. It probably had a lot to do with why their society collapsed horribly.

When we talk about societies prior to the Chalcolithic, they simply would have been too focused on day to day survival to devote much thinking to who their neighbor's womenfolk were sleeping with.

And the societies which broke the cycle of suffering were societies like the Romans, who were respectful of women, relative to the times, and even though they never wielded de jure power, behind the scenes Roman women could be quite powerful. The American, French, and Russian revolution all had themes of egalitarianism (enacted to varying degrees of success) it's only latter day far-right regimes which specifically target women and attempt to restrict their behavior, and none of those far-right regimes lasted for longer than a generation.

>>2847751
In that context, "likely matriarchal" means "may have been matriarchal", hence it isn't unambiguous. This is implied because the only way we know is through archaeology. It's not that hard to understand.

File: ACFF6747-6203-422E-96F3-B8271F1DED77-7045-000007DCA27B3B39.png (304KB, 584x560px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 584x560px

>>2846531

>>2847754
So is your point that, because human society has become more stable over time, you believe society in general, through selective processes, is moving towards equality? Or matriarchy?

>>2846620
>le forcing racism into everything may may
>le objective morality may may
>le correlation=causation may may

Simply ebin

>>2847756
>many neolithic societies were ambiguously matriarchal
>many neolithic societies were likely matriarchal

these statements are dissimilar, and both say very little.

>>2847281
لا شيء شخصي، طفل

>>2847774
Okay? I mean, we can argue over the definitions of "ambiguous" and "likely" and the accuracy of archaeology all we want, but my point is that matriarchal societies haven't thrived in the course of human history because they're not as fit to stand up to selective pressure as more patriarchal societies. Even if they didn't exist, or we can't prove any have existed because all evidence has been lost, as you seem to be arguing, then that just further reinforces the point that matriarchy hasn't been successful historically.

>>2847282
>literal ad hominem is the best you can do

This is why men don't respect you.

>>2847337
What if the father left well after the kid was born?

>>2847337
this is the dumbest shit I've ever read
>man and woman have child
>man leaves woman
>she's single now
>welp, take her away boys

>>2847792

Children of single moms have drastically inferior life outcomes to children of single dads.

>>2847259
Casual sex is damaging to both genders, but you're kidding yourself if you think it's to the same extent for both. When women are seen to be the pillar that supports a household, you don't see the fault in corrupting their views of sexuality? For a man to see his worth by dumping loads in sluts is much less common than a woman feeling fulfilled in taking them. Why is that? Because it will always be the norm for men to hold the dominant position in sex.

>>2847797
and surely hitting single mothers with criminal charges will make those children's lives better

>>2847764
>is moving towards equality? Or matriarchy?
over the long term, human society is moving in the direction of more cooperative behavior and more meritorious forms. Larger populations require better behaved humans, and we now promote people based on who's best for the job, not whose vagina they crawled out of.

I dislike the term "Patriarchial" society because it suggests a sort of tone-deafness to the suffering that men just as easily faced in these conditions. Yeah, it sucks being a baby-factory; what also sucks is being press-ganged into the military and forced to shed blood and die just for some rich asshole's margins. Both sexes were subjugated and oppressed. These are societies dominated by capital-hording big-men. Despotism is just a fancy way of saying "rule by mafia kingpin". These are a distorting factor on society and bringing them under control has been one of the defining struggles of history.

The way that feminists traditionally used the term "patriarchy" was in reference to latter-day societies, when dish washers and laundry machines were fueling an explosion of women reading, educating themselves, and becoming more active as they found themselves with more and more free time, but faced resistance from traditionalists whose power bases were being threatened by the rising tide of literate, educated women.

>>2847801

Honestly speaking, most children would do better with the father.

I don't know why our society decides that the "fairer" sex ,which only acts upon emotional tingles, is better to raise the kid.

It's fucking insane.

>>2847797
That still doesn't take into account instances where the father makes a conscious decision to leave his wife and kid.

>>2847809

The vast majority of custody cases are decided before they begin. Unless she's an utterly horrible mother who blatantly shows symptoms of something like meth or heroin usage, the courts side with her.

Most divorces are female initiated. Most rapes of children by "relatives" occur in biological mom/stepfather households.

>>2847808
Yeah, the judicial system can be pretty biased towards women when it comes to custody battles. This probably stems from the fact that women are still perceived as better caregivers though, since that's all they were allowed to be for centuries

And also the fact that unaccompanied men being around children are considered dangerous because of the big pedo scare that's swept society in the last few generations.

>>2847788
Unless he raped her, it's not his responsibility, it's hers. After all, it's "HER CHOICE", as women are so fond of reminding everyone. Women have more than one hole to accommodate a man, and those that choose to allow a man to enter her and get her knocked up out of wedlock, should be held accountable, and any children removed and given up for adoption to a normal married couple.


If a father doesn't have money to pay child support, he goes to jail.

If a women doesn't have money to feed, clothe or house her whore spawn, the government steals your money to give to said whore.

>>2847797
>Children of single moms

Are a scourge to society, as are their welfare dependent mothers.

>>2846620
>aren't their studies somewhere that prove when women are more educated in a country, infant mortality decreases?
No. Birth rates decrease

>>2847802
>human society is moving in the direction of more

Pretense.

Society is pretending that "diversity" and "equality" is fine when it's actually destroying us.

That won't last.

>>2847858
Nah, traditionalists think that the sky is falling and have the hubris to think that their particular moment in history is "special", but they've been predicting doom and gloom just around the corner for far longer than any of us have been alive.

"diversity and equality" means that the job is going to go to the most qualified candidate, not the one who aligns with the right physical identity. If a black man or a woman happens to have better grades and a better resume, they deserve a chance at occupational success.

Social arrangements have always been in a state of flux because new technology is constantly re-writing the human condition. Obsolete arrangements deserved to be destroyed, with new values written on new stone tablets to reflect a larger, more complex society.

>>2847886
>diversity and equality" means that the job is going to go to the most qualified candidate

Quotas don't work that way, for one, and neither does lowering standards to accommodate women and non-whites, as has been done in police and military circles, and academia alike.

>>2847886
>"diversity and equality" means that the job is going to go to the most qualified candidate,

You're fucking funny. Here's the real scoop.

USofA acts as an IQ shredder of developing nations by attracting talent. This leaves developing nature with a far more paralytic condition than colonialism ever bequeathed (King Leopold being an extreme example), a lack of intelligent and motivated men.

And upper management/C-Suite types like to fish for women that work in their personal fiefdoms. They will say "equality and diversity" in one breath. And in the other breath, moan as Vanya deepthroats them under the desk. Maybe the next day they'll call Tiffany Weinstein with the giant rack. And then after that, Isis with her booty.

And so on and so forth.

>that's crude

That's the way of man.

>>2846466
you can not derive ought from an is

>>2846608
Obviously throwing women into the mix as well is the correct course of action. Nice race baiting as well.

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-05-22 11:09:46 Post No.2848322
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-05-22 11:09:46 Post No.2848322 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/126557080