Argue about women or something

[Mexican_Wizard_711]

What up dumb Bitches, who wants to be my ignore list

 

[Ultrapenguin]

He said that homemaking and "real jobs" are both work. How does that advocate trapping or coercing people into marriage against their will? Is this the best you could come up with?

Yeah I didn't feel like coercing women into marriage was a point of debate here, but to be fair that's the classical feminist argumentative process.

You could start out disagreeing about the impact of plastics in the ocean, and within 20 minutes it'll have morphed into an argument about how men won't stop trying to sexually impose themselves on women so clearly you're factually wrong as well as terrible.

@redcent
You are on the spectrum of cluster B disorders. At least Borderline is in the question.
Invest into therapist.
I'm serious.

It looks to me like a possible case of female hysteria manifesting in a sexually repressed woman, someone get the hose.

 

[redcent]

He said that homemaking and "real jobs" are both work. How does that advocate trapping or coercing people into marriage against their will? Is this the best you could come up with?

I brought up an example of a crappy example to live in being forced to live at home - not "homemaking"-and not allowed to earn their own, and his reply was basically "how is it so bad?"

Nah way he was talking saying women shouldn't be roles they are in aka jobs

How else is someone supposed to earn money?

There are people out there who don't want women to earn money and cone up with bullshit excuses so they can play financial abuser. Now why shouldn't I think someone who talks like him isn't one of those?

It looks to me like a possible case of female hysteria manifesting in a sexually repressed woman, someone get the hose.

seriously, who looks up this stuff and think this is even remotely funny? Creep. No!

 

[Dylan]

@redcent Listen, I know you interpretate a call to seek help as an insult because in your environment people mean it that way, but my suggestion is sincere, get things sorted out, it will make your life happier.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

oh yeh and you refuse to admit men have physically, financially, and politically oppressed by elites in power. And also used as cannon fodder, tortured, killed and worked to death.
How many women died for Feminism? None.
How many men died for human rights? We will never know.
Women have complaints, Men have the pile of corpses.

If you don't allow a population to participate in public matters, you don't get to criticize them for not participating in public matters.

If you (since we are speaking in terms of identity groups here, I mean men) control a society for hundreds or thousands of years, it's a bit rich to blame the ills of society on the people who didn't get to participate fully until yesterday.

Men(or at least I) don't think Women are useless. We just don't think you are Men. Which seems to be what the Feminist movement is all about, Women trying to take on the roles of Men, when you are typically, neither psychologically wired, nor biologically set up for such. At least that's been what my experience and research has told me.

I'll completely acknowledge there are Women out there that have taken on Mens roles and succeeded amazingly. But as I said earlier. That's the exception to the rule.

Why do Feminists hold up the role of Men as the ideal exactly???

It's about having free will and the agency (legal and otherwise) to choose one's own destiny - which is a universal desire (and right). We've fought wars for it - to escape tyranny as a society, and for the individual to be able to try to make of their life what they want - for good reason. It's logically inconsistent to be willing to sacrifice, kill, and die for the right to be free, and then to turn around and deny those same rights to others.

"Men" aren't the "ideal"; women, generally speaking, don't want to be men. They merely want to be able to make the choices that best suit their aptitudes or desires - which requires legal equality and freedom from oppression, as a people and individually - which means both publicly and privately.

It's their choice in education and life skills, which is to say very little. I don't know many women who know how to save, have any skills beyond their jobs, or are thinking about their future.

That's sad. Tragic, even. There are many men who live exactly the same way. The usual dividing line is that people who are either a) naturally inclined to be an achiever or at least minimally responsible as a human, and/or b) are unavoidably responsible* for others' welfare tend to do these things.

*note: does not necessarily include owers/payers (of either sex) of often paltry child support who often can and do avoid the responsibility for the actual welfare of their dependents. Just bc a judge says $100/month and you pay it does not necessarily mean you are raking care of your child in any meaningful sense. I digress.

When a man comes across a woman who is effectively just breathing, all he sees is sex because sex is all this person has to offer him. Not even children are on the table. What use does this person have if they're just a lesser man?

And yet, they still pursue women, often the very sorts described.

A man should be able to tell a woman she's being an obnoxious whore and she should feel shame instead of empowerment which leaves little to be desired in women, and it's destroying generations of men. Not to mention, women need to keep other women in check and shame each other for being whores instead of encouraging this mess. And men should encourage each other to say no to whores and to shame them for being whores, you're probably gonna get the clap and baby trapped anyway by fucking randoms.

What do men get to get shamed for?
Why should men and women shame other women, but only "men should encourage each other"?

That's why we need each other. We keep each other in check.

Keep your own damn self in check, lady/man. This reads like some weird justification for exactly the kind of crappy social pressure cattiness that women are always criticized for (see, e.g., this thread, esp talking about how women are such backbiting bitches that workplaces with a lot of them go straight to hell). Like I trust a bunch of randoms to meet my standards or I'd want to cosign theirs without question.

There's a reason individualism matters. We're humans, not ovines. Or should be. Peer pressure is a lazy substitute for thought and character.

 

[Kerr Avon]

Is this a thread where you argue about your tastes in women?

That thread is here /sneed

 

[vomitusdeux]

What do men get to get shamed for?
Why should men and women shame other women, but only "men should encourage each other"?

I literally never said they should encourage each other. Being a slut or a whore is fucking disgusting and men should be ashamed of themselves too. Don't put words in my mouth faggot.

 

[Some Dumb Faggot]

Vtubers are a gay-op by crab people from underground to turn men into weak limp-dicked coomers who only wanna fuck cartoon women.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

seriously, who looks up this stuff and think this is even remotely funny? Creep. No!

Oh you don't know about female hysteria? Let me fill you in on the history of hard up women being insane:

Spoiler

See, back in the day up as early as ancient egypt they described women who basically didn't get piped down properly and didn't know of any way to deal with it themselves because sex ed wasn't really a thing. Here's a story from back in ancient greece:

Spoiler

This led to a medical condition they'd call "female hysteria", which was characterized by women being anxious, overly chatty, combative, complaining about vague medical issues, generally just being problematic.

Fast forwarding through time, around the 1800s everyone was very sexually repressed but women were still fucking crazy, meaning there were proposed treatments like hosing them down as pictured, but a more common one was to have a woman achieve "hysterical paroxysm", which we nowadays recognize was orgasm (I'll get to why they didn't realize it was that shortly).

Back in the 1800s the husbands at the time couldn't be bothered and were generally not great at pleasing their wives, so women would actually go to their doctor to deal with it.

Their family doctor would treat them by essentially flicking them off until they came.


Doctors didn't actually like this, they did not consider it erotic at all and in fact considered it a major pain in the ass having all these appointments to jill women off when he had more important medical things to deal with.

As for why they didn't understand what was happening, at the time they didn't even realize women could derive sexual pleasure from anything except penetrative intercourse. So they didn't see how an external massage could be getting women off. It was seen as a common nuisance medical procedure.

When electricity came around they started using "medical massagers" (aka electric vibrators) around the early 1900s so they had less handwork.

Eventually though as the 20th century rolled on they said "Guys, you know what? The women seem to be really into all this. I'm starting to suspect that maybe massaging vaginas might actually be sexual", by the mid 1900s it was almost universally recognized as sexual, and plus women could just deal with it at home since domestic electricity was pretty ubiquitous.

I'd like to say that with understanding it led to women not being insane anymore, but we all know that isn't true since threads like this exist, meaning the war to deal with nuts women who don't get laid still rages on to this day.

The end.

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/medical-vibrators-treatment-female-hysteria

As you can see, one of the most enduring medically recognized facts in human society is that sexually unsatisfied women make problems.
Basically as a man every time you penetrate a woman, you're making the world a better place. It's really your duty to the future.

See, don't say the male users of this site don't understand women's issues.

 

[Zyklon Ben's Poison Pen]

If you don't allow a population to participate in public matters, you don't get to criticize them for not participating in public matters.

If you (since we are speaking in terms of identity groups here, I mean men) control a society for hundreds or thousands of years, it's a bit rich to blame the ills of society on the people who didn't get to participate fully until yesterday.

But I'm told constantly women are "the solution" and so far its been a laughable horror show. The problem is the literal lack of knowledge of why things are the way the are and having harpies criticise the world they clearly do not understand from a throne built from the blood of their fathers.
You don't get to blame a group who fought and died for generations to get us this far then when get a chance to 'fix it' they completely and utterly fuck it up!

 

[NOT Satoshi Nakamoto]

Women? Love 'em. Very easy to beat up. Really great practice for anybody who's just getting into violence. You can even use them to make more people to beat up. Can you believe it? Idk what these haters are complaining about. If your woman is complaining about something just threaten to stop giving it opiates.

Jeez people on this site say the weirdest stuff sometimes.

 

[Oilspill Battery]

Life without the rights to earn your own living or own your own property is a shit life. Life where you have to depend on being married and fucking some guy you have learned over time is a dick is a crap life. Arranged marriages are usually even crappier. This is the crap life you want for women why should anyone take it lying down just because your lame government is shit?

For 99% of history men weren't allowed to own property either. So no, this is a women only issue is.

And "right to earn your own living"? More like "being forced to work until you die."

Men didn't have a right to do shit, they were either forced to work until they no longer could or forced to go be cannon fodder in whatever war was being fought that week.

And imagine complaining about arranged marriages as if men weren't forced into them too at the exact same rate as women. Somehow a thing that by design is designed to affect both sexes affects only women according to feminism. (Ignoring the fact that there's more women than men so ironically arranged marriage affects more men proportionally.)

This comment is why feminism is the genetic dead end of ideologies. Its all about "me me me me me" while failing to understand or see the greatest context, you complain about how bad things are for women but fail to see that it wasn't because men were having a good time at their expense and failing to understand why things were like this and what the world around them actually is like.

Its a petulant narccisistic child's understanding of how the world works demanding ever more candy without understanding why its bad for them and where candy even comes from.

Hillary's speech about women being the primary victims of war is basically feminism in a nutshell.

If you don't allow a population to participate in public matters, you don't get to criticize them for not participating in public matters.

Men who weren't allowed to participate in public matters rebelled and died fighting until they could. Feminists just bitched until men did something about it on their behalf. That's the argument being made here.

If you (since we are speaking in terms of identity groups here, I mean men) control a society for hundreds or thousands of years, it's a bit rich to blame the ills of society on the people who didn't get to participate fully until yesterday.

There is the argument to be made that the instant they were allowed to participate society (To specify, women always participated in society indirectly via influencing their men, in this case participate means active participation in politics) started going downhill.

Crashing birthrates, extreme immigration, social cohesion collapsing, family units falling appart, cost of living has reached a point where people literally can't afford to have kids, schools are literally teaching middle schoolers about anal sex.

Most of these policies are a result of "emotional" reasoning.

"Oh the poor immigrants let them in."
"Oh the poor gays let them marry."
"Oh the poor women/blacks, force companies to hire them regardless of qualification."

None of these policies consider "Does this make society stronger?" all they are based on is "Not being mean." because being mean makes people sad.

women, generally speaking, don't want to be men. They merely want to be able to make the choices that best suit their aptitudes or desires - which requires legal equality and freedom from oppression, as a people and individually - which means both publicly and privately.

The female happiness paradox seems to demonstrably prove you wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap

Women got everything they wanted and yet are unhappier than ever despite objectively having more "rights" (if you even want to call the mandate to work a right) than ever before in history. Society wasn't structured the way it was purely for the benefit of men wanting to put women down out of spite.

 

[Ser Prize]

@Uberpenguin Didn't they find that semen triggered happy chemicals in women?

 

[Lightsaber Dildo]

Men love to bitch and complain endlessly about women and talk down to them, until their weewee wants to get wet.

 

[gang weeder]

It's about having free will and the agency (legal and otherwise) to choose one's own destiny - which is a universal desire (and right). We've fought wars for it - to escape tyranny as a society, and for the individual to be able to try to make of their life what they want - for good reason. It's logically inconsistent to be willing to sacrifice, kill, and die for the right to be free, and then to turn around and deny those same rights to others.

"Men" aren't the "ideal"; women, generally speaking, don't want to be men. They merely want to be able to make the choices that best suit their aptitudes or desires - which requires legal equality and freedom from oppression, as a people and individually - which means both publicly and privately.

There is a trade off between agency and responsibility that feminists and others like yourself fail to recognize. Yes in some ways it is a great thing to be able to do whatever you want and make independent choices. However with that same capacity almost always comes an increase in responsibility, even if only for yourself. If you are cared for by someone else you lose some of your agency but you also don't have as much responsibility. In many ways it is much easier than having to legitimately make your own way in the world with no one to provide for you.

The reality is that, for completely obvious reasons rooted directly in biology and evolutionary psychology, women are better suited to trading off agency in favor of care, by comparison to men. Some tail end women might still prefer to take the "strong independent wahmen" route and sure you could argue they should have that choice. But what feminism has done in practice is deny that any legitimate choice exists at all. It lies to people and tells them only their "freedom" matters and that there is no trade off to being a Strong Independent Wahmen Who Don't Need No Man (never mind that many women end up leeching from men indirectly through the government anyways).

This is completely at odds with the nature of most females so it produces some predictable negative outcomes when said females are duped en masse into pursuing it.

Also it's funny that you fail to see the irony in saying "men aren't the ideal" while defending feminist positions. Feminism explicitly seeks to make women more like men (it's literally in the dictionary definition that feminists love to cite constantly, it's about "equality"). I guess we could imagine a world in which the goal was to make men more like women and in some ways you could say that has come true. But when we look at what feminists prescribe for women, it is always to make them more like a stereotypical Man capital M.

What do men get to get shamed for?
Why should men and women shame other women, but only "men should encourage each other"?

Again there are really obvious evolutionary reasons for differential dynamics in how the sexes shame each other. Women are far more choosy in their mate selection compared to men who will fuck anything that moves. Hmmm I wonder what possible biological basis there could be for that. Now given that reality, the fact is that it is very easy for a woman to have tons of sex with lots of men, if she wants to. Whereas it is quite difficult for a man to have lots of sex with many different women, and when a man is able to do this, it is in direct correlation with him having high status, almost one hundred percent of the time.

So for a woman to be a whore is not an accomplishment of any sort, but for a male to be sexually promiscuous is not something any man can just randomly do, it's typically an indicator of high status, which is itself the primary thing that women value in men. Furthermore, a woman's reproductive capacity is usually her highest value asset in the sense that it enables her to attach herself to a high value mate. Feminists can cope and sneed about this all they want but the ten richest women in the world all got that way via inheritance or divorce. Even today marriage is still one of the best routes to status and wealth for women, and up until two seconds ago, it was practically the only option.

Thus if a woman whores around and gives away sex for free, she is literally giving away for free her most precious asset. This is why the behavior has an inherently disgusting quality that isn't matched by promiscuous sexual behavior from men. A whore is literally debasing herself in the same sense that printing tons of money debases the currency. Which touches on the final obvious reason, whores undercut the market value of pussy, which screws over women as a class. The basic tradeoff of marriage is resources/status in exchange for sexual access.

A whore who gives away the latter with no commitment is undermining this dynamic, it is obviously better for women if men are required to actually hold up that end of the marriage bargain and provide for women. This is a completely rational basis for why women would shame whores and discourage them from whoring, because women are the ones with the most to lose from such behavior. The men who are getting the free sex typically aren't complaining.

I feel like a retard for spelling this all out because it seems so stupid to imagine that anyone in this thread doesn't know this shit or isn't aware of it. But based on your post I can only assume you are legitimately ignorant and haven't thought about any of this shit for more than 2 whole seconds.

 

[Diamond Homonculus]

I do legitimately feel like the MGTOW version of women became a reality over covid or at least closer to it. The neuroticism and self involvement has just been turned up to 11.

 

[56 others]

Women do not like me, it must be because I'm so powerful and attractive

 

[redcent]

@redcent Listen, I know you interpretate a call to seek help as an insult because in your environment people mean it that way, but my suggestion is sincere, get things sorted out, it will make your life happier.

I gave you clocks get a clue

Oh you don't know about female hysteria? Let me fill you in on the history of hard up women being insane:

Oh I know about it, of course. But you looking it up and posting it for laughs shows all i need to know about you

For 99% of history men weren't allowed to own property either. So no, this is a women only issue is.

This is true though

And "right to earn your own living"? More like "being forced to work until you die."

This - as a current issue- is mostly a third world country/ USA thing (give or take a few places) . Unions should be more of a thing in so much of the world.

In places that do have fair workers rights, work isn't a hell hole a lot of people online portray it as. Job satisfaction is a thing and not everybody has it bad, it's a positive experience instead. I wish it were a positive experience for everyone but life sucks and just like some people here need to see relationships have been bad experience for many folk and won't ever see it as a positive thing or go for it (no matter how much they text wall otherwise until they're blue in the face) and live with that I have to live with people crying about their job.

But hey, men actually have the option of being the stay at home caretaker these days. So tells me why, oh why, if working is so so terrible why don't men try being a sahd?

 

[Netizennameless]

All of the arguments in this thread can be put to bed by looking at what happened in Afghanistan when the US left. The women put their burqas back on and shut their mouths when the Taliban told them to.

Women's rights aren't something that any society takes seriously because women themselves are unwilling to fight and die for their own rights.

 

[gang weeder]

In places that do have fair workers rights, work isn't a hell hole a lot of people online portray it as. Job satisfaction is a thing and not everybody has it bad, it's a positive experience instead. I wish it were a positive experience for everyone but life sucks and just like some people here need to see relationships have been bad experience for many folk and won't ever see it as a positive thing or go for it (no matter how much they text wall otherwise until they're blue in the face) and live with that I have to live with people crying about their job.

Imagine trying to tell people how positive it is to be a wage cuck while also saying relationships are terrible and shouldn't be pursued.

But hey, men actually have the option of being the stay at home caretaker these days. So tells me why, oh why, if working is so so terrible why don't men try being a sahd?

I've never seen a man complain about being a stay at home dad and good luck finding any. If a man could legitimately get into a situation where the woman makes all the money and still provides him plenty of sex and respects him and etc. you won't find him complaining about it. There is no movement of men complaining about how terrible that situation is, it doesn't exist.

The reality is many men would be very happy to live that life, not all, but a sizeable chunk. However most women are not willing to do that for them. There is very little or nothing for the woman to gain in that relationship. She won't respect the man that she is caring for like a child. She will almost certainly have better options and be able to instead mate with a man who is able to bring something to the table as opposed to sitting on his ass and doing nothing. Most women would rather just stay single instead of being in such a bad relationship for them.

So no men mostly don't have the option of being a stay at home caretaker and it is largely due to women's choices and preferences.