# Was Feminism a Mistake?



## Ser Prize (Jan 28, 2022)

The more I look back on the sorry state of the western world, with men and women failing in unique ways, the more I have to ask myself: was feminism a mistake?

Let me explain a bit before I get the sperging. Today you see a lot of men failing to get careers, or 'failing to launch' as they put it. At the same time you get a lot of women who do 'launch' but end up extremely miserable. In both cases even those who do succeed are made more miserable by wage stagnation and being unable to afford a good standard of living.

Women's liberation, and by association feminism, has a hand in all of the above. Men are falling behind in a schooling system that heavily favours women, to the point that women make up the majority of graduates. This normally wouldn't be a problem, but women are ALSO favoured in hiring in most sectors of the job market. And when you put the two facts together you have men at a significant disadvantage in the career market.

Boohoo for men, right? Well this fucks women over, too. Women don't like marrying a man whose less successful than they are, studies show they don't respect them and are more likely to cheat on them. Now what happens when you combine the above? You get unhappy men, unhappy women, and a job market that still hasn't recovered from doubling the labour pool. 

So I ask you, fellow spergs: was feminism a mistake?


----------



## Looney Troons (Jan 28, 2022)

Probably a good idea but very poorly executed, and championed by those who do the ideology more harm than anything else.


----------



## Prophetic Spirit (Jan 28, 2022)

You know, i'm only in the 1st & 2nd wave. 3rd and actual one is a real failure and even some feminists i've know can aknowledge of that.
Now, personally; i prefer non-sumissive people. I don't like girls without self-esteem.
Mistake is biased, but like @Looney Troons said, now is badly executed.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jan 28, 2022)

Prophetic Spirit said:


> You know, i'm only in the 1st & 2nd wave. 3rd and actual one is a real failure and even some feminists i've know can aknowledge of that.
> Now, personally; i prefer non-sumissive people. I don't like girls without self-esteem.
> Mistake is biased, but like @Looney Troons said, now is badly executed.


The problems I outlined were first and second wave. It's been a mistake from the get go.


----------



## Prophetic Spirit (Jan 28, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> The problems I outlined were first and second wave. It's been a mistake from the get go.


Yeah, i see that. Is your vision about the matter, but mine is about the 3rd wave which nu-feminists uses their privilege to get better options in their lifes, not putting effort anymore. Probably isn't in all the cases, but is a good portion. See Zoe Quinn as the best example.
1st & 2nd wave was about women not reaching the same capability as men in work, not simply being mating beings. That's why i prefer those waves. 1st give women to vote and the 2nd one i'm sure western govs gave more tools to self-sustain in the society without a partner.


----------



## Underperforming (Jan 28, 2022)

Low quality all the talking points have been said regurgitated youtube anti feminist tier sperging


----------



## Ser Prize (Jan 28, 2022)

Underperforming said:


> Low quality all the talking points have been said regurgitated youtube anti feminist tier sperging


Where's the lie?


----------



## Scolopendra Dramatica (Jan 28, 2022)

New feminism is fucked. Emily Pankhurst didn't throw herself in front of racehorses for these whimpering tranny simps to roll it all back for the rest of us. 

I miss the based chad feminists of yesteryear.


----------



## SouthernBitchBob (Jan 28, 2022)

Any movement based on Marxist lolgic pretending that women and men are "classes", claims women were treated like slaves, pretends that the pussy pass hasn't literally always existed, and was started by bored rich white lady drama queens flinging themselves at horses and bombing mailboxes was always a lolcow movement and should never have been taken seriously.


----------



## Isaac (Jan 28, 2022)

Men and women are separate but equal. They both have their respective roles in society, and we should respect that.


----------



## Marissa Moira (Jan 28, 2022)

Lesbians are being forced out by men in dresses, I'd say it's a rousing success.


----------



## milk (Jan 28, 2022)

No, feminism was not a mistake. It was designed by communists to destroy societies, and it is working.


----------



## murph (Jan 28, 2022)

Scolopendra Dramatica said:


> I miss the based chad feminists of yesteryear.


I miss the days when they used to throw themselves in front of horses and starve themselves. Now they just bitch constantly about pronouns and nigger supremacy. I blame America.


----------



## Underperforming (Jan 28, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Where's the lie?


no lie just not top tier


----------



## LurkNoMore (Jan 28, 2022)

@Ser Prize


> Women don't like marrying a man whose less successful than they are, studies show they don't respect them and are more likely to cheat on them.


How is this a problem? No, I'm serious. How is this a problem?

Those women sound like absolute trash. The type to bitch about guys with "golden penis syndrome" and then go back to fucking them. Men shouldn't waste their time with these women. They didn't make the cut with the dudes better that they think they deserve for a reason.


----------



## Blobby's Murder Knife (Jan 28, 2022)

Marissa Moira said:


> Lesbians are being forced out by men in dresses, I'd say it's a rousing success.


Were lesbians ever that big of a problem in the past for men? I mean, just rape them, wtf are they going to do?

It wasn't like gay men where their degeneracy sometimes warranted the blade because they were that addicted to cooming.


----------



## Marissa Moira (Jan 28, 2022)

Oppressed By Corn Flakes said:


> Were lesbians ever that big of a problem in the past for men? I mean, just rape them, wtf are they going to do?
> 
> It wasn't like gay men where their degeneracy sometimes warranted the blade because they were that addicted to cooming.


lesbians were drawn to feminism like moths to flame.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jan 28, 2022)

Marissa Moira said:


> lesbians were drawn to feminism like moths to flame.





Oppressed By Corn Flakes said:


> Were lesbians ever that big of a problem in the past for men? I mean, just rape them, wtf are they going to do?
> 
> It wasn't like gay men where their degeneracy sometimes warranted the blade because they were that addicted to cooming.


One of the OG feminists who opened a women's shelter(and then tried to open a men's shelter) talked about how feminism got immediately taken over by man-hating lesbians.


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jan 28, 2022)

Do you even have to ask the question?

The answer is yes.


----------



## FarCentrist (Jan 28, 2022)

When the lives of the women and children are prioritized on the sinking Titanic, is that because of the patriarchy or the matriarchy?


----------



## whogoesthere (Jan 28, 2022)

OWS had a good idea, then it got taken over by avaricious dog shits. Feminism was likely the same way, good idea at first, then quickly became an axe for embittered cat ladies to hammer the men who denied them love for so long. They are just incels but with better optics.


----------



## B2_Spirit (Jan 28, 2022)

Meritocracy is a better idea. The same issue feminism has now plagues the idea of racial equality. Special treament not equal treatment always ends up a dumpster fire. If the idea of fairness for women were applied pragmatically, or something akin to the early civil rights movement when the idea was NOT to focus on race but on competence, it would be a slight improvement, but at the end of the day men and women aren't physically equal on average so there's always going to be a problem. Always.

But when commies got their claws into feminism things got infinitely worse.  Eh, it's a self-correcting issue. Things will get so crazy they crash and burn. Not much we can do but wait for the end of the train wreck.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 28, 2022)

Marissa Moira said:


> lesbians were drawn to feminism like moths to flame.


Lesbians don't really exist. It's more a thing that feminism trains women into alternative sexualities as a kind of activism / fashion statement, which is why in any group of female feminist friends, they all have a slightly different sexuality to express themselves.



Ser Prize said:


> One of the OG feminists who opened a women's shelter(and then tried to open a men's shelter) talked about how feminism got immediately taken over by man-hating lesbians.



Possibly the one good video Sargon ever made and it was good because he barely talked.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Jan 28, 2022)

Feminism was very intentional. 

Its architects have also been very ignorant on human nature and societal histories, thus the problems you point out and more.


----------



## NeoGAF Lurker (Jan 29, 2022)

Feminism is a mistake but it was never actually intended to help women - it’s just one of many tentacles of progressivism designed to achieve permanent revolution. That’s the ultimate endgame of feminism, which is why most feminists are on board with every other progressive issue. It’s mostly outdated now since LGBTBBQWTF and race does a much better job of agitating societies. Plus affluent white women, the primary beneficiaries of feminism, are now on the bottom of the progressive stack like white men. In the age of unfettered negro and tranny worship, there’s no room for feminism. There’s no actual need to return to feminism either.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Jan 29, 2022)

From a historical perspective, feminism was going to happen whether people like it or not.  Due to the industrial revolution, the gender relations were somewhat destroyed. There is a really good book about how the Industrial Revolution affected the black family. Due to real racism, black men were less likely to be employed. What working and middle class white men are facing today are what black men face due to the Industrial Revolution and discrimination.  White women now out perform white men. When females outperform males and there are only few eligible bachelors, that spells ruin the community.  I don’t blame feminism because the material conditions due to technological changes would have change how the sexes live and work.


I would like to point out that incels of today would have probably been incels before feminism. My impression is that the people at the top will be at the top anyways. Anglo-Germanic Protestant capitalist society tends to select for certain personality traits. What’s the difference in personality and temperament between Rockefeller and Bill Gates?

Sources
Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments: Intimate Histories of Riotous Black Girls, Troublesome Women and Queer Radicals


----------



## WaveBreak (Jan 29, 2022)

Absolutely not. However, the exploitation of feminism (for example cookie cutter female protagonist mary sues, vote hillary because she is a woman. Etc) and the weaponizing of it have been terrible


----------



## Fougaro (Jan 30, 2022)

SouthernBitchBob said:


> Any movement based on Marxist lolgic pretending that women and men are "classes", claims women were treated like slaves, pretends that the pussy pass hasn't literally always existed, and was started by bored rich white lady drama queens flinging themselves at horses and bombing mailboxes was always a lolcow movement and should never have been taken seriously.


The one and only silver lining I can think of is that while being a lolcow movement from its very inception, feminism also spawned the entirety of the manosphere while setting the stage for trannies, giving us three lolcow herds for the price of one.


----------



## Honor's scout (Jan 30, 2022)

It was a mistake and always will be.
I've almost never seen it unite people against injustice only dividing them further. While corrupt dipshit politicians get away with being implicated in the Panama papers and the Epstein Jet logs.
Not to mention all those false life ruining metoo accusations.


----------



## Foxlegendary (Jan 30, 2022)

Feminism is not a mistake, it's a nightmare


----------



## Barry McKockner (Jan 30, 2022)

Honor's scout said:


> It was a mistake and always will be.
> I've almost never seen it unite people against injustice only dividing them further. While corrupt dipshit politicians get away with being implicated in the Panama papers and the Epstein Jet logs.
> Not to mention all those false life ruining metoo accusations.



The goal was and never will be uniting people. If it were, we would be much farther into the ever so coveted "gender equity" than we are.

The thing is, you can't be a riteous movement without an enemy. So it's just become a constant cycle of where's the next enemy.


----------



## celebrityskin (Jan 30, 2022)

Liberal and intersectional feminism, yeah.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 30, 2022)

celebrityskin said:


> Liberal and intersectional feminism, yeah.


In contrast to what kind of feminism?


----------



## Tree (Jan 30, 2022)

No, it was intentionally inflicted.

Embers of darkness exist in us all, but abject evil provides kindling to that which brings it power and removes what it does not find amenable. Familial and, by extension, ethnic bonds are the source of all that is good and it is those which evil ultimately wishes to extinguish so that it alone may possess the empty creatures that remain.


----------



## Cpl. Long Dong Silver (Jan 30, 2022)

Women in general were a mistake


----------



## Soulless4510 (Jan 30, 2022)

I think this video explains how feminism got messed up


----------



## KooksandFreaks (Jan 30, 2022)

Ser Prize, Counterpoint: The only reason autiists llke you are allowed to express their ideas is because Western liberal democracies tend to be very tolerant. In theory.​


----------



## Trapitalism (Feb 1, 2022)

> So I ask you, fellow spergs: was feminism a mistake?


Is the pope a Catholic?


----------



## Dandelion Eyes (Feb 1, 2022)

"Yes, I do think women shouldn't have rights, how did you know?"


----------



## Zyklon Ben's Poison Pen (Feb 1, 2022)

Yup, its been a disaster for everyone.


----------



## Windows 10 Upgrade (Feb 2, 2022)

FarCentrist said:


> When the lives of the women and children are prioritized on the sinking Titanic, is that because of the patriarchy or the matriarchy?


Pediatricy! Kids can't look after themselves, they need someone to wait on them hand and foot.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (Feb 2, 2022)

It's been a disaster since the inception and letting women vote has been directly responsible for every single negative aspect of clown world. Letting them work was directly responsible for drastically lowering the value of labor and destroying the family unit leading to the last several generations being unhinged on account of having unstable home lives or non-present parents. Women's sexual liberation has lead to the breakdown of the dating world, coomerism, and the widespread disaffection of young men.

Feminism has been a fucking disaster for the wester world in every conceivable way since day one. Sure there were things that needed to change, but letting women out of the kitchen wasn't the solution.


----------



## Ruin (Feb 2, 2022)

Honestly yea I think so. It was no doubt well intentioned but I judge a movement primarily by how much good or bad it's contributed to society and at this point it's done far more damage than actually helped people.


----------



## Narutard (Feb 3, 2022)

Feminism made sense at first, but now it’s just a buch of femcels using it as a vehicle to blame men for all their self-inflicted issues.
The simps and incels that take them serious are a bigger problem than feminists themselves, however.


----------



## AMHOLIO (Feb 3, 2022)

I like being able to hold a job and not have to get married and rely on a partner.  I like men not being pressured to marry either.  I like having my own credit card and being in charge of my own money, and not having a man worry about the money I make.  I like going to a doctor who is female and being able to talk about more private concerns with them.  I like a lot of the freedoms men have.  I like that rape accusations are taken more seriously and prosecuted more, but not the bitches using them for self gain or revenge of course (this has been going on since the before times, see to kill a mockingbird).

I want things better for men and I would love the school system to change to accommodate boys more, but one of the reasons it doesn't is because schools don't want to put extra effort in and go "shut up and learn or you get detention", which usually favors girls over boys.  Part of that isn't sexism, it's straight up neglect because hyperactive girls get screwed by it too.
  Another part is trade industry discouragement.  Men do better or at least are more attracted to jobs like electrician, plumbing, etc., but all schools want a fuckin' college grad instead of a dude with a successful career.  You don't find women competing for sewer tech and most powerplants are a sausagefest.  Conversely, you don't find more men clamoring into child care.
You also have the increase in automation and shipping factory jobs overseas.  Oh, and companies using illegal immigrants as slaves so they don't have to pay people over here well for tedious jobs like picking strawberries and packaging chicken.

Basically, I really don't like that society has failed men more and more with time.  I think there's a way to sort things out more evenly for both genders without trying to kill someone else.  I think I get why you dislike feminism the political part and I don't like the hardcore "subjugate men" either, and I sympathize with your job struggle, but I don't think equal rights was a mistake.  My beef will always lie with money grubbing corporations trying to virtue signal or cut cost.


----------



## YourFriendlyLurker (Feb 3, 2022)

It wasn't  a mistake, just as any evolutionary development is not a mistake. It is a question of adaptation of society to things that happen, feminism surged after world wars when plenty of males were just killed off. Someone needed to work on the factories and  it was females. It contditioned the situation when females became more and more independant of men financially. Add here that with time people need family and each other less and less to surivive, also gradual automation of manufacturing processes and prevalation of brainwork over physical one. Like it or not, but the factors behind feminism (in its traditional meaning of equality of rights) were not ideological, it was pure economics. 

Asking that question is the same as "was the process of gradual abolishement of slavery and transition to employment a mistake?"  or was "the separation of church from policymaking and laws a mistake?" From the point of view of some landlord in XVI century of course it was, but for us it was rather evident process. Slave work is just less productive than a work of employed workers, nothing personal. 

In other words, "mistake" is something that is made intentionally, social processes that you can't stop are not a mistake lol, they just happen.


----------



## ObservingTheMadness (Feb 3, 2022)

I would have to say that Feminism wasn't a mistake. What ruined it was when the man-hating minority somewhat took over.


----------



## BipolarPon (Feb 3, 2022)

Well I wish It was possible to own a house and start a faimly with only one income instead of two.


----------



## Marley Rathbone (Feb 4, 2022)

Everyone alive comes from an equally long line of men and women.  Which means all women enjoy the fruits of male privilege, and vice versa.


----------



## ObservingTheMadness (Feb 4, 2022)

BipolarPon said:


> Well I wish It was possible to own a house and start a faimly with only one income instead of two.


There was a time when that was possible. Yet those days are gone.


----------



## BipolarPon (Feb 4, 2022)

LordShadrach said:


> There was a time when that was possible. Yet those days are gone.


I blaming Gen X more on that than Baby Boomers.


----------



## The Cunting Death (Feb 4, 2022)

BipolarPon said:


> I blaming Gen X more on that than Baby Boomers.


It's a bit of both of their faults


----------



## Narutard (Feb 4, 2022)

BipolarPon said:


> I blaming Gen X more on that than Baby Boomers.


Everyone is to blame for the shit we’re in.
Boomers commercialised everything, Gen X sacralised productivity and “the economy”, Millennials pissed all their earnings away in thousands of small transactions a week because they can’t stand feeling bored, Zoomers are all bitch niggers and the jewish entertainment industry turns everyone else into brainless consumers.

Society is absolutely fucked up and no one gives a shit anymore because society doesn’t give a shit about its members anymore either.


----------



## Merried Senior Comic (Feb 4, 2022)

Islam is right about women.


----------



## Unyielding Stupidity (Feb 5, 2022)

I'd say so. It devalued labour by nearly doubling the workforce, essentially halving the value of labour. Which is why despite most modern families having both parents work, they're no better off than when families had a single person working when it comes to essential household costs.


----------



## Alexander Thaut (Feb 5, 2022)

the first wave wasn't useless, the rest kinda kept the grift going.

we're still hearing about the wage gap. . .


----------



## InteracialBowelSyndrome (Mar 2, 2022)

It's been great for corporations and governments who gained a new wage slave and taxpayer in the name of "empowerment". The nuclear family has been destroyed though. Can't help but wonder if they planned that


----------



## Divine right to rule (Mar 2, 2022)

Trapitalism said:


> Is the pope a Catholic?


The current one? 
Not really, no.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Mar 2, 2022)

It was pure cringe.


----------



## Ted_Breakfast (Mar 2, 2022)

The problem with humans of both sexes is that we're retarded and will repurpose anything to serve selfish, destructive purposes.


----------



## Stormy Daniel's Lawyer (Mar 2, 2022)

I knew feminism was dead on arrival when they (the fem-Nazis) gleefully swallowed the (men can be just as much of a woman as real women) load of jizz and challenged women to accept troonism as fact..

The whole debate has turned into a shit-show not worth watching.


----------



## InteracialBowelSyndrome (Mar 3, 2022)

Stormy Daniel's Lawyer said:


> I knew feminism was dead on arrival when they (the fem-Nazis) gleefully swallowed the (men can be just as much of a woman as real women) load of jizz and challenged women to accept troonism as fact..
> 
> The whole debate has turned into a shit-show not worth watching.



Oh it's a show worth watching alright. We need ideas for more lolcow threads.


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (Jun 2, 2022)

It might not fit this thread but I saw this blog post about emasculated man who might be worth to check an eye on a paragraph about a unintended consequence of feminism.








						THE COLUMN: Forget Guns. Whatever Happened to Men? | The Pipeline
					

A disarmed domestic society is not something devoutly to be wished for.




					the-pipeline.org
				






> ...No, the problem isn't "gun violence," it's the enforced emasculation of teenage American males via liberalism, feminism, academia, psychiatry, pharmacology, and the media, which all too often explodes in inchoate rage. Innate female impulses and values are critical to civilizational formation, but they are antithetical to civilizational preservation, prizing collectivism over individuality, shared instead of personal responsibility, and constant, generally irrational fears for physical and emotional safety. ("Safety" on line? Twitter can instantly "suspend" you permanently and Facebook can send you to Sugarmountain Prison on the spot for unspecified "harassment," but the Uvalde shooter can yap on social media about his desire to assault a school and nothing happens to him, algorithmically speaking.) There has never been a successful matriarchy in Western history and there never will be. Neither sex would or should want it. And as for the 19th Amendment and its effect on American history, don't get me started...
> 
> And yet within recent memory there were gun clubs at nearly every American high school, rifles teams too. In my youth it was not uncommon to see boys with BB guns and air rifles on the streets, or teenagers in JROTC uniforms carrying disabled M-1 rifles, to and from drill practice or home for field-stripping and cleaning. Hell, I even co-wrote a movie about a military-school drill team for Disney, which turned out to be their highest-rated Disney Channel show and highest-rated original movie when it was first shown in 2002—and now, in an ironic turn of events, has been whole-heartedly adopted by the lesbian community, even though that subject never once came up during the writing, development, and shooting of the movie...



Which remind me, a couple of years ago, there's was once a weird teenage girl back then who bashed the promoters of feminism on Youtube but her videos was removed and no need to guess the origins of the (((feminists))) in question.


----------



## gang weeder (Jun 2, 2022)

Super-Chevy454 said:


> It might not fit this thread but I saw this blog post about emasculated man who might be worth to check an eye on a paragraph about a unintended consequence of feminism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the emasculation of men is a very _intended _consequence of feminism. Feminism views the world through the lens of a gender war in which men and women are hostile to each other and everything is some kind of trade off whereby one sex is gaining at the expense of the other. Ergo, the more that men can be harmed, the better off women are, and feminism seeks to maximize the welfare of women at all costs. It's the same basic power dynamics mindset behind all the anti-white racism that is now common in the West.


----------



## deerPropaganda (Jun 2, 2022)

yes. I do not wish to elaborate.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 2, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Men are falling behind in a schooling system that heavily favours women


Oh boo hoo
I wish I had a dollar for every chud who claims the school system is systemically sexist (against men) and then turns around and takes the poor performance of blacks at school as proof niggers are biologically retarded
Seems to me men's obsession with hating on other races of men is just so they can avoid realising that the problems with men of any given race are just exaggerations or variations on the problems of men as a sex


----------



## Wormy (Jun 3, 2022)

To those who say we shouldn't let women out of the kitchen, how do you intend to put them back into the kitchen and deal with the ones who won't go?


----------



## RSOD (Jun 3, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> chud


Go back to reddit please


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (Jun 3, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> I think the emasculation of men is a very _intended _consequence of feminism. Feminism views the world through the lens of a gender war in which men and women are hostile to each other and everything is some kind of trade off whereby one sex is gaining at the expense of the other. Ergo, the more that men can be harmed, the better off women are, and feminism seeks to maximize the welfare of women at all costs. It's the same basic power dynamics mindset behind all the anti-white racism that is now common in the West.


That reminds me of this old blog post posted by Henri Makow about the Montreal Polytechnique massacre of 1989. 
https://www.henrymakow.com/the_men_who_ran_away.html ( https://archive.ph/JpRhH )



> ...In a suicide note, Lepine said: "I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasÃ©, I have decided to put an end to those viragos."
> 
> Feminist and lesbian activists were quick to exploit this tragedy as a "National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women," as if mass murder were an appropriate way to characterize domestic violence. White ribbons remind young women that within all men lurks a serial killer. Thus these activists destroy the trust which is at the heart of a woman's love for a man and cause men to abandon them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spicboyskafan (Jun 3, 2022)

yes, in every considerable way, yes.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 3, 2022)

Women's rights are fine and all and if a woman doesn't want to land in a traditional role, that's her own problem. Championing the non-traditional post-modern woman is the mistake of feminism. Had it remained as a movement that protected the role women often have while also expanding the freedoms available to women, that would've been a different story. Pretty much any healthy normal functioning woman has the instinctual desire to fulfill the child-rearing and homemaking roles, not chase a career and work all day. Feminism should have empowered women to take that role and molded society to make it doable instead of forcing every household to be dual income. 

Feminism feels vengeful. Of course, it would be, it's a woman's movement.


----------



## Cpl. Long Dong Silver (Jun 3, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> To those who say we shouldn't let women out of the kitchen, how do you intend to put them back into the kitchen and deal with the ones who won't go?


Beatings, but proportional to their outburst. Moderate and only as a corrective action.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Jun 3, 2022)

Yes. One only needs to see how wages went down and women trying to frame wage slavery as enlightening.


----------



## Sailor Kim Jong Moon (Jun 3, 2022)

The sexual revolution and it’s consequences have been a disaster for the human race


----------



## Wormy (Jun 3, 2022)

Cpl. Long Dong Silver said:


> Beatings, but proportional to their outburst. Moderate and only as a corrective action.


Better hope your targets don't pack heat then. You go after my woman, you'll be  bringing a club to a gunfight.



wtfNeedSignUp said:


> women trying to frame wage slavery as enlightening.


Wow, actually getting paid for your work is SUCH a horrible thing isn't it? /sneed

Are you a NEET?



Osmosis Jones said:


> Pretty much any healthy normal functioning woman has the instinctual desire to fulfill the child-rearing and homemaking roles


Nothing healthy about wanting to do unpaid labor. 



Osmosis Jones said:


> Feminism feels vengeful.


As it should when loads of people figure out they've been getting a bum deal and want to change it.


----------



## Cpl. Long Dong Silver (Jun 3, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Better hope your targets don't pack heat then. You go after my woman, you'll be  bringing a club to a gunfight.
> 
> 
> Wow, actually getting paid for your work is SUCH a horrible thing isn't it? /sneed
> ...


If your woman is in a monogamous hetero relationship then she has nothing to fear in white Sharia


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 3, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Nothing healthy about wanting to do unpaid labor.



People who think housewives should get a wage for housework never think the husband should charge her rent.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 3, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> People who think housewives should get a wage for housework never think the husband should charge her rent.


It would be a bit silly considering her salary and my salary all go into the same account, but how much should I charge her?



Cpl. Long Dong Silver said:


> If your woman is in a monogamous hetero relationship then she has nothing to fear in white Sharia


Sharia. 

Get your camelfucker shit out of my neighborhood.


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Jun 3, 2022)

Absolutely. 
Women in the minority of the time demanded all the rights and privileges of men with little of the actual responsibilities that are required to uphold them. I can agree with suffrage as long as they meet those responsibilities adequately such as owning a home, being employed, being a net taxpayer, or holding a viable degree or trade to society.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 3, 2022)

Anti-Intellectual said:


> I can agree with suffrage as long as they meet those responsibilities adequately such as owning a home, being employed, being a net taxpayer, or holding a viable degree or trade to society.


Wellllp, according to a lot of people in here, women shouldn't even be given the ability to aspire to such things.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 3, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> It would be a bit silly considering her salary and my salary all go into the same account, but how much should I charge her?



If it's silly to charge your wife rent because you share a bank account, then it's silly to pay her a wage for the exact same reason.  Make up your mind.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 3, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> Same question can be asked about paying her a wage to do laundry and cook meals. You should probably think through this,


Hmmm, so how much should I then charge for the times I do laundry, cook, ect? The only certainty is that my own pay for cooking should be lower since she's way better at it, but what should I charge for the times I do the other chores? 

Also, what's the net gain since we're basically paying from the same account back into the same account?


----------



## gang weeder (Jun 3, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Wellllp, according to a lot of people in here, women shouldn't even be given the ability to aspire to such things.



Women should be free to aspire to whatever they want. That means they should be free to have children and focus on raising them instead of working 40+ hours a week in a globohomo widget factory. If they truly want to waste their lives in the widget factory, good on them, but they should be actually free to choose. Not shoehorned into that life by degenerates who have indoctrinated them into believing that if they do otherwise then they're badmeanevilwrongstupid.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 3, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Hmmm, so how much should I then charge for the times I do laundry, cook, ect? The only certainty is that my own pay for cooking should be lower since she's way better at it, but what should I charge for the times I do the other chores?
> 
> Also, what's the net gain since we're basically paying from the same account back into the same account?



You're the one who said it's unfair that women don't get paid a cash wage for housework, not me. These are pretty basic questions that follow on your own claim that you should be able to figure out for yourself.

So, not only are the people who think housewives should be paid wages unwilling to say their husbands should charge rent, they're actually completely incapable of thinking through what this sort of transactional relationship would actually mean. Maybe, and hear me out, if you reduce the marriage relationship to a financial transaction, it's actually the woman who comes out ahead  on a material basis.



gang weeder said:


> Women should be free to aspire to whatever they want. That means they should be free to have children and focus on raising them instead of working 40+ hours a week in a globohomo widget factory. If they truly want to waste their lives in the widget factory, good on them, but they should be actually free to choose. Not shoehorned into that life by degenerates who have indoctrinated them into believing that if they do otherwise then they're badmeanevilwrongstupid.



Given how easily women are deceived into thinking that sterilizing themselves and becoming cubicle drones will result in "fulfillment," and how incredibly destructive that's been to every human society that's adopted this ethic, I'm not so sure this decision should be left to them.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jun 3, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> You're the one who said it's unfair that women don't get paid a cash wage for housework, not me. These are pretty basic questions that follow on your own claim that you should be able to figure out for yourself.
> 
> So, not only are the people who think housewives should be paid wages unwilling to say their husbands should charge rent, they're actually completely incapable of thinking through what this sort of transactional relationship would actually mean. Maybe, and hear me out, if you reduce the marriage relationship to a financial transaction, it's actually the woman who comes out ahead  on a material basis.
> 
> ...


That's the sad reality of it. Women en masse seem to have been rather easily turned away from any semblance of maternal life and instead are being pitted against men, trying to 'out-man' them instead of working together.

The ancient greeks had this right when they said women were too prone to excessive emotion and hysterics to be trusted with making consistently rational decisions.


----------



## gang weeder (Jun 3, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> That's the sad reality of it. Women en masse seem to have been rather easily turned away from any semblance of maternal life and instead are being pitted against men, trying to 'out-man' them instead of working together.
> 
> The ancient greeks had this right when they said women were too prone to excessive emotion and hysterics to be trusted with making consistently rational decisions.



I think it's just that women are simply more prone to following social trends. Whatever society expects in order for them to be labeled a Good Person, they'll do it. That is definitely an issue.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jun 3, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> I think it's just that women are simply more prone to following social trends. Whatever society expects in order for them to be labeled a Good Person, they'll do it. That is definitely an issue.


Oh most certainly, but that ties into being more prone to emotional thinking.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 3, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> You're the one who said it's unfair that women don't get paid a cash wage for housework, not me. These are pretty basic questions that follow on your own claim that you should be able to figure out for yourself.


Yea, it seems we have some work around this house, but it's gonna be another one of those "You've been arguing on Kiwifarms again, haven't you?" sort of discissions.

Incidentally, how is your wife with this arrangement, her not being allowed to work? 


The Ugly One said:


> So, not only are the people who think housewives should be paid wages unwilling to say their husbands should charge rent, they're actually completely incapable of thinking through what this sort of transactional relationship would actually mean. Maybe, and hear me out, if you reduce the marriage relationship to a financial transaction, it's actually the woman who comes out ahead  on a material basis.



No, considering if the man leaves. he's fine and he has his source of money, the woman doesn't.


The Ugly One said:


> Given how easily women are deceived into thinking that sterilizing themselves and becoming cubicle drones will result in "fulfillment," and how incredibly destructive that's been to every human society that's adopted this ethic, I'm not so sure this decision should be left to them.


Becoming a financial leech=fulfillment? Why aren't more NEETS happy then?

Also, if you ever bitch about Great Reset shit taking away your rights, I'm going to remind you how you want to force every single woman out of their employment because they're a woman.


Ser Prize said:


> That's the sad reality of it. Women en masse seem to have been rather easily turned away from any semblance of maternal life and instead are being pitted against men, trying to 'out-man' them instead of working together.


No, it's not working together, it's one side making all the resources while another is dependent on them.


Ser Prize said:


> he ancient greeks had this right when they said women were too prone to excessive emotion and hysterics to be trusted with making consistently rational decisions.


So how did your own wife react to being told she is not allowed to have a job?


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 3, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> So how did your own wife react to being told she is not allowed to have a job?


Lol you're probably thinking this is a gotcha but most women are ecstatic at the idea of not having to be a wagie. And lol @ thinking raising a child and keeping a home clean warrants a wage. I don't doubt that it's challenging, probably moreso than most jobs, but if you're doing those things expecting gibmuhs instead of recognizing the value of creating a healthy home without interference from a career or third party then maybe you wouldn't be so histrionic about it. 

If I got to stay at home all day and keep my home the exact way I wanted it and raise my child the exact way I want him to be, I'll let my wife work full time and support us. Don't act retarded and say that wageslavery beats mothering.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 4, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> Lol you're probably thinking this is a gotcha but most women are ecstatic at the idea of not having to be a wagie.


You can have them then. I don't want a leech.


Osmosis Jones said:


> And lol @ thinking raising a child and keeping a home clean warrants a wage.


Therefore it's useless in a capitalist society.


Osmosis Jones said:


> but if you're doing those things expecting gibmuhs instead of recognizing the value of creating a healthy home without interference from a career or third party then maybe you wouldn't be so histrionic about it.






Money don't get everything it's true
*But what it don't get baby, I CAN'T USE. *


Osmosis Jones said:


> If I got to stay at home all day and keep my home the exact way I wanted it and raise my child the exact way I want him to be, I'll let my wife work full time and support us. Don't act retarded and say that wageslavery beats mothering.


Money talks Bullshit walks. Besides, as most of the thread agrees, your monkey ass is the one earning the money and resources, she's supposed to be the NEET living rent free and eating up your reasources. 






Man, I envy the upbringing you had where money was no object. You sound like those fucking single moms that I thought conservatives hated....


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> You can have them then. I don't want a leech.


Lol like you have the options


MT Foxtrot said:


> Therefore it's useless in a capitalist society.


So is a lot of shit. 


MT Foxtrot said:


> Money don't get everything it's true
> *But what it don't get baby, I CAN'T USE. *


*>gibmuh*


MT Foxtrot said:


> Money talks Bullshit walks. Besides, as most of the thread agrees, your monkey ass is the one earning the money and resources, she's supposed to be the NEET living rent free and eating up your reasources.


No shit, autismo. And I'm happy to do it for a woman that takes care of my family and my shit. 


MT Foxtrot said:


> Man, I envy the upbringing you had where money was no object. You sound like those fucking single moms that I thought conservatives hated....


You know what they say about assumptions


----------



## Cpl. Long Dong Silver (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> A bunch of cope



She's not gonna read this bro


----------



## Wormy (Jun 4, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> No shit, autismo. And I'm happy to do it for a woman that takes care of my family and my shit.


Your life. I got no place in my life for NEET scum myself. You pull your weight or you get out. 


Cpl. Long Dong Silver said:


> She's not gonna read this bro


Who isn't? My wife? No shit, she's got more sense and isn't as self punishing as I am.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Who isn't? My wife? No shit, she's got more sense and isn't as self punishing as I am.


I know way too much about you for you to not be a lolcow. Is there a page on you? I've learned that you think your wife is homely and that you have major daddy issues. You also despise traditional values for being traditional. There's a pretty fucking low moral bar to be in your shoes. Freak. Who shit talks their wife online?


----------



## Wormy (Jun 4, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> I know way too much about you for you to not be a lolcow. Is there a page on you? I've learned that you think your wife is homely and that you have major daddy issues. You also despise traditional values for being traditional. There's a pretty fucking low moral bar to be in your shoes. Freak. Who shit talks their wife online?


WOW....a thread with people saying women are too stupid...oh I'm sorry, "emotional"...to hold jobs giving me smoke for shit talking my wife.

And no, there's no page on me. I'm considered just another faceless liberal elite.

No daddy issues though. Me and the old man get along fine, we just know not to bring up religion or politics when we're together. I don't like his religion, but that's seriously the only fault I find in him at all. Good father, good husband. Not my fault you intentionally misread my stance about him just because I mentioned he's a pastor.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 4, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> That's the sad reality of it. Women en masse seem to have been rather easily turned away from any semblance of maternal life and instead are being pitted against men, trying to 'out-man' them instead of working together.
> 
> The ancient greeks had this right when they said women were too prone to excessive emotion and hysterics to be trusted with making consistently rational decisions.


Women are miserable and killing themselves in our culture, and we insist that somehow they're "happier."


----------



## Biggusstickus (Jun 4, 2022)

If I have to play devil's advocate, if you believe Stephen King's memoir, he mentioned how his dad left him, his mother and his brother when he was young. And that his mom was getting paid 10 cents per hour to do menial jobs because as a woman back in the day she wasn't allowed to get jobs that men could get. Combine with the fact she was a single mother, it was a stigma for her since she must have done something wrong for her husband to leave her. Which meant she couldn't get much help from people around her because she was, a harlot.  Also she and her kids had to travel to a lot of places where the work is at.

I don't support the feminism it is today, working with the 3 unholy trinity of bitch, fat and ugly. If feminists weren't acting like smug socialists that preach compassion about insert poor poor current trend here, but laugh about wanting you dead while having the gall to act nice in your face, I'd give more leeway to feminism rather than the subversive gold-digging cock hoarding ideology it is today.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Jun 4, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> Women are miserable and killing themselves in our culture, and we insist that somehow they're "happier."


Applies to literally everybody ever, blacks and whites, boys and girls, gays and straights, everyone is miserable and offing themselves more often than a few decades ago.

Everybody has their own boogeyman for the reason why it's happening. Socialists blame it on Capitalism, Liberals blame it on Conservatives and quote-on-quote "Fascists" and "Nazis", fundies (like most people here literally) blame it on change and societal openness to what they deem as vices (fag rights, women being allowed to get a job, etc), white/black Nationalists/Supremacists blame it on mass immigration, immigrants and niggers or whiteys respectively. And that's even if they have no idea what might be the exact source cause of it all, so they target the tree instead of the roots.

Just sayin', we're all fucked and nobody knows why we're all fucked. If you think you do, you're probably wrong. I'm sure it's because of the internet, depression has skyrocketed ever since we invented computers and then the net. Coincidentally, third wave feminism started at around the same time as did the internet too.


----------



## Shidoen (Jun 4, 2022)

An apple, a fucking apple.


----------



## Zyklon Ben's Poison Pen (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Wellllp, according to a lot of people in here, women shouldn't even be given the ability to aspire to such things.






Seriously dude, stop being a meme.
Frankly, over investment in women has been an abject failure. They underperform and are high maintenance in all things and now we are just seeing things awarded to them because they can't cut it. Can't compete? Whine and bleat. 
I'm all for leaving the door open to those who can and will do but this massive over correction is a major drain on an already over leveraged society.


----------



## LurkNoMore (Jun 4, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> Oh boo hoo
> I wish I had a dollar for every chud who claims the school system is systemically sexist (against men) and then turns around and takes the poor performance of blacks at school as proof niggers are biologically retarded
> Seems to me men's obsession with hating on other races of men is just so they can avoid realising that the problems with men of any given race are just exaggerations or variations on the problems of men as a sex


Always nice when a woman comes in and makes feminism out to be a mistake by saying something so unbelievable stupid.

The majority of college students are female. This is true for every race; white, black, hispanic, asian, etc... Therefore the majority of poor performing black students is black female students. 

And even if the poor preformace of black students could be placed at the feet of male students. It still would not answer the question as to poor male performance over all. Given male success historically in higher education.

And furthermore, the problem with blacks in higher education isn't some lack of intelligence, but the favoritism shown to them by liberal controlled institutions. Which places them where they fail and struggle over better candidates because of their race. Something said liberals do the same as with female students over male students.

As they say, "Know what they call the woman who graduated at the bottom of her class at med school? Doctor."


----------



## Mr. Zed da Robot Poon Fed (Jun 4, 2022)

The thing is, women never needed feminism in the first place. 



> In reality, women were far better represented in professional occupations in the first three decades of the 20th century than in the middle of that century. Women received a larger share of the postgraduate degrees necessary for such careers in the earlier era than in the 1950s and 1960s.
> 
> The proportion of women among the high achievers listed in "Who's Who in America" in 1902 was more than double the proportion listed in 1958. The decline of women in high-level careers occurred when women's age of marriage and child-bearing declined during the mid-century "baby boom" years.
> 
> The later rise of women began when the age of marriage and child-bearing rose again. In 1972 women again received as high a proportion of doctoral degrees as they had back in 1932.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 4, 2022)

Attempt at a serious answer:

The premise of feminism is that women and men aren't different enough to justify having sex-differentiated social norms, much less laws. This whole idea breaks apart as it tries to navigate the shoals of why humans even have biological sexes in the first place. The basic problem is that women are attracted to status and wealth, and men aren't. So, what women want is for men, in general, to make less money than they do, but for the specific men they partner with to make more money than they do.  Feminists have unsuccessfully tried to claim that the reason women are attracted to provider/protector characteristics, while men are to physical sexuality and fertility is due to socialization, not nature, and that they, the feminists, can teach men to be attracted to women who have big paychecks and long resumes, rather than big boobs and long legs.  Didn't work, can't work, won't ever work.

So feminism's failed women on its own terms. It wasn't supposed to render women unable to find men. All the feminist propaganda in the 70s and 80s depicted hard-nosed career women getting the best men and having it all, when the reality is that life really screws over career women. It's not just that they don't have time for babies. It's that there just aren't enough men making $200K per year for the women making $95K per year to match up with, and there can't ever be. Male/female income equality means most people die alone, including most women. Women get married later and later, they have fewer and fewer kids, they're more and more depressed.

Feminism is completely unable to think through natural tradeoffs and consequences, so it's riddled with contradictions, fails to deal with reality, and ultimately has made everyone unhappy, including women, by breaking up men and women, isolating us from each other, and really giving nobody what they actually need to be healthy and stable.


----------



## Biggusstickus (Jun 4, 2022)

Zyklon Ben's Poison Pen said:


> View attachment 3352323
> Seriously dude, stop being a meme.
> Frankly, over investment in women has been an abject failure. They underperform and are high maintenance in all things and now we are just seeing things awarded to them because they can't cut it. Can't compete? Whine and bleat.
> I'm all for leaving the door open to those who can and will do but this massive over correction is a major drain on an already over leveraged society.


Also women shouldn't complain their repressed and underrepresented when their more likely to get into ivy league colleges for not having a dick between their legs. And when society will leap to their defense against a guy whose not high status enough in their view.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 4, 2022)

Zyklon Ben's Poison Pen said:


> View attachment 3352323


Tells me to stop being a meme when he says "Anyone who thinks women shouldn't stay in the kitchen is just trying to simp for random women online!" Now this is the AT I remember.
Dude, why the fuck would I try to earn sex when I can get it whenever I want. Married, dumbass.


The Ugly One said:


> Women are miserable and killing themselves in our culture, and we insist that somehow they're "happier."


And your solution is to take away their options and lock them into one caste?


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Jun 4, 2022)

LurkNoMore said:


> Always nice when a woman comes in and makes feminism out to be a mistake by saying something so unbelievable stupid.
> 
> The majority of college students are female. This is true for every race; white, black, hispanic, asian, etc... Therefore the majority of poor performing black students is black female students.
> 
> ...


The moment he or she called you a chud (The go-to slur for wokies and trannies) then I knew it was a troll and yet you bit the bait, congrats retard.


----------



## LurkNoMore (Jun 4, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> The moment he or she called you a chud (The go-to slur for wokies and trannies) then I knew it was a troll and yet you bit the bait, congrats retard.


And is the not a bait thread?


----------



## gang weeder (Jun 4, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> I know way too much about you for you to not be a lolcow. Is there a page on you? I've learned that you think your wife is homely and that you have major daddy issues. You also despise traditional values for being traditional. There's a pretty fucking low moral bar to be in your shoes. Freak. Who shit talks their wife online?



He's claiming to be married? Kek.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Dude, why the fuck would I try to earn sex when I can get it whenever I want. Married, dumbass.


So wait, why does marriage mean you're guaranteed sex but it doesn't guarantee or warrant anything else in this thread? Is your only standard for women whether or not they'll get on your dick? Did you only get married for sex and a second income?


----------



## Mr. Zed da Robot Poon Fed (Jun 4, 2022)

Also, feminism doesn't even bother explaining how the "patriarchy" came to be long before in the beginnings of time.


----------



## ZazietheBeast (Jun 4, 2022)

It definitely ruined the family unit and social cohesion that's for sure. And the great divide between male and female is a result of this and ultimately why society is taking a dump. Whatever society replaces a feminized society is definitely going to take notes of the failure of the west. 

On the plus side though, it did allow women to divorce abusive men. Unfortunately, it allowed abusive women to divorce men.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jun 4, 2022)

The idea that women shouldn't be inferior or slaves to men is not a bad idea - but the ideas of "gender is a social construct" and "empowered = masculine" are bad ideas.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 4, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> So wait, why does marriage mean you're guaranteed sex


Well mine does because she wants it as much as I do. Easy.


Osmosis Jones said:


> but it doesn't guarantee or warrant anything else in this thread? Is your only standard for women whether or not they'll get on your dick? Did you only get married for sex and a second income?


Sex, second income those were the main reasons, but it also helps to have common interests (especially gaming), and also her damage and hang ups synch well with mine. We work pretty good as a team.

Why did YOU get married? 


Mr. Zed da Robot Poon Fed said:


> Also, feminism doesn't even bother explaining how the "patriarchy" came to be long before in the beginnings of time.


Oh that's easy; One had the bigger spear or fists and the other one didn't want to die at the hands of the one with the bigger spear or fists.


ZazietheBeast said:


> Whatever society replaces a feminized society


Ain't it interesting that "Feminized"=Failure, and "Masculine"=Successful. Almost like one is inferior to the other despite the crying about how "They're just different!"


ToroidalBoat said:


> "empowered = masculine"


Empowered, and all things positive as a whole=Masculine.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Well mine does because she wants it as much as I do. Easy.
> 
> Sex, second income those were the main reasons, but it also helps to have common interests (especially gaming), and also her damage and hang ups synch well with mine. We work pretty good as a team.
> 
> Why did YOU get married?


Maybe because I care about my SO as a person and I want to see them grow and have a good life. Then there's you who wants to get laid and get paid and the rest is gravy as long as the puzzle pieces fit, lmao

Eta: AND you married a woman you consider ugly to boot


----------



## gang weeder (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Well mine does because she wants it as much as I do. Easy



My woman is an EMPOWERED SLUT! I'm proud of my PERSONAL WHORE!


----------



## Wormy (Jun 4, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> Maybe because I care about my SO as a person and I want to see them grow and have a good life.


Careful with that kind of talk; that gets you called a white knight and a cuckold.


Osmosis Jones said:


> Then there's you who wants to get laid and get paid and the rest is gravy as long as the puzzle pieces fit, lmao\


Yea. The pieces fit. Something wrong with that? Again, we work pretty well as a team. The most important factor of course is that we can put up with each other's bullshit without murdering each other. Just celebrated our 18th anniversary, so we're doing something right, wouldn't you say? 


Osmosis Jones said:


> Eta: AND you married a woman you consider ugly to boot


You think I'm an Adonis? I'm no prize by anyone's definition.  I look like Vincent DeNofrio (sp) would if he had a meth habit and a primary diet of chicken wings and beer.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Careful with that kind of talk; that gets you called a white knight and a cuckold.
> 
> Yea. The pieces fit. Something wrong with that? Again, we work pretty well as a team. The most important factor of course is that we can put up with each other's bullshit without murdering each other. Just celebrated our 18th anniversary, so we're doing something right, wouldn't you say?
> 
> You think I'm an Adonis? I'm no prize by anyone's definition.  I look like Vincent DeNofrio (sp) would if he had a meth habit and a primary diet of chicken wings and beer.


Lol what the fuck bro. At least I find my wife attractive and I'm not sitting here whining about how ugly I am. You're 4/5ths of a whole incel.


----------



## XxTardWranglerxX (Jun 4, 2022)

It's ALWAYS "feminism" when they want it, "gender roles" when they don't. They want the power that comes from being masculine but able to fall back on "I'm just a woman" when things aren't going their way.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 4, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> Lol what the fuck bro. At least I find my wife attractive and I'm not sitting here whining about how ugly I am. You're 4/5ths of a whole incel.


Incels of any fraction don't have wives for nearly 2 decades with no end in sight. Incels don't live their lives intimately with the sole human being who gets them and is willing to spend their life with them.  She is homely, BUT SO WHAT? We both are. That shit don't mean a thing to me, and it doesn't to her. I said how ugly I am precisely because of that.

You are really hung up on that, but again, I'm not the one saying that women should be forbidden from any role except unpaid maid/nanny. Many people here are.



XxTardWranglerxX said:


> It's ALWAYS "feminism" when they want it, "gender roles" when they don't. They want the power that comes from being masculine but able to fall back on "I'm just a woman" when things aren't going their way.


That is messed up. All people should abide by the former and be done with it.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> She is homely, BUT SO WHAT?





MT Foxtrot said:


> Sex, second income those were the main reasons


So she has good income or what?


----------



## ZazietheBeast (Jun 4, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Ain't it interesting that "Feminized"=Failure, and "Masculine"=Successful. Almost like one is inferior to the other despite the crying about how "They're just different!"


Alot of things go awry thanks to female nature when put in power. Look at family courts. 99% of the time, judges will side with the woman. Regardless if she was innocent or not.

Woman judge = trying to protect other women. Male Judge = simpery. If that type of dysfunction exists on that part of the government system, the rest of it must be far worse.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 4, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> So she has good income or what?


And the sex is really good,


----------



## Roast Chicken (Jun 5, 2022)

No because I like having rights and don't want to lean on a man for material comforts and stability.  If that means that I will be destitute and die alone then so be it; at least I did things my way.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 5, 2022)

Roast Chicken said:


> No because I like having rights and don't want to lean on a man for material comforts and stability.  If that means that I will be destitute and die alone then so be it; at least I did things my way.


Careful with that self sufficiency and personal responsibility talk around here, it's not popular.


----------



## gang weeder (Jun 5, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> And the sex is really good,



My woman is an EMPOWERED SLUT! She's a TOTAL COOMER! Chuds COPING and SEETHING!



> No because I like having rights and don't want to lean on a man for material comforts and stability.  If that means that I will be destitute and die alone then so be it; at least I did things my way.





You got all your heckin rights half a century ago or even more. If that was the real story we wouldn't still be having this conversation


----------



## Bananadana (Jun 7, 2022)

MT Foxtrot is part of the trolling/baiting crew. Do not bother interacting. He will never argue in good faith.


----------



## Otterly (Jun 7, 2022)

I think the classical thought experiment is a good one here: 
   You are about to be reincarnated into a society YOU design. You have total freedom to chose everyone’s rights and the laws. But the catch is you have no idea where you get reincarnated. Could be man, woman, rich or poor. Now how do you design society? 
    Would you really want to be a woman in some godforsaken hellhole where you’re shoved in a hut during your period, raped with impunity or burned alive for insufficient dowry? Probably not. 
    So where is the line? My own ideal is having equal rights under law, but a more conservative society where a woman’s role as a mother is MORE respected. So if you wanted to work you could, nothing would stop a smart girl from being another Marie curie, but we stop the norm being both parents working, and the demonisation of anyone who just wants a family. 
    I suppose the problem then is that the slope is slippery. It’s a hard thing to even think, as a woman, that historical repression may have been ‘for a reason.’ Just like I don’t want anyone decent and gay to be harmed yet I see the liberalisation of sexual mores as a bad thing becasue it’s led to drag kids and trans insanity. Where is the line? Is society capable of NOT descending into the worst possible consequences of our actions? 
    It’s a deeper question than just shoving women back in the kitchen. It has things to say about how we control our worst impulses as humans. It also shows how movements are subverted and used and started to further ends like the destruction of family while being dressed up as freedom. 
    If we could go back to just before the spice girls, I think that would be a decently balanced point. Inspector morse prime era


----------



## Gig Bucking Fun (Jun 7, 2022)

Any manmade ideology succumbs to retardation quickly. Any progressive equal rights movement eventually succumbs to greedy leaders who use the ideology as a banner to rally other likeminded individuals and use their power in numbers to satisfy their own agenda. No movement has ever not fallen in this trap.


----------



## Otterly (Jun 7, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> Women's rights are fine and all and if a woman doesn't want to land in a traditional role, that's her own problem. Championing the non-traditional post-modern woman is the mistake of feminism. Had it remained as a movement that protected the role women often have while also expanding the freedoms available to women, that would've been a different story. Pretty much any healthy normal functioning woman has the instinctual desire to fulfill the child-rearing and homemaking roles, not chase a career and work all day. Feminism should have empowered women to take that role and molded society to make it doable instead of forcing every household to be dual income.
> 
> Feminism feels vengeful. Of course, it would be, it's a woman's movement.


Yeah I agree. I have a job and kids and a home to run and it’s a lot. It’s too much really. Yet one income would leave us too vulnerable, so I can’t quit my job without large negative effects in my family. The trap of two working parents happened to expand the tax base, and probably was pushed by the kind of ideology that wants kids in state control. That benefits nobody decent. 


Gig Bucking Fun said:


> Any manmade ideology succumbs to retardation quickly. Any progressive equal rights movement eventually succumbs to greedy leaders who use the ideology as a banner to rally other likeminded individuals and use their power in numbers to satisfy their own agenda. No movement has ever not fallen in this trap.


I suppose if you look at it that way society isn’t on a linear trajectory but a series of rises and crashes. Isn’t there some text about how women were judges in Baghdad before a society crash? Something like ‘when you’re ruled by women and foreigners your society is fucked.’
   I am a woman and I don’t particularly fancy having no rights. I don’t like the modern way society views gender dynamics at all. I think women vote in a way that in average harms the society they live in. 
   Women work for immediate safety and appeasement on average. I see the emasculation of men as a consequence of this. Men are portrayed as bad and must be emasculated. That leads to short term safety, but mid and long term danger - who’s going to protect your society if all the men are noodle armed söy boys? What happens to your kids in a society where masculinity is deemed unhealthy? What happens to your society when you vote in politicians who encourage mass immigration? 
   Womens rights are as God given as mens. Feminism was a mistake.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 7, 2022)

LurkNoMore said:


> Always nice when a woman comes in and makes feminism out to be a mistake by saying something so unbelievable stupid.



If you want a lasting relationship with a woman you're actually going to have to learn to relate to them in some context other than a winner-takes-all let's-dunk-on-each-other forum where people are creatively horrible to each other.

You actually have to make yourself vulnerable by thinking about your own emotions and figuring out how things make you feel like just you would think and talk at work about this or that machine or system. Emotions, like machines, also have their own trajectory and logic that can be figured out - this is what philosophy and anthropology and psychology and literature are for.

If you don't want that, that's fine, just admit to yourself you don't want that and have fun in the kiddie pool of the life of the mind being a man's man among men. Just at least stop blaming your own emotions on women and blaming how other men see you on women. Take some responsibility for your own shit, everyone will respect you better.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 7, 2022)

Otterly said:


> a more conservative society where a woman’s role as a mother is MORE respected


You ain't gonna get that under capitalism. Money talks, bullshit walks. 

(And no, I am not a communist/socialist/ect, just don't go there) 



Otterly said:


> Womens rights are as God given as mens. Feminism was a mistake.


Then what protects your rights? Do you just call upon God to enforce them?



Bananadana said:


> MT Foxtrot is part of the dissenting opinion. He dares call us out and  tells us to own up to our incel-tier shit takes and stop being mealy mouthed about it.


Fixed that for ya.


----------



## Otterly (Jun 7, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Then what protects your rights? Do you just call upon God to enforce them?


Well I live in Europe so I don’t have any enshrined rights. But no, the ideal would be a constitutional bill of rights and an armed citizenry willing to die for them (men and womens rights both.) I mean the concept of inalienable rights, inherent rights, if you’re not a God person. The belief that humans are endowed with inalienable rights, such as freedom of thought, speech, belief and expression. Women have those rights as much as men do, if one believes in inalienable rights. 
   What protects our rights? We do. They’re there as long as people are willing to fight and die for them. 
  Don’t worry, womens rights are being removed by the trans lobby. We will all be relegated to the gulag pretty soon.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 7, 2022)

Otterly said:


> But no, the ideal would be a constitutional bill of rights and an armed citizenry willing to die for them (men and womens rights both.)


Good solid start, I approve. 



Otterly said:


> What protects our rights? We do. They’re there as long as people are willing to fight and die for them.


Precisely...now let's see if you keep down the road here....


Otterly said:


> Don’t worry, womens rights are being removed by the trans lobby. We will all be relegated to the gulag pretty soon.


...damn. 

Not me, the White Hat Q's already have me on Their List. I'm noose bound in Gitmo long before any troons get ahold of me.


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Jun 7, 2022)

Keep in mind it requires two incomes to survive for a couple. There are few women who can still 'stay home' unless their husband is a high rank brain surgeon. You also forget there are ugly women who can not get by on their looks and need to work to support themselves. Women in the workforce is not a choice, it's a requirement. Feminism or no feminism it's 'work or fucking die' out there.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jun 7, 2022)

Sweetpeaa said:


> Keep in mind it requires two incomes to survive for a couple. There are few women who can still 'stay home' unless their husband is a high rank brain surgeon. You also forget there are ugly women who can not get by on their looks and need to work to support themselves. Women in the workforce is not a choice, it's a requirement. Feminism or no feminism it's 'work or fucking die' out there.


Because of feminism collapsing the labour market and suppressing wages way back in the day, from which it has never recovered.


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jun 7, 2022)

"Feminism" has nothing but contempt for femininity, it despises motherhood, female beauty, female virtues etc, it's profoundly mysoginistic at it's core, it' sees female traits as a terrible burden to be shunned and destroyed instead of a beautiful gift to be happy about. 

So the answer is yes.


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Jun 8, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Because of feminism collapsing the labour market and suppressing wages way back in the day, from which it has never recovered.



Nah. Wage suppression started in the 1970's.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 8, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> "Feminism" has nothing but contempt for femininity, it despises motherhood, female beauty, female virtues etc, it's profoundly mysoginistic at it's core, it' sees female traits as a terrible burden to be shunned and destroyed instead of a beautiful gift to be happy about.


No, it's the FTMs who have contempt for femininity, by and large. Have you ever interacted with any serious feminists (such as, for instance, anyone who works in a rape crisis centre or domestic violence shelter? Most female social workers are also feminists. Ask them what they think about femininity.)

I wish my pink-collar field paid enough that I could afford to have a child without living paycheck to paycheck.
I might even have one anyway if there weren't so many people screaming at women to 1. have babies!!!,  2. DON'T have them if you (list of unreasonable expectations) because we will blame you for anything that goes wrong, 3. DON'T get an abortion.








Ser Prize said:


> The ancient greeks had this right when they said women were too prone to excessive emotion and hysterics to be trusted with making consistently rational decisions.


----------



## LurkNoMore (Jun 8, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> If you want a lasting relationship with a woman you're actually going to have to learn to relate to them in some context other than a winner-takes-all let's-dunk-on-each-other forum where people are creatively horrible to each other.
> 
> You actually have to make yourself vulnerable by thinking about your own emotions and figuring out how things make you feel like just you would think and talk at work about this or that machine or system. Emotions, like machines, also have their own trajectory and logic that can be figured out - this is what philosophy and anthropology and psychology and literature are for.
> 
> If you don't want that, that's fine, just admit to yourself you don't want that and have fun in the kiddie pool of the life of the mind being a man's man among men. Just at least stop blaming your own emotions on women and blaming how other men see you on women. Take some responsibility for your own shit, everyone will respect you better.


>Woman: (says something unbelievably stupid)
>Man: Thats unbelievably stupid!
>Woman: You can't get laid!

Tale as old as time.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 8, 2022)

LurkNoMore said:


> >Woman: (says something unbelievably stupid)
> >Man: Thats unbelievably stupid!
> >Woman: You can't get laid!
> 
> Tell as old as time.


I'm not talking about getting laid, I'm talking about having a meaningful and valuable emotional bond with a woman.

One does not necessarily imply the other.


----------



## LurkNoMore (Jun 8, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> I'm not talking about getting laid, I'm talking about having a meaningful and valuable emotional bond with a woman.
> 
> One does not necessarily imply the other.


Just cause you whore yourself around with every tinder swipe doesn't mean the rest of us do.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 8, 2022)

LurkNoMore said:


> Just cause you whore yourself around with every tinder swipe doesn't mean the rest of us do.


What? My body count is 1.
You were the one who made this about getting laid.
I'm talking about loving and being loved by a member of the opposite sex. Being best friends with each other. It's not the same thing.


----------



## LurkNoMore (Jun 8, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> What? My body count is 1.


Sure, Jan



Shawtysm said:


> You were the one who made this about getting laid.





> "If you want a lasting relationship with a woman..."





Shawtysm said:


> I'm talking about loving and being loved by a member of the opposite sex. Being best friends with each other. It's not the same thing.


You're the idiot going on about the emotions of others because they called you stupid for saying something unbelievably stupid.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jun 8, 2022)

Sweetpeaa said:


> Nah. Wage suppression started in the 1970's.


Yes, when second wave feminism started and women started working en masse.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 8, 2022)

LurkNoMore said:


> Sure, Jan
> 
> *Your* the idiot going on about the* emtions* of others because they called you stupid for saying something unbelievably stupid.


Are you underage?


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 8, 2022)

Sweetpeaa said:


> Nah. Wage suppression started in the 1970's.


I thought we already got to the point where we recognized male vs female wage disparity has a lot to do with how many women work, how often, what jobs they do, and how effective they are in their respective field. Turns out women just suck at a lot of jobs and don't do them as often or as much as men do.


----------



## LurkNoMore (Jun 8, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> Are you underage?


Its a shit post dear, not a dissertation. Don't expect Shakespeare levels of writing.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 8, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> "Feminism" has nothing but contempt for femininity, it despises motherhood, female beauty, female virtues etc, it's profoundly mysoginistic at it's core, it' sees female traits as a terrible burden to be shunned and destroyed instead of a beautiful gift to be happy about.
> 
> So the answer is yes.


So does capitalism, so it only synchronizes with it. Feminine values, traits, and the like are not as rewarded as masculine. And since we're a capitalist society....



Osmosis Jones said:


> Turns out women just suck at a lot of jobs and don't do them as often or as much as men do.


And what does that tell you about women? Go on, you can say it....


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 8, 2022)

LurkNoMore said:


> Its a shit post dear, not a dissertation. Don't expect Shakespeare levels of writing.






I don't understand how a grown man can be so stubbornly intent on ignoring and misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. Were you ever concussed as a kid? I'm serious, were you?


----------



## Lunar Eclipse Paradox (Jun 8, 2022)

Unless you're talking about Islamic extreme anti feminist values, any Christian areas where women are not covered up don't require feminism. Feminism has royally destroyed traditional gender roles. For feminists living in strict Islamic countries, I could understand where they be in might be a living hell but there's still many women in Islamic countries that are living a fairly decent lives. It's because of feminism that raising a traditional family is much harder due to the fact women have been rendered to become extremely ugly hypersexualized people who demand everything and take advantages of their men partners and not to forget that many women would also cheat on them too no matter how much a man is devoted to them. Women entering the work force has caused more children to end up in Social Engineering schools and nowadays it's much harder to be a stay at home mother due to the ever increasing price of real estate. Feminism in the west isn't just a mistake. It's a death sentence.

Women before Western Feminism




Women after Western Feminism




Huge Difference.


----------



## LurkNoMore (Jun 8, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> View attachment 3365979
> I don't understand how a grown man can be so stubbornly intent on ignoring and misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. Were you ever concussed as a kid? I'm serious, were you?


You're trolling.


----------



## PaleTay (Jun 8, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> No, it's the FTMs who have contempt for femininity, by and large. Have you ever interacted with any serious feminists (such as, for instance, anyone who works in a rape crisis centre or domestic violence shelter? Most female social workers are also feminists. Ask them what they think about femininity.)
> 
> I wish my pink-collar field paid enough that I could afford to have a child without living paycheck to paycheck.
> I might even have one anyway if there weren't so many people screaming at women to 1. have babies!!!,  2. DON'T have them if you (list of unreasonable expectations) because we will blame you for anything that goes wrong, 3. DON'T get an abortion.
> ...


Yes, I've worked with many of them, also looked into ED recovery. Generally speaking they're more anti-men and anti-western values (which include traditional female beauty and virtues) than anything, many such programs will proudly proclaim that they had X amount of FTMs, they're poor at teaching life skills, they just harp on politics and wonder why they have so many repeat clients. 

The difference between women vs men in university and blacks vs whites in university is results, if women were successful doctors or engineers in similar proportions to men people wouldn't have a problem with it but the system has become designed to promote poor graduates at the cost to society.


----------



## Swein Forkbeard (Jun 8, 2022)

Like all big social changes it’s not bad or good per se but was probably an inevitable consequence of the rise of liberal individualism from the 19 century on, once individualism became a thing then women were inevitably going to want the vote and equal rights in law and no good reason to refuse them really.

There is an argument to say that women entering the workplace en masse led to wage stagnation and low productivity in the developed world but it’s difficult to disentangle that from globalisation and the collapse of manufacturing in the same time period. Chinese women are in the work place en masse but they don’t have the same problems with wage stagnation and their productivity is high albeit the official statistics are massaged.

I would say the bigger change has been the wide availability of contraception as it has (arguably) had the unforeseen consequence of the collapse of marriage as an institution in the lower socio economic classes and disincentivised men to stay around leading to more single parent families and therefore more poor and maladjusted kids which overall is damaging to society.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Jun 8, 2022)

1st wave feminism had a point when it came to political and property rights. It was unjust that married women could own nothing in their own name, or transact business without male approval. People forget about that one and focus solely that they also could not vote.

Things started going off the rails when the push came for women to start rebelling against biology itself. Sure it's unfair that pregnancy takes 9 months, and human children are helpless as infants. But life ain't fair sweetheart. That is why society created male social obligations to be the provider. Not because it wanted to keep women down, but because women and jnfants needed a provider to bring home the bacon.

We can probably trace most of the illogical facets of our current society back to the bra burning feminists of the 60s.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 8, 2022)

Solar Eclipse Paradox said:


> Feminism in the west isn't just a mistake. It's a death sentence.


So how do you reverse it?


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jun 8, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> No, it's the FTMs who have contempt for femininity, by and large. Have you ever interacted with any serious feminists (such as, for instance, anyone who works in a rape crisis centre or domestic violence shelter? Most female social workers are also feminists. Ask them what they think about femininity.)


I've seen enough of their bullshit online for ten solid years to know the vast majority of feminists fucking despise femininity, any "serious" feminists who feel differently probably are not as quick to use that label or they simply don't know what it's turned into in the last decade (but I think it always was this at it's core). 




Shawtysm said:


> I wish my pink-collar field paid enough that I could afford to have a child without living paycheck to paycheck.
> I might even have one anyway if there weren't so many people screaming at women to 1. have babies!!!,  2. DON'T have them if you (list of unreasonable expectations) because we will blame you for anything that goes wrong, 3. DON'T get an abortion.


It's so difficult to have a child in today's society thanks to feminism and it's demonization of childbirth.

It says it all that every feminist's worst nightmare is The Handmaid's Tale, a world where *gasp* women are FORCED to have babies!



MT Foxtrot said:


> So does capitalism, so it only synchronizes with it. Feminine values, traits, and the like are not as rewarded as masculine. And since we're a capitalist society....


This is a fair point to make, one of the things that has gone wrong with the world is we've forgotten that there are some things more important than money, like ensuring our species continued survival for one thing, we'll be extinct at this rate if this bullshit continues.



mindlessobserver said:


> 1st wave feminism had a point when it came to political and property rights. It was unjust that married women could own nothing in their own name, or transact business without male approval. People forget about that one and focus solely that they also could not vote.
> 
> Things started going off the rails when the push came for women to start rebelling against biology itself. Sure it's unfair that pregnancy takes 9 months, and human children are helpless as infants. But life ain't fair sweetheart. That is why society created male social obligations to be the provider. Not because it wanted to keep women down, but because women and jnfants needed a provider to bring home the bacon.


This is another thing that's gone wrong is people have forgotten that life simply ain't fucking fair, we're trying to either artificially force fairness or just nihilistically going "fuck it" and ensuring our extinction but we just can't deal with the unfairness at the core of life.




mindlessobserver said:


> We can probably trace most of the illogical facets of our current society back to the bra burning feminists of the 60s.


Literally everything that's wrong with the world today we can trace back to the 60s, people literally ruined fucking everything in the 60s, even if it took another half a century for the effects to be fully felt.

I'd say the fundamental difference between pre and post 60s is civilization shifted from "here's the truth, now let's act accordingly" to "here's what we WANT to be the truth, now let's construct everything around what we want to be true", ten thousand fucking years of mankind simply calling a spade a spade and then all of a sudden we changed our mind on that?

We need a reversal on most if not all the social changes of the 60s. 

I like how all we have to do is take a LOOK at what things looked like in the 30s,40s and 50s and compare them to how butt ugly most everything was in the 70s and how ugly they are today, the cars, the clothes, the buildings, the appliances, aesthetics are a reflection of the soul of society and society has been soul sick for a long time.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jun 8, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> I thought we already got to the point where we recognized male vs female wage disparity has a lot to do with how many women work, how often, what jobs they do, and how effective they are in their respective field. Turns out women just suck at a lot of jobs and don't do them as often or as much as men do.


See: the entire field known as HR.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Jun 8, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> So how do you reverse it?


Telling young girls you can either be a high powered lawyer with no children or husband in your 40s, or you can have a family. But you cannot have both.

Well, not entirely true, my Cousin, lucky girl, managed to have both. However, she also married her Boyfriend from high-school which is a major life hack. Another thing that gets pooh poohed these days.

Unrealistic expectations are being taught to young girls right now. Stopping that would be a great first step.


----------



## Lunar Eclipse Paradox (Jun 8, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> So how do you reverse it?


Well. I noticed how many people realized how much Feminism was a mistake so the answer really stands in a new cultural revolution where people embrace traditional gender roles once again while degenerated continuously get ridiculed but it would also require the destruction of the globalism ideology too.


----------



## Sweetpeaa (Jun 8, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Yes, when second wave feminism started and women started working en masse.


 
Women did not have full workforce participation in the 70's though. It was only like what, 25%? probably even less. Most of that was also clerical work. 

Even now in Canada it's only 47% compared to 69% of men.  There are still more men working than women here.


----------



## mickey339 (Jun 8, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> "Feminism" has nothing but contempt for femininity


How?


----------



## Ser Prize (Jun 8, 2022)

Sweetpeaa said:


> Women did not have full workforce participation in the 70's though. It was only like what, 25%? probably even less. Most of that was also clerical work.
> 
> Even now in Canada it's only 47% compared to 69% of men.  There are still more men working than women here.


Yes, and wage stagnated _started_ in the 70's. And as female work participation went up, wages went down.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 8, 2022)

Solar Eclipse Paradox said:


> Well. I noticed how many people realized how much Feminism was a mistake so the answer really stands in a new cultural revolution


Wellp, considering how those tend to play out in terms of body counts, hope you got your wading boots on. 


Solar Eclipse Paradox said:


> where people embrace traditional gender roles once again


Gonna suck for the girls especially. 


Solar Eclipse Paradox said:


> while degenerated continuously get ridiculed but it would also require the destruction of the globalism ideology too.


Now how can one achieve that minor miracle?


----------



## Wormy (Jun 8, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> This is a fair point to make, one of the things that has gone wrong with the world is we've forgotten that there are some things more important than money,


There ain't.

Money  is God now and Profit is his only  begotten son, whether you acknowledge Him or not.  In fact, not acknowledging him ironically gets you called a godless Communist. Money is so powerful, he Buffalo Bill'd Jehova and wears his skin in his house.


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jun 8, 2022)

mickey339 said:


> How?


They despise the very concept of pregnancy and motherhood to the point they have a complete meltdown at the possibility of abortion being illegal and their worst nightmare is a world where women are forced to get pregnant.

They despise female beauty and the female body to the point that they chop their own breasts off in some extreme cases or at the very least actively make themselves ugly looking and now forbid any appearances of female beauty in mass media.

They despise the idea of women naturally having some biological differences men that don't necessary make them inferior, just different, they see these differences as inferiorities and weaknesses and encourage women to be more masculine in body, mind and action.

They despise the idea of women naturally having different responsibilities than men and see those responsibilities as less important or worth pursuing.

Feminists are women that hate the fact that they were born women and have very deep seeded jealously of men and supposed power and superiorities they have, it's all about making women less feminine and more masculine, ergo a "feminist" is someone that fucking hates femininity, it's like calling yourself "The Society for Chocolate" and you eat nothing but cheese, it's pure Orwellian Newspeak ala "ignorance is strength", it's true meaning is the polar opposite of what the word is supposed to mean.

Now, in the interest of fairness, the argument can be made that it's ok to give women OPTIONS, that's supposed to be what the whole idea was decades ago, giving women the freedom to not choose typical motherhood if that's what they really want, the trouble is that's since curdled into something that actively demonizes and dissuades women from pursuing motherhood and that is wrong, there's nothing with being a traditional mother and housewife if that's what a woman chooses to do.

We're not saying "here's option A and option B, what do you want to do?", we're saying "choosing option A over option B MAKES YOU A POOR OPPRESSED VICITM OF THE PATRIARCHY!" and that's the bullshit that needs to stop.


----------



## Blobby's Murder Knife (Jun 8, 2022)

I don't think feminism was a mistake per se. Basically, just don't beat us because you had a bad day or marry us at 6. Beyond that, history shows that women did have a significant amount of say in the home and quite a few had jobs outside of it. I don't even know what feminism is supposed to be now. If it is accepting troons and pedos and hating men, it is absolute bullshit I disavow. I have no idea how that even is feminism, tbh.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 8, 2022)

Oppressed By Corn Flakes said:


> I don't think feminism was a mistake per se. Basically, just don't beat us because you had a bad day or marry us at 6. Beyond that, history shows that women did have a significant amount of say in the home and quite a few had jobs outside of it. I don't even know what feminism is supposed to be now. If it is accepting troons and pedos and hating men, it is absolute bullshit I disavow. I have no idea how that even is feminism, tbh.


Any movement or idea that attempts to champion or place one group above the rest is inherently prejudiced and flawed. Feminists like to think they represent the better, stronger, more capable woman and that to be in the classic female role is somehow lesser and weaker. Feminism saying women and men should have equal rights and opportunities is sensible and agreeable. Feminism saying women and men are equally capable across the board is where we're at (or have passed that point) and it's simply not true. You don't need a biology textbook to figure out that women can't lift as much as men do, for one example.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 8, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> They despise the idea of women naturally having some biological differences men that don't necessary make them inferior, just different, they see these differences as inferiorities and weaknesses and encourage women to be more masculine in body, mind and action.


and why wouldn't they, considering that capitalism rewards masculinity in body mind and action more?


----------



## cornycat (Jun 8, 2022)




----------



## Dom Cruise (Jun 8, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> and why wouldn't they, considering that capitalism rewards masculinity in body mind and action more?


And again, it's not good that capitalism has done that, I ain't defending capitalism.

I don't want to get too off topic but if we really want to get into it, the trouble with capitalism, with communism, with socialism is they're all secular and don't take God into account, they don't respect humanity as God made us.

Femininity is a beautiful thing that should be cherished, nurtured and valued, even if that doesn't make you a couple extra bucks, it's more important than money.

Society replacing God with money is one of the absolute core things wrong with the world today, we'll probably be getting a lesson soon as to what's more powerful too.

The wrath of God is the most terrifying thing because not only is nothing more powerful than God, but His wrath is always 100% justified, I know it's a fictional verse but the Pulp Fiction quote "and you will know my name is the LORD, when I reign my vengeance upon thee." is pretty apt.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 9, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> I've seen enough of their bullshit online for ten solid years to know the vast majority of feminists fucking despise femininity, any "serious" feminists who feel differently probably are not as quick to use that label or they simply don't know what it's turned into in the last decade (but I think it always was this at it's core).


Again, have you ever interacted with female charity workers, clinical psychologists, or social workers  in a more than fleeting capacity? As I have seen they wish for men to be more like women and women to be more like men. They don't want to get rid of one or the other, they want more balance and flexibility for each individual. If they hated men, why would they spend their working lives trying to help people in general? Why is this so hard for people to understand? The most precious person to me in the world is my mother, and because of her femininity.

I may be wrong but you strike me as a very sheltered young person who has experienced little of life outside of what your peers have shown you and the content presented to you by your designated internet algorithms. You have apparently not spent a great deal of time outside of your comfort zone with people who are different to you - more or less educated, richer or poorer, older or younger - and what's worse you seem to be proud of it.





Young men really are out here LARPing with great pomp and circumstance as pre-modern poets when they've never even been in a serious relationship, recovered from a serious physical or mental illness, bereaved a loved one, written a long-form essay or song, or painted a painting. Yet they nonetheless feel they've lived enough to spout knockoff C.S. Lewis with confidence and pride. It inspires pity and laughter to see it.


Ser Prize said:


> See: the entire field known as HR.


See the entire field known as derivatives trading. See: Enron, Bear Stearns, Charles Ponzi. Jesus Christ HR is barely necessary but at least it doesn't crash the fucking economy.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 9, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> And again, it's not good that capitalism has done that, I ain't defending capitalism.



Fair enough, but that's not another one to spread around these parts. Commies ain't well liked.


Dom Cruise said:


> I don't want to get too off topic but if we really want to get into it, the trouble with capitalism, with communism, with socialism is they're all secular and don't take God into account, they don't respect humanity as God made us.


God doesn't either. He set the whole thing up for us to fail, after all, and the only way to get out of it being some telepathic ritual involving his son.



Dom Cruise said:


> Society replacing God with money is one of the absolute core things wrong with the world today, we'll probably be getting a lesson soon as to what's more powerful too.
> 
> The wrath of God is the most terrifying thing because not only is nothing more powerful than God, but His wrath is always 100% justified, I know it's a fictional verse but the Pulp Fiction quote "and you will know my name is the LORD, when I reign my vengeance upon thee." is pretty apt.


"I never gave any thought to what it actually meant. I just knew it was some cold blooded shit to say to someone before I popped a cap in their ass."

And 100% justified? Was it justified against Job and Job's family and friends?



Shawtysm said:


> Young men really are out here LARPing with great pomp and circumstance as pre-modern poets when they've never even been in a serious relationship, recovered from a serious physical or mental illness, bereaved a loved one, written a long-form essay or song, or painted a painting. Yet they nonetheless feel they've lived enough to spout knockoff C.S. Lewis with confidence and pride. It inspires pity and laughter to see it.


I'd laugh myself, but they're getting power, followers, and guns. And coming after me.


----------



## The Foxtrot (Jun 9, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> Any movement or idea that attempts to champion or place one group above the rest is inherently prejudiced and flawed. Feminists like to think they represent the better, stronger, more capable woman and that to be in the classic female role is somehow lesser and weaker. Feminism saying women and men should have equal rights and opportunities is sensible and agreeable. Feminism saying women and men are equally capable across the board is where we're at (or have passed that point) and it's simply not true. You don't need a biology textbook to figure out that women can't lift as much as men do, for one example.


Which is funny to me because time and again, the "strong empowered feminist" is almost always more miserable and less happy with life overall than the supposed "victim of the patriarchy". It's almost like playing _against_ your strengths isn't a good idea, nor is letting some Marxist college professor dictate your beliefs to you.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 9, 2022)

The Foxtrot said:


> It's almost like playing _against_ your strengths isn't a good idea, nor is letting some Marxist college professor dictate your beliefs to you.


What if those strengths aren't rewarded or are considered inferior? 

Also, who should dictate your beliefs then? I ain't a fan of tenured Marxist shitheels either, but it's no less dumb than peer pressure from dead bronze age goat herders.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 9, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> What if those strengths aren't rewarded or are considered inferior?


Well that's kind of the issue with feminism, isn't it? Be a working woman. Every other option is unfeasible. Why did we tear down women instead of empowering their strengths as women?


----------



## Wormy (Jun 9, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> Well that's kind of the issue with feminism, isn't it? Be a working woman. Every other option is unfeasible. Why did we tear down women instead of empowering their strengths as women?


Ask yourself, who is more lauded and praised? A woman who got rich by charming a billionaire businessman, or the billionaire himself?


----------



## The Foxtrot (Jun 9, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> What if those strengths aren't rewarded or are considered inferior?
> 
> Also, who should dictate your beliefs then? I ain't a fan of tenured Marxist shitheels either, but it's no less dumb than peer pressure from dead bronze age goat herders.


What the fuck do you mean, "aren't rewarded or considered inferior"? By whom? 
And why let _anyone_ dictate your beliefs to you in the first place? That's an admission you outsource your thinking to others, and that ain't good.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 9, 2022)

The Foxtrot said:


> What the fuck do you mean, "aren't rewarded or considered inferior"? By whom?


The Market. Money is God. Profit is his son. Feminine traits aren't nearly as good as masculine at making money, and even when they do make money, they are sneered at and belittled. Men build civilizations, that's what I keep getting reminded. Why not emulate the superior product? 

Hate the game, playa.


The Foxtrot said:


> And why let _anyone_ dictate your beliefs to you in the first place? That's an admission you outsource your thinking to others, and that ain't good.


Good idea.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 9, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Ask yourself, who is more lauded and praised? A woman who got rich by charming a billionaire businessman, or the billionaire himself?


You come back with non-sequiturs. Let me try again. 

Did feminism or did feminism not disempower women who do not want to be working women?


----------



## Wormy (Jun 9, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> You come back with non-sequiturs. Let me try again.
> 
> Did feminism or did feminism not disempower women who do not want to be working women?


It didn't. Capitalism already did it. There was nothing left for feminism to destroy.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jun 9, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> It didn't. Capitalism already did it. There was nothing left for feminism to destroy.


Okay commie.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 9, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> It didn't. Capitalism already did it. There was nothing left for feminism to destroy.


How do you suppose capitalism destroyed it when society was capitalist before feminism, and allowed women to live as women?


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jun 9, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> Again, have you ever interacted with female charity workers, clinical psychologists, or social workers  in a more than fleeting capacity? As I have seen they wish for men to be more like women and women to be more like men. They don't want to get rid of one or the other, they want more balance and flexibility for each individual. If they hated men, why would they spend their working lives trying to help people in general? Why is this so hard for people to understand? The most precious person to me in the world is my mother, and because of her femininity.
> 
> I may be wrong but you strike me as a very sheltered young person who has experienced little of life outside of what your peers have shown you and the content presented to you by your designated internet algorithms. You have apparently not spent a great deal of time outside of your comfort zone with people who are different to you - more or less educated, richer or poorer, older or younger - and what's worse you seem to be proud of it.


I'm happy to hear there are self proclaimed feminists out there who aren't complete shitheads and are actually trying to help people, very happy to hear it.

But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the online feminist sphere, who are the ones that really drive the narrative and which has done enough damage to the wider culture on it's own, these are shitstains that care nothing about anyone else and only use the woman card to unfairly get ahead and as a shield from fair criticism of their repellent behavior and ideas, see: Zoe Quinn for the most famous example.

This has always been the issue for the last decade, not just when it comes to women but also race, LGBT etc, every group has it's bad apples but there's this phenomena where depending on where you fall on the 'ol progressive stack the bad apples get a special shield for their assholerly.

Meanwhile the bad apples keep piling up and their actions keep getting worse and worse, this is why extremism on the right is gaining popularity, we see things like drag queen story time hour and we don't see anything being done about it by the LGBT community, if anything they mostly run interference for it, these communities can either learn to police themselves or some guys with balls will do it for them.




Shawtysm said:


> Young men really are out here LARPing with great pomp and circumstance as pre-modern poets when they've never even been in a serious relationship, recovered from a serious physical or mental illness, bereaved a loved one, written a long-form essay or song, or painted a painting. Yet they nonetheless feel they've lived enough to spout knockoff C.S. Lewis with confidence and pride. It inspires pity and laughter to see it.


Like I said, the much ballyhooed "women and minorities" communities can either learn to police themselves or we'll start doing it for them.

Your race, gender or sexuality don't give you the right to be an asshole.

Nothing inspires more pity and laughter than some fat, ugly as sin landwhale with blue hair flailing about "muh patriarchy" or whatever horseshit.



MT Foxtrot said:


> Fair enough, but that's not another one to spread around these parts. Commies ain't well liked.


Like I said, communism is not the answer, it's going out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I'm being generous by even agreeing with your usage of capitalism, the problem isn't capitalism, capitalism literally just boils down to "hey man, here's some money, give me a cup off coffee", the problem is good old fashioned greed and people ceasing to believe in a higher power that doesn't like that kind of stuff.




MT Foxtrot said:


> God doesn't either. He set the whole thing up for us to fail, after all, and the only way to get out of it being some telepathic ritual involving his son.


God didn't set us up to fail, Adam and Eve made their own choices.




MT Foxtrot said:


> "I never gave any thought to what it actually meant. I just knew it was some cold blooded shit to say to someone before I popped a cap in their ass."
> 
> And 100% justified? Was it justified against Job and Job's family and friends?


He was actually, He had to prove to the Devil that people don't worship God only because good things to happen to them, Job remained faithful despite his hardships and God ultimately restored what He took away.

Stop and think about what it means that God actually put his faith in a man, he knew Job was a good enough guy to succeed, we should all strive to have a faith as powerful as Job even when life unfortunately has it's hardships.




MT Foxtrot said:


> I'd laugh myself, but they're getting power, followers, and guns. And coming after me.


Nobody's coming after you if you can at least be sensible enough and reasonable enough to talk, as you are doing, that's what gone wrong with the left, they no longer want to talk or debate.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 9, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Okay commie.


Wow, totally didn't see that coming. 


Osmosis Jones said:


> How do you suppose capitalism destroyed it when society was capitalist before feminism, and allowed women to live as women?


Simple; feminine traits did not result in profit and monetary gain nearly as much as masculine, and when feminine traits were used for monetary gain, it was and still is derided and mocked. 

If you doubt this, think; Who is more lauded and praised? A billionaire businessman or the woman who charmed him to get rich? 

>>God didn't set us up to fail, Adam and Eve made their own choices.
So God didn't know what would happen? God had no idea the Serpent (not Satan/Lucifer) was in the garden and would try some shinnegans and didn't warn them of the serpent? 

Most importantly, why did God hold you and me responsible for what people long gone before we were born did? Do you believe in punishing the children of law breakers? I don't. 

>>He was actually, He had to prove to the Devil that people don't worship God only because good things to happen to them, Job remained faithful despite his hardships and God ultimately restored what He took away.
How was this explained to Job's family and friends who had to suffer the pain of being killed by bandits or crushed to death? Were they even brought back to life? 


>>Nobody's coming after you if you can at least be sensible enough and reasonable enough to talk, as you are doing, that's what gone wrong with the left, they no longer want to talk or debate.
Jack, I'm on a list. I'm going to hang. There's a military coup in this country going down, people are being picked off one by one, and I'm going to end up when the dragnet reaches. Noone is safe from them, no matter how much money or influence they THINK they have. If they can get people like Fauci or people with the money of Alec Baldwin, my ass hasn't got a chance.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 9, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Simple; feminine traits did not result in profit and monetary gain nearly as much as masculine, and when feminine traits were used for monetary gain, it was and still is derided and mocked.


Can you be more specific about this? Which feminine traits in particular? Are we talking about physical/sexual traits or something else?


MT Foxtrot said:


> If you doubt this, think; Who is more lauded and praised? A billionaire businessman or the woman who charmed him to get rich?


Lauded by who? The Forbes Top 100 list or by me specifically? I would laud neither because I have no interest in what billionaires and their mistresses do. 


MT Foxtrot said:


> >>Nobody's coming after you if you can at least be sensible enough and reasonable enough to talk, as you are doing, that's what gone wrong with the left, they no longer want to talk or debate.
> Jack, I'm on a list. I'm going to hang. There's a military coup in this country going down, people are being picked off one by one, and I'm going to end up when the dragnet reaches. Noone is safe from them, no matter how much money or influence they THINK they have. If they can get people like Fauci or people with the money of Alec Baldwin, my ass hasn't got a chance.


You must be joking, lol. If this isn't sarcastic you either need meds or sleep.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 9, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> Can you be more specific about this? Which feminine traits in particular? Are we talking about physical/sexual traits or something else?


Both. Is someone more lauded for aggression or using sex to get ahead? That provides all the answer you need. 


Osmosis Jones said:


> Lauded by who? The Forbes Top 100 list or by me specifically? I would laud neither because I have no interest in what billionaires and their mistresses do.


So you don't believe in making money or hard work? 


Osmosis Jones said:


> You must be joking, lol. If this isn't sarcastic you either need meds or sleep.


I'm not. It's out there.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (Jun 9, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Both. Is someone more lauded for aggression or using sex to get ahead? That provides all the answer you need.


Lauded by who? This is a subjective action that requires someone to do the lauding. Someone isn't simply lauded for having something. 


MT Foxtrot said:


> So you don't believe in making money or hard work?


Again, a non-sequitur. I have no interest in the activities of billionaires and the people they have sex with. It has no bearing on my life. If you're trying to be metaphorical it's not working.


MT Foxtrot said:


> I'm not. It's out there.


I really want to prod you more on this but perhaps another time.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 9, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> Lauded by who? This is a subjective action that requires someone to do the lauding. Someone isn't simply lauded for having something.


The market most importantly, but also the public at large. 

And not lauded for simply having something? Last time I checked, someone being called a "Success" was a compliment.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 10, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> these communities can either learn to police themselves or some guys with balls will do it for them ... the much ballyhooed "women and minorities" communities can either learn to police themselves or we'll start doing it for them.


They already do lol. Who has most of the guns? Who has most of the money? Who has most of the land? Men.

Also, police officers are physically violent to their wives at roughly two to four times the rate of the general population.






Your worldview seems to me very naive and possibly sheltered.

If you're interested in matters of truth, reason, morality, and logic, I would really recommend volunteering at your local women's shelter or homeless shelter. If you're just interested in power and being able to tell yourself a simple story about the world that feels good, please ignore this message and continue on as you were.


----------



## Magicicada_septendecula (Jun 10, 2022)

I have a hard time telling if it was a mistake or just poorly executed. Even from the first wave, I see problems. Before universal suffrage, the right to vote was attached to things like military service (sometimes not an option, but an obligation for men) and land ownership (something women could have).  My understanding is that there were many anti-suffragist women whose main concern was that they could be drafted because they understood a right comes with a responsibility. Instead of that, we have a situation where psychopaths like Hillary Clinton and war profiteers like Liz Cheney can vote for wars they and their daughters could never possibly be drafted to fight. If your brand of feminism does not include enthusiastic support for women being required to register for the selective service, it's self-serving drivel.


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Jun 10, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> They already do lol. Who has most of the guns? Who has most of the money? Who has most of the land? Men.
> 
> Also, police officers are physically violent to their wives at roughly two to four times the rate of the general population.
> 
> ...


Classic confession by projection. Your worldview is very much gynocentric and is the norm these days, for example a man cannot accuse a woman of raping him and have the exact consequence were the roles reversed.
You cite an old incident almost fifty years ago as though it has any relevance today, meanwhile bad behavior by women is mainstream while they continually shirk any responsibility of upholding their obligations in society. Women are not net taxpayers, they do not provide the overwhelming majority of defense or infrastructural work required in stewardship of civilization, and now birth rates are plummeting in first world countries as well.

_Granting women the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as men has been a disaster._


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jun 10, 2022)

ToroidalBoat said:


> the ideas of "gender is a social construct" and "empowered = masculine" are bad ideas


Another mistake of feminism is the demonizing healthy male sexuality as "the male gaze" or "objectification" BS.

Even Wendy McElroy - a feminist - said inanimate objects don't have sexuality, and focusing on one aspect of a person isn't inherently "degrading".


----------



## gang weeder (Jun 10, 2022)

Osmosis Jones said:


> How do you suppose capitalism destroyed it when society was capitalist before feminism, and allowed women to live as women?



"Capitalism" is a leftie deflection buzzword. Ignore it.



MT Foxtrot said:


> Simple; feminine traits did not result in profit and monetary gain nearly as much as masculine, and when feminine traits were used for monetary gain, it was and still is derided and mocked.



Has it ever occurred to you that other things exist in life and matter besides money?



MT Foxtrot said:


> Jack, I'm on a list. I'm going to hang. There's a military coup in this country going down, people are being picked off one by one, and I'm going to end up when the dragnet reaches. Noone is safe from them, no matter how much money or influence they THINK they have. If they can get people like Fauci or people with the money of Alec Baldwin, my ass hasn't got a chance.



Is this serious? Normally I would know better than to even ask, but I've seen enough of your behavior to wonder if you're having a genuine schizo moment here.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Jun 10, 2022)

Anti-Intellectual said:


> Classic confession by projection. Your worldview is very much gynocentric and is the norm these days, for example a man cannot accuse a woman of raping him and have the exact consequence were the roles reversed.
> You cite an old incident almost fifty years ago as though it has any relevance today, meanwhile bad behavior by women is mainstream while they continually shirk any responsibility of upholding their obligations in society. Women are not net taxpayers, they do not provide the overwhelming majority of defense or infrastructural work required in stewardship of civilization, and now birth rates are plummeting in first world countries as well.


TL;DR: A whole load of pedant bullshit that summed up just means: "Lol woman, STFU".
>Anti-Intellectual
When does a mod change your name to "Pseudo-Intellectual", that'll be a hell lot more accurate of an identifier for ya bud.


MT Foxtrot said:


> and why wouldn't they, considering that capitalism rewards masculinity in body mind and action more?





MT Foxtrot said:


> It didn't. Capitalism already did it. There was nothing left for feminism to destroy.


Holy fuck, can you all stop blaming Capitalism for everything in life? I bet you'd not even survive the USSR if you lived there.

It says a lot when I have to agree with a fundie & white Nationalist only because your own takes are much more braindead than his.


MT Foxtrot said:


> Wow, totally didn't see that coming.


You literally implied yourself to be a commie, you commie.


MT Foxtrot said:


> Fair enough, but that's not another one to spread around these parts. Commies ain't well liked.


Wish I had the TMI rating so I could rate you exactly that mate.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 10, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Holy fuck, can you all stop blaming Capitalism for everything in life? I bet you'd not even survive the USSR if you lived there.


Hey, wanna hear something funny?

I LIKE CAPITALISM! Yea. I dig it, at least when it's not the neo-liberal fuckery that Ronald Reagan helped usher in.

I don't blame it for everything in life. I just assign it as needed.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> You literally implied yourself to be a commie, you commie.


Really? Where exactly did I say that I believed in any of the following....
-Abolition of private property
-State control of all industry and production
-Abolition of currency
-Abolition of social classes
-Praise for the USSR, Venezuela, NK, ect?

If any of my rhetoric implied those things, please do show where.



Magicicada_septendecula said:


> If your brand of feminism does not include enthusiastic support for women being required to register for the selective service, it's self-serving drivel.


What if you're against conscription entirely for both sexes?


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Jun 10, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> TL;DR: A whole load of pedant bullshit that summed up just means: "Lol woman, STFU".
> >Anti-Intellectual
> When does a mod change your name to "Pseudo-Intellectual", that'll be a hell lot more accurate of an identifier for ya bud.


I know you can't refute any of my claims but at least try, maybe you'll finally have a wrinkle in your smoothed out brain worth having for once.
I remember absolutely blasting you the fuck off from your histrionic concerns about nuclear energy and it is a work of art. Stay mad wahmen.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 10, 2022)

Anti-Intellectual said:


> Granting women the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as men has been a disaster.


So how do you intend to reverse it?


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Jun 10, 2022)

Anti-Intellectual said:


> I know you can't refute any of my claims but at least try, maybe you'll finally have a wrinkle in your smoothed out brain worth having for once.


You'll waste my time if I try, so I'd rather not. Talking to you is like talking to a wall.


Anti-Intellectual said:


> I remember absolutely blasting you the fuck off from your histrionic concerns about nuclear energy and it is a work of art. Stay mad wahmen.





> A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning.


That's you BTW. 
Also quick question: when a car combusts and someone calls it an "explosion" does that trigger you aswell? Since you're autistically obsessed with formalism and accuracy when using everyday words?


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Jun 10, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> You'll waste my time if I try, so I'd rather not. Talking to you is like talking to a wall.
> 
> 
> That's you BTW.
> Also quick question: when a car combusts and someone calls it an "explosion" does that trigger you aswell? Since you're autistically obsessed with formalism and accuracy when using everyday words?


Words matter in the conveyance of ideas they bring in a discussion. 
An "explosion" might cover combustion in terms of vehicular operations, but it could mean a blown piston in the engine too. If the parties involved have a keen understanding of each others vernacular, I really don't give a fuck as to what slang terms they use. But this isn't an intimate conversation between two or few people, it's a forum in which there are countless anonymous people participating so accuracy is important.
-----
Using explosion in place of combustion in a private conversation is fine.
Using explosion to describe combustion to a automotive technician, mechanic, or engineer makes you look retarded and will likely confound them.


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jun 11, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> They already do lol. Who has most of the guns? Who has most of the money? Who has most of the land? Men.
> 
> Also, police officers are physically violent to their wives at roughly two to four times the rate of the general population.
> 
> ...


It boils down to this, men have their roles they’re born to play and women have theirs, either God made us like that and God is too powerful to be questioned, it’s like an ant taking umbrage with a human, or billions of years of evolution and natural selection boiled down what simply works and what doesn’t or some combination thereof.

Either way, man must respect nature, every
Princess needs their Prince, that’s all there is to it.

Can we “tolerate” more than that? Not really, there’s this idea that post industrial revolution man can now rebel against nature and it’s bullshit, only the natural order can allow technological progress to continue, you can’t have one without the other, it’s like building a house on a shaky foundation.

We’ve tolerated a lot and in ten short years it’s brought civilization to it’s knees, we tolerate too much at the very, very least, but the best bet is to tolerate nothing that isn’t good old fashioned man+woman+marriage=children.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it fuckfaces.

One way or the other nature will reassert itself and the next time probably won’t be pretty. 




ToroidalBoat said:


> Another mistake of feminism is the demonizing healthy male sexuality as "the male gaze" or "objectification" BS.
> 
> Even Wendy McElroy - a feminist - said inanimate objects don't have sexuality, and focusing on one aspect of a person isn't inherently "degrading".


Even when I was the horniest teenage boy lusting after boobies and butts I still dreamed about female companionship and the emotional connection that goes along with it, it’s a sick and despicable lie to say male sexuality only boils down to “objectification”

Men love the female body, but we’re also just as in love with the idea of a female companion that makes us happy to spend time with, just like women are, men love romance too.


----------



## Schway (Jun 11, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> Men love the female body, but we’re also just as in love with the idea of a female companion that makes us happy to spend time with, just like women are, men love romance too.


"Men are romantics pretending to be realists, Women are realists pretending to be romantics."

Found that one to be broadly true. Same reason for why incels can't just buy a whore, they want to be desired and loved not to just have sex.

As far as feminism goes, it was obviously a mistake but you'll never get women to accept that no matter how obvious it gets because women are for most part incapable of taking responsibility. Happens to be one of the reasons that feminism was a mistake in the first place, funny that.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jun 11, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> just like women are, men love romance too


Of course the woke cult tries to gaslight the "cis" straight male desires of women as "sexist" or some BS.

Just like they try to paint straight male sexuality as some kind of disease with words like "sexualizing".


----------



## mickey339 (Jun 11, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> They despise the idea of women naturally having some biological differences men that don't necessary make them inferior, just different, they see these differences as inferiorities and weaknesses and encourage women to be more masculine in body, mind and action.


They just believe that many differences aren’t inherent or greatly overstated.



Dom Cruise said:


> They despise the idea of women naturally having different responsibilities than men and see those responsibilities as less important or worth pursuing.


Again, this is more questioning that those responsibilities are naturaly inherent.

Overall, my experience is that while some feminists believe there are no inherent psychological differences between the genders, many do the opposite and believe women are better suited for certain tasks and greatly cheerish them. When was the last time you saw a gender traditionalist/feminist praise/berate healthcare workers, HR departments, social workers and other female dominated fields?



Dom Cruise said:


> Now, in the interest of fairness, the argument can be made that it's ok to give women OPTIONS, that's supposed to be what the whole idea was decades ago, giving women the freedom to not choose typical motherhood if that's what they really want, the trouble is that's since curdled into something that actively demonizes and dissuades women from pursuing motherhood and that is wrong, there's nothing with being a traditional mother and housewife if that's what a woman chooses to do.


Government supported gender equality groups screeching on twitter isn't even close to the restrictions on economic transactions that existed on women just a few decades ago, though.



Osmosis Jones said:


> Well that's kind of the issue with feminism, isn't it? Be a working woman. Every other option is unfeasible. Why did we tear down women instead of empowering their strengths as women?





Dom Cruise said:


> Femininity is a beautiful thing that should be cherished, nurtured and valued, even if that doesn't make you a couple extra bucks, it's more important than money.


Women participate more on the workforce in places where they have more social and economic freedom. Think "Taliban" vs "Northern Europe". Isn't what women naturally do the only true definition of feminity?



Osmosis Jones said:


> Did feminism or did feminism not disempower women who do not want to be working women?


It did not. Because now those traditional housewives have a choice, and they made one. And dangerhairs on twitter can't change that.



Osmosis Jones said:


> Lauded by who? The Forbes Top 100 list or by me specifically? I would laud neither because I have no interest in what billionaires and their mistresses do.


By the public perception and historic literature.
It's easy to look and both history and the modern world and think that women has never built anything. It's feminist historians more than anyone that are pulling the huge changes women made to history into light.
Funnily enough, traditionalists are the people more than anything that normally forgets historic women and the huge influence women still has, in mocking tone as always. You only seem to change stance when forced to. 



Magicicada_septendecula said:


> I have a hard time telling if it was a mistake or just poorly executed. Even from the first wave, I see problems. Before universal suffrage, the right to vote was attached to things like military service (sometimes not an option, but an obligation for men) and land ownership (something women could have).  My understanding is that there were many anti-suffragist women whose main concern was that they could be drafted because they understood a right comes with a responsibility. Instead of that, we have a situation where psychopaths like Hillary Clinton and war profiteers like Liz Cheney can vote for wars they and their daughters could never possibly be drafted to fight. If your brand of feminism does not include enthusiastic support for women being required to register for the selective service, it's self-serving drivel.


The greatest respect for feminity is thinking feminine tasks should be rewarded with a say in the leadership of one's country.  



Anti-Intellectual said:


> You cite an old incident almost fifty years ago as though it has any relevance today, meanwhile bad behavior by women is mainstream while they continually shirk any responsibility of upholding their obligations in society. Women are not net taxpayers, they do not provide the overwhelming majority of defense or infrastructural work required in stewardship of civilization, and now birth rates are plummeting in first world countries as well.


Modern women are majority of healthcare workers, biolab technicians and workers in various other fields. They work more hours than men because they besides their job has to take care of various unpaid labour tasks that are forgotten but not unimportant. 
In the 1970s the women of Iceland did a strike involving 90% of all women ceasing to carry out unpaid labour, like child rearing, cooking, grocery shopping, cleaning the house, etc. It was long before women were integrated into the labour market, and it yet it basically put the economy of Iceland to a complete halt and forced the government to enact laws making Iceland most gender equal (and prosperous) country in the world.




Dom Cruise said:


> God





Dom Cruise said:


> God





Dom Cruise said:


> God


Get a load of the orc-rape-porn-artist-avatar talking about god.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 11, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> It boils down to this, men have their roles they’re born to play and women have theirs


And it just so happens one role is more rewarded and lauded than the other.  I'm sorry, I don't blame anyone rebelling against a raw deal. 



Dom Cruise said:


> either God made us like that and God is too powerful to be questioned, it’s like an ant taking umbrage with a human, or billions of years of evolution and natural selection boiled down what simply works and what doesn’t or some combination thereof.


If God didn't want us questioning him, he shouldn't have given us the ability to in the first place. He had that power to do so but didn't. 

As for evolution, we've been fighting against that since we existed. Every species does. 



Dom Cruise said:


> every
> Princess needs their Prince, that’s all there is to it.


But Prince's don't need princesses for much of anything. Again, raw deal. I don't blame someone who rebels against that. 



Dom Cruise said:


> but the best bet is to tolerate nothing that isn’t good old fashioned man+woman+marriage=children.


Are you married? Kids? 

I mean, I'm married with no kids, should I be tolerated as I've not met that standard?


----------



## Michael Janke (Jun 11, 2022)

in america, the half assed feminism was a mistake.
when woman got the right to vote, the draft should have immediately came with it. so they have an actual stake and the consequences of their actions are met.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 11, 2022)

Anti-Intellectual said:


> women continually shirk any responsibility of upholding their obligations in society


Men commit the majority of felonies. They are overrepresented in most metrics of social irresponsibility, from alcohol and drug addiction and overdose, to organised crime, to white-collar crime such as fraud and tax evasion. They neglect their physical health, get in avoidable accidents at higher rates, and are less likely to seek medical help. They are more likely to abandon their spouse after she develops a serious illness such as cancer or multiple sclerosis.

More generally, there's evidence women demonstrate more emotional self-regulation. They take a more internalising approach to their own problems than men. They display on average more activity in the pre-frontal cortex. Women do more altruistically-oriented unpaid work and are overrepresented in the non-profit sector. They have been at the forefront of efforts for temperance and the reduction of alcoholism, the protection of the natural environment, and the reduction of cruelty to animals. There are now more women than men training to be doctors in many first-world countries.



Anti-Intellectual said:


> Women are not net taxpayers,


That were to be expected in a society organised towards finance uber alles, where men are currently fractionating and selling the very water on commodities markets. The work women do maintains the fabric of society rather than creatively skimming value off as a moneychanger/escrow/middleman/usurer, and is therefore not lucrative.

You forget that the global one percent / power elite, the majority of which are men, as well as MNCs controlled by male shareholders and executives, actively go out of their way to pay zero tax (see: the Panama papers, the Pandora papers.) They exploit loopholes in existing laws and ferociously lobby to create new laws to reduce their tax input and prevent them from being held to account for the negative externalities of their businesses to workers and the environment.



Anti-Intellectual said:


> a man cannot accuse a woman of raping him and have the exact consequence were the roles reversed.


I've volunteered for an organisation against sexual violence against men. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the men who built that organisation, because of the grace and maturity with which they deal with immature obnoxious pseudofeminist women and female-to-male trannies who try and hijack and obstruct their work.

If you're really so concerned about sexual violence against men, which I agree is rampant, under-recognised, and under-appreciated, why not actually try to do something about it? Because if you're not going to do anything about it, you betray that you're only interested in it insofar as it can be used as an UNO reverse card to demoralise people who are engaged in actual efforts to reduce rape, the majority of whom are women, partly because women have always been more frequently and severely harmed by rape (see: the risk of rape-induced pregnancy.)



Anti-Intellectual said:


> and now birth rates are plummeting in first world countries as well.


Abortion is significantly responsible for the drop in youth crime in the U.S.

Giving women access to birth control and girls access to education are silver bullets against extreme poverty.

Regardless of what you think about abortion, birth control, and overpopulation, NO ONE needs children dying of starvation or children forced to stay at home rather than going out to school and bettering themselves. I challenge you to read this ethnographic article about babies starving to death in Catholic Brazil and tell me with a straight face that you're against birth control.

_"Scarcity made mother love a fragile emotion, postponed until the newborn displayed a will to live, a taste (gusto), and a knack (jeito) for life. A high expectancy of death prepared mothers to “let go” of and to hasten the death of de-selected babies by reducing the already insufficient food, water, and care."_



ToroidalBoat said:


> Another mistake of feminism is the demonizing healthy male sexuality as "the male gaze" or "objectification" BS.


Men demonise male sexuality viciously and unproductively. Their contribution outside academia has been mostly limited to calling men with sexual problems such as paraphilias, or men who would prefer to play a more feminine role in sex (i.e. being penetrated),  'degenerates' and quasi-ironically threatening to send them back to the gas chambers. In psychology and psychiatry, their contributions so far have been theoretically bankrupt (behaviourism, Freudianism) and in application worse than useless (see, for instance, lobotomy, electroshocking and chemically castrating gays, and tranny surgery.)


----------



## cornycat (Jun 12, 2022)

For this thread, I have nothing to say but this:


----------



## Getting tard comed (Jun 12, 2022)

Yes. 



Yes.


----------



## cornycat (Jun 12, 2022)

catsnuggler said:


> For this thread, I have nothing to say but this:


And if you don't know what I mean?


I mean that projecting onto social tenets of the man being the provider/caretaker, to promote this idea that "man = violent", the same stereotypes that woman are more emotional.. Guess what? Do you know why women have an easier time coming out about rape? Because it's easier for them to. Because society puts them into a "weaker" position. Women are the one that's looked at as passive and more emotional, the same stereotype that men impose onto women to perpetuate "male power", which is ironically just as effective as the guillotine. Believe me, I have passiveness and cowardly folks, however, the issue is that "speaking up" or "getting raped" is seen as "power loss", which it is, but it's expected of women, but looked down on for men. Both men and women get humiliated the same fucking ways. Shocker.


You wanna know something? Look at the statistics of little boys. Who do most of them get raped by? Older men? _Why?_ Because, you fucking mongoloids, your actions and words aren't in a vacuum. You know their reasoning? _because little boys remind them as little girls, a straight man will rape a little boy, simply because he is less likely to speak up than a little girl._



			https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/victim-assistance/jwrc/keep-kids-safe/sexuality-of-offenders/
		



			http://www.mscasa.org/male-sexual-assault/
		


Listen, I do not fucking like superficial factors. I hate them, in fact. I have money and I am planning on going to STEM. I have enough to afford a house husband, even. I never dated, and I rejected advances from men who were superficial.
Yes, women need to take responsibility that they are too fucking passive at times. I believe this, but it all boils down to socialization. You know how many men has constantly told me "I was a failed woman"  due to being a tomboy and told me that they hate women with careers? Multiple. I constantly fucking critique women for getting into shitty situations and not having any dignity, for upholding superficial standards. Both sexes are extremely fucked, and unless they realize that creating unhealthy caricatures of what "man" and "woman" should be, we're going to get worse. Both of these sexes don't realize we have to help each other.

You want to perpetuate a hierarchy? Fine, but realize that historically, men have been raped for "power play", boys have been raped constantly. This solution of "boys must be strong", this artificial dogma of what's considered "strong", which is equated to "lack of emotion". You are fucking hurting your own kind. These men aren't only victims of the antagonization of  "men", but they are victims onto who _is_ perpetuating this whole rhetoric in the first place about them. These men are victims of their own men. You know who mostly bullies? Men. http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/article/workplace-bullying-education/
Do not act like you haven't joked about men or shamed men for either being too "effeminate" or too "different". You think I want this for them? Fuck no. I feel for them. I was bullied for being a tomboy, I was looked down upon the same reasons they were, except that I wasn't "attractive" enough and wasn't "feminine" enough. I am not blaming men, I blame both women and men. Most women are passive, and they perpetuate the "weak" women role, and run away from their problems. Most men are aggressive and will ostracize those who aren't amongst them, and will also not admit their problems. Both needs to work on themselves.

Women and men worked amongst each other before. There was an hierarchy, but women always had ambition. Why is it a man’s or woman’s job to be on top? There are wars, and there are horrendous people, evil, violent, people, but God did not cause wars. God had wars, though he only defended self defense. His self defense was not to murder said so person. There *are* evil people who should be locked away, who should repent and should rot in hell, though that is on them. A war is needed, not by God, but by the people who tells these men to be violent, who’s only goal is driven by their greed. They hate a collectivist society. There are rapists and thieves, though they were stoned and humiliated.


You should be aware of your surroundings. You should balance yourself with pragmatism and patience. Empathy is not a gendered trait. Protecting and indulging into collectivist ideals is not a gendered trait. The answer is to not blame, but to criticize and to mentor those who do not understand. Those who do not repent, may be shamed, they should be humiliated, though they will always have the chances to repent and make amends once they work on it. They’d have to admit they have a problem first, as that’s how things get better. There is nothing wrong with thought crime, nor is there anything wrong with emotions.

Because "male power" is an artificial system that is based off rigid gender roles, because even before, women worked along with men. It was favored for women to be educated and to do other forms of labor in collective societies, even if they had a lower status. A lot of men fear that if they are not in control, they do not bring any use, because society believes they have no use except by dying or by being the leader of their women and family. They deteriorate their own men with this.


----------



## FeatherPlucker (Jun 12, 2022)

I admit I didn't bother reading this thread. I get enough of that "women are shit" from every angle online and in real life, starting from when my father told me I was useless to my face when I was a young child.

None of this will matter in a few decades, because we women will be extinct. This is one of the goals of transhumanism. No, they don't actually advertise this, but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

Of course, online radicalization of men to hate women helps their cause, because the more men hate women, the more transhumanism will flourish. Many of you already clamor for sex robots, AI sex, and are the perfect consumers of transwomen (as long as they pass), because female-appearing bodies with male sex drives and misogyny would be the perfect fit for straight dudes who hate women. Anal sex all day, BSDM, etc, every day is like the new straight man's utopia.

On the flip side, transhumanism claims to represent "modern feminism", so they're luring women to their extinction as well.

Either way, women will be either extinct and/or genocided within a few generations. None of this will matter at all. It makes me sick, I can't do anything about it.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 12, 2022)

catsnuggler said:


> For this thread, I have nothing to say but this:


Because as we know, "Heroes" in those cases aren't lauded and rewarded at all. Nor are dangerous jobs, nah, those are all done for NO compensation and have NO societal prestige whatsoever. 

Warren Farrell wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I can't believe I used to respect and admire him back in Web 1.0


_giantmeteor2024_ said:


> I admit I didn't bother reading this thread. I get enough of that "women are shit" from every angle online and in real life


Here they'll tell you that and use more word salad to justify it. 


_giantmeteor2024_ said:


> Either way, women will be either extinct and/or genocided within a few generations. None of this will matter at all. It makes me sick, I can't do anything about it.


If it's any consolation, most of the rest of us won't see it either, men or women.


----------



## Wood (Jun 12, 2022)

> Abortion is significantly responsible for the drop in youth crime in the U.S.


Lol, Levitt is fake and homosexual. He _really_ wants this to be true tho, even though he got btfo twice since Freakonomics. Third time's the charm, yeah?


----------



## Bloody Kotex (Jun 12, 2022)

Lot of people don’t notice it but it’s worth mentioning, gender imbalance deepens the issue of gender equality.

In countries where women’s rights are limited, such as Arab countries (or countries that favor boys), the male/female sex ratio is quite alarming.

In progressive countries, where women are treated equally, the gender disparity is not so great.

Back to the topic: are women’s rights necessary? I say necessary, nor do I deny that the modern wave of feminism has strayed too far from its original goal. It’s like the sequel to a good book that no one asked for.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 12, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> billions of years of evolution and natural selection boiled down what simply works and what doesn’t or some combination thereof.


Roughly 1 in 1000 males are born with Klinefelter's syndrome, where they have two X chromosomes in addition to a Y chromosome. Many of them don't get diagnosed until adulthood, evidence has just come out that the condition is very much under-diagnosed, with roughly 75% XXY men never finding out at all.

XXY men tend to have moobs, small-to-micro penises, their muscles are weaker, they're uncoordinated, they have higher levels of anxiety and depression, a higher risk of autism, and poor fertility. So it's unrealistic and unfair to expect of an XXY person what you would expect of a normal man. Most Klinefelters cases will never really be accepted or have any kind of prestige among men. They will never be 'cool' or 'badass' or 'based'. It's also unlikely they'll ever be able to satisfactorily fulfill the role of husband or father. Even if you give them testosterone and surgically remove their moobs they'll still have fertility problems and weak bones.

Now that the trans & intersex community exists to give such men social support, there's just as much of a case for giving them oestrogen, because oestrogen has a protective effect against autism and neurological decline more generally.

_(This doesn't mean I support them appropriating female spaces and the female legal identity. I don't. I think all trans-identifying people who've taken hormones should be legally categorised as intersex.)_



Dom Cruise said:


> man must respect nature,


No.



Dom Cruise said:


> tolerate nothing that isn’t good old fashioned man+woman+marriage=children.
> 
> If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it fuckfaces.


Look dude.

Marriage + children is desirable for, and desired by, normal people. Society should be overall geared towards making marriage + children attainable for normal people.

Unfortunately there are large amounts of people who are some serious form of _not normal._





Up to 1 in 300 people have full-blown schizophrenia. Roughly 7 out of 1000 have full-blown Asperger's syndrome. Roughly 1 in 2500 have cystic fibrosis. Some unknown number are just full-on gay (I mean where it's obvious from childhood.)

Marriage + children is not desirable or even realistic for men with genetic or chromosomal conditions that interfere with masculinisation, whether they be Klinefelters' or partial androgen insensitivity syndrome.




Seriously, do you ever see #4 on this chart making it as a husband or father by modern liberal society's standards, let alone by /pol/'s standards?

These people do not exist in order to be buttmonkeys for you and the lads can pick on in order to bond or to feel better about yourselves. Like you they are persons in their own right, the main characters in their own lives just as you are in yours, and like you they should be treated with dignity and understanding.

Just because someone is genetically unfit does not mean they cannot be useful to society overall; it does not mean there can be no positive role for them in the human story.

Now, you may say at this point, but what about environmental factors that are causing higher rates in autism, ADHD, and other disorders, like chemical air pollution, industrial chemicals like BPA and PFAS, lead in the water, microplastics in the water and air, poor diet, sedentary lifestyles, the social alienation and atomisation caused by urbanisation and a ruthlessly finance-oriented society?

I totally agree. The role of environmental factors in disability is underappreciated and overlooked.

So DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Vote for political parties that take the environment seriously. Stop being an edgelord right-wing contrarian obstructing environmentalists. Stop being an anti-vaccine woo-woo monger, or tolerating anti-vaxxers (if you are or do. I don't know you.)



Dom Cruise said:


> it’s a sick and despicable lie to say male sexuality only boils down to “objectification”



Good for you. And that may be true, but you can't say that men aren't doing their damndest to ensure that people think about male sexuality that way. Between 13 and 20 per cent of mobile web searches are for porn.  I could go on about how massive the porn and sex trafficking industries are but I'm sick of dredging up links to prove things that should be obvious to anyone who wasn't born yesterday.



Dom Cruise said:


> Men love the female body, but we’re also just as in love with the idea of a female companion that makes us happy to spend time with, just like women are, men love romance too.


Again, good for you. I just hope you really mean that. Because you have to admit that going on this website frequently is not a reliable indicator that you really mean that.


----------



## Mr. A. L. Mao (Jun 12, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> Even when I was the horniest teenage boy lusting after boobies and butts I still dreamed about female companionship and the emotional connection that goes along with it, it’s a sick and despicable lie to say male sexuality only boils down to “objectification”
> 
> Men love the female body, but we’re also just as in love with the idea of a female companion that makes us happy to spend time with, just like women are, men love romance too.





Schway said:


> "Men are romantics pretending to be realists, Women are realists pretending to be romantics."
> 
> Found that one to be broadly true. Same reason for why incels can't just buy a whore, they want to be desired and loved not to just have sex.



The fact that "men are psychopathic sex robots" is a common view is the socially acceptable mirror image of incel "ideology", as much as you can define it. Damaged women unable to fathom that men can relate to or feel anything for the women in their lives other than animal lust in second wave feminism, which later permeated through wider culture.  Occasionally, this preoccupation stumbles upon real issues, like the evils of the porn industry and porn consumption, but usually serves to further divide men and women. 



> As far as feminism goes, it was obviously a mistake but you'll never get women to accept that no matter how obvious it gets because women are for most part incapable of taking responsibility. Happens to be one of the reasons that feminism was a mistake in the first place, funny that.


This. For the past 100 odd years, PROGRESS! has given women the opportunity to no longer be chattel to men, or at least that's what we're supposed to believe. Though women are unhappier than ever by basically every metric, why would they sign up to be "enslaved" again? There's no going back barring some large scale civilizational collapse and/or bloodshed on a cataclysmic scale. We're in this for the long haul


----------



## Wormy (Jun 12, 2022)

Mr. A. L. Mao said:


> why would they sign up to be "enslaved" again?


That's what you're going to have to pitch to half the population. Their agency, goals, and aspirations are nothing except for breeding and maid service while men are still allowed more options. Good luck with that.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 12, 2022)

Schway said:


> women are for most part incapable of taking responsibility


I have met many highly responsible and caring men and women, mothers, fathers, teachers, scientists, tradesworkers, professionals. I don't understand how one would develop this kind of worldview unless they were raised by an abusive slattern and then got the rest of their impression of women from porn, Tumblr, Fox, Limbaugh, and 4chan.



MT Foxtrot said:


> That's what you're going to have to pitch to half the population. Their agency, goals, and aspirations are nothing except for breeding and maid service while men are still allowed more options. Good luck with that.


The hardline neopatriarchs' propositions are completely nuts. You're looking at giving up 36% of doctors, 86% of nurse practitioners, ~30% of paramedics, 5% of electricians, ~15% of construction workers - etc. - for.. what? For depressed sex slaves who don't even want the babies you'll force them to have and will probably hence neglect them, further solidifying your insane belief in overall female irresponsibility in the face of all evidence to the contrary? Get a grip.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 12, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> I have met many highly responsible and caring men and women, mothers, fathers, teachers, scientists, tradesworkers, professionals. I don't understand how one would develop this kind of worldview unless they were raised by an abusive slattern and then got the rest of their impression of women from porn, Tumblr, Fox, Limbaugh, and 4chan.
> 
> 
> The hardline neopatriarchs' propositions are completely nuts. You're looking at giving up 36% of doctors, 86% of nurse practitioners, ~30% of paramedics, 5% of electricians, ~15% of construction workers - etc. - for.. what? For depressed sex slaves who don't even want the babies you'll force them to have and will probably hence neglect them, further solidifying your insane belief in overall female irresponsibility in the face of all evidence to the contrary? Get a grip.


As trite as it may seem, I really do believe these people have very little exposure to women IRL. Certainly not in their family. 

And if it is, I can't help but think they got cursed with some legit cunts and they think every woman is.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 12, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> The hardline neopatriarchs' propositions are completely nuts. You're looking at giving up 36% of doctors, 86% of nurse practitioners, ~30% of paramedics, 5% of electricians, ~15% of construction workers - etc. - for.. what? For depressed sex slaves who don't even want the babies you'll force them to have and will probably hence neglect them, further solidifying your insane belief in overall female irresponsibility in the face of all evidence to the contrary? Get a grip.



We've lost about 30% of the children needed just to sustain our society due to prioritizing women's contribution to GDP over their contribution to the next generation existing.



MT Foxtrot said:


> That's what you're going to have to pitch to half the population. Their agency, goals, and aspirations are nothing except for breeding and maid service while men are still allowed more options. Good luck with that.



If women lose power, it won't be taken with their permission. After all, men had to give it to them in the first place.


----------



## Ow The Edge (Jun 12, 2022)

The premise of feminism was that women were equally rational, equally capable, equally able to see beyond their immediate petty emotions when making policy decisions. What has the last century shown us about that claim?


----------



## Where's Waldo? (Jun 12, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> As trite as it may seem, I really do believe these people have very little exposure to women IRL. Certainly not in their family.
> 
> And if it is, I can't help but think they got cursed with some legit cunts and they think every woman is.


I really feel like the man-hating women have the same problem.
Their dads fucking sucked, and society has so many 'narratives' about how girls are safe, and boys are icky, evil hurter-people, so they just don't venture out and fully-engage with any guy they meet.

 They're always holding back under some level of pretense.
 A lot of these types of people will say that, themselves, and then they wonder why they feel so pissed off about their relations with men... when they already decided they're not allowed to be normal-friends with men.
 They act like they're negotiating with people of a hostile foreign nation, instead of normal people.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 12, 2022)

Where's Waldo? said:


> I really feel like the man-hating women have the same problem.
> Their dads fucking sucked, and society has so many 'narratives' about how girls are safe, and boys are icky, evil hurter-people, so they just don't venture out and fully-engage with any guy they meet.


You're not wrong, that often is the case as well.


Ow The Edge said:


> The premise of feminism was that women were equally rational, equally capable, equally able to see beyond their immediate petty emotions when making policy decisions. What has the last century shown us about that claim?


That men were a lot less rational than we gave them credit for? 


The Ugly One said:


> If women lose power, it won't be taken with their permission. After all, men had to give it to them in the first place.


Okay, how you going to pull that one off?


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 12, 2022)

Hating the other sex is retarded. Woman-hating incels who go on about "roasties" and "femoids" contribute absolute nothing of value to any discussion not involving speedrunning Yo! Noid!

Observing that the sexes are not behaviorally identical and opining that this should have social and legal implications is not hatred.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 12, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> Observing that the sexes are not behaviorally identical and opining that this should have social and legal implications is not hatred.


"I'm just saying women are subhuman and should be treated worse than men, that's not hatred." 

Uh huh.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 12, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> We've lost about 30% of the children needed just to sustain our society due to prioritizing women's contribution to GDP over their contribution to the next generation existing.


I see no reason why societies can't shrink. We're not talking about people having no children, we're talking about them having one to three and giving each of them the resources, love and education each human being deserves.



The Ugly One said:


> If women lose power, it won't be taken with their permission. After all, men had to give it to them in the first place.



It was given us by natural law, which is violated by practices such as coverture, purdah, footbinding, child marriage, honour killing, corseting, and pregnancy via rape. These practices were correctly recognised as outrages against human dignity by Western Enlightenment intellectuals such as John Stuart Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Marx & Engels.

You shouldn't have to say please and thank you just for the opportunity to apply your abilities to the good of humankind as a whole rather than just to some random dude you were arranged-married to and his legacy.



Ow The Edge said:


> The premise of feminism was that women were equally rational, equally capable, equally able to see beyond their immediate petty emotions when making policy decisions. What has the last century shown us about that claim?


If the statistics on sex and crime (both violent and white-collar) are anything to go by, as well as the statistics I've posted earlier in this thread about women's participation in the professions and in voluntary altruistic work, they show that women are superior to men as contributors to their societies.

I don't believe that; I believe that men and women are morally equal in the grand scheme of things and have different strengths and weaknesses. I'm just saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


----------



## Ow The Edge (Jun 12, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> I see no reason why societies can't shrink.


Tell me you know nothing about history without telling me you know nothing about history.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 12, 2022)

Ow The Edge said:


> Tell me you know nothing about history without telling me you know nothing about history.


The burden of proof is on you to make the case that the human population shouldn't shrink. You made a positive claim and now you have to back it up.


----------



## Ow The Edge (Jun 12, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> The burden of proof is on you to make the case that the human population shouldn't shrink. You made a positive claim and now you have to back it up.


Groups with shrinking populations die out, sometimes by simply having too few young people to perform vital economic activity and care for elderly, but far more often because they are steamrollered by younger and more vital populations. Elderly people soak up more money and medical resources now than every before, and lacking a sufficient base of young people to make that economically viable without placing undue strain on the young causes maintenance, let alone growth, to become impossible. Further, it becomes a vicious circle, as overtaxed young people cannot afford children of their own, thus causing society to age yet further and make even maintaining existing economic and political structures impossible. Eventually, either the elderly and unproductive are simply culled, the society implodes under its own contradictions, or most commonly a vital society overruns it and simply enslaves the women.

There is no case for a shrinking population being a good thing, and never in the history of the world has any society benefitted from it.


----------



## LurkNoMore (Jun 12, 2022)

@Shawtysm


> Men commit the majority of felonies.


Thanks for pointng out the biased legal system. Men get charged with felonies more often while women get those felonies knocked down to misdemeanors. If they get charged at all.



> They are overrepresented in most metrics of social irresponsibility, from alcohol and drug addiction and overdose,


Wow, the sex that gets treated like shit has more alcoholism and substance abuse. Who could have seen that coming?



> They neglect their physical health,


And women run to the docter every time they stub their toes. And will write news pieces bitching about how nonbody takes women's pain seriously.



> get in avoidable accidents at higher rates,


Not surprising, men are more likely to enjoy the good parts of life like motorcycles and fast cars.



> and are less likely to seek medical help.


Women run to the doctor over every little thing.



> They are more likely to abandon their spouse after she develops a serious illness such as cancer or multiple sclerosis.


From the study "enrolled a total of 515 patients". Wow, what a massive and encompassing study size.



> More generally, there's evidence women demonstrate more emotional self-regulation.


"Participants were 112 native English speakers"



> They take a more internalising approach to their own problems than men.


Men try to do something about a problem, women sit around and stew. Wow.



> They display on average more activity in the pre-frontal cortex.


"Subjects included 119 healthy volunteers and 26,683 patients with a variety of psychiatric conditions such as brain trauma, bipolar disorders, mood disorders, schizophrenia/psychotic disorders, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A total of 128 brain regions were analyzed for subjects at baseline and while performing a concentration task."

This is a study about people with mental disorders. Why the fuck are you citing this?



> Women do more altruistically-oriented unpaid work


"Over the last six years women have increased their participation in volunteering and are today almost on par with men." Lol can't even read the study cited!



> and are overrepresented in the non-profit sector.


Yeah, you tend to be able to do more unpaid work when someone else pays the bills.



> They have been at the forefront of efforts for temperance and the reduction of alcoholism,


And their wonderful efforts lead to the birth of organized crime and an increase in alcoholism in america! Thanks ladies!



> the protection of the natural environment,


And thats why its been men who created the national parks and adovacte for things like nuclear power.



> There are now more women than men training to be doctors in many first-world countries.


Wow really!? Who could have guessed that! Its not like colleges flavors women  over men or anything!

And this is somehow related to women accepting responsibility for the failures and the damage caused by feminism!




> That were to be expected in a society organised towards finance uber alles, where men are currently fractionating and selling the very water on commodities markets.


Government: Fucks something up/fails to take advantage of new technologies.
Men: Bet I could make people's lives better and earn a dollar doing it.
Woman on the internet: Those damn men!



> The work women do maintains the fabric of society rather than creatively skimming value off as a moneychanger/escrow/middleman/usurer, and is therefore not lucrative.


Imagine thinking that providing water isn't maintaining society.



> You forget that the global one percent / power elite, the majority of which are men, as well as MNCs controlled by male shareholders and executives, actively go out of their way to pay zero tax (see: the Panama papers, the Pandora papers.) They exploit loopholes in existing laws and ferociously lobby to create new laws to reduce their tax input


Those damn men, how dare they try to be like women!




> I've volunteered for an organisation against sexual violence against men. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the men who built that organisation, because of the grace and maturity with which they deal with immature obnoxious pseudofeminist women and female-to-male trannies who try and hijack and obstruct their work.


Perhaps you could tell us the name of that organization. After all, you say men don't do enough volunteer work.



> why not actually try to do something about it?


Men have tried. Women have tried. And in practically all the cases I'm aware of, feminists went after them.




> Abortion is significantly responsible for the drop in youth crime in the U.S.
> 
> Giving women access to birth control and girls access to education are silver bullets against extreme poverty.


Look, I now you are a troll, but could you actually respond to the point made?




> Men demonise male sexuality viciously and unproductively.



Lol, imagine getting mad at people trying to curb pedophilia.


Hey, you got anymore of those femcel memes? Leftist meme thread could always use more content.


----------



## Schway (Jun 13, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> I have met many highly responsible and caring men and women, mothers, fathers, teachers, scientists, tradesworkers, professionals. I don't understand how one would develop this kind of worldview unless they were raised by an abusive slattern and then got the rest of their impression of women from porn, Tumblr, Fox, Limbaugh, and 4chan.


You develop it by looking at things beyond surface level and interacting with people. Learn to talk to people without implying they have a social disfunction if they disagree with your narrow worldview, you might be surprised what you'll find out.


Shawtysm said:


> The hardline neopatriarchs' propositions are completely nuts. You're looking at giving up 36% of doctors, 86% of nurse practitioners, ~30% of paramedics, 5% of electricians, ~15% of construction workers - etc. - for.. what? For depressed sex slaves who don't even want the babies you'll force them to have and will probably hence neglect them, further solidifying your insane belief in overall female irresponsibility in the face of all evidence to the contrary? Get a grip.


Oh no, number go down what about the 12555215% doctors. Motherhood is more important than that, for women, men and society in general. Human society lived without significant involvement of women in the workforce since society started till 100-80 years ago, I think we'll manage.

"Depressed sex slaves" 

Your inability to distinguish authority and care from tyranny and abuse is a result of your inherent inability to comprehend responsibility.


----------



## AmberHeardSupporter (Jun 13, 2022)

Schway said:


> As far as feminism goes, it was obviously a mistake but you'll never get women to accept that no matter how obvious it gets because women are for most part incapable of taking responsibility. Happens to be one of the reasons that feminism was a mistake in the first place, funny that.





Anti-Intellectual said:


> Granting women the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as men has been a disaster.


And this is why we need feminism. If men are going to continue to be misogynistic we need to continue supporting women at all costs


----------



## PaleTay (Jun 13, 2022)

Ow The Edge said:


> The premise of feminism was that women were equally rational, equally capable, equally able to see beyond their immediate petty emotions when making policy decisions. What has the last century shown us about that claim?


I don't think a lot of them can see beyond their immediate circumstances in anything. For example, a lot of women I know will do laundry and wash the floor of their house before going outside in the rain and muck.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 13, 2022)

PaleTay said:


> I don't think a lot of them can see beyond their immediate circumstances in anything. For example, a lot of women I know will do laundry and wash the floor of their house before going outside in the rain and muck.


How do they react when you inform them of this?



Schway said:


> Motherhood is more important than that, for women, men and society in general.


How much does it pay then? We live in a capitalist society and the importance as well as value of an endeavor is measured by it's salary. 



Schway said:


> You develop it by looking at things beyond surface level and interacting with people. Learn to talk to people without implying they have a social disfunction if they disagree with your narrow worldview, you might be surprised what you'll find out.


Take your own advice and talk to some women.

If you do, how do they react to your notions about them? Do they acquiesce to it once informed?


----------



## PaleTay (Jun 13, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> How do they react when you inform them of this?
> 
> 
> How much does it pay then? We live in a capitalist society and the importance as well as value of an endeavor is measured by it's salary.
> ...


They're frustrated at me for pointing it out, but also upset they have to wash the floor twice, but don't learn from the experience.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 13, 2022)

PaleTay said:


> They're frustrated at me for pointing it out, but also upset they have to wash the floor twice, but don't learn from the experience.


Polyamorous relationship? Maid? You have a cleaning service as a business?


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 13, 2022)

LurkNoMore said:


> Men get charged with felonies more often while women get those felonies knocked down to misdemeanors. If they get charged at all.





LurkNoMore said:


> Women run to the doctor over every little thing





LurkNoMore said:


> colleges flavors women over men



No citations provided for these massive claims.



LurkNoMore said:


> This is a study about people with mental disorders. Why the fuck are you citing this?


_"Here we analyzed a healthy and a very large clinical psychiatric population to determine the effect of gender, using single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). ... __Compared to males, healthy females showed significant whole brain (p < 0.01) and ROI increases in 65 baseline and 48 concentration regions __(p < 0.01 corrected). Healthy males showed non-significant increases in 9 and 22 regions, respectively. In the clinical group, there were widespread significant increases in females, especially in the prefrontal and limbic regions, and specific increases in males in the inferior occipital lobes, inferior temporal lobes, and lobule 7 and Crus 2 of the cerebellum. These findings were replicated in the subset of 11,587 patients with the effect of diagnoses removed."_



LurkNoMore said:


> Men  try to do something about a problem, women sit around and stew


Externalising as a psychological concept implies antisocial, impulsive (i.e. less rational, less considered) behaviour.


LurkNoMore said:


> providing water


Making a profit renting out water and using that profit to hoard more water (or putting it into intangibles of questionable value, such as derivatives or cryptocurrencies)  is not providing water.  Providing water would involve doing things like cleaning it or desalinating it.


LurkNoMore said:


> Perhaps you could tell us the name of that organization


Please chill out. Stop being bitter, petty and vindictive and get a grip on yourself. If you were female and it were your father instead of your mother who let down you and/or your father, are you willing to bet you wouldn't be just another pseudofeminist whore taking it out on men and herself by weaponising men's sexuality for attention and cash? Bitter, petty, vindictive behaviour is just that, in whatever form it takes, and regardless of whether a man or a woman does it.

If your dad got divorce-raped, I'm sorry. I'm against alimony and child support payments and I say so IRL whenever the topic comes up.

But the bible says honour your father AND mother. Not just 'honour your father'. Or 'honour your parents'. Honour your mother. Try to find it in yourself to understand why she did things that hurt you or your father. Walk a mile in her shoes. I'm not asking you to forgive her, I'm just asking you to try to empathise with her.


----------



## mickey339 (Jun 13, 2022)

Schway said:


> Human society lived without significant involvement of women in the workforce since society started till 100-80 years ago


50s housewives being the norm for all of human history is a troon tier lie.


----------



## Tardprincess (Jun 13, 2022)

Shawtysm said:


> corseting


Corsetting shouldnt be on the list. Men actually hated corsets. Tightlacing was rare, if it existed at all. And even though beauty and fashion industries are run by mostly men, women set the standards for the most part.


----------



## PaleTay (Jun 13, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Polyamorous relationship? Maid? You have a cleaning service as a business?


Family, friends, relationships, co-workers.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 13, 2022)

PaleTay said:


> Family, friends, relationships, co-workers.


Family you have to put up with, but I have a hard time believing your friends would hang around you with you degrading them like that for very long. Also feel sorry for your co workers.


----------



## BiggerChungus (Jun 13, 2022)

Feminism in its original argued sense, giving women equal legal and social rights as men, was good. It was almost immediately hijacked though and turned into a movement of female supremacy over men and denying that men are better than women at some things (just like women are better than men at other things), which was bad, and only got worse once Marxism started getting involved, afterwhich it started becoming more of a catch-all for various bullshit progressive politics that just happened to be pushed by women under the guise of feminism. By the 60s feminism was part of the general cancer of the counterculture movement pushing for unrestricted hedonism and dissolution of authority and morality, and it's been all downhill from there. Ultimately the consequences of feminism led to both men and women being worse off, unhappier, and less free.


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jun 13, 2022)

@Shawtysm First of all thanks for actually being able to argue with actual points instead of ad hominem and sputtering and name calling, it's refreshing, if more people on the left debated like you do maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.


> Dom Cruise said:
> 
> 
> > billions of years of evolution and natural selection boiled down what simply works and what doesn’t or some combination thereof.
> ...


Thought provoking stuff, some actual scientific shit instead Woke "reality is whatever we say it is" horseshit? Thunk provoking indeed.




> Dom Cruise said:
> 
> 
> > man must respect nature,
> ...


Respect doesn't mean slavish devotion, but it means, ya know, respect, which we have a profound lack of currently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy


> Dom Cruise said:
> 
> 
> > tolerate nothing that isn’t good old fashioned man+woman+marriage=children.
> ...


Look, maybe I was too harsh, some people are a square peg that won't fit in a round hole, I like to believe we can give people leeway and tolerate things that aren't the typical nuclear family.

But things are genuinely out of fucking whack right now, we don't need an entire fucking month dedicated to gay pride, we don't need drag queen story time hour, we don't need 52 different fucking genders and we don't need this phenomena where heterosexuality is treated as abnormal, where people are actively discouraged from having families, modern mainstream culture views LGBT as superior to non-LGBT, you are literally taught to think of yourself as being better than someone who's not gay, it's not about equality any more, it's about the progressive stack where the further you are away from being a straight white male, literally the better a person you are and the more valuable your life is, that is sick and wrong.

As for the other stuff you mention, I do think the right doesn't take the environment seriously enough, when you're talking about vaccines, I did take the Covid vax though sometimes I regret it and worry if it was rushed, I'm fine with older, more tried and true vaccines, I think a lot of Covid was hysterical bullshit simply to take down Trump and clamp down on our freedom that much more, but all that's another topic than the one at hand.



> Dom Cruise said:
> 
> 
> > it’s a sick and despicable lie to say male sexuality only boils down to “objectification”
> ...


Well now, I don't want to sell myself too high, sometimes a guy gets off on a nice body just because it's a nice body, including me, but sometimes there were female characters for whom the appeal was genuinely also their personality, the dream for every guy with a good head on his shoulders is a beautiful woman who they also love their personality and enjoy spending time with.

I've always treaded lightly with hardcore porn and porn addiction is a serious issue, but this is one of the first things that set off my bullshit detector about modern feminism, they got a bug up their ass about sexy female characters in games, comics etc, but never said a word about porn and today encourage women to post pics of their buttholes on OnlyFans, but don't you dare put a comic book or video game woman in a bikini.

If anything cheesecake should be what feminists encourage as a healthy outlet for male ogling, instead they get a bug up their ass about cheesecake but are ok with OnlyFans?

Proving they never gave a single solitary shit about "objectification", what they cared about was making money, hustling in the video game industry to get cushy jobs by crying crocodile tears about Lara Croft and tolerating OnlyFans because you guessed it, it's easy money. 

Woke feminism, Woke BLM shit, it's all just one great big shakedown and hustle for money for narcissistic individuals at the cost of actively making the world a worse place, it's insane that these assholes were not told to fuck off from day 1.




> Dom Cruise said:
> 
> 
> > Men love the female body, but we’re also just as in love with the idea of a female companion that makes us happy to spend time with, just like women are, men love romance too.
> ...


It boils down to this, say what you will about feminism from decades ago and why we changed society the way we changed it 50 years ago.

But I know one thing, some bad, bad fucking shit has cropped up in the last decade thanks to things like social media echo chambers, shit that is pure poison to human civilization, shit that will cause apocalyptical levels of damage if it continues long enough, already shit has gone farther than it should have and innocent children have been hurt and continue to be hurt as we speak.

If the changes of the 1960s had never happened, if society was still very strict on people, none of this shit would be happening and you can't help but wonder, hey, did we make a mistake?

It sucks if we gotta roll back on some things, but if what's at stake is preventing human extinction and partying like it's 1900 is what stops it, well, do we have a choice?

In Handmaid's Tale the reason for the forced rape is not because big meany weeny men are just being big meany weenies for the sake of it, it's because environmental degradation has caused the human population to reach dangerously low levels and we face extinction, if that was really the reality, then yes, by all means women should be forced to make babies and beaten/raped into submission if they refuse to comply (in Minecraft) if fucking *human extinction* is at stake, the fact that Woke feminists think otherwise show how anti-human they are at their core and fuck all that.

So, I both agree and disagree with you, there's a debate to be had about where the line should lie with what we tolerate versus what keeps the human population going, I like to optimistically think we can give people a lot of leeway, the last ten years have shown maybe that's not the case, human nature is something that needs a firm hand to SLAP it back into submission once people start to get some crazy bullshit in their heads, otherwise we get what we got now.

At the end of the day, hey ho, Woke has got to go, we can either dial the clock back to 2000 or we can dial back it to 1950 or even 1900, Woke is the purest form of evil the human race has seen yet, they make the Nazis look like boy scouts, they're just not at the point of genociding their political enemies yet, but give 'em enough time and power...

I like to think that cooler heads will prevail and extreme solutions won't be needed and I think that's most likely what's going to happen, but mark my words, Woke is the path to our species' end and literally anything would have be to be done to stop it should it be necessary.


----------



## Schway (Jun 14, 2022)

mickey339 said:


> 50s housewives being the norm for all of human history is a troon tier lie.


Who mentioned 50s housewives?


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 14, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> "I'm just saying women are subhuman and should be treated worse than men, that's not hatred."
> 
> Uh huh.



I find it fascinating that when I say, "women aren't behaviorally and psychologically identical to a man," I'm accused of saying women are subhuman. This means you believe that one must be psychologically and behaviorally identical to a man in order to be fully human. This is why feminism is so fucked up and makes women miserable. It tells women if they can't manage to think, behave, aspire, desire, and love like men do, they aren't even really human - they're just inferior, subhuman freaks.

What a horrible thing to tell women.



BiggerChungus said:


> *Feminism in its original argued sense, giving women equal legal and social rights as men, was good*. It was almost immediately hijacked though and turned into a movement of female supremacy over men and denying that men are better than women at some things (just like women are better than men at other things), which was bad, and only got worse once Marxism started getting involved, afterwhich it started becoming more of a catch-all for various bullshit progressive politics that just happened to be pushed by women under the guise of feminism. By the 60s feminism was part of the general cancer of the counterculture movement pushing for unrestricted hedonism and dissolution of authority and morality, and it's been all downhill from there. Ultimately the consequences of feminism led to both men and women being worse off, unhappier, and less free.



Feminism never wanted equal legal and social rights as men, because rights come with risks and obligations, and feminists never wanted the risks or obligations. The most obvious one is the possibility of being conscripted into combat infantry during time of war (which was much, much more relevant during the original feminist era of the turn of the 20th century than it is now). This was explicitly talked about at the time - many women feared that if they got the vote, they would also be pressed into military service, since at the time, the right to participate in government was understood by many as inherently coming with an obligation to defend that government by force of arms. They were assured by male and female suffragists alike that this would never happen. So far, it hasn't.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 14, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> So if you're not psychologically and behaviorally identical to a man, you're not fully human? Interesting. Why do you believe this?


Well, you're the one saying they lack these positive qualities that men have...


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 14, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> Well, you're the one saying they lack these positive qualities that men have...



If two people don't have identical positive qualities, at least one of them isn't human?



Shawtysm said:


> I see no reason why societies can't shrink. We're not talking about people having no children, we're talking about them having one to three and giving each of them the resources, love and education each human being deserves.



You need to stabilize at some point, or you go extinct, and a society that doesn't shrink takes over. No feminist society of any size has a stable birth rate, and depends on the existence of non-feminist societies to have food (even in the USA, the farms and mines are largely operated by people who are very much stuck in patterns of life that feminists find abhorrent). This makes feminist societies fundamentally parasitic, because they seek to destroy the ways of life they depend on for existence.



Shawtysm said:


> It was given us by natural law, which is violated by practices such as coverture, purdah, footbinding, child marriage, honour killing, corseting, and pregnancy via rape. These practices were correctly recognised as outrages against human dignity by Western Enlightenment intellectuals such as John Stuart Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Marx & Engels.



Every single primate species has sex-differentiated social behavior. So unless "natural law" means "something I made up," not sure what you're referring to.



Shawtysm said:


> You shouldn't have to say please and thank you just for the opportunity to apply your abilities to the good of humankind as a whole rather than just to some random dude you were arranged-married to and his legacy.



And yet, they still do. Women were given the vote by men, and their opportunities are in companies, disciplines, and industries that men created. They even begged us to change the way the military works so they could pretend to be soldiers.



Shawtysm said:


> If the statistics on sex and crime (both violent and white-collar) are anything to go by, as well as the statistics I've posted earlier in this thread about women's participation in the professions and in voluntary altruistic work, they show that women are superior to men as contributors to their societies.



Women participate in professions that men create in institutions that men built, because matriarchal societies never get out of the hunter-gatherer stage. And of course, since our existence as a species relies on both sexes, men, with our testosterone-driven propensity to aggression, are still going to be around, and women rely on good men to protect them from bad ones, since they're incapable of protecting themselves.

You also harped on how men are more likely to leave a sick spouse. But you left out how women are more likely to leave a broke one. There's also a key male behavior we all depend on, and that is a human male's much, much higher risk tolerance than women. Nature is a fundamentally dangerous place, and men being willing to literally risk their lives to acquire food, lumber, iron, steel, coal, and so on is why we can have anything more than a grass hut.



Shawtysm said:


> I don't believe that; I believe that men and women are morally equal in the grand scheme of things and have different strengths and weaknesses. I'm just saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.



You just argued that women are morally superior to men.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 14, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> If two people don't have identical positive qualities, at least one of them isn't human?


Two people, no. 

Half the population on the planet on the other hand and enough to restrict their agency and freedom? Yes.


----------



## Spud (Jun 14, 2022)

No, feminism wasn't a mistake cause now I can laugh at career women having to suffer through the same soul crushing office job as I. I can laugh at whores who post their naked body because they think that they're that good looking and should be paid for whoring themselves out on the Internet. Rights should come with responsibility and those not prepared to take those responsibilities should not be given right.

Also Hitler was more pro women than the 1930's feminists and it shows cause the women's vote was what granted him political victory


tldr: Women voting led to the holocaust


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (Jun 14, 2022)

BiggerChungus said:


> Feminism in its original argued sense, giving women equal legal and social rights as men, was good. It was almost immediately hijacked though and turned into a movement of female supremacy over men and denying that men are better than women at some things (just like women are better than men at other things), which was bad, and only got worse once Marxism started getting involved, afterwhich it started becoming more of a catch-all for various bullshit progressive politics that just happened to be pushed by women under the guise of feminism. By the 60s feminism was part of the general cancer of the counterculture movement pushing for unrestricted hedonism and dissolution of authority and morality, and it's been all downhill from there. Ultimately the consequences of feminism led to both men and women being worse off, unhappier, and less free.


"Dirty Harry" Callahan once said "A man's got to know his limitations". Do you think that saying should apply to women as well?


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Jun 14, 2022)

Like every social movement, it was good up until the point they realized there wasn't any oppressive legislation left to tackle, so their goal became trying to use the state to destroy nepotism entirely. (Or, just using the state to become the oppressors themselves.)


----------



## Wormy (Jun 14, 2022)

ScatmansWorld said:


> Like every social movement, it was good up until the point they realized there wasn't any oppressive legislation left to tackle, so their goal became trying to use the state to destroy nepotism entirely. (Or, just using the state to become the oppressors themselves.)


Makes me wish so many such social movements had some kind of self destruct button.



The Ugly One said:


> What a horrible thing to tell women.


As opposed to telling them how puny, childish, irrational and irresponsible they are?



Spud said:


> tldr: Women voting led to the holocaust


I thought the holocaust was fake though? That's the usual stance around here.


----------



## BiggerChungus (Jun 14, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> Feminism never wanted equal legal and social rights as men, because rights come with risks and obligations, and feminists never wanted the risks or obligations. The most obvious one is the possibility of being conscripted into combat infantry during time of war (which was much, much more relevant during the original feminist era of the turn of the 20th century than it is now). This was explicitly talked about at the time - many women feared that if they got the vote, they would also be pressed into military service, since at the time, the right to participate in government was understood by many as inherently coming with an obligation to defend that government by force of arms. They were assured by male and female suffragists alike that this would never happen. So far, it hasn't.


For sure what happened in practice was hypocritical. The idea of equal social/legal rights, but not social equity or a forced sense of beat-for-beat equality in terms of physical or social capabilities, was the right way to go. Women just don't do as well in war as men, so I think the idea of leaving women out of drafts and shit wasn't a bad call. What really tanked it was the rapid descent into straight-up female superiority/misandry, with heavy doses of Marxist rhetoric thrown in for good measure. Every man was a bad and awful rapist, every woman was perfect and saintly, and men were responsible for all problems any woman had. Same shit that came about with black people in the 60s, every white man was awful, every black man was a saint, and every problem blacks had was because of whitey. Both movements ended up there because they were controlled by the same vile groups behind the scenes.


----------



## Secret Asshole (Jun 14, 2022)

No, it wasn't. Here's the problem: It wasn't with feminism, it was with the law of unintended consequences. Women should be paid as much for the same job as a man and be able to do it if they meet the qualifications. The problem became when the elites salivated at the prospect of a two-household income. This then became the norm, as there was no longer one sole breadwinner. 

The rich saw it as an opportunity to stagnate wages and inflate the price of everything to enrich themselves. Wages haven't risen appreciably in 40+ years, while productivity has gone through the roof. People are not being paid for their labor. When corporations say, "Well, we can't afford to pay more, we'd have to put it on the customer!" It means they don't want to pay their executives and billionaires less, restrict bonuses and monetary rewards to themselves. CEO pay has risen some fucking absurd amount, and it isn't even tied to success or failure of a company. You can be a complete fuck-up and cause thousands of people to lose their jobs and you still get paid millions as a golden parachute as another company just hires you. Its a nepotistic jerk-off session. 

Look at all the pushes: More female CEOs, more Black CEOs, more troon CEOs. You know what that means? Nothing. The status quo remains the same. CEO pay has even increased to keep up with inflation, while actual wages have decreased by 3%. Then there are people mocking the $15 an hour minimum wage. 

Maybe CEO pay doesn't need to be 300% times an average worker pay of 50k (lol, good luck if they're giving you hours). Maybe they shouldn't get millions upon millions in bonuses and golden parachutes. I don't know, maybe wealth concentration is a bad idea because it leads to fucking inflation, because the wealthy do not spend their money, they just tuck it away or move it around, it never leaves the money supply, so inflation is created.

But no, its employers who are paying too much, and regular Americans saving too much money. The plebs are getting too much! (Even though their wages and buying power has probably been cut into a quarter in just under a year).


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 14, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> thanks for actually being able to argue with actual points instead of ad hominem


Thanks, I appreciate that, although there seem to be very few people who seem to get my worldview. Sometimes when I'm talking to people in real life they project their own belief system onto me: they see I strongly agree with something they believe, then their eyes light up and they make some in-joke or reference to some other belief holding which is correlated with the other belief. They're disappointed to find out that I strongly disagree with that correlated belief.

Individuals seem to be resistant to exploring their individual belief disagreements. But they seem very eager to litigate group ideological conflicts. Maybe this is because, if you have irreconcilable differences with all the group memeplexes out there, it means you don't have a community. And everyone needs some kind of community.


Dom Cruise said:


> Woke is the path to our species' end and literally anything would have be to be done to stop it should it be necessary.


There are a variety of things which present long-term and short-term risks to human civilisation or even existence. Existential and civilisational risk is currently a thriving sub-field of academic philosophy, discussing artificial intelligence, meteor strike, bioterrorism or an accidental biotech disaster, nuclear warfare. I don't understand why, in light of all these concerns, people get either hyperfixated on 'isms' and 'phobias', or else hyperfixated on people who are hyperfixated on isms and phobia. I don't think either the far left or far right constitute existential or civilisational risks.

If wokeism were really so urgent a threat, why do Douglas Murray, James Lindsay, Theodore Dalrymple, and Jordan Peterson sell so well on Amazon? There are at least as many people in the world who are anti-woke as who are woke, if not many more.

Remember people in Hollywood don't represent normal law-abiding people. Remember people on the internet, including those claiming to represent normal law-abiders against Hollywood, do not represent normal people. People who shout the loudest to get their voices heard do not usually have the most sensible ideas (on either side.)



The Ugly One said:


> feminism is so fucked up and makes women miserable. It tells women if they can't manage to think, behave, aspire, desire, and love like men do, they aren't even really human ... Feminism never wanted equal legal and social rights as men, because rights come with risks and obligations, and feminists never wanted the risks or obligations.



People with louder, more aggressive, or more numerous voices aggressively spread an unflattering and hyperbolic caricatures of some movement or identity group or ideology. They may not be themselves aware that they exaggerate and strawman people this way, especially if they've never spent much time trying to accurately describe what they actually want, value, and believe. Then people who actually fit the unflattering caricature think 'Oh, that's me!' and attach themselves to the movement, diluting and perverting it to the dismay of the decent and sensible people in it.

Here's the empiricist philosopher David Hume with an 18th-century articulation of the sentiment 'touch grass':

_ “Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? ... I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable ...

Most fortunately it happens, that since Reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, Nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends. And when, after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.”_

I've spent many hours listening to Jordan Peterson, James Lindsay, Bret Weinstein, Benjamin Boyce, Chris Rufo and the various other people in their orbit (e.g. Sam Harris.) Their content interested me for a long time but there's only so many ways you can say the same set of points, and I found they never provided enough evidence for their more dramatic assertions. I also got wise to their hypocrisy: despite harping on about free speech, they barely disagree amongst each other, and it's always a kerfuffle when they do (see for instance the recent drama between Sam Harris and Bret Weinstein).

If you're also disillusioned on the IDW I recommend the podcast 'Decoding the Gurus' which is made by a psychologist and an anthropologist. That and Timbah Toast's rebuttals to Tim Pool.


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jun 14, 2022)

@Shawtysm


> There are a variety of things which present long-term and short-term risks to human civilisation or even existence. Existential and civilisational risk is currently a thriving sub-field of academic philosophy, discussing artificial intelligence, meteor strike, bioterrorism or an accidental biotech disaster, nuclear warfare. I don't understand why, in light of all these concerns, people get either hyperfixated on 'isms' and 'phobias', or else hyperfixated on people who are hyperfixated on isms and phobia. I don't think either the far left or far right constitute existential or civilisational risks.
> 
> If wokeism were really so urgent a threat, why do Douglas Murray, James Lindsay, Theodore Dalrymple, and Jordan Peterson sell so well on Amazon? There are at least as many people in the world who are anti-woke as who are woke, if not many more.
> 
> Remember people in Hollywood don't represent normal law-abiding people. Remember people on the internet, including those claiming to represent normal law-abiders against Hollywood, do not represent normal people. People who shout the loudest to get their voices heard do not usually have the most sensible ideas (on either side.)


Woke is a much more clear and present danger to humanity than shit like AI going Skynet, a meteor strike, nuclear war or other farther fetched things.

I'm not saying it's the only threat and thankfully I don't think it'll succeed in the long run, but genuinely Woke is an existential threat to not just human civilization but human existence, part of Woke's nature is the rhetoric ramping up more and more over time, Woke in 2015 is entirely different than Woke in 2022, give it enough time, it's going to get so extreme and crazy they'll be doing something like trooning out (aka sterilizing) kids by default and then there'll be a generation of people unable to reproduce and lacking the expertise to at least grow ourselves in a lab ala Brave New World.

Or they'll spazz out so bad they'll just Jim Jones the entire human race all at once.

Mark my words, equity=extinction.

But that's all worst case scenarios in the longterm, what they're currently in the process of doing is trying to normalize pedophilia and already engaging in literal child abuse in the form of troonism and other groomer shit as we speak and that's bad enough and should be stopped.

Guys like Peterson are able to do what they do because we haven't gone full Soviet... yet, but how many times have Woke people tried to disrupt his public speakings? Remember when they tried to prevent his book from being published? You have to fucking fight tooth and nail to be able to say anything against these people.




> People with louder, more aggressive, or more numerous voices aggressively spread an unflattering and hyperbolic caricatures of some movement or identity group or ideology. They may not be themselves aware that they exaggerate and strawman people this way, especially if they've never spent much time trying to accurately describe what they actually want, value, and believe. Then people who actually fit the unflattering caricature think 'Oh, that's me!' and attach themselves to the movement, diluting and perverting it to the dismay of the decent and sensible people in it.


But what changed is suddenly we were not allowed to call out the people that are hyperbolic caricatures, the "sensible" people would still simp for the most reprehensible pieces of shit like Zoe Quinn no matter what because of the Woke progressive stack caste system.

It was already that way and then it got 1000 times worse when suddenly everything was shouted down by the "sensible" people with "BUT WHAT ABOUT DOLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN TRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMP!?" no matter how fucking crazier and crazier the loons on the left got, the "sensible" people were still ok with it or at least willing to overlook it.

Used to be it was no big deal to point every group had it's bad apples, I remember growing up they would talk about "bra burning" feminists with the clear implication some feminists took it too far even if the overall group was sensible, then in the 2010s that changed, the "bra burners" are who ran the show and everyone else more sensible within the groups were bullied and intimidated into compliance or silence.

You'll notice people like Peterson were always quick to disavow far right elements like Neo Nazis, but you'll never hear a word from a leftist about Antifa, they tell you it doesn't even exist.

If anyone has any damn sense, they're no longer left, they've been run out on a fucking rail like me, there's almost no "sensible" people left on the left anymore, the nuts are running the nuthouse, I guess you're a one in a million exception.

I said this in another thread but people who really shape their entire life and identity around being opposed to the "Fox News" crowd will tolerate or overlook anything, literally fucking anything, including child molestation, before they'll admit the "Fox News" crowd has a point, even if it's something they in theory don't like, like child molestation, they'll just pretend it isn't happening and bury their head in the sand even when it obviously is happening (deep down they know, they're just too evil or cowardly to care)


----------



## InteracialBowelSyndrome (Jun 18, 2022)

Whether or not men's concerns or debate about the pros and cons of modern feminism are allowed or censored and shouted down in modern liberal society won't matter in the end.

Because for all the talk that is or isn't allowed to be had, the consequences are still observable. The average 30+ Western woman is depressed, in poor physical and mental health, entitled, and can't keep a relationship because she's fried her pair-bonding receptors with 100+ one night stands.

Build yourselves up lads, and date younger, nice women who haven't yet been ruined by the machine.


----------



## FarCentrist (Jun 21, 2022)

InteracialBowelSyndrome said:


> Build yourselves up lads, and date younger, nice women who haven't yet been ruined by the machine.


Older women are "strong and independent" 

Take their word for it and leave them lonely I mean alone.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 21, 2022)

InteracialBowelSyndrome said:


> The average 30+ Western woman is depressed, in poor physical and mental health, entitled, and can't keep a relationship because she's fried her pair-bonding receptors with 100+ one night stands.


The average woman has had 100+ partners? Gotta see the source for that one...


----------



## gang weeder (Jun 21, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> The average woman has had 100+ partners? Gotta see the source for that one...



Yeah, he's aiming a bit high there. Must have been thinking of fags.


----------



## ghоst (Jun 21, 2022)

the mistake they made was grouping up with causes that don't make sense or make it rebelling for the sake of causing drama for the sake of drama.  

like _being a feminist means you celebrate abortions_, yes i feel that it's a right for women to make the difficult choice of terminating a pregnancy but not shove it in people's faces or celebrating it.  that's why the lgbt+ are often associated with dumbfucks like pedo grooming troons that look like a painted ham stuffed into a fish net.


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (Jul 20, 2022)

One more mistake to add to the list is not cutting some marxist roots then the feminism have as that article mentioned.


			https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/the_marxist_roots_of_the_feminist_patriarchy_narrative_.html
		



> July 20, 2022
> The Marxist Roots of the Feminist ‘Patriarchy’ Narrative​By Richard McDonough
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dude Christmas (Jul 21, 2022)

It wasn't a mistake it was planned its was implimented to strip men of their power and to have the sexes fight among themselves, it has worked perfectly.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jul 24, 2022)

@Super-Chevy454 
I don't think you can cut marxism out of feminism. Seems pretty baked into the crust.


----------



## Larry David's Crypto Fund (Jul 24, 2022)

Whenever I see otherwise sensible and well-adjusted women make a claim like "of course girls want to troon out, they just are trying to escape the horrors of male attention," it becomes clearer that feminism WAS a mistake. It has broken people's brains. And ruined the economy so that even people who want to raise their own kids struggle to do so.


----------



## Oilspill Battery (Jul 25, 2022)

Yes, but a self correcting one. All societies that adopt feminism collapse socially and their birth rates become crippled destroying them economically as well. Even exported feminism in africa is destroying africa's birthrates, and neoliberals are bragging about this too. Only in the west is "Our ideology causes infertility!" considered a brag.

Sooner or later all feminist societies will collapse and revert back one of two ways. 

A.) Lowering birth rates continue to plummet to the point where social security becomes unbearable to maintain, with increasing taxes to support the elderly making it even harder for newer generations to afford kids of their own, multipling and compounding the problem each generation until the entire system implodes and is forced to start over except this time with the advance knowledge to not sign their own death warrant.

B.) Before the collapse can actually happen the weakened society is overtaken by a stronger one. In this case its either gonna be china or islam.


Anyone who supports first or second wave feminism is going to have to actually deal with the fact that education makes women stop having kids and any society that doesn't have kids is on a collision course to mad max land.

Literally the only way for feminist societies to survive long term is to  cull the sick, the poor and the elderly while practicing active eugenics to avoid having social security collapse in on itself.


----------



## Maurice Caine (Jul 25, 2022)

Secret Asshole said:


> No, it wasn't. Here's the problem: It wasn't with feminism, it was with the law of unintended consequences. Women should be paid as much for the same job as a man and be able to do it if they meet the qualifications. The problem became when the elites salivated at the prospect of a two-household income. This then became the norm, as there was no longer one sole breadwinner.
> 
> The rich saw it as an opportunity to stagnate wages and inflate the price of everything to enrich themselves. Wages haven't risen appreciably in 40+ years, while productivity has gone through the roof. People are not being paid for their labor. When corporations say, "Well, we can't afford to pay more, we'd have to put it on the customer!" It means they don't want to pay their executives and billionaires less, restrict bonuses and monetary rewards to themselves. CEO pay has risen some fucking absurd amount, and it isn't even tied to success or failure of a company. You can be a complete fuck-up and cause thousands of people to lose their jobs and you still get paid millions as a golden parachute as another company just hires you. Its a nepotistic jerk-off session.
> 
> ...


Always the problems, never the solutions. What can be done to halt the monstrosity that the corporate world has turned into?


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (Jul 25, 2022)

Oilspill Battery said:


> B.) Before the collapse can actually happen the weakened society is overtaken by a stronger one. In this case its either gonna be china or islam.


It's like a situation where we have to pick our poison....


----------



## MadStan (Jul 25, 2022)

No one who looks at history could argue Feminism is correct.  Their rights for millennia were little more than token rights.

Feminism is merely "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes" and in historical context this is entirely lop-sided to men and is justified today.

Be careful we do not confuse "affirmative action for women" type actions with true feminism although they may be projected or commenced by feminists.

Pendulums tend to by nature over-sway before coming back to equilibrium so you might see some "affirmative type" actions that try to restore equality on face, but are actually not feminism and more akin to affirmative action - like the California doctrine that was struck down requiring women to be on all Boards of Directors.

The only reason women have any rights today and that you agree with these rights at all that would have been alien to you for most of human history is because you've been educated in that they deserve equal rights and now agree.

Equal means equal, not token.

In a marriage where rights are equal we still probably will see the woman more in the kitchen than the men, but that in itself is not a violation of woman's rights any more so than we will see the husband on the roof taking care of a leak or fixing the sink.

My wife doesn't want me in the kitchen - I stink as a cook. And I don't want her in charge of car maintenance or fixing the roof cause she stinks at that. That is equality, we go to our strengths and recognize our weakness. I earn more than she does because I have a skill that currently is better for us so she is at home more - but she is also skilled in a field but it doesn't pay as much as what I do so we have myself working while she keeps the home intact. that is equality. She takes more care of the kid than I do and I sometimes don't have the patience I should have and I should be more involved and do more with my kid than I currently do - that is nothing to do with equality but is an indictment of my abilities as a father - but it causes an inequality in that she may lose time she needs to have piece and quality time for her own ventures and if I refuse to change this it could be seen as an issue off inequality if I demand she do more than I. 

All they are asking is that they get the same right to "yes" and "no" as we do and have an equal say in the marriage, society and are not burdened with slavery to men's needs or their whims. I hardly call that unfair, and if you think it is unfair, that's human history up to this point relatively speaking.

If the computer had existed in the 1930's or anytime before that, it would not be uncommon for a man to tell the woman if she could or could not use it. In some countries women have only been recently allowed to drive, and in many countries a woman can be stoned to death or beaten for any infraction, and if you think the USA is any different it was only up until relatively recently that a man could pretty much enslave a woman at home to do what he wanted or have her committed or beat the woman and get away with it.

So let's lay off if feminism is dead, we've still a long way to go and forums like this thread only muster a lot of male ego, ignorance and inexperience and what can only be described as a void of knowledge of human history,. Ironically, I am sure the males of this thread could probably in a split second tell me the history of weaponry in the last 1000 years and some of the great leaders they admire, but yet could not tell me what living conditions were like for most of humanity up until the 19th century.

But a lot of women could. And ask yourself what is more important to know. When the musket ball was invented or when it was not uncommon to lose over 50% of your children by the age of 5. Is it more important to know when a ship could traverse the Atlantic routinely, or when 99% of the world had only 1 pair of shoes? 

While we watch Nascar and our sports teams and our super-hero films, women are there instead reading a book and gaining knowledge in a society that _will now reward them with_ jobs and pay because guess what? They now know more shit than you do.

For men, stop whining and pull the Corn Cobb out of your ass or yeah, you will be the janitor while the chick next to you becomes the manager. Your fat ass will be overlooked for the clean cut guy next to you and now there is competition for women and you have to compete.

Men don't want equality - they want privilege and what you are really whining about is losing your privilege and not feminism at all.


----------



## Australianbirdfruit (Jul 25, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> So I ask you, fellow spergs: was feminism a mistake?


Yes. Very much so.

Good luck in trying to pry the device of their own destruction from their own hands, though. Women would rather neck themselves than admit that they need men, and that it's not an inherit evil that men are the higher-earning breadwinners who have a say in the matter of whether or not a woman should be allowed to whore herself out on saturday night. Women would rather be miserable slags than even entertain the idea that men should be allowed to harbor both the responsibility and authority that makes women's panties go moist. Hypergamy is the name of the game, yet you'd be hard pressed to find a woman who even knows of the fact, let alone would be willing to openly admit it. I wholeheartedly believe that older societies were onto something when they put women on a leash. Far too many women are overgrown, emotional children, and need to be treated as such.

The state of affairs will correct itself if the societal collapse arrives, whatever form it might take. For that to happen though, the welfare state needs to be dismantled, and I can't see that happening.


----------



## Owlflaps (Jul 25, 2022)

First and second wave feminism, no. I'll even forgive some parts of third-wave feminism, as it recognizes women of color like myself. I'm not a hardcore feminist, but I'm not some rando tradwife that believes that women belong in the kitchen. 

What rankles me is the fourth-wave, neolib, zoomer feminism.

Fourth wave feminism is the cancer of feminist movements. The locus of fourth-wave feminism is intersectionality. We made the mistake of mentally ill men with deviant fetishes, into our circles. Now they're invading our spaces, taking over our sports and schools, letting them threaten us when we voice our fears. Biology is now transphobic. Now we have to call women "womb carriers" or "birth havers."  We're being denied our biological sex because it makes troons 41%. 

We asked for this, ladies.


----------



## Penrowe (Jul 25, 2022)

Maurice Caine said:


> What can be done?


The edgy response is to suggest a repeal of the 19'th as a good start but the curious thing about the US constitution is it does not grant anyone a right to vote, what it does is instead recognize the right of the citizenry to vote and prevents (through various amendments) that any limitations to the right to vote be imposed because of sex, race or age.
Democracy is a system designed to fail, the assumption being that it will win out as the most successful mechanism for selecting a sound government in spite of its flaws. That does not mean it can't be improved upon and has indeed seen many iterations throughout the history of the US. What I'd propose is an amendment limiting the government to only recognizing the votes of married couples, at one per couple.
I'm sick of the politics of antagonism between the sexes, if you can't fucking kiss and make up I don't want to hear from you how you think the country should be run. Cat ladies, incels, autogynephiles, cuckolds, nihilsts, vagrants, dope fiends, domestic abusers, you can all cope and seethe for all I care.


----------



## gang weeder (Jul 25, 2022)

Owlflaps said:


> First and second wave feminism, no. I'll even forgive some parts of third-wave feminism, as it recognizes women of color like myself. I'm not a hardcore feminist, but I'm not some rando tradwife that believes that women belong in the kitchen.
> 
> What rankles me is the fourth-wave, neolib, zoomer feminism.
> 
> ...



You're reaping what you've sown. Men and women aren't equal and thus attempts to force them to be equal in spite of reality will inevitably lead to disaster. It's actually hilarious and insane just how wildly off the rails this train has gone, I don't think anyone could've guessed it would get this bad, what with teaching five year olds to cut off their dicks and such. It's funny because in hindsight all those awfulbadmeanstupid "conservatives" warning that this would be a slippery slope were completely correct.



Penrowe said:


> The edgy response is to suggest a repeal of the 19'th as a good start but the curious thing about the US constitution is it does not grant anyone a right to vote, what it does is instead recognize the right of the citizenry to vote and prevents (through various amendments) that any limitations to the right to vote be imposed because of sex, race or age.
> Democracy is a system designed to fail, the assumption being that it will win out as the most successful mechanism for selecting a sound government in spite of its flaws. That does not mean it can't be improved upon and has indeed seen many iterations throughout the history of the US. What I'd propose is an amendment limiting the government to only recognizing the votes of married couples, at one per couple.
> I'm sick of the politics of antagonism between the sexes, if you can't fucking kiss and make up I don't want to hear from you how you think the country should be run. Cat ladies, incels, autogynephiles, cuckolds, nihilsts, vagrants, dope fiends, domestic abusers, you can all cope and seethe for all I care.




Unfortunately the whole rotten house of cards will have to come crashing down before any significant change can happen. Something better might eventually come up out of the ashes, but we're gonna have to endure the collapse first. It wouldn't surprise me if none of us alive today are around to see things ever start to get better again.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jul 25, 2022)

Oilspill Battery said:


> Yes, but a self correcting one. All societies that adopt feminism collapse socially and their birth rates become crippled destroying them economically as well. Even exported feminism in africa is destroying africa's birthrates, and neoliberals are bragging about this too. Only in the west is "Our ideology causes infertility!" considered a brag.
> 
> Sooner or later all feminist societies will collapse and revert back one of two ways.
> 
> ...


Feminism is self-correcting the way cancer is.


----------



## Oilspill Battery (Jul 25, 2022)

Owlflaps said:


> First and second wave feminism, no. I'll even forgive some parts of third-wave feminism, as it recognizes women of color like myself. I'm not a hardcore feminist, but I'm not some rando tradwife that believes that women belong in the kitchen.
> 
> What rankles me is the fourth-wave, neolib, zoomer feminism.
> 
> ...


I find this comment hillarious because its literally "Fuck you got mine."

You liked it when feminism pandered to you regardless of the damage it caused to society and other people but now that it no longer pandering to you, you're suddently against it.

At least you're self aware enough to realize that you reap what you sow.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jul 26, 2022)

Oilspill Battery said:


> Being a man is hard, you're a disposable cog in a machine that doesn't care about you , by contrast being a woman is easy because society is literally built to serve and cater to you.


I think one would have to be fairly delusional or naive to not see how lopsided relations are in favor of women now.

If one pictures America with the sexes reversed, one can see just how lopsided relations are IRL. Like how divorce works. Or how less women get called "creepy" than men.


----------



## Anonymus Fluhre (Jul 26, 2022)

MadStan said:


> No one who looks at history could argue Feminism is correct.  Their rights for millennia were little more than token rights.
> 
> Feminism is merely "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes" and in historical context this is entirely lop-sided to men and is justified today.
> 
> ...


You never cease to amaze me with the dumb shit you write.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Aug 2, 2022)

If what feminists call "sexism" and "objectification" were truly and completely eliminated, men wouldn't have a sex drive, and there'd be no differences between the sexes.

A sexless people in more than one sense of the word. Some "diversity" that would be.

(also the species would go extinct without some kind of cloning or 3D bioprinting technology then)


----------



## Butterschmalz (Aug 2, 2022)

Not a mistake. Just a long slow good buy to the gene pool. The same way that MGTOW is.


----------



## Skitarii (Aug 2, 2022)

It's not feminism's fault, women can have their rights no problem. It's this unhinged worship of women as blameless perma-victims who have a free pass to step all over people


----------



## Juan's Sombrero (Aug 3, 2022)

Owlflaps said:


> First and second wave feminism, no. I'll even forgive some parts of third-wave feminism, as it recognizes women of color like myself. I'm not a hardcore feminist, but I'm not some rando tradwife that believes that women belong in the kitchen.
> 
> What rankles me is the fourth-wave, neolib, zoomer feminism.
> 
> ...


What the hell did they think was gonna happen?


----------



## Owlflaps (Aug 3, 2022)

Juan's Sombrero said:


> What the hell did they think was gonna happen?



Progress moves forward so much that it becomes a circle, I guess.


----------



## Carlos Weston Chantor (Aug 3, 2022)

No, feminism was not a mistake, it was a conscious and premeditated effort to undermine the foundations of a healthy society.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Aug 4, 2022)

Women gaining social and political independence from men was an inevitable consequence of mechanization; feminism was merely the socio-political manifestation of this, and the people who act like this shift in the way that we lived could realistically have been avoided are quite frankly deluding themselves.

The gender roles of yesteryear existed because prior to the industrial revolution work was primarily agricultural and very labor-intensive, infant mortality was high, and as well as being the only sex capable of giving birth to children (and thus, more laborers), women also have a significant disadvantage over men in terms of physical strength and endurance. It therefore made sense for the men to plough the fields and collect the food while the women stayed at home to nurture the children.

The industrial revolution changed this dynamic, as did significant advances in both sanitation and medical care which greatly reduced infant mortality. It was never realistic or reasonable to expect that women would continue to cling to a sexual dynamic which no longer worked for them.


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 6, 2022)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Women gaining social and political independence from men was an inevitable consequence of mechanization; feminism was merely the socio-political manifestation of this, and the people who act like this shift in the way that we lived could realistically have been avoided are quite frankly deluding themselves.
> 
> The gender roles of yesteryear existed because prior to the industrial revolution work was primarily agricultural and very labor-intensive, infant mortality was high, and as well as being the only sex capable of giving birth to children (and thus, more laborers), women also have a significant disadvantage over men in terms of physical strength and endurance. It therefore made sense for the men to plough the fields and collect the food while the women stayed at home to nurture the children.
> 
> The industrial revolution changed this dynamic, as did significant advances in both sanitation and medical care which greatly reduced infant mortality. It was never realistic or reasonable to expect that women would continue to cling to a sexual dynamic which no longer worked for them.



Yes I'm sure this was inevitable and there is just nothing anyone could say about it.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Aug 6, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> Yes I'm sure this was inevitable and there is just nothing anyone could say about it.
> 
> View attachment 3570404


Not sure what relevance that has to anything I wrote, but with the evidence pointing towards people generally having sex later and less often than they did in prior generations, the slippery slope you're alluding to here doesn't appear to be bearing out in practice. I'm also confused as to why you seem to think that women's emancipation has anything to do with underage sex. What is the relationship between these two things?


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 6, 2022)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Not sure what relevance that has to anything I wrote, but with the evidence pointing towards people generally having sex later and less often than they did in prior generations, the slippery slope you're alluding to here doesn't appear to be bearing out in practice. I'm also confused as to why you seem to think that women's emancipation has anything to do with underage sex. What is the relationship between these two things?



Women's "liberation" = enabling of sexual deviancy/degeneracy. Not a coincidence that it was quickly followed by the rise of faggotry and associated practices.


----------



## Wormy (Aug 7, 2022)

>Complains about liberals enabling 14 year olds to fuck
>Cries when teenagers aren't getting married and pregnant in their teens more.

and

>Says women receiving an education is part of society's downfall
>Whining how teenage girls should focus on their studies and not screwing

Conservatives, NEVER change.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Not sure what relevance that has to anything I wrote, but with the evidence pointing towards people generally having sex later and less often than they did in prior generations, the slippery slope you're alluding to here doesn't appear to be bearing out in practice. I'm also confused as to why you seem to think that women's emancipation has anything to do with underage sex. What is the relationship between these two things?


Because he thinks everything is down to women being out of the kitchen and society not forcing everyone to be Christian as he wants to do. No, that last part isn't hyperbole, just ask him if he thinks non Christians should be seen as citizens.


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 7, 2022)

Wormy said:


> >Complains about liberals enabling 14 year olds to fuck
> >Cries when teenagers aren't getting married and pregnant in their teens more.
> 
> and
> ...



So you think 14 year olds should be fucking, because conservatards bad? Noted.


----------



## Wormy (Aug 7, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> So you think 14 year olds should be fucking, because conservatards bad? Noted.


Nope. It's conservatives who are saying girls need to marry and get pregnant as teenagers, not me.


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 7, 2022)

Wormy said:


> Nope. It's conservatives who are saying girls need to marry and get pregnant as teenagers, not me.



And yet I am the one who can provide a screenshot of lefties advocating for 14 year olds to fuck. You don't seem to have one for these supposed conservatives who believe this. Interesting.


----------



## Mothra1988 (Aug 7, 2022)

The problem is Marxism got involved and in came all the retarded shit that comes with academic fart sniffers that hate American society.  It shouldn't have been an ism at all.  It should have just been called Women's Rights and focused squarely on fairness and acutal women-centered issues instead of the dumb petty shit that "feminists" focus on these days.


----------



## Wormy (Aug 7, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> And yet I am the one who can provide a screenshot of lefties advocating for 14 year olds to fuck. You don't seem to have one for these supposed conservatives who believe this. Interesting.


Oh you think I can't?  From National Review online.





						Let's Have More Teen Pregnancy - Frederica
					

[National Review Online, September 20, 2002] Let’s Have More Teen Pregnancy True Love Waits. Wait Training. Worth Waiting For. The slogans of teen abstinence programs reveal a basic fact of human nature: teens, sex, and waiting aren’t a natural combination. Over the last fifty years the wait has...



					blogs.ancientfaith.com
				




Have a bit of this too


			https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2019/05/24/the-world-of-the-handmaids-tale-not-completely-bad/


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 7, 2022)

Wormy said:


> Oh you think I can't?  From National Review online.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all that isn't national review lol.





As usual, you don't bother to actually read what you try to post as an "own," or you misunderstand it due to ignorance/retardation. This is advocating for people to get married and have children young, "teenage" in the sense of 18 or 19, early 20s at the latest. Nothing in it suggests that it is good for people to have casual sex at 14 or any other below legal age. I do support people getting married and having children young, even at 18 if they want to, so if that is supposed to be an own you caught me. The title of the article is extremely retarded I will agree, with what it implies, but that's probably because it's 20 years old and no doubt written by some unaware boomer.

As far as defending a piece of overt leftist atheist propaganda (i.e. The Handmaid's Tale) as "actually not that bad," yeah, whoever wrote that is an idiot. Imagine a leftist writing an article about how the world depicted in 1984 is "ackchyually not that bad." Even your average leftoid, retarded and insane as they are, would probably not be stupid enough to agree with that take.



Mothra1988 said:


> The problem is Marxism got involved and in came all the retarded shit that comes with academic fart sniffers that hate American society.  It shouldn't have been an ism at all.  It should have just been called Women's Rights and focused squarely on fairness and acutal women-centered issues instead of the dumb petty shit that "feminists" focus on these days.



It has always been Marxist. Feminism is Marxism applied to gender, just like "critical race theory" or whatever label you prefer is Marxism applied to race, and social justice is Marxism applied to identity more broadly. It fits to a T.


----------



## Lady Bizness (Aug 7, 2022)

I'm just mad that being allowed to have my own checking account is why we have trannies in the lady's at my local Target.


----------



## Wormy (Aug 7, 2022)

Lady Bizness said:


> I'm just mad that being allowed to have my own checking account is why we have trannies in the lady's at my local Target.


Well, KF believes unironically that if you were still forbidden from voting and owning property or that checking account, there'd be no troons and we'd be in utopia. So I guess you should just bear that burden that, because you can, we have Jessica Yaniv you MONSTER.


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 7, 2022)

Wormy said:


> Well, KF believes unironically that if you were still forbidden from voting and owning property or that checking account, there'd be no troons and we'd be in utopia. So I guess you should just bear that burden that, because you can, we have Jessica Yaniv you MONSTER.



It's better for a wife to have her own checking account IMO. A husband has a certain duty to provide but this does have limits, likewise, a woman shouldn't feel pressured that she must work 50+ hours a week and be a "career woman," but if she wants to work, this is generally a good thing. Each individual has control of their own finances, at least to a large degree, and therefore each bears a large degree of personal responsibility, both for their income and for their expenses. And this way you can indeed avoid situations like a husband trying to weaponize finances or a wife being irresponsible with the husband's money and spending it all on pointless shit.


----------



## Wormy (Aug 8, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> It's better for a wife to have her own checking account IMO. A husband has a certain duty to provide but this does have limits, likewise, a woman shouldn't feel pressured that she must work 50+ hours a week and be a "career woman," but if she wants to work, this is generally a good thing. Each individual has control of their own finances, at least to a large degree, and therefore each bears a large degree of personal responsibility, both for their income and for their expenses. And this way you can indeed avoid situations like a husband trying to weaponize finances or a wife being irresponsible with the husband's money and spending it all on pointless shit.


But that results in degeneracy!  BiblicalGenderRoles told me so, and they're Christian conservative so they can't be wrong!


----------



## The Ugly One (Aug 8, 2022)

Wormy said:


> But that results in degeneracy!  BiblicalGenderRoles told me so, and they're Christian conservative so they can't be wrong!



The future belongs to those who show up, and feminism crashes birth rates.


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 8, 2022)

Wormy said:


> But that results in degeneracy!  BiblicalGenderRoles told me so, and they're Christian conservative so they can't be wrong!



No, feminism results in degeneracy. A woman can have her own checking account without being a feminist. You people really can't seem to do anything other than attack strawmen.


----------



## Wormy (Aug 8, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> No, feminism results in degeneracy. A woman can have her own checking account without being a feminist. You people really can't seem to do anything other than attack strawmen.


No they cannot.

How about you take it up with BiblicalGenderRoles. They know more about traditional family structure than you do.


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (Aug 12, 2022)

Might not be the right thread to mention this but an feminist decided to spill the beans. She mentioned lots of details we already know but was worth to repeat it again.


			https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1557898922575728640


----------



## Heraclitus Pavo (Aug 12, 2022)

Wormy said:


> Well, KF believes unironically that if you were still forbidden from voting and owning property or that checking account, there'd be no troons and we'd be in utopia. So I guess you should just bear that burden that, because you can, we have Jessica Yaniv you MONSTER.



There probably wouldn't be troons. They'd be like, fuck that! I want a checking account. They'd go old fashioned and just jerk off in wife's underwear every once in awhile when she wasn't there.


----------



## AmberHeardSupporter (Aug 12, 2022)

No it wasn’t. Mens reaction to feminism was a mistake


----------



## mickey339 (Aug 17, 2022)

I'm sorry for replying to old posts...



The Ugly One said:


> The most obvious one is the possibility of being conscripted into combat infantry during time of war


Women have another duty, giving birth, which affects far more women than men in even the most barren, militarized countries in the world.



The Ugly One said:


> You need to stabilize at some point, or you go extinct, and a society that doesn't shrink takes over. No feminist society of any size has a stable birth rate,


Except many non-feminist countries, like East Asia, Southern Europe and South America have fertility rates in the gutter.



The Ugly One said:


> and depends on the existence of non-feminist societies to have food (even in the USA, the farms and mines are largely operated by people who are very much stuck in patterns of life that feminists find abhorrent).


And all to most women are homegoing housewives in American farming and mining communities?



The Ugly One said:


> This makes feminist societies fundamentally parasitic, because they seek to destroy the ways of life they depend on for existence.


Except those mining towns rely on finance, health, communication and technology produced by companies that would collapse without female labour.
The countries that receive huge foreign aids while producing hardly anything of note are African. Also noted for being very anti-feminist.



The Ugly One said:


> Women were given the vote by men


Purely in a legalistic sense. In all countries with female suffrage, women fought for that right against fierce opposition from the state and men couldn't stop them.



The Ugly One said:


> and their opportunities are in companies, disciplines, and industries that men created.


Women contributed to all scientific disciplines, in spite of being legally barred from practising them for centuries. This legal barrier is also recent and going back to the bronze/iron age one would find women dominating the development of textile industries and chemistry and being vital in medicine and literature (don't DuckDuckGo Enheduanna). Women have the same right to those industries as men.



The Ugly One said:


> because matriarchal societies never get out of the hunter-gatherer stage


Dividing early civilisations in patriarchal and matriarchal makes little sense because the picture is so much more murky. But looking at ancient societies and civilisations you will notice that the further back you go, the more gender equal they are. 

Catal Huyuk was a neolithic, densely populated settlement predating the first civilisations that was the most technologically advanced society at its time. Archaeological records tell us that both women and men engaged in some sort of labour, got the same quality of nutrition and same intricate funeral rites. It provides the earliest direct evidence of textiles and cooking ware. There is actually evidence that suggests girls began doing labour tasks at a later age than boys, meaning women got more compensation for doing less work.  

In early dynastic Sumer, married women had property rights separate from their husbands, just as they could conduct commerce, find employment outside the home and rise to become workshop manages in industries such as pottery and weaving. Then over the following centuries the decline of women's rights can be traced and they didn't reach "women are property" levels until the late bronze age.

Shang women also had property rights and worked as shamans and divinators, a role that later confucian bureaucrats viciously tried to cover up. But they didn't loose their property rights until the Han. And there was no foot binding until the Song.




The Ugly One said:


> I find it fascinating that when I say, "women aren't behaviorally and psychologically identical to a man," I'm accused of saying women are subhuman. This means you believe that one must be psychologically and behaviorally identical to a man in order to be fully human. This is why feminism is so fucked up and makes women miserable. It tells women if they can't manage to think, behave, aspire, desire, and love like men do, they aren't even really human - they're just inferior, subhuman freaks.


1. You conflate these differences, however plentiful or decisive they might be, to the point where you argue women should be barred from actions and rights that are completely natural to them. 

Ironically, the very purpose of this thread is discussing that the supposed behavioural differences between men and women are no longer upheld after laws restricting them are lifted. Why are women viciously defending their rights to vote, educate themselves, work and hold property if it is not their natural behaviour, aspiration and desire?

2. There is a very clear, probably 1:1, correlation between cultures stressing the differences between women and men and cultures that view women as unimportant, subhuman and beneath men.



Secret Asshole said:


> No, it wasn't. Here's the problem: It wasn't with feminism, it was with the law of unintended consequences. Women should be paid as much for the same job as a man and be able to do it if they meet the qualifications. The problem became when the elites salivated at the prospect of a two-household income. This then became the norm, as there was no longer one sole breadwinner.
> 
> The rich saw it as an opportunity to stagnate wages and inflate the price of everything to enrich themselves. Wages haven't risen appreciably in 40+ years, while productivity has gone through the roof. People are not being paid for their labor. When corporations say, "Well, we can't afford to pay more, we'd have to put it on the customer!" It means they don't want to pay their executives and billionaires less, restrict bonuses and monetary rewards to themselves. CEO pay has risen some fucking absurd amount, and it isn't even tied to success or failure of a company. You can be a complete fuck-up and cause thousands of people to lose their jobs and you still get paid millions as a golden parachute as another company just hires you. Its a nepotistic jerk-off session.
> 
> ...


Please, you can't move into this thread and pretend to be the eternally sensible centrist with a text wall that mostly blurts about something completely different.
Women voting and holding property. Yes or no?




Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Women gaining social and political independence from men was an inevitable consequence of mechanization; feminism was merely the socio-political manifestation of this, and the people who act like this shift in the way that we lived could realistically have been avoided are quite frankly deluding themselves.
> 
> The gender roles of yesteryear existed because prior to the industrial revolution work was primarily agricultural and very labor-intensive, infant mortality was high, and as well as being the only sex capable of giving birth to children (and thus, more laborers), women also have a significant disadvantage over men in terms of physical strength and endurance. It therefore made sense for the men to plough the fields and collect the food while the women stayed at home to nurture the children.
> 
> The industrial revolution changed this dynamic, as did significant advances in both sanitation and medical care which greatly reduced infant mortality. It was never realistic or reasonable to expect that women would continue to cling to a sexual dynamic which no longer worked for them.


Debatable.
Firstly, there are ALWAYS labour roles for women in agricultural societies, including working in the fields. Having one half of the population not engaging in economically productive actions was simply not feasible.
Secondly, in western Europe, while it is still a hotly debated topic, industrialization might have contributed to the rise of the 50s homegoing housewife gender relations since it meant far more crafts reserved for women in the home was now moved into external work spaces, and the surplus of goods meant that a larger part of the total population could skip economically productive roles. However, it also meant that many women now could leave the home all together and work in factories.

Personally, I think it's a question of natural desire and culture, and perhaps economics.
It is natural for women to engage in some kind of labour and reap its rewards. Therefore some women will demand the right to do so. And the culture of the country will then determine if women attain rights, or it collapses into authoritarianism restricting both genders in order to stop them.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Aug 17, 2022)

This whole thread is a fucking trainwreck


----------



## The Ugly One (Aug 17, 2022)

I'm only going to address one thing in #1 Woman Respecter's word salad:



> Purely in a legalistic sense. In all countries with female suffrage, women fought for that right against fierce opposition from the state and men couldn't stop them.



lol


----------



## Netizennameless (Aug 17, 2022)

Maurice Caine said:


> Always the problems, never the solutions. What can be done to halt the monstrosity that the corporate world has turned into?


Refuse to consume from companies that involve themselves in politics.  Only vote for politicians who run on a ban of lobbying by anyone but an individual.  Company CEO's can write a letter to their congressperson like anyone else.

Refuse to invest in ESG-focused companies.  Environmental, social and governance scores are all things that have nothing to do with a company's actual legal obligation:  to maximize profits for the shareholders.  
Sue companies as shareholders that sacrifice profits for woke points.  Same thing for companies that go full MAGA.  Private companies can do what they want with politics.  That's between the board and their shareholders.

More than anything, people need to wake the fuck up and start paying attention to what is happening locally and why.  

Not saying that will ever happen, but that would fix the corporate monstrosity problem.


----------



## Dom Cruise (Aug 17, 2022)

I think the fundamental issue isn't whether women should have equal rights and opportunities, it's that to call yourself a "feminist" today means you have an obnoxious sense of entitlement, you want everything you want out of life to be handed to you without having to fairly earn it, you're not asking for opportunity to earn a thing, you're skipping right to asking for the thing, with the only justification being "I deserve it simply because I'm a woman"

Meanwhile it's no longer about giving options and saying you don't HAVE to simply focus on child rearing, it's showing open contempt to women that do still choose to do these things, it's not "here's option A and option B", it's "option A is superior to option B, option B is oppression"

It really does boil down to the specific Woke way of looking at thing and it's rancidness.

But that's not to let feminism entirely off the hook either, because then the question becomes whether Woke was an inevitable result of it all, you can't help but look at say 1900 as a superior society and not see a step by step process, starting with giving women the right to vote, as a slow but steady breakdown, reaching the tipping point of Woke a century later, what it's gonna be in another 100 years if we don't start in some way going back to what things were in 1900?

This ties in with the wider debate over all of this stuff, essentially it's where to draw the line between freedom and duty, where should a person's personal freedom and their duty to the functioning of society as a whole begin and end? I don't know, but what I do know is these modern Woke, Jezebel type feminists can go fuck themselves.


----------



## The Ugly One (Aug 17, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> I think the fundamental issue isn't whether women should have equal rights and opportunities, it's that to call yourself a "feminist" today means you have an obnoxious sense of entitlement, you want everything you want out of life to be handed to you without having to fairly earn it, you're not asking for opportunity to earn a thing, you're skipping right to asking for the thing, with the only justification being "I deserve it simply because I'm a woman"



This is how women have always been, through all of history, because women just don't have much of anything if men don't give it to them. The aggravating thing about feminism is that men are supposed to simultaneously give women unearned favors and pretend while saying that it's "equality" when we do. Any time we admit them to one of our spaces, they fall flat on their faces, fail to achieve anywhere close to the level men do, and then respond, not by just accepting reality, but by demanding that men just give them things to create the kind of outcome they think they deserve. Except now it's not give me a home and a garden; it's give me an unearned promotion, give me money for my sports team, give me a military command position, etc.


----------



## Dom Cruise (Aug 17, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> This is how women have always been, through all of history, because women just don't have much of anything if men don't give it to them. The aggravating thing about feminism is that men are supposed to simultaneously give women unearned favors and pretend while saying that it's "equality" when we do. Any time we admit them to one of our spaces, they fall flat on their faces, fail to achieve anywhere close to the level men do, and then respond, not by just accepting reality, but by demanding that men just give them things to create the kind of outcome they think they deserve. Except now it's not give me a home and a garden; it's give me an unearned promotion, give me money for my sports team, give me a military command position, etc.


I go back and forth on that view, but I think one way or the other what's certainly true is you're going to have exceptions, you're going to have women that do have a special talent for something and there's no real logical reason to stand in their way just because of whatever the average is.

Video games are a good microcosm of this, I'm a big fan of the Uncharted series, which was created by a woman, but it's also true that the age of bringing more women into game development by force has only made everything worse, but the question is not whether women are inherently less talented at that sort of thing, but when you're not hiring based on talent at all, surprise surprise, you get less talent.


----------



## mickey339 (Aug 18, 2022)

Glad to hear my arguments are sound.

The only way to curb female suffrage is through totalitarian control of the economy, culture, institutions and both genders. That's why there are dictatorships all around the world but no male-only liberal democracies. Women soon made those universal suffrage liberal democracies. 



Dom Cruise said:


> I think the fundamental issue isn't whether women should have equal rights and opportunities, it's that to call yourself a "feminist" today means you have an obnoxious sense of entitlement, you want everything you want out of life to be handed to you without having to fairly earn it, you're not asking for opportunity to earn a thing, you're skipping right to asking for the thing, with the only justification being "I deserve it simply because I'm a woman"


I can't figure out your view of universal suffrage, property rights, etc. 
It seems you are ok with it but don't like what some activists have begun to demand?



Dom Cruise said:


> But that's not to let feminism entirely off the hook either, because then the question becomes whether Woke was an inevitable result of it all, you can't help but look at say 1900 as a superior society and not see a step by step process, starting with giving women the right to vote, as a slow but steady breakdown, reaching the tipping point of Woke a century later, what it's gonna be in another 100 years if we don't start in some way going back to what things were in 1900?


Why is female suffrage your starting point of woke? 

Why not universal male suffrage?
Why not limited male suffrage?
Why not parliamentary restrictions on the monarch? 
Why not non-theocratic aristocracy? 


Personally, I think "woke" started with USA.

Race based identity politics and open border demands?
That is basically the natural consequence of having non-white people living in white majority countries coupled with a system of international cooperation. Non-whites will see what whites have and demand the same. When their initial solutions don't work the begin to make increasingly authoritarian demands. In America, of course, you imported these yourself and reaped the benefits. And exported them too. 
Continental European universities are not even near American universities in terms of idpol politics. And the level that does exist is by both the universities themselves and conservative authors recognized as stemming from USA. 

You know how the first non-whites came to Europe?
During the cold war, the Kennedy administration wanted to place nuclear missiles in Turkey. To foster a closer relationship between turks and the West, Germany was pressed into importing turkish foreign workers. Later the Reagan administration continued a similar program with the expansion of globalization. 
And now those same turks gobble up american race idpol politics like baklava.

Queer politics?
It's based around the sale of medicine while the sexuality theories surrounding it are mostly a sort of ideological justification but otherwise insignificant. That's why transpolitics are mostly a thing in private healthcare market of USA. Meanwhile the trans movement is insignificant in Europe with its public healthcare. No political parties care much about it and the movement as a whole gets very little media attention. 


The media tried REALLY hard to shill gender queers before and after the election of Donald Trump. They had to give up after a few months because the mainstream cared very little about it.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Aug 18, 2022)

The fact that feminists argued women should be anything BUT wives and mothers was the foundational error of the philosophy. Every excess, every failure and every cognitive issue with it stems from this original sin.


----------



## NeoGAF Lurker (Aug 18, 2022)

Status update: feminism is still a mistake


----------



## Male Idiot (Aug 24, 2022)

Yes, it was. Ask any still living silent generation babuska from eastern europe, and they'll lament the times where they did not have to work, and a single man salary could support a family of 5.


----------



## The Ugly One (Aug 24, 2022)

Dom Cruise said:


> I go back and forth on that view, but I think one way or the other what's certainly true is you're going to have exceptions, you're going to have women that do have a special talent for something and there's no real logical reason to stand in their way just because of whatever the average is.
> 
> Video games are a good microcosm of this, I'm a big fan of the Uncharted series, which was created by a woman, but it's also true that the age of bringing more women into game development by force has only made everything worse, but the question is not whether women are inherently less talented at that sort of thing, but when you're not hiring based on talent at all, surprise surprise, you get less talent.



The problem is we haven't found a way to make exceptions that didn't result in politically empowering women, as a whole, to demand special favors. If there were some High Council of Elders allowing the Grace Hoppers and Lisa Sus of the world 



mickey339 said:


> Glad to hear my arguments are sound.
> 
> The only way to curb female suffrage is through totalitarian control of the economy, culture, institutions and both genders. That's why there are dictatorships all around the world but no male-only liberal democracies. Women soon made those universal suffrage liberal democracies.



yeah dude women totally fought for their right to vote in iraq, i remember women liberals taking arms against the monarchists at fallujah


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 24, 2022)

Syaoran Li said:


> This whole thread is a fucking trainwreck



Got anything else to add?


----------



## RMQualtrough (Aug 29, 2022)

To children it seems that way, of course.


----------



## Wesley Willis (Aug 30, 2022)

Feminism didn't happen in a bubble. It was simply the next logical step in the evolution of Victorian morality.


----------



## The Ugly One (Aug 30, 2022)

Wesley Willis said:


> Feminism didn't happen in a bubble. It was simply the next logical step in the evolution of Victorian morality.



We never really broke out of the "virtue is feminine; vice is masculine" thinking.


----------



## NeoGAF Lurker (Aug 30, 2022)

Wesley Willis said:


> Feminism didn't happen in a bubble. It was simply the next logical step in the evolution of Victorian morality.


Feminism is a luxury belief system. Because we no longer live a hardscrabble life, we decided we could have #girlbosses not because they had all kinds of potential to be unleashed but precisely because they don’t have as much potential to be unleashed, which is deemed acceptable because we no longer have to work hard for our next meal.

As the economic conditions worsen, we’re going to see the true leadership skills of girlbosses put to the test and it’s going to turn out exactly the way we think it will. Once the asspats turn into demands to remain solvent for the next quarter and they can’t take Friday afternoon off to shop for shoes, it will be a lot less fun. White men will be blamed of course but we’ll see why most successful entrepreneurs and growth company executives tend to be white men.


----------



## Uncle Holter (Aug 30, 2022)

Here's my take.

Feminism was created not by the left or by some kind of popular revolt.
It was created, or at least put in to prominence, by a global capitalist elite that wanted to increase productivity by doubling the labor pool. Pushing women out in the work force drives down wages while at the same time increasing growth, which at face value sounds good, but all that money ends up in the pockets of a few while society as a whole starts to decay from within from this unnatural way of life.

There's also a follow up effect that I would like to mention.

Driving people in to this unnatural way of living makes them miserable, and to fill this void, they often engage in hedonism and in desperation try to gain happiness from consumerism, thus immense profit and control can be gained from the slow death of our people.


----------



## Naturally (Aug 30, 2022)

The idea that women are the driving force behind feminism should have been put to rest a few dozen tranny outbursts ago. They don't run anything in the main, they never will, and far and away most don't even want to.

And yeah, universal male suffrage wasn't a great idea either.


----------



## Uriah (Aug 30, 2022)

The religious egalitarianism during the Great Awakening was pretty good. 

As for the suffragettes and their cause: some of it was pretty good. I mean sure, wives should be subordinate to their husbands. But they also should be equal under the law, be allowed to open bank accounts without a male cosigner etc.


----------



## Wesley Willis (Aug 30, 2022)

NeoGAF Lurker said:


> Feminism is a luxury belief system. Because we no longer live a hardscrabble life, we decided we could have #girlbosses not because they had all kinds of potential to be unleashed but precisely because they don’t have as much potential to be unleashed, which is deemed acceptable because we no longer have to work hard for our next meal.
> 
> As the economic conditions worsen, we’re going to see the true leadership skills of girlbosses put to the test and it’s going to turn out exactly the way we think it will. Once the asspats turn into demands to remain solvent for the next quarter and they can’t take Friday afternoon off to shop for shoes, it will be a lot less fun. White men will be blamed of course but we’ll see why most successful entrepreneurs and growth company executives tend to be white men.




Or have our economic asses clapped by Chinamen.


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 30, 2022)

Naturally said:


> The idea that women are the driving force behind feminism should have been put to rest a few dozen tranny outbursts ago. They don't run anything in the main, they never will, and far and away most don't even want to.
> 
> And yeah, universal male suffrage wasn't a great idea either.



This is one of the more insightful posts I've seen recently. People forget, and need to remember: Women don't set social trends. They follow them. Therefore, negative or harmful social trends are not caused by women. They are caused by deviant men, who fashion ideologies that women then follow.


----------



## Ser Prize (Aug 31, 2022)

NeoGAF Lurker said:


> Feminism is a luxury belief system. Because we no longer live a hardscrabble life, we decided we could have #girlbosses not because they had all kinds of potential to be unleashed but precisely because they don’t have as much potential to be unleashed, which is deemed acceptable because we no longer have to work hard for our next meal.
> 
> As the economic conditions worsen, we’re going to see the true leadership skills of girlbosses put to the test and it’s going to turn out exactly the way we think it will. Once the asspats turn into demands to remain solvent for the next quarter and they can’t take Friday afternoon off to shop for shoes, it will be a lot less fun. White men will be blamed of course but we’ll see why most successful entrepreneurs and growth company executives tend to be white men.


I only worry that the "women are wonderful" effect will let a lot of these unskilled #girlbosses coast on being nominal leaders.


----------



## gang weeder (Aug 31, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> I only worry that the "women are wonderful" effect will let a lot of these unskilled #girlbosses coast on being nominal leaders.



Not when the rubber really hits the road, it won't. But yes there is a ton of this going on right now. What I have observed personally is that these childless "career women" are largely incompetent and useless, but simply hold their management positions because they care a lot about their job and it's their entire life and identity, whereas everyone else who is just there to clock in and get a paycheck doesn't give enough of a shit to bother with management roles.


----------



## NeoGAF Lurker (Aug 31, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> I only worry that the "women are wonderful" effect will let a lot of these unskilled #girlbosses coast on being nominal leaders.





gang weeder said:


> Not when the rubber really hits the road, it won't. But yes there is a ton of this going on right now. What I have observed personally is that these childless "career women" are largely incompetent and useless, but simply hold their management positions because they care a lot about their job and it's their entire life and identity, whereas everyone else who is just there to clock in and get a paycheck doesn't give enough of a shit to bother with management roles.


It’ll all depend on the company. Most #girlbosses crumple up from curt or direct feedback from their bosses. If they have to work overnight to develop a plan to keep their team from being cut, it’ll devastate them. After all, tonight they were going to binge watch The Office with their friend who just broke up with her boyfriend because he got tired of her cheating on him constantly. God forbid if they have to give up a weekend to develop this plan.

The only thing saving them are ESG statistics where BlackRock demands at least 30% of their management be from “disadvantaged” groups. However with enough consolidation of teams, they could still hit that and cut a number of useless diversity leaders.


----------



## Apis mellifera (Sep 1, 2022)

Mothra1988 said:


> The problem is Marxism got involved and in came all the retarded shit that comes with academic fart sniffers that hate American society.  It shouldn't have been an ism at all.  It should have just been called Women's Rights and focused squarely on fairness and acutal women-centered issues instead of the dumb petty shit that "feminists" focus on these days.


Agreed, I quite like being able to own property and manage my own finances without a man's permission, I quite like being able to pursue the education and career I desire without unnecessary barriers, I like the strides that are being made to adequately punish rapists by listening to the victims, but I don't really care much beyond equal access and legal rights in (current year).  If it had been called "women's rights", perhaps we would have ended up with greater support for mothers who choose to make their career raising children, rather than what is seen today.  Motherhood almost certainly isn't for me, I'm too much of an aspie to handle being around very loud, touchy, children for extended periods, as much as I've enjoyed mentoring people in my field and being an aunt to my older friend's young children, but I have massive respect for those who choose to go down that path.

I think a lot of the issue with the economy is to do with shipping much of the US' manufacturing overseas, families were once able to be supported by one man working in a steel mill or factory, and our economy is all the less robust now that we import the large majority of our goods.


----------

