/lit/ - Literature

fuck off idiot

>>10461359
I don't mean to shit on the male gender with the last sentence btw. It was never all men and women were obviously socialized to also socialize their daughters(and sons) this way. Just giving some perspective.

btw, If it means anything to the inevitable /pol/ invasion, part of my idea came after watching an "analysis" of Frozen by Stephen Molyneux. It was mostly biased as expected but not completely without truth.

>>10461359
>I know I never have
L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N

Other than that, what was the point of this thread? What is your question?

>>10461366
nice, you haven't even read the post and you're hailing insults. If you did, you would know I disagree with pic related's statements.
The number of partners a human has had in their life time is not completely useless in empirically determining whether or not said person is capable of holding a long term relationship(mainly in marriage) if that is what one desires. People who vehemently deny this i feel are being a bit disingenuous, including feminists

>>10461381
I wanted to have a discussion, basically. If you disagree with the absurdity of double standards and why or why not?
Telling from your response, it seems like you didn't read the post critically and you disagree with my points telling from your response. What part of my stance specifically? Unless you're simply excited at the possibility of me being a female on /lit/

>>10461359
bump for options(backed by facts) and critiques.

>>10461410
I honestly didn't find anything particularly disagreeable. That's why I asked what the point of this was.
I didn't know females masturbating/having lewd thoughts was considered more vulgar than males doing so, but I'll take your word for it since it is not of great importance to me.

>>10461422
On average, it is. Many teenage girls from other cultures wouldn't even think of it either. No, I don't just mean Islam. I was explaining all this in the context of slut shaming.
Sorry, for not starting the question. I was on a word count limit, probably should have just split in two parts to make it more complete. Does a thread need to end with a question to provoke discussion though?
Also, if you disagree with generalizing of current feminist though on the subject in the beginning too also feel free to say why.

>>10461359
Fuck off. /lit/ is a Catholic board. You should be a Virgin until marriage, whore.

>>10461464
>on average it is
Who finds it more vulgar?
Also next time don't publish war and peace just phrase the question and make it succinct.

It's more like other men sharing a cereal bowl with the same spoon. Women ought to stay pure.

>Food analogy
Let's make a bit more equal
30 Dudes dipped their dicks in a bowl of cereal, would you take a spoonful?

>>10461359
im not going to read all that lol

>>10461359
""""""""""""""""""""""""theory"""""""""""""""""""""""""

>>10461488
Men and women. More males but still the bias is there.
Do you mean culture wise?
I made it long for the purpose of explaining my thought process and anticipating objections. Perhaps not necessary on a Mongolian cartoon imaginary forum but I hate repeating myself.

>>10461469
Are you and all your male friends ready to commit to this ideal?
Also no masturbating =') You should be ashamed for visiting a site with such a wide availability of pornographic material btw.

>>10461359
>It's why females with no sexual partners who masturbate are still somehow thought as by some as slutty and why many teenage girls and even women(I know I never have) do not partake in such. And if they do it is kind of a shock. Meanwhile, for boys this action is inclined to be seen as more natural as they are sexually frustrated or even "lonely virgins" who "can't get any sex otherwise. Despite all the Catholic churches effort to come down on the practice, no one to this day, really gives a shit that boys may sometimes masturbate. Many people still kind of give a shit if girls do.
You're completely wrong and this is silly. You're not a man, you're talking out of your ass. This is just anecdotes, I want statistical evidence. I as a man have almost never heard much against females masturbating, and, having grown up with Catholic parents and attending Sunday school, did receive teachings that porn, indulging in lustful thoughts, and masturbation was bad --- this said without reference to gender. Again, however, this is merely an anecdote, so either bring up statistics or bust.

>This also manifests itself in how men and women think about sex. Girls have always been taught to fixate on the more romantic side of love and guys allowed to fixate on the more sexual side. In extremes, this resulted in romance literally being a stand in for "sex" in most girls' minds. Whether consciously or unconsciously. Not the case at all for boys since it is not and hardly has been in history(barring Victorian era) taboo for them to speak of it and their interests, even blatantly.
We weren't "taught" it, the nature of man and woman's sexuality is fundamentally different. Men biologically are wired to get much more horny than women do if they go for a while without ejaculating/orgasm. If men don't ejaculate/orgasm for a while, the semen builds up in their testicles and some of the chemicals in the semen, according testosterone, get reincorporated into the bloodstream and have effects on the mind. This typically may lead to greater feelings of aggression, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and, to put it as simply as possible, greater horniness. It's an almost impersonal lust that DEMANDS to be satisfied, regardless of emotion or not.

Women do not have the same effect. I find this is often something women don't understand, how men can have merely physical lust separated from emotions, read this http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982 and this in particular from where she goes to a strip club:

> "I really ran smack up against the difference between male and female sexuality. It's that female sexuality is mental. ... For a man, it's an urge," she said.

>"At its core, it's a bodily function. It's a necessity. It's such a powerful drive and I think because we [women] don't have testosterone in our systems, we don't understand how hard it is," she said.

(to be cont. in next post)

don't women receive psychological damage for having so much sex with different people?

i'm really not educated on this subject but a good way to find an argument for or against something is to look at the effects on someone psyche or health... is a women having a lot of sex with different men bettering them in anyway? how about men?

He wasn't just referring to dudes...but also woman(mostly religious) who may have the same objections. Funny you again focus on women without considering that a man who is impure will also destroy a monogamous relationship.
>>10461504
>>10461498
I suppose you will use the lame excuse that "it's easier" for woman to get sexual fulfillment with the opposite gender without masturbation than men. But then that would now be an example of bitterness and plain misogyny at this point. Men were jealous that women on average have an easier time getting laid, so they make such rules to make it even or out of spite?

Anyway it is not so simple, especially not with the culture we have in place. An attractive man will not waste his time pursuing unattractive females for sex even on a bad day. Ugly females still have no choice but to aim for ugly males...provided they are not completely autistic/ socially retarded. In that case, she too would have to be so.

>>10461389
The text in the OP was trite and it dragged for ages. I felt assaulted because of the high level of demagoguery in the assumptions. The OP fails to recognize the societal shift that is currently underway. Families as we know them, and society at large, will cease to exist when critical mass of superwhores is achieved. 10 men - maybe. 20 men - perhaps. What man however wants some diseased whore that has been with 200 men or even 500. How sustainable is that from a medical point of view. Once we get a new strain of venereal disease that is not treatable with medication, then the house of cards will collapse. HIV and Hepatitis may already be viable candidates awaiting critical mass. The OP seems to be looking for excuses for what is sure to be the demise of society as we know it. There was no question at the end to direct the conversation. The OP failed miserably. If this were treated seriously then it would actually be one of the better discussions on /lit/.

>>10461359
>>10461600
Women don't get this literal build-up of chemicals in their bodies when they go without sex long enough which screams at them and their minds "HAVE SEX HAVE SEX LOOK AT THIS PERSON LOOK HOW HOT THEY ARE YOU'RE HORNY TIME TO ORGASM" et cetera. Trust me, when I go about a week or so without jacking off/orgasming at all, my standards will become much lower, I will get horny looking at women I'd probably not think are that hot right after ejaculating, it's literally biological. I will go out and get attracted at almost any woman I see (not literally --- not 10 year olds and 90 year olds, but within reasonable limits).

>Finally, there is what I believe is essentialization of each gender by culture: that is, a man's appearance/ presence can suggest anything mainly what he can do and a women's, what she is and what can be done to her.
You need some specific examples and/or statistics, you're not being very concrete so I can't countenance.

>I know it seems that feminists focus on sex and their vaginas a lot, but in some ways, I can't really blame them. It seems men were the ones who started the obsession as a means of control and monopoly of power, even as a way to exclude.
You mean men started the obsession with what? With their own sexuality? Please clarify. If it is with their own sexuality, again, this goes back to literal biology.

>The problem lies in how the spectrum of female sexuality is much more limited than male sexuality. Feminists have touched upon this with the "virgin/whore dichotomy" which I kind of agree with as it relates to the limited spectrum of female sexuality.
It's rooted to this day, in the idea that females must be free from unchaste thoughts or suggestion, not necessarily sexual activity, though that too is important. This easily moves a girl from virgin to whore on the limited spectrum in one's mind whether or not she has no, few, or many sexual partners.
In my opinion, this also goes back to biology. A woman, if she gets pregnant, is pretty much "out" for 9 months, sexually inviable. A man, however, can still impregnate as many women as he wants during this time. A man can have sex without as much repercussions for himself, a woman, however, had to be, biologically/evolutionarily speaking, careful who she chooses to have sex with because that's a serious commitment. She's going to bear a kid for 9 months and will bring this kid with half the genes of her partner into the world. (This, incidentally, is also why polygyny -- multiple wives to one husband -- is common to many primitive tribes and part of the Muslim tradition; it's biologically the most fitting model, and monogamy is an artificial construct created by Christianity which just leads to a lot of cuckoldry and cheating). (to be cont.)

>>10461586
>You should be ashamed for visiting a site with such a wide availability of pornographic material btw
Are you attempting to hold all of us accountable for the porn spamming that is done here?

>>10461610
I find that regardless of gender, the root cause of excessive promiscuity is usually some childhood trauma that gets manifested fixation on sex or going into porn. Not even joking. I knows guys who admitted to being diddle by their baby sitters...One admitted to having 60 partners. less just say he hasn't even reach his 25 year. They also have their view of themselves in response to the opposite gender warped/clouded.The extent of their relationship only being sex. It's actually kind of sad...

Outside of that, in terms of long term effects, this not only puts one at risk of developing an STI but it is usually more difficult for these people to ever imagine themselves in anything but an open relationship. And if they do want it, it may fail. That's why I don't totally agree with pic related in OP.

>>10461630
>>10461359
This is thus something like the "gatekeeper model" of female sexuality, where women are the "gatekeepers" of sex who decide what men are worthy to have children with them. They stand at the gate of reproductive fitness, only choosing the most worthy men to have sex with them. With the advent/great spread of modern easily accessible contraception, this isn't necessarily true anymore, but, again, biologically we didn't evolve with such easy and widespread access to contraception, so literally engrained into our genes is this idea that women have to choose the most fit men to sleep with, only have to have sex with the most worthy men.

In this idea, women actually determine the worth of men by deciding who to have sex with. So this idea, funnily enough, actually EMPOWERS women, and lowers men. Thus, men see promiscuous women as unlikable because, deeply and biologically, we feel that they are giving sex to unworthy men, being stupid, and lowering the species. The woman is going against biological imperatives to only choose the most worthy men --- men deep down feel they are validated when women want to have sex with them. So a woman who has sex with lots of people is a woman who is irresponsible and gives high valuation to any man, thus cheapening her judgment.

After all this, I'd like to say that I don't necessarily support this since now we're not living in days when getting sex = getting pregnant, I'm just explaining the reasons why women having a lot of sex is looked down upon. Again, if you've read this far, I don't mean that it HAS to be like this anymore, just that we have a certain psychology from at least tens of thousands of years where women are supposed to be careful who they have sex with since it means they'll have to give birth. This deeply engrained belief in our psychology won't be changed by about 50 or 100 years or so of easier access to contraception. Our advancements are going beyond our biology/psychological evolution.

>>10461654
Oh yeah, besides that, there's >>10461652, and also the idea that, if a woman has had many sexual partners, it's unlikely that you'll be the last one -- that is, it's very likely she'll move on to another man since she's had so many partners before you.

Besides that, as I explained in >>10461630
>>10461600, women have a DEFINITE advantage in getting to have sex because of the extreme physical horniness of men and almost NEED for orgasm, whereas women do not have the same physical need. Thus, a woman who has a lot of sex is seen as much more hedonistic and corrupted (she doesn't have the same deeply engrained need for sex, can refrain from it -- probably biologically beneficial because they have to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth, so such a strong libido would not be that healthy for them), whereas men have much stronger libidoes, so them satisfying it more is seen as more of a need for them, something they can even be manipulated by.

>>10461629
I am OP, you idiot.
Again, no one is saying multiple partners is ideal for everyone or perhaps anyone. Lurk more. We are talking about systematic sexism and misogyny towards women that goes way beyond how many partners they have or don't. They may not have any at all. Men and women are both sexual beings. It's a balance of that aspect of humanity for both of them that is important. Yes women are people too if you don't agree then show me data to confirm this or otherwise fuck off.

>>10461637
yes. A good Christian boy shouldn't be on this site at all. Lest you are not much better than a Christian girl who thinks about sex =') Now repent.

>>10461675
If you are still here, can you respond to >>10461600
>>10461630
>>10461654
>>10461670, all of which were written by me?

To clarify, I think >>10461630 >>10461654 is the biological reason we're inclined to dislike promiscuous women, but I don't think evo-psych necessarily needs to determine our psyche anymore, we can consciously try to change that. >>10461670, however, is more why I think it is slightly more acceptable for a man to have more partners than for a woman too. Again, the nature of sexual desire is fundamentally, biologically different in men and women -- in men, it is a need coming from the build-up of testosterone which affects their whole body and psyche, in women, it is not; they can refrain from having sex without the literal suffering a man who doesn't orgasm for a while has. Thus, again, a man who has a lot of partners is more fulfilling a need of his, whereas a woman who has a lot of partners is cynically fulfilling a desire for pleasure she doesn't need to fulfill as urgently as a man does, and is cheapening sex by not needing to have it as much as a man does but having it a lot anyway just for fun. Also, again, a woman can get laid easier because men are biologically more predisposed to suffer when they get hornier and be uncontrollably lustful for a woman, whereas, for a woman, the desire is more in her control.

>>10461359
>(((feminist)))
>(((theory)))
there's all the analysis you need

>>10461670
>>10461654
If you think a female peacock and her friends ever gave a shit about whether she slept with best male peacock out of anything else but survival, you sir may be an idiot.
I get you being all "go chastity" because you're christian but do not bring biology into this. If you're christian, you believe humans are above all other animals, Perhaps even that they are not animals.
Biology and human potential over the millennia has clearly shown that humans have the ability to literally dictate how they should live by controlling their physical environment. We dont even need to have 10 kids anymore like we used to because off all the technological advancements that made childhood morality and childbirth safe. Unlike a peacock, we can plan, work in groups, and make our shelter AND food. We can do it in days now.

As for your other more scientific point, again, I don't agree that necessitates this image of woman and that culturally developed and if it did at one point, considering our advancements in mind and technology, we should be above such things. For the most part, in many case it was just irrational fear mongering.
Also see>>10461620

>>10461675
>systematic sexism and misogyny towards women
The fifties are over. There are serious social issues afoot and you seem stuck on winning battles that you already won long ago. If you really feel the need to dismantle western civilization then find new ground. This aspect is already in free fall.

>>10461359
>who masturbate are still somehow thought as by some as slutty and why many teenage girls and even women(I know I never have) do not partake in such.
Hahaha what

>>10461682
Are you a Christian?

>>10461717
>because you're christian
I'm not nominally Christian of any church, my parents were Christian and sent me to Catholic school as a kid. I'm undeclared of any religion. I don't believe humans are above all other animals, that is what I'm saying --- you're criticizing people for having psychologically viewpoints which they're engrained to have. So it's hard to blame them. i clarified this a bit in >>10461707. I think, evolutionarily, we're engrained to be suspect of promiscuous women, so, unless you consider this and bring this into the open, you're forgetting human biology.

To make it clear, I am saying people ARE animals, and it would be nice if they acted better than animals, but you ask a lot when you ask them not to ask like animals, more than you expect. You're saying "Why do people think this?" and I'm saying "They think this because of biological reasons, and they may not be entirely right to because such biological reasons no longer apply. But you should have sympathy for the unconscious biological factors, the thousands of years of evolution that make people think like this."

People are machines. It'd be nice to make them more conscious, but before you can make them more conscious, you have to consider their mechanicality and, instead of being personally affronted by it, realize they don't really choose to/know why they have these opinions.

As for >>10461620, I am very confused by it and wish you could clarify. I think biologically women have an easier time for sex --- a man gets hormonally, biologically extremely lustful and can't really turn it off; a woman does not have this physical, powerful engrained lust. Thus, she can more choose to have or not to have sex, but men don't have as much of a choice -- they are, in this regard, more unconscious than women and more slaves of their biology.

>An attractive man will not waste his time pursuing unattractive females for sex even on a bad day. Ugly females still have no choice but to aim for ugly males...provided they are not completely autistic/ socially retarded. In that case, she too would have to be so.
this makes no sense, what does it have to do with this? Do you mean an UNattractive man will not waste his tame pursuing unattractive females for sex even on a bad day? If you mean an attractive man, why SHOULD he waste his time pursuing ugly females; and ugly females have no choice but to aim for ugly males --- in this case, what is wrong with this?

>>10461359
>>10461600
All the data I found on masturbation says this:
>Across age groups, more males (73.8%) reported masturbation than females (48.1%). Among males, masturbation occurrence increased with age: at age 14 years, 62.6% of males reported at least 1 prior occurrence, whereas 80% of 17-year-old males reported ever having masturbated. Recent masturbation also increased with age in males: 67.6% of 17-year-olds reported masturbation in the past month, compared with 42.9% of 14-year-olds. In females, prior masturbation increased with age (58% at age 17 years compared with 43.3% at age 14 years), but recent masturbation did not. Masturbation was associated with numerous partnered sexual behaviors in both males and females. In males, masturbation was associated with condom use, but in females it was not.

(https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1107656))

The difference between the female and male percentage of masturbation doesn't seem that big considering everything.

>>10461771
>The difference between the female and male percentage of masturbation doesn't seem that big considering everything.
Yes it does. 73% to 48% across age groups is pretty big of a difference. Men are biologically more engrained to be horny, as I have explained. Most, if they don't masturbate, begin to get very uncomfortable. Women don't. The ~20% of men who claim not to masturbate were probably too embarrassed to say so, religious and/or in denial of their urges, and/or hormonally off somehow.

>>10461717
>>10461630

As for male obsession, I was talking about them being the ones obsessed with sex and females vaginas. I wasn't necessarily bashing all men or men at all for this obsession. More so the fact that it turned(by some men) into a vehicle of control. My point in saying that was strictly to explain the only reason why it seems like feminist theory often fixates on sex and vaginas however, They are analyzing it to understand everything I just said.

Btw, you are now aware that women can have sex during pregnancy.
And not to say all women will do this; we don't live in this type of environment where women are dependent on men as much anymore, but there is evidence that females may prefer sleeping with different partners in some points of their cycle too. I will look for this study but no doubt someone as obsessed with evolutionary psych like you has already heard of it. So it really doesn't matter.
Men, women we have sexual urges, none is more "correct or incorrect" than the other. It just is. Besides, you're entire argument depends on the idea that a patrilineal society, where chastity would be needed more in women for it to be functional, is the only way to ever live. Women can inherit and get their own jobs. It's not needed for only women to say at home with their 3 kids anymore(one can make an argument that for the most part it never really was) who will almost certainly all survive to adulthood thanks to modern medicine,so you dont even need more than that anymore. Not saying people should cheat in a marriage as it is selfish to the kids and what not, but really, this entire fixation on anger to the woman is a real problem.

>>10461731
In the context of their own damn sexuality obviously. I wasn't talking about voting or work place stuff though that is kind of another societal issue all together.

Capitalism is the cause of dismantled western civilization. Complete Automation is inevitable and soon workers will be nothing but literal cogs. It's also the reason why women could work on the scale they do now anyway so quit blaming feminism. It only came up as a reaction to obvious hypocrisy and absurdity. Get used to the idea of doing things for free like mods on here. It will soon be a reality unless you have a degree in computer or robotics engineering.

>>10461787
I meant that the difference could be explained with the fact that for males masturbating is almost mandatory, like you said, so it's safe to assume masturbating for females isn't that big of a taboo like OP is claiming.

>>10461789
>As for male obsession, I was talking about them being the ones obsessed with sex and females vaginas. I wasn't necessarily bashing all men or men at all for this obsession. More so the fact that it turned(by some men) into a vehicle of control. My point in saying that was strictly to explain the only reason why it seems like feminist theory often fixates on sex and vaginas however, They are analyzing it to understand everything I just said.
OK, men may be more obsessed with female sexuality, but, again, I think this is due to biological reasons where sex is more of an imperative for men and, in a deep way, sex-obsession/the capacity for it is more engrained in them. I think we view feminists focusing on sex and their vaginas a lot as vain, as an affectation, because there's no real imperative they have to. It just seems like something they do to bolster their vanity and sense of power.

>>10461789
>Btw, you are now aware that women can have sex during pregnancy.
Obviously possible --- I mean, their vagina doesn't get sealed shut and hormones determining sexual attraction don't magically disappear -- but i'm pretty certain it's not super common.

>>10461789
>but there is evidence that females may prefer sleeping with different partners in some points of their cycle too. I will look for this study but no doubt someone as obsessed with evolutionary psych like you has already heard of it.
Interesting, I never heard of it however.

>>10461789
>Men, women we have sexual urges, none is more "correct or incorrect" than the other. It just is. Besides, you're entire argument depends on the idea that a patrilineal society, where chastity would be needed more in women for it to be functional, is the only way to ever live
I'm not saying it's the only way to live, I'm saying we're biologically and psychologically predisposed to it. So when you try to mess around with this, you poke on people's mechanical/animal parts, and this may lead to discomfort, unsatisfaction, emotional and mental disturbances without people knowing why. So you're trying to make people live and think in a certain way which may seem more rational and good, but, biologically, we're not engrained to live and think in these ways. So, paradoxically, it may lead to greater unhappiness.

Think of the greater comforts of modern civilization. You know what it is, I don't have to explain it to you --- you probably breathe it in everyday, the freedom affluent people have from violence, temperature disturbances, hunger, etc. While this seems more rational and happy, paradoxically, more "developed" civilizations have a lot of mental illness and seemingly meaningless suffering. You'd think, "You have access to food, to entertainment, to live freer from the threat of death and many diseases --- why aren't you happy!" However, biologically, we may be predisposed to live in different ways (to be cont.)

>>10461805
>In the context of their own damn sexuality obviously.
Women are free to become whores. Is your point to convince us to respect them for this decision?

>>10461818
>>10461789
So, paradoxically, all this technology and advancement may seem more rational, more benevolent, and more enlightened, but actually making us unhappier because we're biologically/psychologically not capable of adapting to it.

Similarly, feminism seems a rational and enlightened idea, but we biologically and psychologically may not be capable of adapting to it. It may paradoxically lead to greater unhappiness and social tension! You have to learn to divide people into 2 --- one part is the mechanism (all that's mechanical in them, the thousands of years of evolution), the other is reason/consciousness. You think people are more conscious than they are, that they can just triumph over their biology/physicality. But they're not so conscious as you think. So spreading feminism, in contradiction to our inherent biologies/psychologies, may just be causing suffering without us even understanding where this suffering comes from.

Something I haven't mentioned throughout all this and that i think neither of us have touched on, and which is a bit unrelated to the topics at hand but still important, is that biological and psychological studies shows hat women are more predisposed to be emotional, and men to be more logical/rational. I am not saying men are thus "better" than women because of this --- emotion is important, just as reason is --- but there are engrained psychological differences between men and women, which may, again, have to be considered when we think of how men and women should act to reach the greatest happiness for all. Women are psychologically/biologically more predisposed to stronger empathy, and to more agreeableness (psychological agreeableness = agreeing with others and giving them way even if you shouldn't; as opposed to assertiveness). Women are, biologically and psychologically, fundamentally more inclined to be passive than men.

Yes, a woman can be active. A man can be passive. There are variations. But if we try to tinker around with this stuff, we may, again, make people unhappy on a deep, fundamental level, and we may not be biologically and psychologically ready to tinker with gender roles so much.

>>10461811
Ah, OK, understood. Thanks for the clarification and bringing in some statistics for support of what I'm saying.

>>10461771
less than 50% is compared greater is a pretty stark difference.
Either way notice the difference in teens. That was kind of my point.
It lowers as women grow gradually and this is still different within different cultures as well.
I will admit that this is evidence that it is slowly changing with new generations but this bias and discomfort admitting it definitely existed when I was growing up.

>>10461842
Again, you miss the entire point of the argument.
What is a whore? One who sleeps with a multitude partners. I did not talk about anyone sleeping with multiple partners necessarily being a good ting in my entire post. That's how I know you're an idiot and didn't ready anything.
Now the fact that you used the word whore in reference to women only despite no one talking about sleeping with multiple partners shows that number of partners is irrelevant for the word's use and your(and our society's) perception of women and their sexuality as humans.

>>10461851
>>10461789
Oh, also, continuing in that vein a little, something a lot of modern media/feminism seems to ignore is that new neuroimaging techniques have shown women and men have different brain structures and are thus predisposed to experience reality, to think and to feel in different ways. So another issue with feminism is that we may say, "Yes, women can be just as rational as men, I'm a woman and I can be as rational as a man!" but, without really being aware of it, the woman is thinking in more holistic, intuitive, and emotional ways. These differences in male and female ways of perceiving reality seem to be biological, not just cultures --- and I think it's an absolute sin that modern ideas of political correctness are suppressing research into/greater knowledge of the different ways men and women's brains are wired. Holistic, intuitive and emotional ways of thinking/perceiving reality are great; it's where we get artists and philosophers; however, they're not always great if they try to masquerade as more logical, concrete, and non-emotional reasoning.

In areas like hard science, the capacity for more logical and concrete thinking is more necessary, and we're ignoring that women, biologically, may not be as inclined to have these forms of reasoning. It's not cultural, it's biological. In areas of politics and leadership, greater agreeableness, greater emotionality, greater empathy may be a great counterbalance to assertiveness and rationality --- a necessary counterbalance, in fact, because otherwise everything may rapidly become sociopathic and socially darwinistic. However, the female predisposition to these traits --- more agreeableness, more emotional and less rational, and more empathy --- without the counterbalance of the capacity for assertiveness and rationality may lead to impracticality and lack of success.

Thus, it's not some sin that female CEOs and engineer are rare. It's not necessarily culturally determined. Biologically, they just may not be predisposed to become this. Feminism also ignores all the women happy to be in traditionally feminine roles.

>>10461851
>>10461818

who knows? Maybe the best way to live is in a close knit community in the forest somewhere where technology like these computer screens don't dictate our entire life?
Maybe modernization is the worst thing ever or maybe its neutral. I'm not going to clain to answer that question.
And again, your argument rests on the idea that patrilineal societies is the only way to live such that it would have ever gotten "hard wired" in our brains.Humans have the versatility to generally organize ourselves whatever way we want. You are essentializing again.
The solution is not tinkering with anything my friend, but to let people live how they want free from bias and constraints of gender roles. Our society still actually "tinkers" and teaches men and women that they have to be any way, to "be a female" or a male rather than what they are comfortable.
If more females like wearing dress than males, so be it. If more a males like to work than ever consider being homemakers than women, then so be it. Though I think most people like the idea of at potentially finding a job wear they can work from home regardless.

Btw, what? lol Women still have sex when they are pregnant like normal. Some say they are hornier than usually actually, though it't probably just an anecdote. Just stick to certain positions and you're good.
You need to meet more women clearly.

>>10461910
>The solution is not tinkering with anything my friend, but to let people live how they want free from bias and constraints of gender roles. Our society still actually "tinkers" and teaches men and women that they have to be any way, to "be a female" or a male rather than what they are comfortable.
>If more females like wearing dress than males, so be it. If more a males like to work than ever consider being homemakers than women, then so be it. Though I think most people like the idea of at potentially finding a job wear they can work from home regardless.
What I'm saying is, your very idea of "gender roles" and "letting people be free from the constraints of gender roles" is a bias, even though you think it's the lack of a bias. Because you're saying that there may not be an ESSENCE in people which makes them act in certain ways, biologically. A man may act in a certain way and be more or less successful in certain fields due to biology, just like a woman may act in certain ways and be more or less successful in certain fields due to biology. A man may be happy acting in ways that are traditionally feminine, a woman in ways that are traditionally masculine -- however, just as equally, men may ACTUALLY be happy, and not be being coerced by society or anything, when they act/think/feel in ways traditionally masculine, and women may ACTUALLY be happy, and be being coerced by society or anything, when they act/think/feel in ways traditionally feminine. So yes, I am essentializing, because I think deep within people have a certain "essence" which knows what they won't, which knows what is good for them and will make them happy. Often, social conditioning layers an artificial personality, artificial wants and needs and thoughts totally distinct from this essence, pushing this essence of ourselves deep inside.

>>10461910
>Btw, what? lol Women still have sex when they are pregnant like normal. Some say they are hornier than usually actually, though it't probably just an anecdote. Just stick to certain positions and you're good.
>You need to meet more women clearly.
Yes, this is just an anecdote.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080531/
>Sexual activity is common in pregnancy, but the frequency varies widely, with a tendency to decrease with advancing gestational age.1,2 Decreased sexual activity may be attributable to nausea, fear of miscarriage, fear of harming the fetus, lack of interest, discomfort, physical awkwardness, fear of membrane rupture, fear of infection or fatigue.2 Libido and sexual satisfaction may also be negatively affected by a woman’s self-perception of decreased attractiveness. Typically, as pregnancy progresses, there is a decrease in the achievement of orgasm and sexual satisfaction, and an increase in painful intercourse

>>10461910
Also (same guy), here's a good article I just quickly pulled up from Google: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

There are biological differences between men and women. I think men are typically happy being masculine and women typically happy being feminine, and that feminism can overrate how much gender roles exist as distinct from biology and how much they make people unhappy. Certainly these are true sometimes, but not all the time and not to the extent that feminism makes it seem. In fact, feminism may just be increasing discontent and creating problems that may not have existed at all by pushing men to try to be more traditionally feminine and demonizing traditional conceptions of masculinity, and vice versa for women. You think feminism is free of bias, but it's not necessarily. Instead of simply trying to be free from gender roles, it often pushes women to act more masculine and men to act more feminine.

>>10461870
Your ad hominem attacks not withstanding:
>despite no one talking about sleeping with multiple partners
is patently false. Multiple people raised the issue. I read your wall of text. I have trouble finding any direction other than legitimizing the current trend of powerslutting. In the end, if you are successful in this conversation, what will you have accomplished?

>>10461907
Now you are just lying.
Not all women are happy to be in traditional roles. Some are yes, and that is fine. I talked about this in another thread. People assume that all women self actualize in the same way and that all men self actualize in the same way. Not true. It is a bias.
It's safe to say that everyone who wants kids, wants to be a good "parent" so a woman wanting to be a "good mother" doesn't have to be different from a man wanting to be a "good father." Our society makes rules to make them seem like the two are completely different. You can be a good mother or a good father by working to support your family or being in the house most days doing the chores and staying with the kids most of the time doing your daughter's hair etc. ( though i feel both parents should make time to be involved in a child care no matter what personally). It's not either or. That's all a perception based on how we "used to do it." Tradition.
Women and male brains are somewhat different. the problem is the exaggeration of these differences that historically occurred and continues to this day. Some feminists may be but other are not ignoring everything. However it is worth noting that studies show that men and women will use different pathways to get to similar solutions.
Women may think about a problem differently from a vice versa, but it may be just as valid to a good solution if not better depending on the problem. That's why diversity of people and thus ideas is important. You are saying these differences must limit what men and women in general can do but I am saying it does not necessarily, definitely not in most situations.
Being a good leader also requires one to consider the group and be empathetic as well.
Again, you are minimizing the spectrum of these differences. How much is really more?
The fact that the entrance to women into fields of mathematics has increase 10 fold in the past 50 years say a lot about what cultural influences can do to ones interests and pursuits.
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

>>10461923
No I'm serious it is common for pregnant women to still have sex. It's not that hard.
If you do it the right way it doesn't matter. all is just fears as you mentioned.
In the beginning stages of pregnancy, no such problems exist.
It really depends on the stage and the person.

>>10461966
I said "no one" as a hyperbole for me.
I did not make that the focus of my argument and you clearly missed the argument if that one sentence is all you and the others who did bring it up fixated on.
Go read it again.
They raised the issue because they did not understand the argument and I further clarified just like I did just now.
I told you I hate repeating myself.
The point is many guys here and you don't care if men think about or talk about sex. You don't care how men dress and use that as a tool to assume how many partners they had without knowing anything about them.

You( and in general our society) care about all that for women regardless of how little or no partners they had. Some of you will even say they deserve to get raped if they are dressed in a certain way which is a whole other argument. Luckily less people these days believe such nonsense.
The multitude of the partners was the least important issue as outlined in clearly in the beginning of the post. The fact that I really had to clarify again shows you are lying and did not read it or are just illiterate. That is why I insulted you.

It's so ridiculous that we have to convince people that women can do whatever the fuck they want and it's fine. You're ideology might crumble when we don't have clearly delineated roles for you to fill, but that's what makes it an ideology.

If you think women are ipso facto supposed to do a certain thing you are so ideologically blinded it is sad, but I guess there's hope for you people. Why have such a limited world view as to assume that half the population is supposed to be kept under strict sexual control ? What break down when the traditional family breaks down? that would be the same system that has caused every major world conflict, so yeah, fuck that.

>>10461995
OK. I'm not a woman and have never sex with a pregnant woman ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


>>10462058
>If you think women are ipso facto supposed to do a certain thing you are so ideologically blinded it is sad, but I guess there's hope for you people. Why have such a limited world view as to assume that half the population is supposed to be kept under strict sexual control ? What break down when the traditional family breaks down? that would be the same system that has caused every major world conflict, so yeah, fuck that.
Who's saying that? We're just saying that women and men have different psychologies due to different biologies, and people may, indeed, be naturally happier if they follow some of these psychological inclinations. Nothing so dogmatic as "keeping women under strict sexual control" or "women ipso facto are supposed to do a certain thing".

>>10462106
>people may, indeed, be naturally happier if they follow some of these psychological inclinations
how do you determine if/when someone isn't following their natural psychological inclination?

>>10461923
There is not an ESSENCE if every men is not like that. That is the idea of essentiallism bro...
If men want to act traditionally masculine no one is stopping them(except in the case toxic aspects of traditional masculinity because that actually hurts people but I will assume you do not mean that). If women want to act traditionally feminine, no one is stopping them.
People will fine what is confortable for them without being shamed or looked down upon.
I like wearing dresses and skirts sometimes though I despise holding bags most of the time and prefer pants with functional pockets. I also like video games when free and browse an anime imagery board. I want to be a surgeon. I prefer tall men to short. Now, no one is forcing me or any woman to be like this. I certainly am not.
Yet there are dissenters who will say women just aren't good at certain careers like men. Are you going to say that has no effect on the choices people make and how one feels about themselves? Btw, there is a articles showing that the probability of complications caused by women surgeons if actually slightly less than complications after surgery by male surgeons. Now it is not a lot less so it's nothing to boast about and it is likely due to a multitude of factors, not necessarily internal. It simply shows how absurd many of our preconceived notions are.
Just let people live. I'm not telling men or women to specifically DO anything. You kind of are.
>>10462058
I don't even have an issue with the traditional family so to speak.
Honestly, if you follow /his/tory the "traditional" nuclear family was not always as common than we think. The extended family was more popular in many places for a long time too.

>>10462106
>It's more like other men sharing a cereal bowl with the same spoon. Women ought to stay pure.
>>10461713
>>10461731
>>10461940

Also, Femininity and masculinity are made up and not at all natural. There are objects we call genitals and then there is the way we treat people who have certain genitals.

>>10462116
OP here, I would like to expand on this and say that every culture has a concept of 2-3 genders(mainly two) due to biological sex, but what it means to be either of them is different. depending on the culture.

>>10462124
Sure, but the key developments of feminist critique is that these conceptual roles are always made from culture, and necessarily "what is best for the given environment." Lot's of cultures developed human sacrifices (we still do this in America with the death penalty) but that doesn't make it "natural" or "biological"

>>10462025
>I said "no one" as a hyperbole for me.
When you are called on an error then it becomes "hyperbole".
>I did not make that the focus of my argument and you clearly missed the argument if that one sentence is all you and the others who did bring it up fixated on.
You wrote it. I addressed it. Butthurtedness ensued.
>Go read it again.
>They raised the issue because they did not understand the argument and I further clarified just like I did just now.
>I told you I hate repeating myself.
If anything, you over clarified - creating obfuscation. If you have a point then state it and let it stand against assault. Whenever one of your points is assaulted then you state that what is being assaulted is not the point.
>The point is many guys here and you don't care if men think about or talk about sex. You don't care how men dress and use that as a tool to assume how many partners they had without knowing anything about them.
I was thinking of a specific girl when I formed my thoughts for this thread. I was not making assumptions.
>You( and in general our society) care about all that for women regardless of how little or no partners they had. Some of you will even say they deserve to get raped if they are dressed in a certain way which is a whole other argument. Luckily less people these days believe such nonsense.
I said no such thing. This is demagoguery.
>The multitude of the partners was the least important issue as outlined in clearly in the beginning of the post. The fact that I really had to clarify again shows you are lying and did not read it or are just illiterate. That is why I insulted you.
I do not perceive the importance of the issue the same as you do. Failing to account for possible alternate perspectives is a fundamental premise of bigotry.

>>10461739
Irrelevant. I was making a joke going off your statement that you think girls must be pure in all ways. I wasn't revering to myself at all.
>>10461751
IT is not as constant for women as men sure, and getting an erection takes a bit more time for women. However, if you think most women can live easily without sex more than men, you are mistaken.
Women
Your argument assumes that gender roles/norms are biological( specifically the ones we adopted) when that is not the case. They were a choice by culture.
We DECIDED(this is huge as most animals don't decide anything) at some point that it would be more efficient to live like this. Efficient =/= absolute. These IDEAS about women MUST be chaste; men to a lesser extent are to function in a patralineal society. Why should anyone care just because it is easier or harder for one to control it/ get it than the other? Other other animals sure as hell don't care.
>this makes no sense, what does it have to do with this? Do you mean an UNattractive man will not waste his tame pursuing unattractive females for sex even on a bad day? If you mean an attractive man, why SHOULD he waste his time pursuing ugly females; and ugly females have no choice but to aim for ugly males --- in this case, what is wrong with this?

Literally nothing is wrong with it bro....I was just stating facts. lol When it comes to looks, everyone needs to know their position in life. this is only rational.I was just using it to point out the flawed idea that it is easier for women to get laid hence they should be judged harder than males for even thinking about sex as they were in the past and kind of still are. You completely misunderstood my point here.

>>10462151
I wrote it IN OP but said it was not the point and even specifically explained why it shouldn't really be the point in feminism and why I kind of disagree with guy in pic related. You can't explain away this level of illiteracy. Just stop.
You know the specific girl and her life style though so, that is irrelevant to every girl you meet who you do not know.
I did not say you said it specifically. I said some of you as in people on this board. But again, keep reading word for word to point out nonexistent inconsistencies that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. If only you read the first post this closely, I wouldn't have to repeat myself again eh?

>>10462171
>Irrelevant.
Well, there is this:
>yes. A good Christian boy shouldn't be on this site at all. Lest you are not much better than a Christian girl who thinks about sex =') Now repent.
You have no business holding people to account for beliefs that you do not hold.
>I was making a joke going off your statement that you think girls must be pure in all ways.
I never stated this. You are making a strawman argument.

>>10462111
I don't know. That's a very broad question.

>>10462113
I'm not telling them to do anything. I'm just stating the facts: they have predispositions, they have different biologies leading to different psychologies leading to different ways of acting, thinking, and feeling.

>>10462116
>Also, Femininity and masculinity are made up and not at all natural. There are objects we call genitals and then there is the way we treat people who have certain genitals.
Gee, thanks for not reading https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html.. You sound like you're 12 years old and all your opinions have been taken from the society around you.

>>10461973
I didn't say ALL are happy to be in traditional roles, but that often the ones who are are ignored in today's cultural climate. Again, we think feminism is a lack of bias, but actually it IS a bias against traditional gender roles -- there are men perfectly happy being masculine, who like being that and are not entirely like that due to cultural influences, and are not "toxically masculine", and the same for women. I am fine with women and men expanding into different gender roles, doing what they can, I also agree that feminism has changed the cultural climate to free women to fulfill more and more varying and perhaps more fulfilling roles for them.

The problem I see is when feminism oversteps from "removing the bias towards traditional gender roles" to "actively having a bias towards traditional gender roles". I don't think there is some bedrock "masculine" every man should be and some bedrock "feminine" every woman should be --- rather that there are TENDENCIES corresponding to these, and that, naturally and on average, men and women go towards these tendencies and there's nothing wrong with this. There's nothing wrong if some want to go against these tendencies, but there's also nothing wrong if, say, one argues that we don't need to make everyone go against these tendencies. I also think there's nothing wrong with saying that, on average, men and women are different and may be happier on average in different roles.

If a woman wants to be an engineer, great. Or a CEO, great. But I think there's nothing wrong with saying that, biologically, psychologically, neurologically, women on average will not have the traits to the same extent as men do which will make them successful in these fields. There ARE outliers, and they definitely should be given a free path to become what they want. But it seems to me feminism exaggerates the outliers, and makes it seem we're all secretly discontent with gender roles, that men and women act in certain ways just due to cultural conditioning.

I mean, hell, the article I gave here https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html even shows that female MONKEYS prefer more traditionally feminine toys, and male monkeys more traditionally masculine toys, as well as infants.

>>10462205
>actively having a bias towards traditional gender roles
*a bias against traditional gender roles

>>10462209
This argument is the classic snake way out of dealing with your ideology. The break that feminist critique makes with gender roles isn't undercut by the idea that it's antagonistic to imposed traditional gender norms. IMPOSED gender norms. It is the imposition, the forcing of people to be a certain way, that is in question.

>>10462198
And "girl?"
Why did you say "girl". That sentence was about guys...
Tell me now is there a specific guy that came to your mind when you read this? Probably not because men are not demonized in the same ways. And again, I'm not even talking about # of partners.
>>10462202
You don't need to be a christian to know the rules of Christianity especially in a western nation where a lot of peopel were or are Christian. Are you serious? You just state one of them: women must be pure.

I am going to actually play devil's advocate and assume you want this for men too.
Regardless, I may totally call you out the same way I can call out a strict Muslim for not wearing their hijab, not eating halal, and more importantly, drinking and having premarital sex.
It was a joke to point out hypocrisy anyway.

>>10462218
Feminism isn't one homogeneous block, and anti/non-feminism isn't one homogeneous block either. Nothing in my posts suggests that I ever wanted to force people to be a certain way, and, moreover, I don't really know everything you think, and everything you think isn't everything feminism thinks because feminism is a very broad field with a lot of different views in it.

What I'm saying is, you're arguing with someone else, not me. "This argument is the classic snake way out of dealing with '''''''''''''your ideology'''''''''''." What is my ideology exactly? All I've done is give you some of my thoughts on why what we traditionally call feminism isn't totally right. I'm not trying to foist some ideology here.

>>10462205
>That's a very broad question.
it was a broad statement.
read it again
>people may, indeed, be naturally happier if they follow some of these psychological inclinations.
what does that mean? what are natural psychological inclinations? if out of 100 capuchin females, 80 prefer 'feminine' toys and display preference for 'traditional' play type-- does that make that behavior the result of a natural psychological inclination? Is that the explanandum? What of the other 20? How is their atypical behavior explained? Is it unnatural?

>>10462234
Claiming that having a bias in favor of gender roles having a bias against gender roles are equivalent position requires at least a somewhat misogynist ideology. Notice I never said that your post advocated that. I bring up the imposition of gender roles because your post DIDN'T bring them up, and the fact that people have been forced through the threat of violence to act a certain way most of the time is more of a threat to humanity than having a bias against these traditions.

>>10462234
Well with what I know about feminism and about the brains of men and women. I will just day you are wrong and no one is being forced to rid their essence as it is not an "essence." It is just one's personality/atitude. A specific personality may or may not be more common in men or women. Regardless, we are off the subject. Gender norms about how women and male sexuality SHOULD be are not biological but contrived. Emphasis on should for the reason as this is the issue. What people do is just what that they do. There is no ought.

>>10462247
What are natural psychological inclinations? That's a dumb question and you know it. You are being quite (and excuse my vulgarity here) autistic. You know what a natural psychological inclination is. Natural --- of nature, average, normal, as opposed to artificially imposed by cultural/social conditioning. Psychological inclination --- tending towards something more, liking something.

Yes, if those 80 prefer the feminine toys, that's a statistically more average natural psychological inclination. The other 20 also have a natural psychological inclination (animals I think are practically all natural psychological inclination, they don't have as artificial cultural/social programming as people do) but it is not the average for the whole species. For whatever reason, their brains are slightly different, they choose somewhat differently. Good for them, they are a minority. Feminism -- and a vocal group of leftism in general -- today seems to be a tyranny of the minority, with everyone trying to make the 80% like the 20%.

If you could read my posts and get your head out of (again excuse my vulgarity) your bottom, you would see I'm not trying to say this 20% should become like the 80% either. Yes, I know there are "tomboys" and I know there are more traditionally feminine men. Fine for them if they're living well and not being malicious to those around them. My issue is precisely in this malice, in imposing one's own subjectivity on everyone else. A woman is very rationally minded, has unusually good mathematical skills -- great for her. Let her become an engineer if she wants to. But this vociferous ranting about how the lack of enough female engineers is a total injustice, how it should be 50/50, is completely irrational and ignores that women and men have biologically different brain structures which may lead to men being better engineers than women. Not cultural conditioning, not society, not imposed gender roles, but biology.

Not everyone is biologically average, but, statistically speaking, more are close to it than are not. So let those who are not biologically average flourish, but don't say that they should be the norm -- because that is, again, a bias!

>>10462230
>You don't need to be a christian to know the rules of Christianity especially in a western nation where a lot of peopel were or are Christian.
If you are not in-group then your opinion regarding self-policing behavior holds no merit.
> Are you serious? You just state one of them: women must be pure.
Once again - and let me be perfectly clear - I NEVER STATED THIS. YOU ARE MAKING A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT OUT OF THINGS THAT I NEVER STATED.
>It was a joke to point out hypocrisy anyway.
>hypocrisy
>for something that I never said
Pottery meats bucketweaving.

>>10462259
>What people do is just what that they do. There is no ought.
Yes, people have no freewill. Great. I know that. So this entire argument is useless, and what humanity does is what it does, whether it has certain views on sex or not. There is no ought. Thank you for destroying your own argument. Sorry if I'm being harsh, I'm sleepy.

>>10462255
>at least a somewhat misogynistic ideology
What is misogyny? I think hatred and anger are useless, and try not to hate anyone. What do people choose to do? Science says we're just robots who don't choose anything. I don't hate women. I certainly think they're different from men and better at some things and worse at others on average. Is this misogyny?

I think violence is wrong. We shouldn't violently force people/use the threat of violence to make them act in a certain way. But I think this should be a more general problem and should be removed from the idea of feminism. You could be a pacifist and a non-feminist -- as I effectively am, for example. So I'd never say "We should VIOLENTLY force women to act feminine and men to act masculine." I'd rather do away with violence if I could. Making people understand peacefully is much better. The trouble with feminism is often a psychological and social violence, a hypocrisy. What started as freeing women to expand their roles more and freeing men to expand their roles more has more led to berating men and women for acting, thinking, and feeling in certain ways which they may like and may naturally act, think, and feel in.

>>10462305
Yes thinking that people with vaginas are predisposed ( by anything other than culture) to be worse at some things is indicative of at least a little misogyny.

How come feminists don't believe in science?

>>10462276
could you point me toward these statistics you speak of? the research that they are derived from?
what does 'biologically average' mean? i've never come across this term in any of my population genetics textbooks.
weird.
who has been trying to impose a code of behavior on the general population of woman? do you have names? 'leftists' is pretty vague.

>>10462316
OK? I also think people with dicks are predisposed to be worse at certain things, which is indicative of at least a little misandry. For instance, people with dicks aren't often as good at having children. Less facetiously, they are also often less emotional and less empathetic. Also, I think people with vaginas are predisposed to be better at certain things. More holistic forms of thought, more intuitive, more empathetic.

Biological and statistical facts are misogyny?

>>10462323
could you point me toward the science?
maybe something beyond the one popsci mag article that's been spammed all this thread

>>10462316
>Yes thinking that people with vaginas are predisposed ( by anything other than culture) to be worse at some things is indicative of at least a little misogyny.
Then why are they repeatedly asking me to move heavy objects and get things off of the high shelves for them? They said it was too heavy. They said it was too high. Was it all lies?

>>10462328
Yes, I can. In fact, if I already have pointed you, or others in this thread, to it several times.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

You can also very easily Google it and get tons of results.

>>10462291
Well what do you expect? It's an anonymous board, obviously people will get mistaken for others until proven otherwise. Go to reddit or some site with user names if you want to be free of this problem.
>If you are not in-group
And I disagree. A person can call out bullshit behavior when they see bullshit behavior. I can call out a persob for not doing their job even if I don't work at the place when I know the work place regulations.
I will not sit here in argue this with you. Just know is not logically sound however.

>>10462329
>Biological and statistical facts are misogyny
again, where are these facts?

>>10462329
You're proving my point. There are people with penises who give birth, but you're worldview doesn't encompass them, even though they exist, your worldview would deny them. If you hold these thoughts you are indeed misogynist, and thinking that men aren't good at emotions doesn't solve the fallacy. There could be a world where everyone is physically strong and emotionally empathetic, but your ideology prevents it.

>>10462316
>>10462329
Also, women are physically weaker by men, biologically. So people with vaginas are definitely predisposed, by something very other than culture, to be worse at being physically strong.

>>10462335
Yeah, Stanford Medicine is very popsci and unreliable. Heard of Google, by the way? You'll get a lot of results if you search for research on this, and it feels a bit demeaning, since we both presumably have access to the same internet, to do this work for you. If I was writing a scholarly article, I'd obviously have my citations ready, but we're arguing on a Korean sculpture pictureboard.

>>10462323
Science was posted.
Lurk more.
There is an excellent article on brain differences between men and women that I posted. There are feminist scientist btw. My genetics professor was female.

>>10462340
oh look, it's the same article you've posted seventy times already.
the one I already read
i'm starting to think you're not very widely nor very deeply read on this subject
i'm starting to think you only really have an ideological ax to grind
>You can also very easily Google it and get tons of results.
i am asking where YOU got all YOUR information
i know where i'd start and it isn't google

>>10462354
I think you misread my post.

>>10462342
>completely screws the pooch
>strawmans a second time on the same point after being informed regarding said dogfucking
>blames 4chan
>tells me to go elsewhere to rid myself of his incompetence
Next stanza, please. This is precious.

>>10462352
And it doesn't go much farther than that. Women are physically weaker, so traditional submissive gender roles aren't something to be abolished? Sorry doesn't work. We grow long sharp nails but we cut them off because we don't need them anymore, like outdated ideology.

>>10462346
Please see >>10462352 and >>10462340.

>>10462350
>There are people with penises who give birth, but you're worldview doesn't encompass them, even though they exist, your worldview would deny them
You realize I said aren't "OFTEN" as good as giving birth, right? Not to brag, but ever since childhood I've often had the tendency to be very un-absolutist in my language, since I obviously know exceptions to things exist.

>There could be a world where everyone is physically strong and emotionally empathetic, but your ideology prevents it.
Again, what is my ideology? Who am I? What do you know about my beliefs just from these posts? Does every non-feminist person share my beliefs? See >>10462234 about being overly absolutist and not realizing feminism and non-feminism aren't homogeneous blocks, and that we can't discern each others ideologies by encapsulating them with one word and summing them up with all others of one group. Isn't that the stereotyping you claim to be against?

Moreover, I don't think there is a world where everyone could be physically strong and emotionally empathetic. Infants cannot be physically strong. Some people with genetic diseases, who get crippled or maimed or otherwise ill cannot be physically strong. People who do not want to get physically strong and are born with weaker bodies will not get physically strong. Same with empathy --- some people are born with deficient brains, and/or trauma/drug abuse makes them less empathetic. Such people are called, of course, sociopaths. My ideology has nothing to do with the lack of existence of such a paradise. It's God you want to criticize here, not me.

Also, if you've read my posts, you'd see I have nothing against people developing certain faculties which aren't traditional for their roles. I just see nothing necessarily dogmatic about it. In >>10461907, for instance, I admitted that, for example, "Holistic, intuitive and emotional ways of thinking/perceiving reality are great; it's where we get artists and philosophers."

>>10462352
That article did not say that because o these slight observed differences, that men will be better field or be interested more in certain tasks like you are saying. These are just observed differences that may or may not have effects on any aspects of choices each gender in humans will make?
Hell, even the things with the monkey and dolls, how can we control for the fact that perhaps the baby monkeys were influence by the fact that in those gorilla colonies, the moms (females)are usually holding the babies and that is all they see? Unlike us humans, monkeys cannot alter their environments/surroundings as drastically as we humans can.

>>10462362
I am OP and I posted said article I was referring.

>>10462366
If you are really going to cry about it the rest of this entire thread then you might as well leave.

Why are all the top athletes, scientists, philosophers, world leaders, inventors, etc. all men? Maybe it's just a coincidence.

>>10462386
you got all your information on this subject from a single article?
why are any of us paying any attention to you?
what do you know about any of this?
second-hand tidbits from a solitary source
bolstering a cavalcade of cliches
sounds
like
reddit
desu

>>10462386
You're not seeing past the way culture has conditioned bodies to be certain ways. Nothing about biology makes women "nurturing," or men not so, you are confusing biology and culture over and over again, and your only evidence is that people have often made the same mistake. You admit that your worldview is limited, so I guess that's that.

>>10462359
Why do you think one needs to be widely and deeply read on a subject to be right? Truth is truth regardless of whether it's repeated one time or a million times, and idiocy is idiocy whether it's repeated one time or a million times. There's a lot of Nazi and pro-eugenics literature, but even if I read all of them, I wouldn't necessarily be more right and more of an authority on what we need to do with the Jews. As I'm saying, there's a lot of scientific research on the biological and psychological differences between men and women, and if I read one article which is true, I still have some truth. It's not less true if I haven't read a million other articles.

Your intellectual cowardice and mechanicality aside, let me direct you to some wonderful websites:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=men+and+woman+empathy+difference
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=men+and+woman+brain+difference
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=difference+between+male+and+female+thinking+process

>>10462382
>Women are physically weaker, so traditional submissive gender roles aren't something to be abolished?
Jesus, I'm trying to tell you that you're being a parrot when you say this. What are traditional submissive gender roles and why do we need to abolish them? You're showing so many unquestioned assumptions you think are absolute truth when you say that.

>>10461359
why is this guy such a cuck?

>>10462305
There is no free will because either our social environment or our genes determine what we do. How much of human genes influences executive brain functions and what we decide to do is a major mystery. That the genes involved for men and women are mostly different is even more or a mystery. Assuming so without any evidence is bad science. We haven't found a way to precisely study this.
There are variables we can attempt to study right now, and that is creating a society that doesn't coerce men and women into anything. The fact is, we do no not currently have that society as much as you agree with me that no one should be forced into anything. got it?

>>10462423
It's rare for a man to be despised by both /his/ and /lit/ at the same time

>>10462401
Might be. Might also be that for the last thousands of years men as a group in many human societies were allowed and encouraged to pursue such things while women were only allowed in the past 60 years and supported in the last 30? But sure that has nothing to do with it.

>>10462434
kek whats /his/'s gripe with him?

>>10462391
I have an idea. It's a wonderful idea which you will not follow because you are a robot. Go research anti-feminism deeply. Go Google neurological differences between men and women. Wait, you won't do this. You know why? There are scientific studies which show that if people are shown proof that their ideas are wrong, they will often just discount this proof. I'm just shouting into an empty cave, arguments don't change anyone, only experiences and your own conscious efforts can. If you don't wanna learn or think something, you won't learn or think it. Do you realize you've come here with the thought "I am a feminist, anyone who is anti-feminist is wrong no matter what, I'm not going to consider their views and try to learn from them"? Well, you have come here with that view. You're not trying to learn, you're here to argue and feel good about your own worldview.

>>10462403
See >>10462416. Also, your own laziness to do research reflects nothing on me. Also see >>10462352
>If I was writing a scholarly article, I'd obviously have my citations ready, but we're arguing on a Korean sculpture pictureboard.

>>10462410
>Nothing about biology makes women "nurturing
Yes it does.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446017/men-womens-parenting-decisions-reflect-female-nurturing-desires
>Even the roots of gender differences in parenting run deeper than societal norms and go beyond the simple fact that it is women who breastfeed. Women’s greater inclination to nurture infants and toddlers is also rooted in hormones and in brain structure. Women’s bodies have more receptors for the nurturing hormone oxytocin than men’s, especially in pregnancy and during breastfeeding. More recent imaging research shows that mothers’ brains change during pregnancy and after birth in ways that seem to increase their “emotional attachment to their babies.”

Some sources:
https://www.amazon.com/Tending-Instinct-Women-Biology-Relationships/dp/B000H2N9R2
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-606581.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Mother-Nature-Maternal-Instincts-Species/dp/0345408934
https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Differences-Seriously-Steven-Rhoads/dp/159403091X
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/health/pregnancy-brain-change.html

>>10462416
Traditional gender roles are (for example) that women are inherently nurturing and they evolved this way to be the primary caretakers of children so men can go do (insert most other things.) This might not be what you personally would argue for but it is the way the world was viewed for a long time. We need to abolish this because it cripples the capacity of human production by subjugating half of its power into a limiting condition. Again, the biological argument you make could be used to argue against using silverware.

>>10461359
fuck off to r/twoxchromosomes roastie

>>10462398
>If you are really going to cry
tbqh, yes - there were some tears amongst the laughter. You are the closest manifestation of the textbook examples of a demagogue that I have ever seen.
>you might as well leave
I come here on account of people like you. You built a hurt locker for me and now I am not supposed to enjoy it?

>>10462416
you read one article
you haven't even read studies cited in Ye article.
do you know how significant a sample size of 34 is?
not very
and a different species
but the same difference was found in human populations!
was it? the same difference? or just a difference?
what are the MAGNITUDE of the differences, when they are present?
they're actually pretty insignificant, especially cognitive differences
yet these obviously indicate natural and deeply embedded psychological inclinations that we shouldn't discourage lest we engender generations of broken women that refuse to fill the niche evolution chipped out for them
lol no goodness forbid
goddamn leftist agenda
making it so hard for me to bag a suitably docile and submissive waifu

>>10462439
mainly his "history" courses.
Besides that he's at least better than Ted ed. that is not saying much though.

>>10462439
I think it's his crash course history channel

>>10462437
Hmm... I wonder why men were allowed and encouraged to do everything and women weren't. Can't think of anything. It's not like superior groups tend to subjugate inferior groups or anything, or do they?

>>10462441
I read into anti feminism for a while actually. I looked into what the fuck MRA and even MGTOW fags were saying for the past 2 years.
From my studies on neuroscience, more actual knowledge of endocrinology, and more search on history and even some feminist theory, I found that most of it was indeed bullshit and focused heavily on essentialism. Historically and presently, you see ideas on gender differ from appearance and some ways behavior.
Look women and men aren't exactly the same. I said it already and I will say it again happy? This fixation on exaggerating the differences to the point of supporting the up keep of institutions that continue to do so is ridiculous though and saying that you can predict what most women will do in many cases or what most men will do from birth based off of this is absurd. Only more absurd is that there is something that each SHOULD be doing. That is my only point.

>>10462442
>We need to abolish this because it cripples the capacity of human production by subjugating half of its power into a limiting condition.
What a reductionistic, soul-sucking, materialistic view. Is all of life just about "the capacity of human production"? Also, I am also arguing that you impose your own subjectivity on everyone, and ignore all the women who are happy in nurturing roles. A mountain is made out of a molehill.

>>10462446
You're ignoring other sources, and refuse to do your own research and consider my point of view. As I've explained before, you're not here to learn, just to argue.

>yet these obviously indicate natural and deeply embedded psychological inclinations that we shouldn't discourage lest we engender generations of broken women that refuse to fill the niche evolution chipped out for them
You're mad at someone else, not me. Anger has no purpose here. I haven't oppressed millennia of women and I haven't ruined your life. I'm just giving my views and stating what I think are some facts. If you had read my posts throughout the thread, you would again see that I have taken a very un-dogmatic approach to this, and have said it is fine if some want to escape traditional gender roles.

>making it so hard for me to bag a suitably docile and submissive waifu
Now that's just immature and irrelevant to argumentation. This is emotion, not reason, a personal attack and snide a joke that has nothing to do with anything. It also evinces a lot of bitterness on your behalf and a lack of psychological understanding, an imaginary enemy you've built up in your head. I've never in this thread said anything about how I want to "bag a suitably docile and submissive waifu" and that feminism is making it harder for me to. I try to argue with some reasons and some evidence, but you bring up my sex life. Damned if that isn't immature and irrelevant.

>>10462441
honestly
i am aware and read in the research revealing sex based cognitive differences
i am not bothered by this
i don't think it suggests much, socially or politically
you, however
have not done any research
don't know know the literature
don't know anything about the subject beyond the very superficial
but you WIELD this research you HAVEN'T READ AND DON'T UNDERSTAND like a crucifix against this invisible demon you've conjured
the demon that is a world that doesn't suit your sensibilities

>>10462466
You're missing the obvious answer that physically stronger people can subjugate but that doesn't make it good. You really believe physical strength = superior? You maybe do but like come on man that's what a child believes before they learn to read.

>>10461469
Sex before marriage should be bad for both genders. Masturbation should be good for both. You can't get abortion, aids, wide spread unfeelable pussy if you masturbate only (applies to both genders).
The current society structure isn't anti-mysogynistic, but anti-male.

>>10462473
what
is the magnitude
of the cognitive differences
between the sexes?
there is very concrete data on this
lol google it

>>10462472
>This fixation on exaggerating the differences to the point of supporting the up keep of institutions that continue to do so
I've never supported the upkeep of institutions that continue to do so, not once in this thread, unless you find a quote which says I have, then i'll be happy to apologize.

>and saying that you can predict what most women will do in many cases or what most men will do from birth based off of this is absurd
I can confidently assert that women, on average, are more empathetic, more emotional, more holistic, and more intuitive in their thought processes than men. I don't say we "should" make women do anything based off of this. As i've said before, I don't much care for hatred and violence, it seems a waste of breath to me. I'm just saying it's helpful to take it into account If you want to have an objective and rational view on the world.

Is there anything hateful about saying men and women have psychological differences due to engrained biological differences?

>>10462113
>If men want to act traditionally masculine no one is stopping them(except in the case toxic aspects of traditional masculinity because that actually hurts people)
Can you give examples of this "aberrant" behavior that falls outside of your proscribed norms enough that it needs to be reigned? This is probably the point that separates the wheat from the chaff.

>>10462444
I'm a demagogue?
Also when did you really accomplish in disproving my arguments on a logical and scientific basis? You couldn't even logically support your said conviction on one not being able to have a say on behaviors of people in a group they may not be apart of despite knowing the rules. You just gave opinions.
You really didn't accomplish much in debate.

>>10462475
Well, if having greater strength, IQ, and culture isn't superior, what is? Maybe your definition is different.

>>10462473
Production meaning beauty, experience art, love, not the capitalism you assume. I freely admitted there are people happy in gender normal roles. I only argue against the imposition of them, and that the argument that arguing against imposition as imposition itself is inherently flawed. Putting out a fire isn't the equivalent of the fire.

>>10462493
IQ is a test made up by white men, funny that it would serve your point.

>>superior culture
lol

>>10462479
It appears some say not too high, but the difference still exists. It doesn't need to be huge to lead to larger differences on a larger scale.

>>10462495
No, I think I've argued that arguing against people following traditional gender roles if they are happy in them is the wrong here.

>>10461359
I think this fundamental double standard stems from the difference in male and female sexual reproduction- men can have many children, sire many in one day if he wants/is socially able to, whereas women are incapacitated for at least 9 months (not taking into account childrearing) by each child. We're fundamentally protecting the limited supply of eggs we have, while men are meant to (biologically) go out and spread their "seed". Thus, male sexuality is active and presented as aggressive, while female sexuality is passive. I don't really think the double standard, with the advent of birth control, is necessary, but it's hard to undo so much historical and social conditioning, as well as a biological inclination. We're getting there.

>>10462503
You confuse forced behavior with willful behavior. I argue against the forced behavior. Remember only 50 years ago when women were sent to asylums if they acted like men? Same for men, who would be sterilized or killed, beaten for being gay. The remnants of that ideology are still pervasive today.

>>10462509
I've said before I'm against violence and hatred. But I think violence and hatred is a human problem, not one inextricably tied to racism or sexism. Rather we should go straight to the root and fight against dogmatism in itself, hatred in itself, than think it just has to do with this or that ideology. People will find anything to get violent about. This is an issue of human nature. I obviously argue against forced behavior too.

>>10462498
99% of the Western Canon and Eastern "Canon" were written by males, the most well-regarded paintings, architecture, films, music, plays were created by males. I don't know what you're loling about.

>>10462499
>It doesn't need to be huge to lead to larger differences on a larger scale.
cognitive differences don't really 'scale' like that
if i can read 60 words per minute and you can read 57, we're both reading almost the same amount of books over the course of a lifetime, mutated mutandis
janis answered 23/25 figure rotation questions correctly; on the same test, harold answered 24/25. they both managed to pass their driving practical without issue.
what about this research are we supposed to find significant enough that it would cause us to reflect upon our current behaviors, as individuals?

>>10462476
Proof? Actually I don't want to get into this but I'm assuming your main citations will be child support and custody and the draft( something that the government should not be allowed to do on anyone) and men working more dangerous jobs. The latter is due to gender roles and to some extent physical differences. Alimony will fade soon don't you worry.
If you are going to say you have it hard in (idk what country your are from) because it's hard to get laid then you're in denial. At least you don't have to worry about rape along with being mugged unless you screw up and go to prison. You will have a lower chance of being a victim of domestic violence in your life time. If you are, you will more likely be in better position to leave statistically. You can be literally whatever you want more than any time in history as long as you're not hurting anyone.
Being male isn't simple but society is hardly anti male.

Daily reminder that the suicide ratio is 70:30 - men:women

>>10462514
>>10462509
By the way, I've written a lot of the posts in this thread, but never one said "men are better than women" or, I hope, been spiteful or vitriolic. Just that i find feminism, in some respects, a flawed position.

>>10462518
Well, I'd have to do more research to get back to you on that, since I can't trust this small sample size then, apparently, or your w

>>10462514
Okay, so let's instead of dodging the argument that traditional gender roles should be argued against because they only exist so stringently in the first place because of enforcement, let's talk about real issues like the fact that women are SO fucking likely to be beaten or sexually assualted. This is a pervasive issue that needs to be talked about all the time but if we reduce it to human nature we can't change anything about the political system that makes the world as gross as it is.

>>10462504

We talked about this "norm" and concluded the fact this the concept sprang up as a consciousness decision to make a rule in culture(mainly patralineal societies) it is not "hard wired."
You are totally right in the historical and societal conditioning being hard rid however.

>>10462528
>let's talk about real issues like the fact that women are SO fucking likely to be beaten or sexually assualted. This is a pervasive issue that needs to be talked about all the time but if we reduce it to human nature we can't change anything about the political system that makes the world as gross as it is.
How awful that people who are on average physically stronger, more aggressive, and less empathetic more often beat people who are, on average, physically weaker, less aggressive, and more empathetic. I agree this is awful. I agree that it would be great to change human nature, or try to change it. I am, again, against hatred and violence. But I think this has nothing to do with feminism as such, but simply that if a person is more aggressive, strong, and less empathetic, they'll be more likely to assault others, especially those who are less aggressive, strong and less empathetic. I think feminism doesn't really help against this. In all honesty, something like Buddhism or a non-violent religion/mystical ideology would probably help more.

To be fair, OP, I believe men and women can be equal despite men's superiority.

>>10462520
Men are more likely to have access to more definitive means of suicide like fire arms though...just saying. Gun ownership is a traditionally male thing our society still sports afterall.
Women are also more likely to be sexually abused and suffer from low self esteem(thanks to society) and depression.
https://www.healthline.com/health/depression/statistics#3
This isn't really about who has it harder in every case though. We were talking specifically about this one.

>>10462489
>You really didn't accomplish much in debate.
I just wanted to derive your style. I found it - dump hash that is coherent when viewed in segments but that is incoherent as a mass then denigrate any headway that is made using ad hominem attacks, while claiming that the segment of hash that was attacked is unimportant. Simultaneously launch strawman attacks and hold people accountable to rules that you see no need to personally follow. Have you been reading Mein Kampf or did you stumble onto this style of argument organically?

>>10462533
why do you insist on the idea that this is human nature. We can discard parts of ourselves we don't like, that is part of being human too. Feminism has worked to make progress in the problems you admit, yet you raise mysticism as if has historically advanced woman's standing in the world, while feminism has increased life spans, abolished horrible practices, and given women in abusive relationships a glimmer of hope in the courts.

>>10462538
In what strength?
Anyway, this is about how society treats one gender vs another in this case.
>>10462515
When was that written and created anon, I'll give you a hint. Few was during any of the times that women were allowed to and encouraged to do what ever they want.

>>10462549
You're not getting me. You're reading my words too literally. Humans have been violent throughout history, that's what I mean. This is a tendency you can't magically wave away with a wand. We try to, we should try to, we should hope for it, but we should also be clear-minded about it.

> you raise mysticism as if has historically advanced woman's standing in the world, while feminism has increased life spans, abolished horrible practices, and given women in abusive relationships a glimmer of hope in the courts.
Again, you view feminism as a homogeneous block. Nothing has made the world better except for individual self-development of virtues such as compassion, tolerance, critical thinking, fortitude, etc. Feminism hasn't done that because it's a heterogeneous, nebulous concept which doesn't strictly "do" anything, the efforts of certain good people have done that. So, again, you're being dogmatic.

>>10462542
Lmao please tell me how do males have MORE ACCESS TO FIREARMS CURRENTLY than females.
My uncle attempted 2 times with pills and finally he jumped from a window and succeeded. Men have stronger muscles and can climb the window sill, right?

>>10462558
Also, wow, poor little women, they don't have access to firearms, they can't even kill themselves. :(

>>10462554
How is that relevant? It's still the case that men have superior culture.

>>10462528
>Okay, so let's instead of dodging the argument that traditional gender roles should be argued against because they only exist so stringently in the first place because of enforcement, let's talk about real issues like the fact that women are SO fucking likely to be beaten or sexually assualted. This is a pervasive issue that needs to be talked about all the time but if we reduce it to human nature we can't change anything about the political system that makes the world as gross as it is.
Male victims of violence greatly outnumber their female counterparts. We are just expected to deal with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_men
https://www.ictj.org/publication/sexual-violence-men-boys

>>10462555
Feminists currently as a collective social movement are taking down sexual assaulters left and right and you are blind enough to claim feminism has done nothing. I don't even have to list off every historical victory that organized feminism has accomplished, all you have to do is see who was taken down from a position of power who used it to abuse people.

Individualism is great sure but the power of collectives in mass shouldn't be ignored. Show me one person whose individualism has changed power structures and I'll show you the people behind that person who helped make the movement. You argue that feminism is and isn't a block in the same post. Obviously it's a necessarily diverse philosophy but I am able for the sake of argument able to concede that "feminism" has brought victories for women because we are on the subject of biological determinism, which has gotten us nowhere but backwards.

Lots of people have been nonviolent it's totally possible that everyone could be but if we keep pretending that the world HAS to be this way because it has been in the past we are only mired with our flaws.

>>10462555
>>10462549
Also, another thing I'm trying to say is that if we attack dogmatism and violence at the root -- the psychological limitations of humanity -- violence against women would fall away of itself. You may not think mysticism has helped women because you don't see its effects, but all the people who have become peaceful and spiritualized people from mysticism may have quietly been making the world better, aside from the hubbub of media and ideologies.

>>10462569
The structural violence this references is indicative of misogynist ideology that indeed threatens us all. I do not claim that men are unharmed by their own system.

>>10462572
>Feminists currently as a collective social movement are taking down sexual assaulters left and right and you are blind enough to claim feminism has done nothing.
Has Feminism identified Hollywood Jews as the primary arbiter of evil in this country?

>>10462573
Okay, I'll admit mysticism has something to offer the West, even the feminist struggle, but it hasn't prevented misogyny in the East and is not inherently a force for the promotion of women's (human) rights like feminism.

>>10462572
>Show me one person whose individualism has changed power structures
Buddha
Jesus
Muhammad

Well, now this is getting into my mysticism. I'm not saying the world HAS to be this way, but it's hard to make it not this way, and we should acknowledge that even while we work at making it not like that. A collective social movement --- the power of collectives in the mass. Sure, this can lead to some short-term changes, some crude justice in the short-term, but it doesn't lead to deep inward changes in human nature. Some masses do that, some masses do this. You think there's progress but psychologically people are still primitive, violent, and mechanical. If a person chooses to be a feminist or not, they're not really doing it consciously; life circumstances made them do that. If people could do what they do consciously -- that would be a great change! And then every other problem, again, would go away by itself.

>>10462580
No because that's /pol/ pretend time bait talk

>>10462581
>is not inherently a force for the promotion of women's (human) rights like feminism.
Promoting human rights will naturally promote woman's rights. Go against people's mechanicality, evil nature, and violence, and every other problem will fix itself.

>>10462582
literally, all of those people had and have massive followings what are you trying to prove. The point of feminist critique is exactly the kind of change you're talking about, except that if (for example) a planned parenthood closes, STD outbreaks occur, which is were feminists help in the real world and why we need to think about hard and fast problems too.

>>10462558
>>10462562
I mean men are more likely to buy them than women. Access as in, they will have it literally under their bed more than women because they bought it.

>>10462564
It is because women were not allowed to partake into those things professionally as men are. When you do something for a living versus for fun, that tends to change things.

>>10462586
Can you name some high profile Gentiles that the Feminists have burned lately? They seem to be on a roll. Please, do not mention Roy Moore - I have seen the "signature".

>>10462545
What style? I clarified and addressed every question you had about my OP in my replies to you. You never adressed those again but instead shifted so I assumed you had no other argument on that account. You then focused on Christianity which isn't logical enough unless you you can convert everyone.
Then you focused on my misindentification of your post as someone else in an anonymous image board as proof that I can't debate or something? Meanwhile the person who has the most trouble staying on topic, the most important part of debating something, is you.

>>10462609
>because they bought it.
Is this supposed to be an example of gender bias? A woman is legally allowed to file a 4473 just like a man. They just check a different box.

>>10462615
Ok, but not really relevant to the question of quality already in a sex's produced culture. Maybe in several thousand years women will catch up. Saying they're equal now is a disservice to womem.

>>10462626
>You then focused on Christianity
No - that was you. I just wanted to make sure that if you were enforcing rules on people that you were following the same rules. You and the other poster raised the issue - not me.

>>10462609
>suicidal people are more likely to buy them than non-suicidal
ftfy

>>10462633
It's not bias...It's gender a role.
Bias is treating or reacting against some one with a preconceived notion. Role or expression is what one does to fulfill an expectation. I'm just saying the way that is less likely to fail when you kill your self is usually with guns. Women tend not to own or operate guns in our society. I'm not saying they cannot go to the store to buy one, it's just that they usually don't. The easiest thing that occurs to them is jumping(building or train) or poison.

>>10461359
lock and key

if a key opens many doors, it's a good key
if a lock is opened by many keys, it's a shitty lock

>>10461359
Men can barely dream of having a spectrum of sexuality as broad as women. But I think the central mistake here is the assumption that men and women could, or even should be judged by the same standards of sexual behavior. Why do you believe this? Also, you've got the classic cause - effect inversion going on when you think that the sexes are "taught" what to prefer.

>>10462276
Did you ever study basic probabilities and statistics? It seems like you don't know what a normal distribution is.

I don't really understand how feminists can claim gender roles limit only women, as though this didn't also apply to men.

>>10461359
From what I learned in my knowledge college feminist theory has couple different branches like radfems, tradfems, and Marxist fems, the thing they have in common is the belief that there is some sort of patriarchal imbalance and that women ought to be economically and politically equal to men. Something about pay equity, with "masculine" jobs being valued more than "feminine" jobs what not, while holding that its OK to not be feminine, but then requesting the value of "feminine" caring jobs to be paid more or something. All seems pretty tame social analysis eith not much interesting to say. I'm no expert, but I think there is a lack of analysis of consequences for women entering the workforce. Wages stagnating since there's more competition, sexual dynamics (which always tend to revolve around rape) etc.

Just read OP, didn't even write a post on topic, your shits gay though and I don't know how to respond or am not sure what you want.

as a man i feel less attracted to women with higher partner counts.

all men feel this way, because it is biologically hardwired

if you dont like it, too bad

>>10463958
It's not hardwired. At most it would be biologically neutral. Gender roles, the ones each culture develops developes, are not hardwired.

>>10463696
I will introduce you to karyarchhy. No one is claiming that, lurk this thread. At most, they beleive it historically hurt them more. Besides,I am talking about one specific instance that hurts women. In what ever ways it may hurt people, they would be done away with because no one should feel they HAVE to conform to anything just because of the genitals between their legs. Let people just be.

>>10463206
What you mean by spectrum? I meant spectrum in terms of, men's sexuality is acknowledged as just one part of them doesn't define them. There has always been a broader scale which a man depending, on his actions or appearance will be determined to be a virgin or slut/looked down upon for sexual interest. Actually I don't think a man's appearance was ever was used to suggest anything about his activity. All thee things are changing but very slow to change thanks to our cultural history.
Why not? It depends on what you are talking about anyway. Many social interests and some sexual are socialized into women and men through operant conditioning and classical. There is also just straight up suggestions made for each gender that of course changed depending on the time and place.
There is a study done in 2006 that showed 50% of men will say nipple stimulation is important for them during sex. 7% says it ruins it. The rest are indifferent. 85% of women says it helps the rest are indifferent or said it didn't. Now there are some biological causes for this, literally women have more sensitive nipples than men due to more surface area and probably more sensory receptors. There may also be a social cause though because interestingly, despite a lot of men admitting it at least enhanced arousal, less than 20% usually ask for it. Probably because it is seen as more feminine thing. I am waiting for a follow up.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Nipple%2FBreast+stimulation+and+sexual+arousal+in+young+men+and+women
>>10463148
This was addressed lurk more. That's a childish,bitter, and misogynistic complaint. Besides only attractive women have this ease. Any other difficulty is also enhanced by slut shaming anyway. Autists like you just don't know any better. Sorry humans just don't care to associate with people who are socially retarded, it's just a fact of life(man or women).

>>10464628
How is the standard, state sanctioned muh intersectional feminism sex positive queer theory model of sexuality any more rational than traditional models? The sexual state has attained a level of hegemony unmatched even by the Church. It seems to me sexuality has become some sort of secular, hedonistic religion with it's own paradoxical dogmas. 'gender is a social construct', yet someone can be born 'the wrong gender' and there are also 6000 equally valid genders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48

>>10464628
>It's not hardwired. At most it would be biologically neutral. Gender roles, the ones each culture develops developes, are not hardwired.

The managerial state just loves butlerian, everything is a social construct ideologies, because it gives them a carte blanche to intervene in all aspects of life, starting from preschool toy choices and up to whom you choose to have sex with, because hey, everything is an evil social construct, amirite?

>>10462495
modern feminism is a totally banal managerial ideology it's all about muh production, muh women in tech, muh rationalised progress. Even their icons such as beyonce, promote a completely materialistic conception of progress. The family is being replaced by the rationalised state, which is more homogenous and totalising than the family ever was, it is more invasive in its subject construction and allows no criticism for we all know it is the very incarnation of rational human progress and quasi christian goodness. Read Paul Gottfried.

>>10461359
its a sellers market, men buy, wouldnt buy no used shit and expect to last a lifetime

as a fuckbuddy i rather have someone who is vastly experienced but i wont lie and say i would marry such person

>>10461359
I read none of this, but I'm wondering when we're going to collectively agree to stop posting John fucking Green.

>>10462328
>who has been trying to impose a code of behavior on the general population of woman?

Not just leftists, but a whole system of industrial communication that wants to turn humans into interexchangable industrial components subject to total control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWM4bJNpch0

>>10465526
Well if you read at least the first paragraph, you would know i disagree with him.
>>10465404
But there aren't more than 2-3 genders(there are some tribes with 3 because they recognize hermaphrodites) at most considering that it is a reflection of biological sex which each culture then ascribes meaning to outside of the genitalia between their legs.
That's just some dumb shit anon. Can't really talk about shit that I have no interest or experience in.

You bring up one good point though.
I actually disagree with aspects of transgenderism for reasons you just pointed out. Mainly the whole sex change thing.
The feminists that argue for it say it is a byproduct of strict gender roles that have ruled our society for ages and continue to.

>>10465576
i agree w this %100

>>10465426
I meant biologically selectively neutral in terms of evolution. I was assuming you actually understood the theory of evolution unlike most euphoric atheists and /pol/fags.

Not necessarily evil but it depends on how it's used.
For example "pink is girly" and "blue boyish" isn't an evil construct by itself. It only becomes oppressive when you say: "boys who wear pink are gay and should feel bad about it" and "girls who don't, are unfeminine and should feel bad about it" and make that the basis of society. But anyway, why do libertarians and alt right turn this to rant about the state and politics? And if you are a libertarian how can you support patriarchy? If you're against all forms of affirmative action whatever, but seriously patriarchy?
There was literally a law before 1920 that said the government has the right, by force of violence to prevent you from voting/participating in governing if you have a vagina. How it that libertarian?
How is the enforcement of a law by government that prevents one from one from purchasing land or a car by oneself libertarian?
Beside I didn't necessarily request the involvement of state I was just making an observation on the problems with society, not state.

>>10466076
Great, the conspiracy theorists have arrived on the scene to write feminism off as globalists regime.
Of course this has nothing to do with capitalism being the route of literally turning people into cogs in a machine. The free market is the cure to everything.
Women and aren't interchangeable. We already established there are some physical differences. What are you on?

>>10461359
I appreciate the long post and the thought anon has put into it. But if you go to any big city people are really not that precious about their sexuality.

A lot of girls and boys will at least give you a handjob just because they kinda like you as a friend.

>>10466126
I agree w you. Most of the "gender roles are hardwired crowd" are usually people who have never left their small town and had no experience how much they actually vary even in the same country.

>>10466110
>But anyway, why do libertarians and alt right turn this to rant about the state and politics

liberals did not only make it about politics, they made it into a blooming cottage industry! this woman is getting $$$ TV appearances and book sales. why? for 'trapping' her young male child. this is sick imo.

>Lori Duron is the author of Raising My Rainbow: Adventures in Raising a Fabulous, Gender Creative Son (Random House, September 2013). The first parenting memoir to chronicle the journey of raising a gender nonconforming child, the book is based on her blog of the same name.

>RaisingMyRainbow.com has more than one million readers in 173 countries, including gender studies students and faculty at more than 50 college and universities in the U.S., Canada and the U.K.

>Duron and her blog have twice been named one of BlogHer’s Voices of the Year; one of Ignite Social Media’s “100 Women Bloggers You Should be Reading;” one of Circle of Moms “Top 25 SoCal Moms;” and one of Parents Magazine’s blogs that are “Most Likely To…Change The World.”

>Duron is an often-quoted source on parenting gender creative, gender nonconforming, protogay and prehomosexual children. Media interest and coverage includes: Anderson Cooper, The BBC, The Orange County Register, KFI 640 AM, CBS – Los Angeles, MSNBC, Queerty.com, Feast of Fun, The New York Times, One4All Magazine, The Next Family, Bitch Magazine, Newsweek, BlogHer, The Mother Company, OC Weekly, The Globe and Mail, Babble, Jezebel and Amanda de Cadanet.
https://raisingmyrainbow.com/about/

>>10462593
>literally, all of those people had and have massive followings what are you trying to prove. The point of feminist critique is exactly the kind of change you're talking about, except that if (for example) a planned parenthood closes, STD outbreaks occur, which is were feminists help in the real world and why we need to think about hard and fast problems too.

but, on the other hand, more innocent infants get murdered, so I guess it evens out.

>>10466126
women and men are interchangeable insofar as they are functions of capital valorization ie consumers or 'market participants'
this isn't really so much about 'globalism' as it is about the infiltration of 'market logic' into every facet of our lives
this is beyond the left-right dichotomy by the way
markets are very efficient and effective at allocating a great many of societal resources in a relatively just way
that does not mean the market mechanism is the only means by which we can and should organize ourselves socially, politically, religiously, etc or that we must subordinate ourselves to our roles within a global 'marketplace'

>>10466193
>mother puts make up on kid

disgusting

>armament industry receives billions in taxpayers dollars

perfectly ok.

Let me guess gender roles are more about your insecurities instead of morality.

>>10461359
Basically it's hard to even have a discussion with you because you're so far off base already. It's like someone coming up to you with a canary in hand and saying "I wish to discuss this whale with you."

>>10466140
It is changing now a days, mainly with the masturbation part, and in different areas but my other points still kind of stand in many areas on this country from what I see. It's also the implicit biases we have developed through our up bringing that still remain at first reaction.

>>10466193
Weren't people annoyed about that family too? There were a lot of mixed view from women and men on the topic. I personally think it is virtue signaling to the point of being "holier-than-thou" bullshit considering she may have forced him. Were he is someone like,dare I say Jaden Smith, but who actually genuinely feels he shouldn't have to conform to anything because it limits his options and in the end it is pointless, and has come to that conclusion HIMSELF, I would totally support him.

Either way I'm not that angry, I'm more annoyed at his mom trying so hard but it doesn't affect me much compared to other things as anon pointed out.
Now if she sexually, physically, and mentally abused her son everyday + neglected him, that would really rustle my jimmies. Circumstances like that are way more problematic than any of this virtue signaling could ever be. Some homophobic parents actually do the later to their kids unfortunately. I think we should be more concerned about that. I would hope you feel the same.

>>10466251
Well women and men are more interchangeable now not because of markets but because technology renders physical strength, the main thing that makes men and women different, unnecessary.
Markets have been capitalizing on the benefits of the industrial revolution(efficiency) for the past century and will continue to do so until literally all of us have to work for free. Why make it seem like gender is the main focus here?
Also, you already know many feminists are angry at the market because this same focus on efficiency and profit is making it difficult for women to retain higher positions in their careers/ fields of interest while having children like men can because of lack of sufficient maternity leave in some places. So why are you making it look like feminism is a tool of such endeavors?

>>10466325
The only solution, it would appear, is beatings.

>>10466463
>>10466126
>>10466110

You know, I really don't know if you're a troll or not because most women I've argued with have had similar difficulties following the chain of an argument and refraining from ad hominems as a desperate form of deflection.

If you are a troll, you're pretty good at aping a woman's thought patterns. So good job if that's the case.

>>10464777
For men, as with women, their sexual behavior is a good general indicator of many aspects of their character. You'd have to specify in what way you think that's not the case for men.
>Actually I don't think a man's appearance was ever was used to suggest anything about his activity.
I take it you're talking about sexual activity - this could not be further from the truth. Gigolo-type dress is considered pathetic and desperate. Thankfully, men are capable of asserting enough social pressure to mostly suppress that kind of thing, whereas women seem to be happy to encourage it in their own sex.
>Why not?
One law for the lion and the ox, and so forth. Beings with fundamentally different abilities, predilections and behaviors can not be judged by the same standard. Unless you believe that men and women are literally the same apart from their sexual organs, you'd agree at least with this much, no?
If the point of your nipple study is that it's an activity that men are discouraged from enjoying, I can't say that I've made that experience at all. The consensus seems to be that it can be quite pleasant, if done correctly. I've never heard it considered effeminate or unmanly.

I have no idea if the feminist getting assblasted in this thread is OP, but if it is, good job getting shit on like you deserve. I think /his/ is more your speed.

>>10466487
Man you take everyhing so literally. I wasn't calling you one of those fags I was just saying your understanding od evolution seems as rudimentary as those two different groups of people.

How did I stray from the argument?
The argument was already establish in this thread before you started bringing stat ism and politics into the damn thing.
Suddenly I am trolling because I disagree with your point that feminism, in particular is a a tool of market conspiracy when the industrial revolution its self already set this in stone? Otherwise elaborate on what you mean.

>>10461359
Christ how do you expect me to read something this long?

>>10466528
That is an absurd standard, especially considering the difference between any human is no where near the difference between a lion and a ox. And yes, I know it was an analogy but it can not apply here. The differences are not so much to warrant treating them so differently. That is feminism's main critique of this whole thing. These differences have been exaggerated throughout history.

I have never heard of gioglo type dress(like male striper?) but even the word itself does not conjure the same contempt in our culture. Men who dress "desperately" like that have never been told that if they get raped its their fault either. Men hardly have to worry about rape actually since they are not as objectified on the one hand, and because they are physically stronger on the other. regardless, gigilo dress
is pretty limited. All sorts of styles worn by women can be labled "slutty."

And are you kidding? Women totally exert social pressure on other women with slutshaming. Some girls commit suicide in school because of slut shaming. I have never heard of guys receiving anywhere near the level of pressure, ostracization, and general contempt as a girl in situations of promiscuity.
But in your own words, you believe this difference in standards is necessary just because of tradition and some physical differences?
Anti slutshaming isn't only to convince men, you know. Women are just as guilty. Feminism is also about you know having more solidarity among women as well. Probably one of the most important parts imo.

>>10466541
/lit/ is not /pol/ so you need to leave.
And there are a lot of "feminists" in this thread so you have to specify.
And nice job contributing value to the thread and this board!

>>10466587
I expect non brainlets will be able. That you cannot, is actually a good thing because it keeps brainlet opinions out of this thread.

>>10466487
don't ever reply to my posts ever again

can i get the tl;dr on this thread?

who won, are girls fine to fuck around?

>>10461682
This is like saying a feminist shouldn't be on a board notorious for misogyny.

>>10466648
Feminism is not based on an omnipotent God that will send you to hell for all eternity for being sinful and turning away from him. So no, it's nothing like that.
Also /lit/ isn't the most notorious for that. that is /pol/, /v/, /r9k/ and /b/ though the latter is more trolling. THese days I'm not so sure about /lit/ especually after the cringe worthy youtube vlogger incident.

>>10466671
>THese days I'm not so sure about /lit/ especually after the cringe worthy youtube vlogger incident.
context?

>>10466687
They have another thread going on about her right now. Forgot her name. Apparently she opened up the comment sections on one her her videos recently.

>>10466615
>The differences are not so much to warrant treating them so differently. That is feminism's main critique of this whole thing. These differences have been exaggerated throughout history.
On the contrary, society is a flattening, oversimplifying environment in which the true scale of the differences becomes barely noticeable. It always oversimplifies human identity in order to facilitate orderly coexistence.
>Men hardly have to worry about rape actually since they are not as objectified on the one hand, and because they are physically stronger on the other.
Just due to the latter, actually. Objectification is a central element of almost all human interaction.
>All sorts of styles worn by women can be labled "slutty."
Do women actually believe this? Like, even Quaker clothes?
>I have never heard of guys receiving anywhere near the level of pressure, ostracization, and general contempt as a girl in situations of promiscuity.
Pressure, ostracization and general contempt are the norm among men with regard to many sexual and non-sexual behaviors, but I don't see how it would make sense for promiscuity in particular.
>But in your own words, you believe this difference in standards is necessary just because of tradition and some physical differences?
I'm not interested in tradition, only in what leads to socially beneficial and constructive behavior.
>Feminism is also about you know having more solidarity among women as well.
Good luck with that, sounds like herding cats to me.

>>10461359
>don’t insult women for making their choices
>but insult men for making their choices

>>10466730
>only in what leads to socially beneficial and constructive behavior.
which is what?

>>10461359
>not only do I get to do whatever I want but you don’t get to internally disapprove of it

>>10466749
The thing is men get this type of treatment so why be so biased against women as a group?
It's quite absurd. I wasn't talking strictly of promiscuity so get that out of your head.I specified this in the first paragraph for pete sake.
>>10466740
how is this what you took this from the entire post? Let alone all that you took?

>>10466730
>society is flattening
Oh so you agree many of the traditions, that we have had around gender roles no longer matter(not that they necessarily ever did, as it was a choice) considering how advanced our society has become? That's basically my point.

Not just do to the the latter. I mean sexual objectification clearly, but I will be more specific from now on. Yes there are other types of objectification and no they aren't necessarily good. They are still dehumanizing.

>including quakers
C'mon now, anon. I clearly mean all sorts as in much more in number in possibility than men's. Don't be so obtuse. Women's entire bodies have been oversexualized in many different ways across many different cultures/times. You this. Should they disregard any of these boundaries they are labelled slut (whether or not they are even actually promiscuous).

>Pressure, ostracization and general contempt are the norm among men
And where they are gender specific I believe they are wrong. We ARE talking about sexual interests and also in the context of your last reply, promiscuity so you know well that I was right.
They are not judged to the same level or scale for promiscuity or even interest in sex.
You say you're only interested in what leads to constructive behavior, but how does it lead, in this day and age especially, to any more or less constructive behavior when it comes to our bias against women's interest,thought, or even talk of sex compared to a men's?
Hell, even with promiscuity? All of this only really matters in the context of a patrilineal society. I do see how promiscuity is a problem if the goal of a society is monogamy(via marriage or something similar), but not for one gender over the other.

Also, I forgot to mention this before. Please, specify these "fundamentally different abilities and predilections?" To what degree, how many, and the percentage of the population while your at it. You have to be able to do that to justify bias and completely different treatment of each.
People use these words but never specify what they mean outside of :men= stronk and can't get pregnant
women= weaker and can get pregnant.
It is getting old.

>>10466812
>>10466730
due*
You know this*

Fuck I'm getting tired. I'm off to bed. You better have a well thogut out response to my question if this thread is still here in the morning.

>>10466671
I would like you to explain this a little clearer.
You say Christians shouldn't be on sites that feature things against their beliefs even if they are not engaging in them(by having porn present? I don't entirely follow here), even though /lit/ hardly qualifies- and then you go and participate in a board that actively harasses women- contrary to your beliefs.
If a Christian is violating their ethics by participating in a board on 4chan, home of degeneracy, then aren't you violating yours? And if not what's the difference?

You aren't here to harass women just like I am not here for porn.

>>10466812
What's so great about promiscuity? Liberals and feminists almost praise it as if it was a sacred moral duty. That's what modern feminism amounts to: women who want to ride the cock carousel forever, and kill their babies and who want to be that middle management bitch in a position of authority and think society should praise their worthless shitty lives and encourage everyone to do the same

>>10466812
Your utopia is a world in which children are reared by genderneutral experts from birth in order to assure 'equal representation' in all fields of work, regardless of actual interests or inclination. 50:50 female bank executives, computer programmers, all children should be indoctrinated to become computer programmers, notice how its obvious feminism is merely an expression of the economic interests of managerial class catladies who couldn't compete with men. So they resort to underhanded means.

>>10466824
You should stay away from "unclean things" as a Christian. And that includes nearly all of this site was the joke.
I don't really give a shit if you stay or not I was just putting it out there and taunting you.

>>10466854
I didn't say anything was "great" about promiscuity. GO back and read OP. that is not all modern feminism is about. I was talking about the multifaceted idea behind slut shaming that goes beyond the number of partner a girl actually has. That was the point of my analysis in OP.
>>10466865
Again people talking about shit they don't understand. No one should be forced to do anything is the point. Let kids decide what is comfortable for them without judgement or fear that that what between their legs will make them not good enough. We do not have this in our culture.
Why do you turn this into 50:50 everything game whenever you get frustrated? Some rad fems are obsessed with that. I certainly am not and neither are most feminist.That is absurd imo. The point is many of the gender norms we have are too stringent for no reason. I spent this thread talking about one in particular.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything for the last time. By the way, many of these norms I am talking about affect boys and their self actualization too. You anti fems often forget about that.

>>10466748
Any system of social reinforcement that values monogamy and a strong nuclear family unit, i.e. the conditions under which people of my civilization have historically flourished the most.
>>10466812
>Oh so you agree many of the traditions, that we have had around gender roles no longer matter(not that they necessarily ever did, as it was a choice) considering how advanced our society has become?
I think the current situation, in which we are starting to see the effects of abandoning certain traditional behavioral patterns, is a healthy reminder of why those patterns emerged in the first place.
>They are still dehumanizing.
Objectification is a natural aspect of almost all human interaction, and cannot therefore be dehumanizing.
>Women's entire bodies have been oversexualized in many different ways across many different cultures/times.
How would you define "oversexualization"?
>And where they are gender specific I believe they are wrong.
Again, the assumption that the sexual behavior of the sexes could be, even ought to be, the same.
>I do see how promiscuity is a problem if the goal of a society is monogamy(via marriage or something similar), but not for one gender over the other.
The gist of the entire rest of your post seems to be the assumption that male promiscuity is generally considered to be acceptable among men, you'd have to clarify if you do believe this.
As for different abilities and predilections, you can read about the former in any work of biology that concerns itself with sexual dimorphism, while Paglia's Sexual Personae is a good introduction into the latter. Move from there on to her sources.

>>10466928
>let kids decide what is good for them

This one I can't fathom. Im not saying we should keep them under strict surveillance but just letting them do as they please cant bring anything good since they're kids and you well you know how many stupid ideas do you have when you're a kid
There should be a some supervision instead of just nodding and patting them on the back for whatever they feel like any given day

>>10461973
your too dumb, people are reasoning with you at the heights of desperation

>>10466971
In terms of gender roles in ways that are reasonable. C'mon now. I'm not talking Will Smith tier literally let your kids do what ever they want. lol We know the potential extent of the differences between the sexes, no need for the exaggerations of the differences practiced today and definitely not the ones of the past.
Most imporatant there is no need for the roles to be so strict. Who gives a shit if your son decides he wants to wear the equivalent of a dress on a hot muggy day? Dresses were never explicated mad for women anyway and we know this. Plus it's just an article of fucking cloth. Who cares if you hear too girls chatting about sex with their boyfriends any more than you hear two guys chatting about sex with some girl?
Girls shouldn't feel afraid that they will fail at math because of dumb ideas that girls just aren't as good at it despite studies proving this wrong, when all math is practice? Who cares how many families decide the guy staying home most of the time is the best option? Who cares if a women feels she wants to support her family mainly by working? Who cares
It is objectively absurd for anyone to is my point yet it still happens a lot. That's the issue.
>>10466951
the nuclear family is not the prerequisite. You forget the extended family was also quite popular.
And what are the effects you speak off? How much better was the attitudes of Ancient Rome and any other patrileneal societies more conducive to everyone's or even most people's happiness? Are you only talking about the 50s?
That wasn't much better. Plus a lot of the payoff also came from the post war boom. Why do you put the blame on feminism and not the greater automization and further objectification of workers in return for more efficiency and profit? This may be ineviable which makes it worse.
>Objectification is fine
And you complain we have a shit society with notions like this still going around

>the assumption that the sexual behavior of the sexes could be, even ought to be, the same
The assumption is by you is that always have to be different. I said nothing about behavior having to be the same, only the perception of it. Even as it not exactly the same, the perception is more disproportionally harsh on females. The dichotomy is more emphasized, the spectrum narrow.

Extreme promiscuity is not acceptable but the spectrum is much wider form men. And again, I'm not just talking about promiscuity.

There is sexual dimorphisim but what does that have to do with our views on female sexuality as a whole? Why should we care more than men especially in this day and age?
Why should it be greater fixation. You don't answer that question but spout platitudes about the welfare of a particular type of society.
Do you want us to go back to a patrilneal society and ban birth control? So why is this still important to you to focus more on women?
If so why do you believe such a society is absolutely the only way to live?
I hope this clarifies my meaning.

>>10466972
So you have proof that most women self actualize in the same exact way and will use the same exact means?
Same with men?
What percentage is even "most."

>>10466951
>>10467142
TO clarify further since I ran out of space, I mean "fixation" more on women's sexuality in terms of how they look, talk, think in relation to sex?
That is a major component of the issue at hand. Why is such control of these thing for women so important for the promotion of your monogamist society than for men?
And what proof do you have?

>>10467142
>the nuclear family is not the prerequisite. You forget the extended family was also quite popular.
Sure, but its importance varies culturally across the West, and I wanted to focus on the core here.
>And what are the effects you speak off?[...]
Dysgenics is my biggest concern.
While I'm not concerned with everyone's or even most people's happiness, I do think the option of traditional homemaking could be quite fulfilling for many women - but I'm not interested in reviving any past historical social orders.
>Why do you put the blame on feminism and not the greater automization and further objectification of workers in return for more efficiency and profit?
What am I blaming feminism for? It's a quite natural response to economic developments, as you said.
>And you complain we have a shit society with notions like this still going around
In almost every human interaction, the human we interact with becomes temporarily reduced to a certain function. If I read a thesis paper, the author becomes an intellectually objectified, when I pay for my groceries, the cashier becomes an economic object, and so forth. In which society is or was this not the case? Give examples.
>There is sexual dimorphisim but what does that have to do with our views on female sexuality as a whole?
Because dimorphism affects sexuality as a whole.
>Why should we care more than men especially in this day and age? Why is such control of these thing for women so important for the promotion of your monogamist society than for men?
Care of / control about what? General sexual expression? As I've said, it's essential for both men and women, I still don't see where I'm being unfair. I advocate higher standards in look, speech and thought for humans in general. Human sexuality expresses itself in different ways and needs to be adjusted in different ways.

>>10467347
>I'm not interested in reviving any past historical social orders.
>Any system of social reinforcement that values monogamy and a strong nuclear family unit, i.e. the conditions under which people of my civilization have historically flourished the most.

>>10467966
>you can only have those things by literally recreating a past society

>>10467347
Well, the nuclear family is just one way. It's ubiquity was not absolute as the only determinant of success in a society even in the west.
>objectification happens temporarily
IT does not happen indefinitely and idk about you but I still consider that my cashier may have other parts of his humanity than bagging my items. Most importantly the sexual objectification by our society is not like that. The objectification there does not occur "temporarily." Look at how the porn addicts on this site with no real female interaction think about women and how they must be/act. Their preconceived notions of how their bodies MUST look(based on their porn stars) the center of their preoccupation.

Dysgenetics from what?
Women sleeping with douche bags and having kids? You talking about this "gate keeper model">>10461654
Not all women like such guys and even less necessarily marry them. With more birth control, that barely happens. Again, I am not talking about limited sexual expression of women in terms of promiscuity.

What happens "essentially" for men and women(whatever that means, perhaps you mean less women "on average being a slave to their sexual urges" >>10461630
like guys has nothing to do with how society "needs to treat them." Why would society need to police something that is supposedly natural? If it is essential for all women, there would need to be no "adjustments". This goes for most gender roles btw.
I see no logical reason for this other than bias's sake and need for control. More so in our society today.You will need to be more specific.

It's literally not creating higher standards for all humans because the standard is already higher for one ENTIRE half than the other entire half arbitrarily.
At least follow the normal distribution. lol (I hope you catch my joke that further explains why absolute rules for many gender by society are silly).

>>10468032
>still fucking equivocating over every little detail 200 posts later

>>10466587
Do you realize which board this is?

>>10468985
>desperately gotta get that last word in before the thread is gone