Do you believe that women are lesser humans, or is it mainly

>>34688491
Iesser humans.

>>34688491
>Lesser humans
or
>How they act

Is there supposed to be a difference?

>>34689527
Oh, please don't tell me you're one of those retards...

I think lesser because otherwise that would imply that women have agency and that they would have to take responsibility for their actions which they don't want anyways.

i have broken women/men down into each having the same purpose/role, but in opposite primary/secondary positions.
man's primary position is to produce worldy, physical results to advance human evolution/civilization. this task must always come first.
his secondary trait is the need to produce a good moral character/behavior/"soul". if the aforementioned task requires he subvert this one out of necessity, it is acceptable, but the ideal is to achieve success in both.

women are the opposite. their primary is to set a moral standard of behavior and influence human evolution/civilization through this means. they are to set an example for children via this and influence men who desire them to behave in line with their acceptable behavior.
secondary to this is to contribute to the physical, but if in contributing to the physical they abandon their primary, it is not acceptable. the primary comes first.

these are not innate. these are the designated roles decided for the advancement of human species.

It's not today's women's fault they act like this. Some nefarious people a few generations back put in motion a plan to destabilize western civilization, and part of that plan was to make women into what they are today. You can't hate the frogs for being gay when they drank the unfiltered water.