Does society tell women that they are good only for their sexual

File: audiwagegap.jpg (99KB, 635x802px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 635x802px

>>133484913
When a woman is hot with big tits, she gets free shit and life on easy-mode. When she is ugly, but does what she considers to be a fantastic job (producing approximately 60% of what a male in her position produces), she isn't immediately promoted to CEO of google.

If you can't see why that's sexism, then you're literally hitler.

>>133484913
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Women are good for one thing, and one thing only. Women are good for producing more men.

File: johannesburg-south-africa.jpg (34KB, 635x396px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 635x396px

>>133485113
I get it. Women aren't told they're good only for their sexual value. They're afraid that this is true, and they foist the blame onto society. So how specifically does society relay its "message" to women? Or men for that matter. How does anyone know what society "says"?

>>133485746
>How does anyone know what society "says"?
They don't. The entire goal is to convince everyone that the only reason women aren't earning the same as men is because of sexism.

Reasons are not entirely clear, but I think it's because the guys up top want to take money away from middle/upper-middle class men and distribute it to women, who will then promptly spend it on frivolous shit - leading to the top guys + government getting the money.

>>133484913

This is a fucking homework assignment. Also society itself is half women. Likely more. If women are not accomplishing shit its at least half from women.

File: 1490137655542.jpg (57KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x640px

>>133486171
That makes economic sense and jives with the disenfranchisement of the middle class in general. So if someone says to you, " society says I'm not important because I'm a woman", how would you respond? I would argue that society thought women were so important that it gave them suffrage, and then took half the money made by men and redistributed it to women who now are employed at even greater rates than men. The problem is, they would immediately respond with an asinine statement about how their reproductive Rights are limited by the government.

File: 1499889638600.jpg (119KB, 723x429px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 723x429px

>>133486335
It's not home work anon, I just like to discuss these things. Typically not with women though because they're insufferable.

>>133486335
Additionally, if you told a women that they themselves comprise half of society and therefore decide what it's message is, they would tell you that women's voice isn't heard, because men make up most of government.

>>133486707
Ohh. There is no point in having this conversation with feminsts. They believe women are the same mentally as males. They will never drop this belief, nothing you say to them will convince them it's not true. Hence there is no point in having that conversation. It can only progress once that point is established, which it never will be.

File: 1499617178141.jpg (153KB, 989x715px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 989x715px

>>133487415
I understand the futility of arguing with feminists. What I do think is worthwhile is asking them questions in such a way as to reveal the absurdity behind their ideas. Really the Crux of much of their thinking stems from the engrained knowledge of their true purpose and the refusal to acknowledge it. Society doesn't tell women their value is only as sexual objects. Women themselves know that their primary value lies in this realm however, not in having a career. I'm not suggesting that women are worthless outside of reproducing, they are and should be free to pursue opportunities that fulfill them. But I think that they want to pretend that making babies is not imperative to their existence, but only "a side thing", and attempts by politicians to limit when they can or can't kill their babies remind them that, oh yes, that's what I'm really here to do. Which they dislike for some reason.

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

251KB, 912x300px

>>133487415
real great shitpost there aussie. Even if you could prove that female's where mentally inferior beyond a shadow of a doubt (you haven't, you've just posted studies of which there are numerous contradicting ones), the idea that you can't convince feminists of this is ridiculous.

Women are people, their minds can be changed like anyone elses. I've seen feminists turn and I've seen people drag their sexist asses to a more balanced position reluctantly. You can't put a condom on your brain. all you can do is avoid putting it in certain environments. unfortunately, when women frequent areas with SJWs, theyre going to see some shit that pisses them off. feminist or not.

The fact that you niggers constantly assert women are inferior in all perameters is rendered potato by three factors. You constantly cherry pick data to fit your narrative without showing even any awareness that there is loads of contradicting data, an attitude and behavior I would never expect to see in someone who is superior in logic and reasoning to me. You continue to squeeze onto your beliefs """"iron clad"""" validity through emotional appeals and anecdotal evidence when the few of you who do realize the scientific evidence is lacking. And finally, you Your actions when discussing this evidence shows no curioisity about the implications of what you belief. you merely believe what you believed already, or wanted to believe it, and searched for evidenced, which you found in limited quantity, blinded by bias, and decided that was that. The severity of knowing scientifically that women are mentally inferior to men has several implications and questions that are a branching point to even more understanding of the mind. in other words, if we had the answer to these questions we'd be able to conduct even more research with a finer comb into how the mind works and why.

<c>

File: 1499464038679m.jpg (61KB, 1024x575px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1024x575px

>>133488236
Men, for instance, know that their responsibility lies in working to provide for their family. A man who does not do this is defective, irresponsible, not fulfilling his duty. People recognize this. Likewise, a woman's duty is to have children and those who do not are similarly regarded as defective. Nobody ever said having kids was easy, or that pregnancy doesn't suck, but then again no one is asking men if they think working 9-5 for 50 years is a blast either. Part of the trouble lies in the fact that couple struggle to provide for their family even with two jobs now so women have been forced (didn't they say they wanted this?) to work too.

File: bannedfromrfood.jpg (215KB, 960x572px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 960x572px

>>133487415
Pol in a fit of illogical behavior has proven they care more about their butthurt feefees over women r9k style than the very male dominated field of neurology is less important than getting validation and calling women stupid whores and roasties. Your actions aren't motivated by logic, superior thought, and curiosity about the world around you that you say women lack often,. It's motivated by anger and chouvanism. Man, I wonder what social movement I've seen tons of that in before?

>>133488589
Ok great, we're all the same and people can change their minds. I've seen it too. Now address the points of my conversation, nigger.

>>133488789
I'm not calling women names or degrading them, faggot. That's not what we are discussing.

>>133488756
Yes actually, we do. and the reason you're seeing less and less women interested in children and marrying men who want them to stay at home and cater to their every whim, is because not having a career makes you a complete dependant who has no recourse but to obey their husband because you have no money, no security but their security. Women want security. Jobs give women that security. They provide money that is lasting instead of consumed at the point of entry like being a wife. That money can be saved and kept incase the worse happens. Pol also has trouble understanding why anyone would want something like this if they have a vagina and that too is something I find blatant in counter evidence that men are smarter than women. No one with an ounce of logic in their brain should struggle to understand this concept and disaster planning.

>>133488789
Stop being such a faggot. You're making sweeping generalisations about a board that (shockingly enough) has more than one person and ideology on it.

>>133489230
I understand your point completely and I already stated that women are and should be free to pursue these things. What we're discussing is lies that women tell themselves ie: society is oppressing me, telling me I have no value outside of a sex object, etc.

>>133488973
>address the points of my conversation
I already replied to one of your stupid posts, but I am not beholden to follow your loaded question in the OP. Most of pol already believes sociology is a fake science so I'm not sure what you hope to grasp that you could believe is factual about what women are "told" by society.

Even if you did favor sociology as a science you'd be asking a crowd of people who think very little of it, and the few who don't, probably don't have a great grasp of it either. IF you want a real answer it's probably down to marketing in the very young that forms opinions like this, but thats not substantiated by any evidence I've run across, it's litterally just a guess.

>>133484913
By charging faggots like you to learn about this non subject

>>133489431
society does oppress women to a certain extent, the lie women are telling themselves is that theyre anything other than property if they force society to add them to decision making situations like congress to keep it even steven. Given the level of skull duggery going on in many levels of high buisness, putting a bunch of naive women who haven't climbed their way through and at best, become jaded if not worst, very involved like hitlery, in congress is signing anyway their rights, becuase the deep state will just control them and if they wont obey they will be put to death by (((right wing extremists))).

The only way to stop the minor level of oppression we have now is to fix all the broken shit men have to deal with and shouldn't, and change the culture of sexism, which will never be done by screetching. Feminists aren't necessarily being stupid per say, theyre doing what they've always done in the past, wave signs and write abominations of literature to get women angry. It just turns out angry women aren't useful when what you're trying to mostly change is peoples minds, not laws.

File: IMG_6896.jpg (15KB, 215x235px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 215x235px

>>133484913
Women are only good for their sexual value. That's what nature says not society.

>>133489538
Ok faggot, looks like you tried to take a crack at answering my question, which was: where do women get the idea that they're oppressed? You think it's from marketing a a young age, but you have no evidence. So you're saying the media, essentially, promoted this idea. How? In what form?

>>133489991
>How? In what form?
I'm honestly not sure, I don't understand what you are expecting here, I told you I am not a sociology expert, and that you aren't a mong sociology expert, do you want me to offer some random clap trap so you can rip it apart and feel vindicated like
>>133488236
says you do?

Because that seems kind of pointless when I already know what I will be telling you has come from my ass.

>>133490303
Well you referenced a culture of sexism, so you must be able to expound on why you think our culture is sexist, and what that means.

>>133487297

Because women dont run. Offer them the stats on breakdown by gender of people who attempt to gain office. I bet the % of women to men in office is better then the % of women to men who attempt office.

File: RnGEd93.jpg (45KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x800px

I get fucking tons of attention for being cutesy with people (since I'm fucking weird and clingy) and friends, but I'm pretty unattractive so when online acquaintances learn of that, their likeliness of even talking to me as much as normal drops pretty heavily. Even those that have no interest in anything relationship wise do the same thing, especially other women, probably due to a lack of sexual attractiveness being associated with negative traits like social awkwardness, self- and inter-personal respect, and general discomfort around those people.

Just being around ugly people makes a significant amount of people uncomfortable, it seems like it's just harder for girls because it looks like you've completely fucked up the one thing you're supposed to """"naturally"""" do, which is pay attention to appearance.

So you get the general ugliness aspect plus an assumed lack of ability to take care of one's self just from outward appearance and sexual attractiveness, even if they're just naturally and unavoidably unattractive. It's an issue of both vanity and dumb, archaic requirements that girls be expected to put as much effort into their visual and sexual attractiveness as they do. Leads many to start focusing on that because it's just simply an easier way to get what you want, albeit a rather uninteresting method. If you're given the low road, why go for anything else? That part is natural.

Pretty sure it starts atrophying parts of the brain when one only uses one method of manipulation like that instead of learning core and general skills to get around and about life. Pretty sure that's partly why so many bimbos are air-headed; trained to be stupid.

>>133489980
no faggot, that's what technology says. Tribal women had value beyond being a pussy you had to pay to get rid of because of labor scarcity compared to the work needed. Mental and physical skill is so valuable in that society you can't aford to have anything but the most utilitarian sexism; male main leader of most tribes, for their added spacial reasoning, and men doing more hunting, because human childrearing is longer than most animals. other than that it was open game for most women, because nobody could afford to tell her not to do something she was good at because it was "for men"

Society tella women that they are tradable commodoties, just like men, and they don't like it.

>>133490681
You haven't told me anything about how or why our society is sexist, other than that you're ugly and people don't seem to like that very much.

>>133490850
Explain

It claims not to but that is exactly what society is telling them. The only thing that men and women have to offer each other now is just meaningless and fruitless sex.

File: 1499516281957m.jpg (136KB, 744x1024px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 744x1024px

>>133491352
1) you're projecting
2) if you claim society tells people anything, explain to me how society communicates there ideas and how we come to a consensus on what is being communicated to us?

>>133490421
I think its a combination of biology and social culture, but you asked how women get the idea that theyre oppressed, which is different from people being sexist. Biology seems two fold, and the evidence is just not here yet to support both assertions thoroughly, but basically men seem to overrate their peers for grades, this implies but does not at all conclude that men might have a built in sexism bias against women, rating their male peers higher even with women at a higher grade level in the classroom. The reality is far more complicated and there are far more variables to be controlled for me to be happy with this conclusion, the methodology needs work badly. Similarly, there are thin research papers on how voice tone makes an impact, hitlery actually comes up in this research because she's a female politician who used to be very shrill, compare now with her modern speaking voice for campaigning from before, and you'll notice a pattern of politicians aping the male pitch, and the reason they do is that humans as a whole seem to subconciously favor trusting males for leadership roles. Women get the same favoritism for their regular voices in court cases and other questions of innocence.

This makes sense to me as men's factual higher spacial reasoning and time hunting meant that there was unique pressure among males hunting to not get lost, and having the trip have a leader who would not get lost is very important to the whole tribe. similarly, women and their children could be killed if they did something like cheating, or where falsely accused even if not, which we have to assume was a part of tribal society since it is now, and those children have a higher chance to survive the better women are at appearing innocent, in truth or not.

the highly financed marketing to all demographics, including the ridiculous commercials of males not knowing what the fuck is going on at all times. leads me to believe this bullshit is worth investigating.

>>133491707
"What society communicates" is completely arbitrary from individual to individual!

>>133491306
>durr
you need to pay more attention to tags you stupid fuck, that person is answering your question and isn't me. are you superior when you can't even juggle two topics?

>>133491721
Ok so you can't point to specific elements of our society that are explicity sexist, but you have a vague notion that men see women differently than other men. It seems that all women have is this vague notion, but nothing of substance. Maybe they'll point to a high profile rape case, like Brock Turner, and hold this up as evidence of sexism!

>>133491352
this is pure bullshit. having someone you trust intimately who is your equal in finance is not meaningless, it means a cheaper home can be afforded, chores and food can be shared evenly, and work between two can be reduced to about 1.5. people just value their privacy or are waiting for the best relationship they can get ahold of.

>>133489991
>where do women get the idea that they're oppressed
Marxists. They see group A doing worse than group B, so they label group A the oppressed and B the oppressors. Then they start blasting rhetoric that supports this statement; anyone who refutes this rhetoric gets called a sexist misogynist patriarchal AD HOMINIM pig.

You see this everywhere in the media. Places like buzzfeed publish articles about the wage gap and slut shaming constantly.

>>133491950
All I saw was your faggot flag, but yes, I now see that there are two faggot posters here. There is room in this discussion for more than one fag.

File: 1469386476063.png (150KB, 459x462px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 459x462px

>>133492145
I don't have a vague notion of that you moron, I have scientific evidence that suggests its the case, but it is fledgling and imperfect.

this is the kind of talking point I'd expect from a woman if what you said about us being inferior where true, you don't seem either willing or capable to talk about a field of research and are completely impatient with the time it takes to refine data to get the answer you want me to provide that I already told you aren't 100% understood.

>>133492164
Now we're getting somewhere. How did Marxists convince women they were getting a raw deal? I mean, aside from lying about wage gap and telling them that they're oppressed for not being able to kill their children as easily?

>>133492164
you realize marxism worked at the time it was introduced because it was objectively true right? it didn't have a society that could function any differently, but the destitute and oppression was very real.

>>133491306

In capitalism our stature in society is down to our ability to be exploitable in a given market; our earning potential, our capital and cash holdings... Every aspect of our person is reduced to what is exploitable.

Women don't like that their femininity is the most explpitable part of them and that players in the various markets will focus on that.

For example in the employment market a woman is a liability because she has periods and can get pregnant, therefore her inherent productivity is lower than a man's and her value less.

>>133484913
Women are good at support roles.

Nothing else.

>>133491816
That's not how it works. Society tells each individual the exact same thing, otherwise it isn't society telling them. What is received by the person can differ. Important distinction

>>133492376
Ok I'll put off this discussion until you irrefutably prove that men think less of women, or that ancient hunters had better eyesight than their female companions. These things are immaterrial. I'm not arguing about these things, I'm trying to get at the idea of how and why women believe themselves to be oppressed in society today, despite having more freedom and power than ever before.

>>133492506
the wage gap isn't fake, its overblown.
abortion used to be legal before the modern world made it far more easy.
its hilarious that talking points of science are too hard for you so you're going to now sit back and fap to marxism hatred. Just about everything wrong with marxism can be applied to most political structures in existance because it is unironically a system made so simple even an undereducated starving filth covered flea and cholera ridden corpse of a person can understand it, exactly what the target demographic was. It's simplistic point of view is also why it fails, focusing on what is wrong instead of how to actually fix it.

>>133491306

Those are both really broad but okay..

Hell if I "know" why? Just presenting anecdotal effects of it and shit that seems to contribute to propagation of it. I'm not that crazy to say it's pretty sexist to expect a ridiculous amount of personal grooming from women which it serves no actual purpose other than finding a mate. Yet, lotta fucking good finding mates does when it's so rampant that it promotes degeneracy and fucking around. Sure at one point it was important to present superior personal grooming to show that you were clean, neat and caring about health and image, but as society has grown and technology advanced, it's easier to stay clean & get make-up, so the usage of it has ballooned to compensate for the increased competitiveness.

So those old tribal/medieval qualities of beauty from grooming and cleaning became less relevant as disease, bacteria, etc became less prevalent in the developed world. Instead of saying, "okay hey yeah you're pretty good looking, that's good enough, can you do x y z too?" it just continued the over-value of outward appearance. Men get the advantage of not having to look great, just simply adequate (mostly), and then their lack of quality physical appearance can be supplemented by intellect, skill or social aptitude. We're still, then, expected to do WAY more appearance-wise than we ought to and then not credited by peers when excelling in school. To specify, by peers I mean like-age girls; popular girls don't give a shit about nerdy girls etc etc, ye olde meme, because bimbos learn from their stupid fucking mothers and stupid fucking television and stupid fucking social media to focus more on looks. There's no real encouragement to do better from your peers, just adults. I can just say it's sexist to continue expecting stupid shit of women instead of expecting intellectual growth.

I can only really present one aspect of this since I'm not gonna pretend I know more than that when I don't really study bitches.

>>133492885
That's the point. There is no "society" that dictates anything to people. Obviously we live in a society, but people who think they're being told something by that society are simply listening to themselves. Or do you disagree?

>>133492904
>ancient hunters have better eyesight
jesus christ. how is it that I'm having a discussion with someone who thinks women are inferior to men and they don't even know what men are objectively better at than women?

I've answered your questions in huge ammounts of detail, you are complaining that some massive ammount of evidence doesn't exist yet, not taking in any information and reasoning with it. You are behaving like a petty short sighted child and I'm done with you.

Here's something so simple you could understand it.
You want women to accept you're superior to us? stop being such a fucking idiot then.

I can't fucking believe this shit, spacial reasoning, it's fucking _basic_ and you have no idea what I'm even talking about.

>>133492939
I didn't say the wage gap was fake, I said women are lied to about the wage gap. Of course it exists, people just argue about the reason. Feminists say it's because they're oppressed. Rational people understand it's simple economics.

>>133492939
Look like you agree with his point, but why are you passive aggressively attacking us when women are the downfall of the western world. You refuse to take the blame for your mistake. We build this civilization remember that

>>133493323
I understand that men exhibit better spacial skills than women, faggot. Don't get your dick tied in a knot. I don't want women to accept that men are superior, this isn't about superiority. It's about lies women tell themselves about being oppressed.

>>133492686
Your statement has substance. Does this mean that capitalism is inherently anti-women? I think perhaps not, because women are the catalyst for male productivity.

File: [Pyramid].jpg (124KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x819px

>>133484913

Birth Control causes Frontal Lobe Damage/Disorder, it has also "Empowered" women to such a point where they are destroying Society.

[Talked about this in various threads: http://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge%20bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/%21%219O2tecpDHQ6/]

Women are more vulnerable to brainwashing & Social Engineering due to there conforming to social norms nature. Social Media makes them have inflated value(Women are always valued due to Biological need of offspring creating/making) due to all the Beta Males & promoting "Empowerment & Travelling" makes Women waste there energy on having sex with a unlimited(Thanks to Birth Control) number of Men rather then Raising/having Families/Children.

>>133492506
Well the Marxists saw differences between men and women and put those differences on blast. There weren't enough women in office. There weren't enough women in CEO positions. There weren't enough women in STEM degree programs. The housewife position is inherently inferior to the career woman. Gender roles are oppressive. Women can't fuck like men. Women can't dress like whores. Women get shamed for being too vulgar.

>>133493979

It's not purposefully anti-women.

People seem to think that when they are marginalised in a capitalist system that it's a personal attack. It's not. It's the system being efficient and selecting against weakness.

Feminists are so tied up with socialism and the concept of centrally planned societies that they can't accept that there isn't some kind of board room conspiracy to keep women down, and that actually it's just a symptom of a free market.

>>133493504
You don't build this civilization, you police it. as for the downfall of the western world, The fact that you think women's involvement in politics is somehow cancer is something I've argued against in the past, but I can give you the easy tl;dr.

If you don't fix first past the post first, no ammount of women you bar from making political decisions (thus ruining us and leaving us resigned to being docile trade goods again, except nearly worthless now) will ever change society for the better. the problem you have from women voters is that when we win, you have no representation. the entire system is built from the ground up that you feel that way about the opposite side. It ensures strategic voting is the only way, and it keeps the country divided and prevents people from changing the political landscape to something other than what the two big jew parties want it to be about.

I very much don't agree my superior would fall for their sexism and chouvanism when analyzing the worst damaging parts of our political system. they would realize the biggest flaw for what it is; turning the future of our country into a social bloodsport.

>>133493642
pols main position is that oppression is natural and not a lie, and that we need more of it, not less. Perhaps you might get some who consider oppression to be a lie because somehow the idea that women are actually worse renders the definition innert, but all that does is put a new label on the same topic.

I already told you what I think women are lying to themselves about. they think protesting changes minds like it does politics.

>>133492549
In the 1800s it brought up valid points in spite of its flaws. Today however, it's just that asshole that stirs up shit to make people hate each other.

>>133494319
So does female angst come from the fact that there are differences between men and women, and that people won't pretend like there aren't?

>>133494366
So if I'm a woman in a capitalist society, I am inherently weak in the sense that my productivity (and thus my usefulness to society) is diminished? But this also isn't completely true because women have an important role in propagating society. So they have different roles, because they are inherently different, which is a reality they don't like to face?

>>133494994
you aren't wrong. but because of the explosively bad PR it has now and how much easier capitalism has made our lives, Ancaps would often have you believe that marxism did not have valid criticism nor did it change how capitalism works for the better. The positive effect is self evidence in the social works and policies that turned london livable again. Regulations on buisnesses behavior is not a lost cause, even if marxism is, and capitalism would never the benevolant hand it is now without the teeth marks of the rabid dog that bit them.

>>133495169
>So they have different roles, because they are inherently different, which is a reality they don't like to face?

Women aren't radically different from men if raised properly. Value isn't just from childbirth and whatever else you might be referring to, or at least not so much of our societal value that it should so severely diminish our worth as potential workers in certain areas. Women are capable of filling many intellectual roles in society but are pushed away from it, then a lot of /pol/, chauvinists and others will use the examples of dipshit girls who act like retards to enforce their position when by doing so they're just fuckin' helping push women towards being trained into dumb, slutty dogs by discouraging them from joining the workforce or applying themselves to a higher level. Women could be more useful given enough of a change in treatment and upbringing.

>>133495169
having an inherently valued role doesn't lend you power senpai. Look at how much hatred pol has for womens rights. they don't want women to be paid for this supposedly equal valued role of home maker and childrearer, they want women to be forced to do that as a priority. Sometimes when something is weak and has something valuable in capitalism, it's will can be subverted and pushed aside so that you, the exploiter, can control and benefit from its value. this is what many of pol advocate for, a restriction of womens rights in voting and career options so that they will be dependant on men and must seek their help to survive. In other words, just because the goose has the foie gras doesn't mean it gets to enjoy it.

What you are seeing now with childrearing is women having children either by mistake, or when they think it truly benefits them, either emotionally or not. The former fire is mostly constant, and the latter is the cooled down fire from when women had many children because their husband told them they would, so that he could have male heirs to take on his heritage.

Women are creatures of nature, and the only law of nature is that there is no law of nature. if it works, it works, even if you don't think it should work. hyhena women have 'penises' most ants are sterile and non reporductive, and some humans are faggots. Women having less children sustainably will mean the role has successfully changed, and given the massive ammount of population we deal with in the moddern age, it's not hard to see that with the right immigration policy and patience, the reduction in childrearing could be beneficial to society. of course like all ideas it will explode if you put too much combustable material in with.

>>133495911
You claim women are pushed away from intellectual roles, but see the opposite. Grants and scholarships solely for women, tons of propaganda about women scientists and how girls are achieving higher education at greater rates than men. How are women pushed away from anything they set their mind to?

>>133496156
>There are no laws of nature
>Having less babies and more immigrants could be good for society

Fucking dropped

>>133495169
Yeah pretty much. It's really the people that pretend these differences are an issue that fan the angst though.

If women like becoming teachers and nurses, and as a result the average female wage is less than men, then it isn't an issue. Only by saying WAGE GAP over and over and over without context do women become resentful. To me, female angst is caused by misinformation from places like buzzfeed.

>>133496827
>There are no laws of nature
>Having less babies and more immigrants could be good for society

>Fucking dropped
yeah, thats about the level of stupidity and projection I expected from you I admit. No scientific understanding, and a complete errasure of what I said in favor of a familiar strawman (if a complete inversion of what I believe could be considered one rather than just a bullshit fallacy). Stay in school pol.

>>133495386
Oh absolutely. The ideal would be a mix of free market and government services. It's just at the extremes that things become bad.

>>133497160
>You should let your culture be replaced
>If you don't agree it's because you're too stupid to understand science

>>133496827
>Grants and scholarships solely for women, tons of propaganda about women scientists and how girls are achieving higher education at greater rates than men. How are women pushed away from anything they set their mind to?

I raised that in an earlier post. Institutionally yeah we're given lots and lots of opportunities but it's other women (mainly) that push girls away from making use of those opportunities and flourishing intellectually. You're expected to be a housekeeper/trophy by other women and waste a lot of effort on inconsequential things like looks and short-lived school popularity. Men retain some of the expectance that women should stay in the kitchen and look pretty, literally and/or figuratively.

The same rule applies to boys too. You could give tons and tons of incentives for boys to perform ballet but do you honestly think many are going to do ballet regularly with how they'd be ridiculed or not taken as seriously as if they were playing contact sports or some-such?

File: 1469328590993.jpg (21KB, 399x295px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 399x295px

>>133497805
oh look more retarded stramans, let me know if you ever want to talk about what I actually said instead of what you wanted me to have said so you could jack off over how "right" you are.
>>133497661
indeed, I wont argue that socialism can be used badly, but it definately has a place and the mentality of the average masses against it seem to be just redneck mcarthyism "muh communism"

File: 1471126038764.jpg (79KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 300x250px

>>133488789
>>133488589
>these fucking images
Literally just looking into a mirror of the past is enough to make feminists admit their failings, insecurities, and to project all over the place

>>133498030
You claim that having a valuable role doesn't lend you power. That's absurd, because control over a thing is power, and women are therefore powerful because of their value role in society. That's why we're having this conversation in the first place, is because women's beliefs do in fact matter, and when they are misled we all suffer.

>>133497886
I honestly see it partially another way. >>133488589
the woman pictured here was banned from /r/food, she looks amazing despite having a wide jaw, is good at home decor, painting, baking, and photography, as well as marketing herself, has written books, etc.

this woman is banned from /r/ food for being too good, in other words the sjws there in a fit of the most un self aware irony decided that no women could have achieved all that for herself, she must be some kind of psi op. so they banned one of the most amazing rennaisance women I have ever laid eyes on and you know who's trending in /r/food now?

Babbish, someone who does the same thing; person with training in photography and cameras becomes involved with food. and theyre lapping him up. It almost seems like when one woman accomplishes something, they treat her like she's broken the PAROS treaty. becoming too beautiful and successful as women seems to anger other women and they will tear someone down like she's been getting too many bad boy points in EU4

Yes it does, it says, show yourself off, dont let yourself be beholden to male restraints, all while covertly putting you into a whole other set of shackles.

>>133497160
The problem with that is that the only places with birthrates high enough to fuel immigration are third world shitholes. If the birthrate in a country is 1.6 per woman, you'd need to import 1 immigrant for every 3 babies to maintain sustainability. Immigrants won't assimilate when they're a large enough group, and you end up with third world no go zones like sweden. On top of that, they keep their third world birthrates and outbreed the native population. This has already happened in the United States.

Immigration isn't a viable solution if you want to keep the native population and culture intact. You have to increase the native birthrate.

>>133497886
You make a good point about the ballet. Obviously boys will not flock to it for the reason you described, even if there are incentives. Some will, but not generally. So are you suggesting women don't really want to take on these intellectual roles because they themselves would rather be fulfilled in feminine ways, or because of ridicule from others?

>>133498424
>133498424
>missing the point
see >>133498776
you aren't looking at a mirror into the past, you're looking at a modern rennaisance women, she's succesful independant, and has style. she litterally could not exist without feminism and they tore her down for being better than them.

>>133498706
>control over a thing is power
correct, and how do you propose that women, who are weaker than men and have less social mobility in the times that we are discussing, use their wombs to force men to give them equal rights because of how 'valuable' they are?

>when they are misled we all suffer
oh wouldn't it be great then if you could take away their rights and force them to walk the path you think would be better for men? but they have the wombs so I guess thats impossible.

Having something valuable without the strength to defend it is just asking to get your shit slammed, and once women were no longer an essential part of the tribe but just another cog in the city structure it was easy pickings. welcome to the real world.

>>133499177
>The problem with that is that the only places with birthrates high enough to fuel immigration are third world shitholes.
don't fall into that guys trap, read carefully what i wrote again and ask yourself on your own what I meant when I brought up immigration and patience.

>>133498776
women hate superiority

>>133499186
oh even if we could prove that there is feminine fullfillment scientifically there would still be bullying, see>>133498776

>>133499310
not if a hot chad does it in a soothing drone.

>>133498776
I'll overlook the fact that you referencing stupid websites and video games to make a point, and ask simply, do you think women dislike seeing other women achieve success? That seems to be what you're implying.

>>133499188
Well to be fair I'm browsing multiple threads and those images caught my eye more than any of the other context but your right

Chastity has currency.

>>133499298
Oh I get it. By "the right immigration policy" you meant keeping them all OUT. Good idea.

>>133499641
I dont have enough data to suggest that it is a majority opinion among women, but they where influential enough to get someone banned on a popular website on a subforum that has nothing to do with politics. make of it what you will. >>133499707
it will never stop getting old to me that 'this woman was made possible by feminism' and the sjws hate it. I want to strangle them and laugh at them at the same time.

>>133484913
>Does society tell women that they are good only for their sexual value?
to a certain extent that exists

95% Of women are primitive af. Respect blind displays of force and dominance. Don't understand the high road. They are products of hundreds of thousands of years of rape breeding and savagery. Remember, DNA has the ability to absorb experiences.

>>133499188
Are you retarded? I'm not advocating taking rights away from women or even changing their social roles. Secondly, women have all the strength they need to defend themselves, it's called the State. A woman can make a single phone call and have a man removed from his home by force.

>>133498776

>this woman is banned from /r/ food for being too good, in other words the sjws there in a fit of the most un self aware irony decided that no women could have achieved all that for herself, she must be some kind of psi op. so they banned one of the most amazing rennaisance women I have ever laid eyes on and you know who's trending in /r/food now?

Oh honestly I can't even begin to examine the SJW take on it because it baffles me too much; my explanation of occurrence uses normies for the most part. They make up a decent portion of society so I think it's still a viewpoint worth examining.

But yeah you have a point when it comes to SJWs. Even if that woman loves what she does it will not matter to a lot of SJWs despite their call for freedom of choice for women. Different examination from my own but still a necessary part of the entire picture, I think.

>EU4

Stability? Threat? That metaphor went over my head. I play too much CK2. :v

>>133499186

Also like I said earlier, if a girl could get tons of attention and gratification for doing easier things, why would they ever put themselves through the pain of going against the grain and get ridiculed for it? There's enforcement of applying yourself to improve your feminine traits and negative reinforcement by dismissing girls who try to be utilitarian or work in the generally-masculine roles.

>>133499641

I hope you're just playing devil's advocate here because, yes, that is part of their point I imagine. Loads of feminists are so narrow-minded that you have to play by their rulebook. If you don't play by their rules they will think you're helping the enemy, men, by succeeding in le patriarchy and thus empowering the patriarchy. My own fucking mother scoffed at me when I was 16 for getting promoted to a community manager trainee from a volunteer position on a gayman website because she thought it wasn't important, even though I learned a fucking lot and improved my social & communication skills.

Don't fret faggots. Sex robots will be getting really good at about the same time the instagram feminists are hitting their 30s and 40s. We shall open a cat island and make millions off of them. It's either that or you will see a shit ton of radical feminists become suicide bombers in their war against the sexy replicants.

>>133499922
of course the down side is our population tanks and we end up with an aging population, but someones got to bleed. our world isn't infinate. If I could come up with a solution to make em all happy I would.

I'm also for helping refugees, throw em in concentration camps, let the immigrate at whatever policy we deem acceptable for the rest of the world, or return if they think it sucks here too. no need to let them slip into the country side.

Body count;
Moral high ground retained
deprive militant groups in the middle east of manpower
actually have a real use for our on shore military other than as a detterant
keep the potential best people that come over, ignore the idiots.
Casaulties
muh ur a nazi why u put in concentration camp
muh military fraternization f-senpai.

iunno seems worth it to me.

>>133500229
dog, I dont know if you caught onto this politics thing, but normally when discussing politics we discuss opposing sides because the interesting thing when talking with faceless varied individuals we can't keep track of is not learning about their individual beliefs we'll never be able to re-convene on again, but discussing the large and macro movements of both sides, this is why you want to discuss how women feel as a group and why I am interested in what pol will do as a group, and while I am glad you understand how much limiting those rights will hurt us even if it arguably helps you, I can't assume pol thinks like you.

And as a side note, women see you as a group just like you see us as a group.
>>133500231

>My own fucking mother scoffed at me when I was 16 for getting promoted to a community manager trainee from a volunteer position on a gayman website because she thought it wasn't important, even though I learned a fucking lot and improved my social & communication skills
wow that really blows

>Stability? Threat? That metaphor went over my head. I play too much CK2. :v
bad boy points are what happens when you eat to many countries at once and the rest of the world rises up to kick your ass.

>>133494402
giving women the vote destroyed society, quite literally, and we're seeing the death spiral....define the smallest unit of society...if you say the individual, you are wrong and part of what is destroying society....the family is the smallest unit of a functioning society and, prior to women getting the vote, there was one vote per family- the man's vote....once women were given the vote, they voted for the government to become the provider of society...the welfare state only exists because women innately expect someone else to take care of them and they voted that the government should be the one taking care of them....

>>133501136
>giving women the vote destroyed society, quite literally, and we're seeing the death spiral....define the smallest unit of society...if you say the individual, you are wrong and part of what is destroying society....the family is the smallest unit of a functioning society and, prior to women getting the vote, there was one vote per family- the man's vote....once women were given the vote, they voted for the government to become the provider of society...the welfare state only exists because women innately expect someone else to take care of them and they voted that the government should be the one taking care of them....
just because pol tells you something doesn't mean you should shove it whole sale up your ass like a suppository. maybe you should learn a bit about the actual conditions that birthed socialism, we've already discussed them in this thread amicably inbetween all the shit flinging. I don't honestly see a point in talking about women at all when you think socialism in the western world only started to have an impact in the 1920s after we got the right to vote.

>>133490681
You clearly live a sheltered life and that is why you are capable of giving such weight to minor issues such as your appearance. You'd better find something to do.

When you start to talk about how other girls see you, the contents on the mind of a bimbo or appearances and trifles in general, the mind of any clear minded individual with goals and real problems will just tune out of whatever your blabbering about. You should occupy yourself enough to be able to naturally do that too.

That trait is something I bet the OP has, along with other people in this thread. You, on the other hand, championing this vain cause with extensive posts is a very strange sight to people like that, with actual worries and achievments.

>>133501117
I'm trying to understand women (futile, I know) not what pol thinks about women. Pol is not a monolithic entity and I dont care what "pol" thinks. If I cared what pol thinks I wouldn't have bought a wedding ring. Furthermore I do not view women as a group because I understand they exhibit a range of value and ideas.

>>133501592
First time in my life I switched you're with your. I was planning to go for another route with that phrase, which "your" was more appropriate, but when I changed course I didn't bother to check what I had already written.

>>133501650
>I'm trying to understand women (futile, I know) not what pol thinks about women. Pol is not a monolithic entity and I dont care what "pol" thinks.
If you don't believe women are a monolithic group, why are you trying to understand them as a whole? if you do think they have some properties that could be understood as a whole, why do you respond with vitriol when the topic of oppression inevitably turns to perception of a group of people who very much do want to oppress women for comparisons sake? why do you suppose i'd be interested in keeping up to date on such groups as that?

>>133501783
dog its okay, you're on a combodian shit posting hall not writing a university dissertation.

>>133501975
I'm not focused on all women, but those who view themselves as oppressed, devoid of agency, incapable of success due to "society" and it's view of women.

>>133501650
Understanding the opposite sex fully is a pointless endeavor. Just find a girl who you love as a friend and more-than-a-friend. That's the ideal ar least. You'll find the one eventually, anon, but being fake will not lead to long lasting relationships.

>>133502182
I'm pretty sure as an adherent to this board and the conspiracy theories here-in you have a lot more in common than you think.
>>133502189
I'm pretty sure that guy is married.

File: 2f5hw08gh0gnset59ghw57thq3-7hqwgwp59ghaerig.jpg (31KB, 358x467px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 358x467px

The March issue of Notices of the American Mathematical Society put Sir Andrew Wiles on its cover. Sir Andrew is the outstanding British mathematician who proved Fermat’s Last Theorem in 1995.

March is Women’s History Month, though, a fact noted by a small tag on that cover.

So the first (of two) Letters to the Editor in the June/July issue of the Notices, occupying an entire page, is an indignant protest by Autumn Kent of the University of Wisconsin: “There should not be a man on the cover of the Women’s History Month issue of the Notices …”

After 350 more words of victimological sputtering, Ms Kent concludes with:

> Marginalized people are frequently and systematically erased the way that women were this March in the Notices, the way that black people were erased In the February issue. Next year’s March issue would benefit from a discussion of sexism in academia. It would be a good follow-up to a February issue addressing racism.

>>133501455
That guy isn't wrong about everything. Women do vote democrat, and democrats do support the welfare state.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx

I'd guess it has something to do with their higher on average empathy than men. Welfare is pitched as help for those in need, after all.

>>133501592

Are you actually retarded? I'm explaining the general case for a lot of girls who are very impressionable. I've done perfectly fine in my life and tuned that shit out, but I still recognize that there is a presence even if I don't pay attention to it. You just made a whole bunch of stupid assumptions to discredit anything I said without any good refutations. Good job?

I am pretty verbose though, you got me there.

File: hitler-women.jpg (249KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1000x664px

>>133501455
I love arguing with women on /pol/....the welfare state exploded with women voting....why would that happen? because women wanted to be free of men....how could women ever be free of men and the security that they provide? by giving the government the power to provide for the women without men providing for them....where did that money come from? mostly men, decreasing their ability to provide for their families....without strong men to provide for them, what did women do? voted for more money from the government and to put themselves into the labor market....thus, women who didn't want to be tied to men for security have foisted upon all of us a society that demands that all work for their own security or rely on the government...women are no longer free to birth and raise children, they are tied to working to provide for their own security or tied to the government....face it....women destroyed society

File: 8671455823_797f41faf4_k.jpg (2MB, 2048x1489px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1489px

>>133502426
he is wrong about everything becuase his opinions lie on a foundation of sand. It doesn't matter if he built his house in a decent way if he settled it on a nice sink hole. To even understand feminism itself as a movement you first have to understand that women worked hard in factories for long before they got the right to vote. If he isn't willing to do the research on this on his own, he should be listening to people talk, not making assertions.

>>133502426
see what I mean?
>>133502739
He doesn't understand the basic sequence of events in history here. Thats a huge issue that will warp anyones perception on a topic, and its one that could be ammeliorated instantly by a light reading of history on the topic he think's hes so knowledgeable about. This is what happens when you treat redpills as a diet instead of a supplement.

File: 1494193009567.png (609KB, 1808x3731px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 1808x3731px

>>133502739
This is sadly correct.
>inb4 muh virgin neckbeard

I have a fiance that I love very much, that doesn't change the overall trajectory of womens' voting records as a whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoPyi7yGjSo

>>133502465
>Are you actually retarded?
To be honest I feel like I'm lagging behind here, I can understand completely what you're saying and where you're coming from, but I can't for the life of me understand the poster himself. My post was a sort of shot in the dark to try to bait some information out of you yourself while also exposing my thoughts on the issue of women and beauty standards.

The beauty of anonymous imageboards is that I can do this sort of shit with no regards to my own image nor to the person I am speaking to, and just dig around for information to my heart's content, so sorry about that.

>>133503058
try again sweetie....with real information or arguments....anything but calling out to the crowd and pleading that they agree to call me an uneducated red-pilled overdoser....

>>133503350

Heh. Fair enough, my dude. My first post was actually intentionally a little vague and general because the original questions posed were pretty general themselves, so there's your explanation.

Calling you retarded was harsh so my b. Makes much more sense now.

>join thread
>actual talk on /pol/

Holy shit gotta read fast

File: a46c7dc7c9a809c4c3022e619fe0f72e05799e64cf4b0ef5dd28497f78093182.png (145KB, 303x958px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 303x958px

>>133503058

The mere fact that ugly women choose to hate and attempt to dismantle beauty standards in order to level the field instead of enforce monogamous behavior and slut shame both sexes which would actually improve society, tells me that women really can't stand to see other people happy if they themselves are not happy.

I didn't win the lottery in life but I'm happy for guys that do. Women just hate each other, it's really disturbing.

>>133503989
even if all this where true it still wouldn't change the fact that that guy does not know what happened in the period he has an opinion about. the only thing he bothered to look into is redpills. he didn't bother learning anything outside them and has a total warped view of history. not everyone on pol is so stupid, so he really has no excuse. this is exactly the attitude that I reference when I say "why would i ever obey someone superior to me when they use that superiority to act like mouth breathing retards"

>>133504164

You have to start somewhere when it comes to fixing issues that are perpetually damaging. At least they try to do something even if it's not up to the standards of a very important individual like yourself. Do what you can, where you can.

I do find it pretty funny that, yeah, we hate each other more often than men over courtship-related reasons. While in nature, it's usually the males who fight more often and to a much more violent extent. Humanity is fucked up.

File: azhICna.jpg (3MB, 5450x4016px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5450x4016px

>>133504164
I know.. #notallwomen
but I have known personally in my life plenty of women who don't act this way, even if the online community seems radically different. We're all lefties too, so it's not even entirely political.

Theres definately this trend of "I don't want people to be better than me", and I postulate it might be the same reason we see in fat acceptance movements that villinize beautiy standards but only in so far as they help disenfranchised lazy fat people but no people suffering real diseases, illnesses, disabilities, that dramatically impact their physical features.

I mean this womans chin could rival sara jessica parker and she still looks great because she puts in effort.

>>133503058
>>133502820
If he's wrong, point by point tell him why. I don't buy the whole "go read X" thing. It kills the discussion.

There are a few things to unpack about this.

First, when people talk about "what society is telling you" they mean what you absorb from the media, from the subtle implications of your elders and leaders, and from the casual climate of your social life. It's undeniable that we absorb information passively from these sources and internalize it over time, that's how people come to grips with society. What's debatable is what exactly is being processed at this stage.

When people say that we're receiving "different messages" what they mean is that while we are all absorbing the same general information, we're internalizing different parts of it because our perspectives are different. For example, young boys watching television will probably empathize with the male characters in TV shows, whereas girls will probably empathize with the female ones.

In this light you can understand how people might come to the conclusion that women are overly sexualized by society. Men are almost NEVER sexualized in the same way. Can you think of a single example in a mainstream piece of media of a man getting a down-up slow pan over their body like women do? Men are portrayed as sexual but they're never almost never objectified like women are, except in the rare cases of media designed specifically to highlight this difference. To highlight this point, if someone asked you to describe the sexy parts of a female, you could probably write an essay on it regardless of your sexual orientation. Tits, ass, legs, belly, hair, neck, not to mention your favorite lewd pieces of clothing. If someone asked you to describe the sexy parts of a male, what would you say? Biceps? Chest? The list seems pretty short, but that's only because we're culturally blind to it.

This kind of internalized, subconscious difference is the issue that feminists take with society. In my opinion they take it too far, but I do agree that it exists.

>>133504404
she....you keep referring to me as he (understandably, as there are no women on the internet) and you're wrong on that...as you are a woman and I am a woman, please, let your claws out....you are mistaken on the history, not I....1st wave feminism was only successful due to the depressed wages of men, at the time, forcing women to work to support their own security....why were wages depressed for men? former slave men entered the paid work force and cheap immigrant labor....keep going...I'm loving watching you prove to /pol/ that all women are emotional basketcases who completely lack the faculty to admit their own mistakes and faults....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g9_wfkYjfo

>>133503058
But Lott & Kenny 1999 and subsequent works shows that the growth of the welfare state accelerated greatly with womens suffrage. You can even see this in the natural experiment of some State level government's which granted suffrage before universal suffrage which saw a near instantaneous increase over non-suffrage granting States.

File: fight... ever.png (108KB, 549x800px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 549x800px

>>133504938
Because telling him why he's wrong is not worth it if hes not interested in learning. I understand this is the right thing to do from an arguements perspective, but I'm not trying to be 100% convincing, I'm trying to budget my time, and I just don't have the time to spoon feed someone who wont read the history of socialism if he's going to take the time to complain about it. It may not be the kindest thing, but I honestly feel like he'll be more open to reading stuff written by men anyway since he's chomping at the bit to "duke it out on a mongolian horse archery forum with a woman."

It's the basic story of rapid industrialization, we've already discussed in this thread a bit about how women entering the work force predates and socialism itself predates their right to vote and status as equals. If that honestly isn't enough he needs to read what the experts documenting that time period wrote, not a person who is recounting their efforts halfhazardly.

>>133505225
If we're so inferior then I think you'll need to take the extra time and read about the industrialization period. It might be a bit hard to swallow in one gulp. It's been a period in history i found fascinating so I don't really find much pleasure in talking about it with people who butcher it.

you'll have to find someone else if you want to fight.

>>133504819
>>133504831

What made me into a fascist is that I think men and women should aspire to elevate the next generation above all else, happiness is fleeting and dependant on the situation in that moment. True personal well being has little to do with temporary happiness, and I feel men and women shouldn't be at odds, but united against a common enemy, whoever or whatever we decide that should be.

>>133485113
honestly I used to be bitter and thought that women got away with a lot more than most people thought. It's honestly just a retarded /pol/ pipe dream when you're actually in a high level work force and you can get used to having women be your equals and it isn't weird at all.

>>133505798
I'm not arguing over any such details. I'm arguing that the person I'm talking to doesn't seem to understand the most basic facts of the history being discussed, such as when women entered the labor force, the point in which welfare was rising in the public conciousness, and the massive upheaval that women experianced along side men with automation. These are all important factors that need to be understood, not ignored, no matter what your position on what to do about it and what it all means is.

>>133503229
>less children
So what, they were shorter? skinnier? hard to trust a graph that doesn't know the difference between 'less' and 'fewer'

>>133506237
>we need to unite to elevate our children
>by letting the government do whatever it wants to the citizens this will never go wrong and destroy the next generation like every other time since

good plan

>>133506728

The government is an extension of the citizenry. Keep the right to bear arms within the fascist society and the people retain responsibility for the state.

I am sick of the attitude that the state is an external entity; the state is the people, the people are the state.

>>133506110
Industrialization happened at the same time as the civil war and reconstruction. You are the one missing the bigger picture.
I never actually said that we're inferior....I said that we destroyed society because we have an innate desire to be taken care of and to care for others.
Women have a wonderful role to play in society...that of the mother and homemaker. This role is the most important in any society....or do you think the blatant sexism of the draft was for the benefit of men? It was for women...always to protect and support women, the mothers of society.

File: 14283456221_0c4a47c00f_k.jpg (648KB, 2048x1442px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 2048x1442px

>>133506237
I honestly feel like for us the end game of pol is to erase that suffering when the noose tightens around womens rights. They can argue all they want about womens rights being bad, they can even make some good points. But they've driven themselves over the cliff of reality if they want to pretend going back to dowry mode and agency less women is going to make us happy.

I definately feel that happiness is fleeting and the next generation is the real meat of the issue. thats why I am a socialist, because i believe the biggest means to this lies in our people's biggest excess; the supposition that childrearing is a right of humanity, instead of a privilege granted by our budget of resources left in this world they consume. One way or another, that budget must be managed, and it supercedes fiscal budgets and even a little bit of many vaunted human rights. we may never agree on it, but I can't see a solution to the enormous problem of an expanding population with declining fuel, material, and sea resources without it.

In my opinion the biggest threat to our children is not some outsider waving the shirai flag, not some faggot flying a stupid flag and looking like a freak, but our greed and hubris. of which much of pol seems engaged in the belief that men have less of it than women. The only future i see in pols success is a replacement of the jews and women with allnew ruling castes and problems yet no real change. The people tugging on the rope may change, but the nation wills till be split in twain and people will still feel underrepresented by first past the post system.

>>133506399
t. Roastie

File: 1499115332147.gif (1MB, 250x333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x333px

>>133505152

>First, when people talk about "what society is telling you" they mean what you absorb from the media, from the subtle implications of your elders and leaders [...] and internalize it over time, that's how people come to grips with society.
>This kind of internalized, subconscious difference [...]. In my opinion they take it too far, but I do agree that it exists.

Thank you for bringing these up. I don't think a lot of people consider the subtle psychological effects of media, social media, family & peers, especially on younger individuals. It's a very slow process of uptake but that also makes it very deeply ingrained and tough to grow out of.

I don't think it's as bad as a many SJWs make it out to be either when it comes down to the objective problems of over-sexualization, the biggest issue is if you don't subscribe to the same though process as your peers you can get ostracized. I'll bring up the popular me-me like I did earlier and mention how popular clique girls will ostracize nerdier, bookish girls because they don't have the same interest, eg in fashion/popularity from TV.

>>133506237

You're 100% not wrong. I personally feel like with the stagnation of the family unit and society having no common goal or enemy (be it things like natural disaster that affects everyone [which isn't really as possible as it was during antiquity due to the geographical spread in the modern age] or a world war or something), people have gotten bored and in-fighting between social classes is growing increasingly fervent.

>>133506399

At least at my workplace, a reinsurance provider, men tend to get away with doing illicit (not strictly illegal, just kinda immoral or jerkish) things, and women get away with doing less work or being disruptive. If only we had space travel being worked upon so humanity could be distracted by the Scattering and work together.

File: 1494513359543.png (595KB, 1500x3719px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 1500x3719px

>>133504404
>"obey"
>muh oppression
>muh patriarchy

You're the one with the warped view. Women were not fucking slaves to their husbands before the won the ""freedom"" to vote and become wage-slaves like us. Men had their DUTY to provide for the family, and women had their DUTY to take care of the family. Mutual respect and a sense of responsibility is not goddamn slavery.

Viewing marriage as slavery is nu-age idiocy and revisionism. The family is literally an evolutionary social trait, and it's integrity as an institution is the main reason we have come so far as a species.

Allowing women to vote is stupid because you've evolved, as a group, with a primary directive of FINDING A PROVIDER. Therefore, women will invariably vote for the State to provide for them. Why rely on working hard to finding and keeping good husband when you can just vote for Uncle Sam to take care of you?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uyxGuZueW8

>>133507239
>the draft is for women
haha you really believe that don't you.
It's to protect investments. war is always to protect investments. those investments are sometimes, but rarely, women. And in those societies women where not their own agents, but property of the man. You are too focused on american history. American industrialization is important but our unique role had much less of one to play in the rise of socialism. you need to read more about europe and london.

>>133507322

Child rearing is not a right nor a privilege, but a duty to continue the species. I don't believe you are born into this world with no responsibilities, French Existentialism a la Sartre is wrong in every possible sense.

>but I can't see a solution to the enormous problem of an expanding population with declining fuel, material, and sea resources without it.

Band together with your kin and end the lives of those encroaching on your resources. That's how humanity evolves.

>>133507673
From an economic perspective both parents working while a specialized nanny takes care of the children is more effective. While this is great on the surface, everyone workinf leada to the breakdown of the family and that causes low birthrates which are dangerous economically and creates social upheavel.
But yeah, feels good to have entered the man's world of wage slavery. No kids, cant even afford a pet, all my money goes towards paying tuition.

>>133505152
as a scientist minded individual I'm glad someone is talking about this because without hard data i feel at a loss to say anything because it's all so fucked up. not even just on womens side but on the men for commercials pitched at them being stupid and inept, It's a complete clusterfuck of signals that someone will have to make sense of if they want to understand this but that wont be me. I'm going into evo devo.

>>133507801
Women entering the workforce doesnt in of itself lead to socialism, but it does peas to loweres birthrates, which, when they get so low like they are now can leas to contracting tax bases and a greater burden on the young, and thus social unrest and socialist ideals resurge.

>>133507801
Will you, at some point, actually argue anything? Or are you going to keep up with the "haha, idiot, read more" retorts? I keep proving that I do know what I'm talking about....and you keep proving that you're a woman with no logical arguments. Boring, really.

>>133505152
This. Fyi, chest, bulge, and ass are where most women's eyes go. At least mine do.

>>133505152
Ok, but there is a large dichotomy here. Women complain that society tells them they have no value outside of sexual objects, which is apparently occurring through some kind of perceptual osmosis, yet at the same time women are catered to by institutions like Universities and Government. It's like they are blind to concrete evidence of their enfranchisement by real authorities, and constantly decrying their perceived oppression at the hands of this ineffable cultural miasma.

>>133507673
>Mutual respect and a sense of responsibility is not goddamn slavery.
wrong nigger.
slavery is defined by lack of agency. And yes back in the day a lot of men had pretty few rights too.

Marriage is slavery back then and it's not revisionism, the dowry system ensured that the woman had very little choice or purpose but to be married off to whoever she could get quite quickly. because she was so worthless in this family structure that the family (and therefore the people who have investments to protect and have some agency, Ie male) had to pay the other family to take their women.

>the family is an evolutionary social trait.
correct, we call it the tribe, you have lost it if you think this resembles the current marriage structure

>its integrity as an institution
was often under assault by men and women alike through out history, and is by no means a constant that allowed society to progress though it does have some advantages.

>allowing the vote
is what allows women to have agency. You can talk about all the bad things but that doesn't change the fact that the alternative is unironically a back slide to the time when women married who they where told to, obeyed who they where told to, and told their daughters to obey. That is how society formed itself in large part with the neolithic revolution. And every time we step away from neolithic life and move towards more basic ways of living, you can see in history that human rights for women improve as a function of this. The world isn't black and white, but back in the time period you consider to be the healthiest for humanity, women had careers, they held industries under their sway and had their time occupied by work. The only thing that changed this fact was machinery, and it drove both men and women out of their jobs. returning to the world you suggest is to return to the situation of the past without the work women always had a role in. being helpless and bareft of agency is slavery.

>>133507673
>Allowing women to vote is stupid because you've evolved, as a group, with a primary directive of FINDING A PROVIDER.

Men didn't make that easier, honestly. It's not completely on us with that. A hundred years ago, women were shunned in their communities for choosing to not have children, choosing to not be married, or failing at one or the other. As soon as a family was involved, men and women both had duties, yes, but women were held to the responsibility of having children or else face ridicule while men had vastly more freedom to not be a part of a family if they so chose. We were conditioned and shamed into finding a provider, it wasn't completely part of social evolution,

>>133507916

One could argue that it'd be more responsible for a portion of the female population to refuse to have children as part of a plan to reset the social state. With as many neglected and abandoned children as there are right now, having a sudden drop in new additions to a generation may be fruitful. Individuals would be free to spend more resources on adoption, permitting the state to allocate less resources to state-run foster care and improve infrastructure or whatever else that may be more useful to everyone in society and not just those impoverished children.

The "duty" to have children is thus at least flawed in one way. I really don't want children, I don't want to bring a child into this world where I cannot be certain I can give them a proper upbringing with how fucked up society is.

>>133508471

Girls are trained from a young age to focus on sexuality and the other attractiveness traits. The government and institutions add those incentives to try change their mind, but one of the issues with the sexualized indoctrination is that it can affect brain development and then those girls have less understand or interest in formal schooling.

>>133509114
Would you stop going on about having your rights taken away and descending into slavery? No one is advocating this. We are trying to determine why women complain about being oppressed when they are given huge advantages by institutions.

>>133507916
>durr kill em
except this doesn't work, because we will destroy our resources in the process of this. fighting breeds fighting, not stablity, and resources in war almost always cost more than not fighting. (in terms of resources expended, not economic use of resources gained).

If you think of war as a process of resource refinement expenses it becomes abundantly clear that violent solutions to our problems will involve a war to kill 6 billion people. It's not happening no matter how much your reptile brain wants this to be the solution. we've gotten too good at exploiting violent resources for this to work.

>>133508471

Females have a much higher graduation rate in secondary education as well as higher education, yet on the surface it appears that many of these women only went for a particular diploma based on societal expectations placed upon them through the feminist movement.

I wonder how much of the impending student loan crisis is female vs. male loan defaults? Choice of major between the sexes is very telling.

>>133509460
In terms of college admissions, women are actually weighted against due to overrepresentation. Yet I am I whining about how men are favored? No.
Just because corporate virtue signalers hire a woman or two for muh diversity doesnt mean women are favored. You also have to consider that physically we are inherently at a disadvantage.

>>133507514
>popular clique girls will ostracize nerdier, bookish girls

Oh my fucking god ditch the bitches already. YOU ARE THINKING OF IT BACKWARDS. The problem isn't that idjit bitches ostracize smart girls, the problem is that smart girls DO NOT ostracize idjit bitches!

>>133509247
> Girls are trained from a young age...

What are you going on about? I was trained not to look like a slob, how to clean myself and present myself respectably. I imagine women are taught the same. There are no training camp where they take little girls and tell them "Sally your pigtails are shit! You'll never get a man wearing those ugly overalls!"

How we present ourselves is important and for you to act like women paying attention to these matters is somehow going to warp their perceptions until they have no self esteem then you're autistic.

>>133509835
Tell me how a loser with mostly male friends like me could ostracize people who travel in packs of twenty with athletr boyfriends. Clearly high school me just wasnt enlightened enough.

>>133508174
That's exactly why I've gotten so autistic about it. I feel like there's definitely some truth to the argument but almost nobody treats fairly with it, probably because it's a slippery subject in general. I know the word "intersectionality" is a feminist meme but it's true and it's the reason this shit is so hard to grok, everything is touching everything else so you need to use a very delicate brush to properly examine it.

>>133508468
I've heard plenty of weird shit along these lines. Shoulder breadth, forearms, height, hand size/roughness, calves(??). Women have just as weird taste as men do. Unsurprisingly it tends to focus around sexually dimorphic areas of the body. The genders are exactly alike in how they both obsess over things that set them apart.

>>133508471
Agreed. The way people are attempting to fix the problem is completely ass-backwards. Then again most people are untrained in introspection and self-determination and so they tend to want to rely on government assistance rather than "sorting themselves out" as JP puts it. Equality of outcome is easiest to track so I assume that's why most institutions are promoting that sort of thing, but there are also plenty of programs focused on changing the way children are educated. Short of changing the entire way our media operates I'm not sure how we'd solve this problem though. I hope that the general cultural awareness of it is enough to push people collectively in the right direction. Cultural shift can't happen overnight.

>>133509247

Children whose parents have died or become infirmed should be taken care of within the tribe. Children whose parents have abandoned them are not mine nor societies problem in my honest opinion.

Choosing not to reproduce because there are youth in distress is simply shifting the burden. Allowing some children to starve because of parental neglect might help society to start placing proper expectations upon parents.

>>133509835
there are far fewer smart women than there are idiot bitches....therefor, the idiot bitches control who is accepted and who is ostracized....it's not so bad, though, I get to focus on my family and they get to tear each other down over vapid shit that doesn't matter....

>>133509835

Well tell it to them, my dude! Nerd grills are also just a minority compared to those that want to follow the normie route of form over function, so it isn't as easy to ostracize those idjit bitches as a form of negative reinforcement. They simple won't have as much of a reason to give a shit if a nerd doesn't talk to them.

>>133509972
>There are no training camp where they take little girls and tell them "Sally your pigtails are shit! You'll never get a man wearing those ugly overalls!"

Yeah it's called public school you fuckin' dunce. I realize this may be alien to you but it's actually a significant amount of pressure when you're a teenager.

>>133510204

While I agree that it shouldn't be our problem, that sort of ends up being the case with taxation. I was just trying to be pragmatic with that one since I don't think there's option on the table to just toss the abandoned children off a cliff or some shit.

>>133508300
women entering the work force was just a symptom of a greater problem with capitalism that drove the social unrest and ideals of socialism to gain popularity.

>>133508373
I told you from the very beginning that you do not have enough knowledge on the subject for any kind of fruitful discussion to take place. I'm not sure why you're asking me this. it seems like you're implying that because I spend the time to read and you do not I am somehow not logical. An arguement has to have two sides, and my chosing not to argue is a reflection of my understanding in your willingness to encounter and understand basic information you may be missing. since you have shown no willingness to do this, either in current actions or by your current limited understanding of the topic. it would be extremely illogical to waste a tone of my time trying to out do you in a game of who can shit post the longest.

>>133508471
It often seems like thats the case, I mean women involved in doing that already show a distinct lack of awareness on the differences between them because they are actually protesting peoples opinions in the first place. Protesting only works for social change in the government because politicians see the masses and know they will vote. actually changing your friends opinion with the slavering masses will end up making it more difficult because all they see is their friend being eaten by a stupid and angry majority. I've seen it happen to different people with different friends time after time.

>>133509607

Stability breeds infighting.

You aren't going to solve that problem, sorry. Conflict between alternatives is the essence of how life evolves.

>>133509802

>Just because corporate virtue signalers hire a woman or two for muh diversity doesnt mean women are favored.

In terms of employment, that's the definition of 'favored.'

>>133509460
>>133509460
your posts made a lot more consistent sense when you posting things like "I didn't advocate that, or I don't believe in this."
But you are dreaming if you don't understand that most of pol does want women in the home weather they want to be or not, they don't want them to vote, and a good number of them don't want them in a job, because they equate the idea you seemed more than willing to understand (earn wages to have personal stability and savings) with literal greed (women should be satisfied with a husbands wealth even if it is consumed by its very nature instead of something she can keep and save for if things go wrong with the marriage, wanting the financial freedom a husband has is purely your selfishness)

They honestly insist that 9-5 jobs are torture yet consider us selfish for valueing the reward they insist is not important nor worth the labor.

File: 1494195835931.jpg (891KB, 1560x2744px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 1560x2744px

>>133509114
>marriage = slavery back then
>women obeyed who they were told to and told their daughters to obey

I don't know why I even fucking bother trying to argue with leftist women, you truly have no concept of anything outside of yourselves.

>clean the house, make dinner, and don't fuck other guys.
OMG. DATS LITERALY SLAVERY

Your daughters will all be shoved into trashbags like all of the daughters in the middle east are because of women like you. Thank you for giving me some perspective on how fucking awful it is out there for single men. I'm going to go out and buy my fiance some flowers.

>duty and responsibility?? children?? society??
BUT WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEEEEE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc

>>133510545
I understnad the futility, but my hope says we should try to overcome it instead of just wait for the resources to run out and starve to death under the collapse of our civilization.

>>133510695
It's on a tiny scale anon, unless you intend to get into HR, it wont affect you.

>>133510363

No need to kill them, just let them die naturally, or leave it to churches to assist them.

Basically, stop voting for welfare.

>>133510502
so the answer is "no"? Fascinating....you continue to berate me as intellectually inferior, yet show no signs of being able to discuss....well....anything. You claim intellectual superiority, yet offer no proof....you're simply calling me names and refusing to discuss it further.
You are most certainly a socialist woman, and definitely in college....3rd year?

>>133511120

HR does the hiring, anon.

>>133510363

Oh my God, other little girls put pressure on you in public school? You must be oppressed by the patriarchy!!!

>>133510926
>OMG. DATS LITERALY SLAVERY
yes it is, if you buy someone (or in this case, someone pays you to take someone worthless that they don't have any use for) and say "Do these things I tell you" and she doesn't have the option to say "no, I'd like to do this thing that you do instead" and that thing you do is do a job she is capable of and pay for a home and taxes, then yes, that's slavery. you have a monopoly on her agency, she can do nothing without your approval, and she can't leave unless she wants to perish on the street or live a life of crime.

>Your daughters will all be shoved into trashbags like all of the daughters in the middle east are because of women like you.
no dumbass, odds are sjws will ensure your victory, long before any rational women sew the cedes of not being retarded.

>Thank you for giving me some perspective on how fucking awful it is out there for single men
if your solution to a problem that exists is "it sucks for us lets make someone else have to deal with it while we get all the benefits" you're just feminism 2.0
>>133509460

>BUT WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEEEEE
see what I mean fag?
wanting to have your own agency, rights, and financial future that men have is GREEEED.

>>133509802
>women are actually weighted against due to overrepresentation
You'd think that would be the case, wouldn't you?

>>133511412
this is the real problem with women in the workforce. End HR.

>>133511384
>intellectual inferior
no, I understand all to well humanities hubris and lazyness. you are not lesser than anyone.

>you are most certainly
you are most certainly not psychic.

>>133511706
You do have the same agency, rights, and opportunities that men do, you dumb cunt. What's your point?

>>133511236

Well of course, I was just being hyperbolic. Unfortunately I just think it's unrealistic that a policy of not assisting them would ever be attainable in the modern world without a lot of backlash from the bleeding heart liberal mass.

>>133510926

Fiancé is the spelling for the male, you some kind of homeownersexual? Just curious, it's not actual relevant.

>>133511573

Oh please, nigger, stop assuming that I'm talking about myself. You're well aware of how girls are much more emotional and flighty on a biological level, then you should use your fucking brain to think about how that means they are more susceptible to emotional abuse because we're too weak to mentally block out as much of it as boys can. I managed to live through 10 years of being gay in an all-girls school in a fucking United Arab Emirates. Arab. Muslim. They're not huge fans of gays. Many of the other girls didn't have it quite so dramatically dangerous as I but I'm not going to fault people for having different levels of emotional strength and people get fucked up. Men do too, you're not immune to it, girls are just dumber tee hee. :^)

>>133510997

We overcome it by choosing our conflicts with care, not wishing them away. That would end our evolutionary path.

Taking care of refugees is directly against our evolutionary interests.

>>133511412
LOL, no they dont, my dad is a CEO, most companies designate their COO as head of hiring.

>>133511706

SJWs most likely will.

Come join the winning team, anon.

that's what they tell themselves and each other, because they're insecure. they project that insecurity onto the external world, and they all backpat each other for "recognizing" it.

File: 7ae.jpg (542KB, 1657x604px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1657x604px

>>133511706

>>133512205

Goos for your father, you likely grew up very privileged.

COOs do not hire the grunt work in large corporations.

File: htBvsrp.jpg (3MB, 2527x2858px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2527x2858px

>>133512019
my point is we aren't talking about what is now, but how the world should be.
What is the point of pol being involved in politics if they do not hope to change the status quo and insert their own standards into the political structure? it may seem unlikely now, but the louder and more obnoxious sjws become the more people are going to flock to pol-like views of women. that means I'm both more likely to get lynched in the future,a nd likely to have my right stripped away by the revenge of the right wing.

Understanding and learning how to stymie this threat will be important for me for as long as they intend to be such a threat. that is politics. that is why our current system is a blood sport. there can be no middle ground. federalism ensures that it touches everyone, and that I cannot run from it. My only choice is to understand and fight against pol (on my own term, fuck the jews) or be crushed or die if they ever come to power. and the method I chose for doing that is to rationalize who I can, learn science, and use whatever influence I garner to provide outlets for pols anger that wont destroy most of what feminism accidentally achieved for us. It might be futile, but lots of things are futile, I'm going to try because I want to survive.

>>133512131
So you're suggesting women aren't oppressed in any meaningful way, they're just too weak to deal with the insignificant pressures put upon them to not appear like a total slob?

>>133484913
Evolution decided it not """society"""

>>133512133
>evolution
so sterilize them.
hell, if you want to go really crazy wackjob left, force them to give up their testicles.

>this thread

This is what we deserve for locking ourselves in this chamber and getting our facts from poorly sourced infographs.

File: 1478547049443.jpg (63KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x700px

>>133512284
I can't join a winning team that wants to kill me for existing. I'm just too much of a ginormous fag for pol to ever accept me. and to be honest my most critical rationalization plan has born little fruit. mostly because pol hates fruits. A lot. and they don't think we're worth sparing the rope.

>>133484913
>Does society tell women that they are good only for their sexual value?
not explicitly
>What does society "tell" women?
have fun, no strings attached, the state will take care of you, girl power, career woman, material success, illusory independence, consume consume consume
>Can you illustrate how different aspects of society give women different messages?
conservative family values from strong parents, mainly father and grandparents are pretty much the exact opposite of what state indoctrination machine called education, mass media and advertising convey

>>133512905

Sterilizing the African continent would be a good start, I believe Bill Gates' foundation has been helping with this to some extent.

>>133491707
HAHAHAHA
>Communist flag
>food

>>133511950
so....yeah...you're still not communicating anything other than your feeling of intellectual superiority...while name calling....do you really think you're bringing anything to the conversation? You refuse to engage in conversation because you have decided that you are above it....and you're only showing that you are a lazy debater....sad...

>>133506399
>It's honestly just a retarded /pol/ pipe dream when you're actually in a high level work force and you can get used to having women be your equals and it isn't weird at all.

I'm in engineering, and we solve that problem by simply having lots of math that women can't do.

>>133513310
unfortunately catholicism and most christianity has destroyed that in our country and abroad. they hate the idea of birth control, so does a lot of pol for some reason. I don't understand why anyone who wants to practice eugenics would hate abortions and condoms given to children most likely to get blacked. It certainly doesn't stop the sex from happening to young little sluts.

>>133513380
>..you're still not communicating anything other than your feeling of intellectual superiority
repeating something doesn't make it true, it just makes it a big lie technique. the fact that I am willing to do something you are not is not inellectual superiority. It's just personal interest vs sloth.

>>133502820
Plus, first and second wave feminism were generally positive for women. I mean fertility dropped by a lot and taxes skyrocketed and marriage rates dropped...wait...feminism sucks. ESPECIALLY 3rd wave, snowflake, don't assume my gender, non-binary, violent "anti-fa", blue-haired, drunk sex is rape feminism.

>>133513142

Find a lover and stay in the closet. Fascist fags could help the cause, other fags may need emotional assistance in supressing their sexuality. Come up with code words.

It's not that being a fag is immoral, being an uncloseted fag is immoral, since children prior to puberty may see faggotry as superior to procreative sexuality simply because they see it catered to within society.

>>133512693

I think you're exaggerating that a bit. Can you, with confidence, honestly claim that men are held to the same standard of personal beauty that women are? Sure it's self-imposed by other women but it's there, I think. It's fuckin' retarded how much women compete with other women for who's prettier when most dudes don't give a fuck after a certain point. Traditional courtship has broken pretty badly..

Otherwise, no of course they're not horribly oppressed like the SJW crowds rant and moan about. That's fucking retarded.

I only bitch as much as I do because I dunno, it's sad and disappointing to me that a large portion of the population of the planet is being dumbed down for superficial, bullshit reasons. The brain development actually is affected, though I don't have any links right now on my fancy dancy new computer. As a similar though no directly related by sample type, olde time nigger Frederick Douglass observed after he started learning things on the planation he was a slave on that he actually started thinking more abstractly and noticed the inability of his fellow slaves to think how he was thinking thenceforth. I want society to grow and do wacky shit amongst the stars and teaching girls to be dumb doesn't help when they could be put to more use; I'm also sure the propagation of society wouldn't be awfully affected if more women worked as much and as hard as (or well, as close to as possble) men.

>>133513618
still calling names and not adding to the conversation....damn...
I'm still waiting for anything that shows that women haven't destroyed society via feminism....anything at all....

>>133490686

the fag has a point. women were good at picking berries and doing stuff they were actually really useful.

>>133513618
Ok, how about if two people ask you to explain yourself and get off your ass and educate them? Tell me what literature I can read to learn about the beginnings of socialism, and exactly how it played out where it was implemented.

>>133513508

Birth control replaces personal responsibility and introduces excess estrogen into the water supply.

I'm not a fan of the Catholic church.

I'm not against abortions, they should be painful however to discourage murder as a backup plan.

File: 1472740736671.jpg (29KB, 340x395px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 340x395px

>>133513689
yeah, first and second wave had some silver linings, the bulk of feminism is a terrible idea though, not for any reason pol thinks, but just the idea of it in general; your undereducated second class demands rights, you give them these rights. At that point you are gambling on a huge loan in our favor and hoping it will pay its investment back. It certainly has its ups and downs, but the more sjws win, the deeper in the red the idea gets.

>>133513702
>stay in the closet
>for when women lose our rights
I wont be able to survive without a man to marry, at that point I may as well just off myself if I didn't have an overwealming survival instinct, I'd probably run in the woods and live the life of an ecclectic witch until some people hunt me down and burn me.

>catered to
this is mostly due to the right and not us. When you align every part of conservative behavior and dress with wanting to lynch us, we're going to have a hard time gaining any traction with moderating gays away from the kind of behavior we see in the poz parade. No gay marriage also makes it extremely difficult to keep gays from sleeping around. Honestly if it were up to me I'd make gay sex illegal out of wedlock and cross my fingers that us fags would be just afraid enough for it to hold sway. Closeted faggotry just makes more gays likely to happen because gays breed for "show' instead of adopt like the should, and gays will marry a straight person for show and have sex on the side.

Most of pol that I got to understand that though doesn't think its worth the effort.

>>133484913
What men do:
>worship sluts on television
>promote easy sex and one night stands
>shower beautiful whores with luxury and attention
>have crushes on pretty pornstars
>browse and fap to femdom by cowtitted female CEOs
>disregard every girl who isn't physically perfect

What men say:
>"We want homely, traditional wives to take care of our children. Sluts are worthless :))"

>>133513984
Can you enumerate the specifics of some of the declines in society since suffrage was implemented?

>>133514099
She can't. Socialism is generally implemented in places where men aren't able to provide for the family...women don't want to be providers, so they use their agency to advocate for a government that is the provider....and it always leads to the downfall of social order and society. Every single time.

>>133514495
Why do you seem to think you're going to lose your rights and or get exectued? You don't watch handmaidens tale, right?

>>133514777
Ok great, citation please. Just one book.

>>133514777
Fucking Checked

>>133514584

Birth rates.

>>133515020

Read the second discourse by Jean Jacques Rousseau. Inspired Marx and the French revolution, even though he didn't advocate socialism.

>>133514584
Birth rates have dropped to below replacement levels...the death of any society.
Single motherhood has exploded, which itself leads to more crime...is that due to not having a father around or due to the mother not being in the home raising the child? Based on the number of welfare mothers who do stay home, I would conjecture that it is the former.
Wages have been in freefall....doubly so since the implementation of the minimum wage. (while the fed has made those dollars worth less every year by design)
Family life as the center of society has been replaced with educational departments....even considering forgoing institutionalized education for homeschooling is seen as "not properly socializing" your children.

>>133514583

>browse and fap to femdom by cowtitted female CEOs

Based.

>>133513984
>muh feminism destroyed society
you realize feminism saved the house wife right? have you ever heard of telecommuting? online market place? a world where females never got the right to work and be financially independant would mean these industries could never justify a house wives existance. now they can because women can work there. the only missing piece is men who will make women want to do that.
>>133514099
oh I don't mind recommending material at all. the person doesn't want material, they want me to spoon feed them so they can knock the spoon away and throw a tantrum. Karl marx's original stuff is honestly pretty good on its own.

The Return of the Plague: British Society and the Cholera,

“The Conditions of the Working Class in England,
are the two that come to mind, but there are hundreds of books if you'd rather read others. Some even focus on the cholera impact in america if you're more concerned with the impact on the new world.

>>133514185
>extrogen
We're talking condoms, not the pill. the pill is mostly there for women and men to enjoy the pleasure of being cummed inside but that is a pleasure I feel should be reserved for couples.

>>133514883
because I am gay as fuck and sjws are women but the people in power are not and wont take to kindly if they overstep their bounds, the more pol sentiment grows in number, the higher the chances a politician will capitalize on this by offering policies against womens rights that these groups will value and vote for. Just like any other political movement. it shows congress what the people want, and the more sjws run free, the more people are going to want what pol does.

>>133515076
that feel when I got quads in another thread unchecked.

>>133514583
this is pretty savage for a belgium

>>133516214

Before women doubled the labor force real wages were much higher.

Impressive thread and discussion for the most part. Take care and goodnight dudes.

>>133516214
No it hasn't. It's made it so that women who want children now have to juggle two jobs...raising their children and working for pay. Neither is done to her best ability, as she has to constantly split her attention between the two jobs.
Have you ever read The Naked Socialist series? It's very enlightening.

>>133516653

There's nothing wrong with condoms, but they still should not be used unless with someone willing to start a family should the condom fail. Any form of birth control allows for more sexual indescretion, which is a slippery slope to more single parent homes.

>>133516674
we've already been over this in the thread. women didnt double the labor force because of feminism, they doubled the labor force because none of them had jobs anymore thanks to the industrial take over of the textile industry and other industries women worked in. women's labor did not ruin the work force, it was always influencing the value of the labor. the world was never like the 1950s. that was a period brought on by an economic boom along with machinery.

>>133487415
If you want to have a rational conservation with feminists you have to own the social high ground.

>>133516923
>>Any form of birth control allows for more sexual indescretion, which is a slippery slope to more single parent homes.

That's what they said in the 50s and look what happened...they were right.

>>133516771
not seeing the issue here. we are talking about house wives, not childrearing. If you are paying attention you should know how I feel about the idea that every woman and man should be breeding.

>>133516985

It didn't ruin the workforce since there are now twice as many consumers, it ruined wages, and therefore the family structure.

>>133517129
A housewife has only the job of keeping a home and raising children. Subjecting herself to any form of paid labor makes her no longer a housewife.

File: yj9XSML.png (2MB, 1440x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x2000px

>>133516923
>>133517069
as much as I hate to say it, all of you are wrong. birth control doesn't lead to that. female rights does. if women have to marry who they are told, they wont be able to be a single parent unless a crime is committed.

>>133516923
also kind of sad you gave up on me, but I am used to it, no one likes fags, not even fags!

>>133517392
then house wives never existed outside the 1950s general time period.

Women always worked for pay in thepast, the difference being that her husband decided what the money was used for. it was still craft work though, not just home upkeep.

>>133516985
Let's break down that statement...they had jobs, but then they lost them due to automation...but then they got them back and this doubled the labor force? If they had the jobs originally, and they had them afterwards, then how did they double? Can someone tell me when the uptick in female employment took off?

>>133515656
You and I both know that faggot won't read shit.

>>133517367
again, no. Women where already in the work force, there was no additional effect on women joining the work force by depreciating labor costs, such value was at an all time low in the industrial period because of the destruction of the aggrarian neolithic life style most families where engaged in. People's labor was no longer valuable and because of that women and men had to work in factories.

>>133517562

Not true. The Bolsheviks brought the idea of a female workforce to Russia when they overthrew the Tsars.

Aside from that it was generally reserved to wartime, when men were scarce.

It's women prioritizing work over rearing children that's the problem, not women working in general. Less female slave-labor creates higher wages for households with one working parent.

>>133517715
if by got them back you mean they replaced the weaving they did with babying a machine all day for almost no pay living in a dank crowded city in filth, accellorating disease, and by all means with little time to raise children, many of them cramed into schools to be the next cog in the wheel.

the only difference in female employment now is that women get to keep what they earn instead of surrender the trade good for the husband to sell at the market if she gets to go along with him at all, (which she sometimes did, but that could lead to, well, infedelity,). And there isn't a glass cieling anymore, (I'd argue its more like an HR cage) women could work in more jobs if they where competant without being ousted for their gender, which is important as many manufacturing jobs moved oversees and the work force was replaced with white collar work where females where less welcome. Women didn't "lose jobs" during the industrial revolution permanently, they lost their job description and their skilled labor that it took to learn to do a job like that, and became stuck along with men working in repetitive jobs in dangerous environments full of filth and sin (so cities).

>>133485546
this

>>133517562
women were not working for pay...they were creating crafts with their labors while still in the home and placing them for sale....I know it's hard to understand, but going out into the job market to work for pay was a thing that only single women and widows did....those without a man to provide for them....most women stayed home, throughout history, and used her labors to enrich her life and her home....if she made money selling butter and eggs, it went to the home, of course...if she made money tatting lace, it went to the home....if she made quilts or rag rugs or any of the many crafts that women have done throughout time, it was for her home first and foremost....while her husband (or father) still provided for her security....if you are going to claim otherwise, you're going to have to back it up with some hard numbers

>>133486171
This is the end of thread. DId you notice how many actually respect your post? 1-2 out of around 60 posters here. good job

>>133486171
Indian?

>>133517724

Perhaps someone lurking will. Rousseau should be required in high school, he decimated the argument that natural inequalities can be solved with technological or 'social' progress.

>>133518353
>Not true. The Bolsheviks brought the idea of a female workforce to Russia when they overthrew the Tsars.
wrong.
>Aside from that it was generally reserved to wartime, when men were scarce.
wrong
>It's women prioritizing work over rearing children that's the problem, not women working in general.
if you already understand that women worked, I have a hard time understanding why you are arguing that they didn't work because they raised children.
>>133517392
read this.
Compensated labor makes her not a house wife according to this poster.

>Less female slave-labor creates higher wages for households with one working parent.
except this isn't the case, because women where always forced into labor in the homes and during crafts. it was part of their marketability in a marriage, imagine you're already paying someone to take your worthless daughter, but you have to at least show she can spin thread and bleach cloth too. women worked in crafts. that's all there is to it, and having children was not a huge barrier back then because they worked along side you. any daughters you raised wouldn't be going to school, they would be waving and doing other womanly work just like you for no pay. and plus they had to help generate the income you would be spending to pay someone to take her hand in marriage.

>>133519103
should say no pay for you, the family, of course, gets the income for the trade good.

>>133518888
Wow...this thread really made me think.

>>133518808
>women were not working for pay...they were creating crafts with their labors while still in the home and placing them for sale..
yes you fucking idiot., exactly, and that, is what we in the modern world would call a career woman.

>>133518888

Women are the best frivolous spenders, and therefore consumers.

>>133518888
why argue about something everyone in here knows is true?

>>133488589
not even poo level bait

Why is this even being debated? Men worship women. Women are sluts because they are 'liberated' to be so, and it comes with certain benefits. Western women are absolutely seen primarily for their sexual value, yet nobody wants to change this. Especially not women themselves.

>>133515740
>below replacement levels...the death of any society
one could argue against your conclusion by pointing out the positives (your young'uns, not the elderly vampires):
- less people means more inexpensive lebensraum for new generations that will once again have more children
- less people means certain death for wealth redistribution ponzi schemes like single-payer healthcare and payg pension systems
- less people means significant cuts to entire government sectors who turned into vampires, such as national healthcare infrastructure, education/indoctrination, a number of superfluous public functions etc

...provided borders are locked down, citizenship extremely hard to acquire and gibsmedats non-existent

>>133490686
>>133514068
>I am going back to picking berries time

>>133519103

Getting out of bed in the morning is theoretically "labor."

Stop playing meaningless semantics, when we say 'work' we mean a member of a scheduled, full time labor system under an employer and subject to labor laws.

>>133519398
u have been here for at least 2 hrs. donr u have better thing to do like playing outside or watching movies

>>133519613
>wealth redistribution ponzi schemes
I'd argue it almost makes them redundant except for the people now, if we prevent poor people from having the children. Then every child we do have will be born into more wealth. that wealth will probably not be shared evenly, but it will be better than the current shit fest.

I doubt it will kill socialism as is your dream, but it seems like it would make the government less stable for a while, which is the perfect time to insert confederacy and destroy the federal rulership that is strangling the USA. then different states can experiment with whatever bullshit they want, leading to a rennaisance of political development.

>>133519613

After a certain drop in the replacement rate, it becomes exponential and non-recoverable. It's not simply 'less people.' In any democracy with an imbalance in age demographics, old people who outnumber the young can and will strip them of tax revenue to support elderly care, when it should be a family issue.

>>133519875
thats not playing semantics you fag. if you don't consider non sechdualed labor 'work' then you may as well write off men as well for most of history, because the time selling idea is relatively recent as well. people "Worked" in the old days till the job was fucking done. Labor laws these days would apply to the things women used to be made to do as proper wives. Theyre some of the biggest hurdles that still exist for home consumables as you are required to liscence a kitchen solely for work and ensure that it complies with regulations. You can no longer have children help you weave and sell what they produce.

>>133520300
sounds like an exploit in democracy, not reduced population.

>>133519290
that's not a career woman, it's no different than a woman selling her crafts on etsy....and career women look down on those crafty women....
I'd love to think that you could engage in intellectual discourse without resorting to insults, but you have proven beyond a doubt that you cannot.
By your reasoning, any woman who can sew is a career woman...any woman who can weave is a career woman...any woman who can cook must be a career woman as well, right? News fucking flash: all of those crafty skills were needed to make a home comfortable and every woman could do it....every single one...it's called homemaking, and it's an art that is being lost in favor of sending women out to work for pay...so much so that most women aren't even capable of keeping a home...so they go to work, where they're "valued" as another cog in the wage-slave machine and they leave homemaking and childrearing to interior decorators and teachers....leading to the downturn of birth rates and the collapse of society....after all, it's hard to have more than one or two children when you're proving your worth working for pay 40 hours a week....

File: CJkFg8z.jpg (2MB, 4169x3425px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4169x3425px

>>133520067
I fully admit I got sucked in by >>133520300.
I'd have loved if they offered some kind of light at the end of the tunnel, but >>133514495
is pretty hard to argue with. It's a bleak future for fags if pol wins.

Enough shitposting Time for house work.

>>133520473

My point is that women may have always worked in a sense of labor as should be obvious considering raising children is hard work, but not in the sense of a full time, full fledged member of the workforce.

Fag

>>133520596

Reduction in population changed demographics.

Democracy is a function of demographics, just like the Democrat party uses immigration as a political tool.

>>133520681
>that's not a career woman, it's no different than a woman selling her crafts on etsy....and career women look down on those crafty women....
you and them being retarded doesn't make them right. you may as well say my uncle isn't a career man because he's self employed and makes what he sells. theyre retards pure and simple
>I'd love to think that you could engage in intellectual discourse without resorting to insults, but you have proven beyond a doubt that you cannot.
you've done nothing but insult and attack me this whole time and are mad that I wont fascilitate you nor play nice. good day fag.

>>133520863
no dumbass. women where never outside the labor force, trying to insist that women took care of children and the home and did very little work outside that is historical revisionism. They worked in crafts. period. it was part of their marketability as a house wife.

>>133521005
do you not know what an exploit is? the stupidity could be cut with a knife.

>>133521038
I have yet to insult you. I called you a woman and said you argue like a woman, with no substance or proof.
Your uncle isn't a career man, he's a tradesman. Or do you not understand the difference?

>>133484913
>Does society tell women that they are good only for their sexual value?
No, biology does. Women are biologically programmed to keep up appearances so that they can have their pick of a man who will provide for them. Naturally, popular culture reflects this innate biological desire, and women produce magazines which show off the ideal body types for women.
>What does society "tell" women?
Society tells women that they can be or do anything when that really isn't the case. Women don't want to be engineers, plumbers, or oil drillers. Most women want a job that's "fulfilling", but that usually entails taking care of people (nursing, HR, teaching, etc.) just as they would if they stayed at home raising children. Obviously there are exceptions.

>>133521038
You're too smart for this place.

>>133521335

Exploit by definition infers a particular way in which democracy should work, dumbass.

There's no model for democracy outside of demographics, take a formal logic course for fucks sake, it might ease some of your faggotry

>>133521375
>its not a career
>no proof or substance
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/career
end your pathetic existence, you lying hypocrite

>>133521639
>exploit
to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage exploiting migrant farm workers

all of you should consider picking up a dictionary.

>>133521532
its hard not to when someone who barely knows how to spell common words has to explain to mouth breathing idiots what the words coming out of their mouth actually mean.

>>133492971
Society doesn't care about you. No one is telling YOU to look better because you've unattractive, as you've already admitted. Your value to men is nil.

You'll feel much better when you understand that. That doesn't mean you can't contribute to society, it's just that no one cares, because no one gives a shit unless you do something absolutely incredible. Men get encouragement to contribute to society because that ability is what makes us more attractive to women and so able to reproduce.

It has always been about being able to reproduce. Our civilization is founded on sex. If you want to feel good about contributing to society for the sake of everyone else, go ahead, but no one gives a shit. You act like there's a fucking problem. There's no problem. Civilization was built this way, so your rocking of the boat is only likely to make it worse. Once you undermine the social system of reproduction you threaten the foundation of civilization. Way to go dumbass, way to contribute. The best thing you can do is feel good about whatever it is that you do, for your own self-fulfillment, and maybe marry some unattractive man and then have kids. No loss if you don't. The worst thing you could do is what you're doing now. Either compete or fuck off and let others compete.

>>133521845

There is no "unfair" in democracy if it's voted into place. If killing fags was voted into policy, it would be legitimately democratic and "fair."

>>133521845

>74 posts by this ID

So you're a faggot who believes in a modern re-make of traditional gender roles? What do you actually think about women only being seen for their sexual value?

>>133521671
again with the insults....if you are secure in the veracity of your arguments, why so hostile?
could it be because you are wrong?
oh my gosh...this is the cognitive dissonance I've heard about....rather than admit that you're wrong and educating yourself as to why you are wrong, you're just calling everyone names....fascinating....continue...please....

>>133514583

You're not wrong at all, but those "I'M SO DIFFERENT I'M ONE OF THE GUYS" type women are bad too. They failed at being women in the stereotypical sense and so they have to go at it from another angle. Women are bitter of each other, they hate that they exist as competition to each other.

>>133484913
Society can leave a message. I'm taking a shit.

File: moon.png (1MB, 1300x860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1300x860px

>>133498030
OP is so simplistic, all over the place, and autistic, he has to be either Asian, or very young.
It's interesting hearing your viewpoint. Good luck getting these fags to understand anything outside of their anime or self pitying, or God forbid, accept any responsibility for themselves.

>>133498030

>and the mentality of the average masses against it seem to be just redneck mcarthyism "muh communism"

Are you aware of how popular socialism really is? You sound like a fedora tipper.

>>133524322
>Thanks for sharing your views, you socialist lesbian!

No it tells them they have an inherent value which is relative to how attractive they are, but generally have an actual inherent value, if not always

And it tells men they're worthless unless they get a job and use their bodies or minds as a fucking workhorse

Why else would we pay women to shit children out from any man they want when contraceptives are so freely available and they can even go as far as murder their unborn children to avoid the responsibility if they want, when men have no choice beyond a condom which makes sex nearly fucking pointless except for emotional reasons

How hard is this for dumbass libcucks to understand

>>133484913
Why are you asking us to do your gender studies assignments for you?