Why did we give women rights?

>>136940615
>Why in God's name did we ever give them rights

Because it was the right thing to do. Except it was the wrong thing to do.

>>136940615
They wouldn't shut up about it.

no evidence for low iq

File: Burger.jpg (2MB, 7216x5412px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7216x5412px

>>136942779
CANADA
A
N
A
D
A

>>136940615
>child rearing?

Child making. Many arnt very good a rearing either.

File: download (7).jpg (5KB, 252x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 252x200px

>>136940615
RESPECT YOUR MOTHER FOOL!

File: men are smarter.png (70KB, 1875x319px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1875x319px

>>136942779
pic related
males also have physically larger brains with more synapses and neurons than females

>>136940615
>Why in God's name did we ever give them rights

Because technology changed the types of jobs available

Electrical grid, combustion engines, computers, internet, lead to female employment

A woman earning as much as a man will wonder why she isn't allowed to vote

Now, /pol/ will bore us and explain how cultural marxism rather than technology is the cause

>>136944248
>Electrical grid, combustion engines, computers, internet, lead to female employment
u wot m8

File: red pilling women.jpg (81KB, 616x228px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 616x228px

>>136940701
Sadly this. We could afford it at the time.

>>136944248
No, we gave women rights because certain (((individuals))) sought too and as well as Women doing the same shit they do today, protesting for shit that only they give a fuck about

The only difference is that back in the 1920s women wore dresses, now they walk around naked with "SLUT" painted on their chests.

Women are basically intellectualy and emotionaly stuck in their childhood. Eternal princess syndrome, with either lacking or shallow interests, mostly emulating for firing up the interests of males.

Giving them voting rights was definice the worst mistake of the European societies, one which, most prominently among others, lead us to the current shithole of the modern world.

Good thing is that with the upcoming crisis/civilizational changes, they will again cling to the males as only means of survival/prosperity and those laws will cease to exist. Either by us becoming (not literal) barbarians or by islamic barbarism.

Let women vote if they have no debt, own land, and pass a math test.

>>136945067
No. No women voting, period. Only males, with history of either public, charity or military service. Land-owning males too, however not those who inherited the land, those have to serve too. Maybe IQ tests as well.

>>136944477

I have asked this question maybe 10 times on /pol/ now and no one has ever answered it.

How can feminism exist in an agricultural society, where the majority of work is heavy labour?

>>136944707
>No, we gave women rights because certain (((individuals))) sought too and as well as Women doing the same shit they do today, protesting for shit that only they give a fuck about

The world was changing and female expectations changed too. The extended family was dying and the nuclear family was emerging. Why wouldn't women entering the workforce want the vote?

>>136940615
But all those things are false, OP.... are you just shit posting again, you rascal?

>>136944755
>Women are basically intellectualy and emotionaly stuck in their childhood. Eternal princess syndrome, with either lacking or shallow interests, mostly emulating for firing up the interests of males.

Correct

>Giving them voting rights was definice the worst mistake of the European societies, one which, most prominently among others, lead us to the current shithole of the modern world.

Incorrect. You only need one tiny crack in the wall, one tiny microstate, to endow women with the vote, and the rest is inevitable. It WAS inevitable.

>Good thing is that with the upcoming crisis/civilizational changes, they will again cling to the males as only means of survival/prosperity and those laws will cease to exist. Either by us becoming (not literal) barbarians or by islamic barbarism.

Rightwing collapse fantasy. Supposedly society collapsing is somehow good for males, despite all human biases being to safeguard women.

And basically you admit you can only get the "love" of a woman if she has no option. You'd rather live in a shit Mad Max society and be validated by a whore.

In reality males have never had it so good as today in terms of physical danger.

>>136940615
To be used as fodder for Capitalism and rapid economic expansion. And because they were stupid enough to believe they wanted "rights".

>>136940615
"Muh dick"
Husbands thought if they did it they'd get Anal.

>>136942779
Indeed; women's IQ is very close to men's, close enough as to make no nevermind. The distribution is narrower though, which means fewer geniuses, and fewer (literal) idiots.

Every new meta study jiggles the result a bit, but the latest I heard was the above.

Giving women the right to vote was the start of the downfall of Western civilisation.

>>136946141
To be fair all IQ is, is a measurement of potential intellect. A low IQ moron who is educated and raised by a proper environment will surpass a higher IQ individual who once fully grown has only ever lived in a literal cave. There are also varying types of IQ. The average Woman is so spoiled by society that she never has to even grasp for the fullest extent of her (dubious) intellect.

Daily reminder that women are the NiggersOfGender

File: reading level of presidential speeches.png (269KB, 1114x652px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1114x652px

>>136942779

>>136940615
more people to vote for (((us)))

Maybe the IQ difference is only 3 to 5 points, but the way they use their IQ is just abysmal...

File: 2ae6439f4e9d5c1dff35540fcb0d97ba.jpg (79KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 427x640px

>>136940615
>allow women to vote
>allow women to attend tertiary education
>allow women access to the workmarket
>allow women control over their own fertility (combined pill)
As well intentioned as these concessions to women were, they have been incredibly damaging to Western societies.

Plummeting marriage/birth rates, soaring divorce/single motherhood rates etc. Middle class girls i.e the ones you want to reproduce, are now having no or fewer children, and later. In the UK at least it feels like only the poor and ignorant are reproducing in significant numbers.

I hope the robots can save us.

>>136940615
Because we love them. It is the white man's greatest weakness; his capacity to love. We give our whole hearts to the undeserving, and it just might undo us one day, and maybe soon.

File: IMG_1432.jpg (60KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 960x960px

Frank told me the wymens got brain damage in a KB thread

>>136946141

Female IQ is way less important than their differing thinking process.

Being offended, unable to take responsibility, hatred of public discord, dislike of anything slightly unsafe.

All these things are suffocating society.

This is why I say SJWs = women, it is the feminisation of society.

It spills over into things like excitable boys being drugged up at school because there's something "wrong" with them since they don't sit quietly like girls.

This is why Ben Shapiro doesn't get it. He creates all this autistic sound arguments to defend 19th Century liberalism, but women don't give a shit about abstract rules of fair play.

>>136946051
You still got that pussy weak modern day view on things, anon.

Yes, we never had it so good, material, money and comfortability-wise. But that is hardly enough for men to be content. Maybe for domesticated normie drones and even they are increasingly unhappy.

Men who were in wars, present-day vets, are usually longing to get back. "one more mission syndrome" it is called. Longing to get to the place where you are under constant stress, danger and shitty zero comfort interlaced with mind-numbing eternal boredom.

Because males need purpose, goals bigger than them. They need to actually *live*, not simulate living in this virtual society where nothing matters and where there is not only nothing to live for but also nothing to die for.

This also explains your false view about "collapse fantasy". Also your conclusion about me admiting anything is dumb-ass fallacy.

>>136946385
There is only one IQ. Most of the IQ is hereditary, not dictated by the environment. Stop spouting leftist drivel.

>>136946476
>20th grade reading level

das smart

>>136946476

>Around the time the jew got his grasp on America, literally EVERYTHING degenerates.

>>136944091

That's pretty fuckin' tasteless, you'd have to hate a person to give 'em a cake like that.

File: 1502413220733.png (285KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1000x800px

>>136947181
it's only for true aryans

It was really due to individualism.
When we stopped seeing men and women as part of the same whole and began to see the Man-Woman pair as two individual people, we reorganized the state to accede to our perceptions.It was also the breaking down of the various hierarchies which we see around us, which eventually manifests itself in Anarchism. You'll notice that these leftists hate any sort of hierarchy, or meritocracy for that matter. It's what Evola would have called Involution.

It started with the income tax.
Until 1909, it was unconstitutional for the federal government to tax citizens directly. It was illegal for them to levy any sort of income tax at all.
Then the 16th amendment was ratified.
Now the wall between state and federal government has started to crack. Those priveleges which previously were accorded only to the states are now accorded to the federal government. Thus the hierarchy of Federal->State->Local->Family->individual is now broken. Now the citizens are not members of their state first and country second, They are members of their state and country equally.

The diagram is closer to this:
Federal
        \
        \
         Family --> Individual
        /
       /
State

Note that socialists had been pushing for this since the 1890's along with the other amendments that are to follow.

Next came the destruction of state power.
The 17th amendment, in 1912 made it so that senators were elected by the people rather than appointed by the states. What this does is it destroys the states own efficacy as an institution, because they no longer had any representation in the federal government. They were effectively made obsolete at this time.

Now the hierarchy looks like this:
Federal --> Family --> Individual

State (irrelevant)

Now we get to the 19th amendment
cont. in pt. 2

>>136940615
>Why in God's name did we ever give them rights
men in the past didn't care what would happen to their descendants
>muh iq
who cares

>>136944091
Ew

>>136948902
Fuck off kike loving nigger.

>>136945642
Who cares what they want? If diplomacy breaks down and SHTF - internally or abroad - women are not expected to fight. Young men are expected to go die, and if it's at home, even the older ones too. Hence they all get a say.
Women will fuck things up and then turn around and wait for the men to fix it.

what senpai, are you salty that you can't get a date?

>>136946385
There is not "varying types of IQ"
Emotional intelligence was quite literally made up on the spot by a kike and women ran with it because it made them feel super smart.

>>136948488
Pt 2.
Sorry I fucked up the diagram. My box doesn't unicode well.
Diagram should be:
Federal --> Family <--State
Family --> Individual

The 19th Amendment
It's well worth taking a step back and looking at the temperance movement. If you look at the history, it is essentially a movement of women exerting their ability to create societal change and enforce their power over men. They got the 18th amendment without the vote. They got a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT without the vote. Let that sink in.
Women already had power, though maybe it wasn't enough. But this isn't about women. It's about turning a republic into a democracy.
Once women were given the vote, the walls between federal government and individual were firmly broken down. All stages in the hierarchy up to this point had been dismantled by law or by practice. We were, essentially, a direct democracy.
It was at this time, things such as welfare, socialized medicine, civil asset forteiture and more became possible. There were no groupings by which people were to band to protect their own interests. They were essentially rendered powerless.

The hierarchy now:
Federal Government --> Individual
Family (Irrelevant)
State (Irrelevant)

All these family values Evangelicucks don't realize they lost the nuclear family 100 years ago. They lost it as the federal government broke down the hierarchy, which is the inevitable construction of patriarchal ordering of society, from anarchical chaos, and let it be broken down by feminine-imperative loving socialist lunatics--which, if Weininger is to be believed, are predominated by Jews because Jews are, in their souls, women.

>>136948488
>It started with the income tax.
>Until 1909, it was unconstitutional for the federal government to tax citizens directly. It was illegal for them to levy any sort of income tax at all.
Apparently that's the result of a highly controversial SCOTUS decision in the 19th century. Income tax was considered legal in the early US.

>>136949748
Expand on jews being women at heart because I can totally buy that

I kind of dream of reincarnating in an all male future society where we reproduce through genetic engineering and exo-wombs.

>>136949362
where the hell did that come from

>>136950313
I smell a race traitor.

>>136948488
You are an individual member of an individualist species.
Grow up already!
Be yourself. Be you.
Ask yourself what you want out of life, and how you can get there in a pro-social way.
Not because the pro-social way of getting there serves the collective, but because it fucking serves your interests too.
You don't need a nanny culture.

File: IMG_1034.jpg (102KB, 483x478px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 483x478px

>>136944028
Have an upvoat

>>136950355
don't just spout buzzwords at me you dumb newshit and think you'll fit in

neck yourself

File: 1501860687346.jpg (90KB, 905x905px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 905x905px

>>136950659
Your Jewish nests will be burned to the last. The streets will be a river of your kin's blood.

>>136940615
Bec feminism, liberals and Democrats.

>>136950764
neck yourself

>>136949888
Yeah, post-civil war, income taxes were considered indirect taxes.
However, I think that the SCOTUS ruling was correct. At the time it wasn't of too much consequence as most tax revenue came from import taxes, not otherwise. But now it's very prevalent and has contributed immensely to the growth of government.

>>136949987
It has to do with their psychology. Essentially their psychology is feminine, in their behaviors, in their lack of nobility and mercenary mentality, in their lack of the transcendental and in their innate discontent.
I'd refer you to the chapter on Judaism in Otto Weininger's Sex and Character for more information

>>136950464
When you build a business what are you doing?
You are building a structure.
What is a state but building a structure for mutual defense?
What is a (con)federal system but the building of a decentralized structure where if one state's government is onerous, the individual can move without giving up protection from foreign entities while not living entirely under a single state which holds a true monopoly of force?
Honestly, I started where you're at. I did grow up. I realized that people started out in a state of nature with no government. Unless you believe in God, there is no power from on high setting up states as you would have it. It's all manmade. So we do live in a stateless society, and we chose to build states to protect ourselves.
So what happens when we move to ancapistan? we form private states. We form structures. And those structures were built by individuals. And they are maintained by individuals.
It is entirely possible to be an individual within a societal structure. Too much structure is bad. But some structure and hierarchy is necessary, and is good for both the individual and the society.
You'll get what I mean if you look at it.

>>136940615
For all those reasons.

t. your jewish overlords