/lit/ - Literature

>>11736256

>In her book "My Life On The Road", Steinem spoke openly about the relationship she had with "The Agency" in the 1950s and 1960s. While popularly pilloried because of her paymaster, Steinem defended the CIA relationship, saying: "In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable."

>>11736276
This is a veggie thread, the only kind of meat we eat here is pussy.

>>11736285
>liberal feminism
Miss me with that Hillary Clinton shit.

I'm a girl

>>11736256

>It is often said, the toastier the roast, the bigger the beef. Something mysterious happens while a splayed roastie has her feminine parts bored open. Her once delicate peach of an innie blooms into a meaty tulip that holds only gaping darkness as its pollen. Diving deeper into her labyrinthine labia, we peer into stunning microscopic worlds teeming beneath her beef and bologna, one commanded by Darwin yet perpetually under strain from nightly batches of invasive new microbiota. Those Papilloman particles and Chlamydian crusts are pummeled and pulverized into her flesh, the same as the sticky spores of Gonorrhea exudate, the motley films and fluids of adenoviruses, amoebas and anaerobic fauna, many from vastly far away places. Jabbed and driven into her epithelial layers and deep into her beef, they burrow and seek out nutrition, infection, and begin to terraform the vaginal tissues into a land suitable for the droves deposited fresh every sunset. Her immune system has long since grown into an abiding symbiosis with the invasive menagerie of bacteria, fungie and flagelating mystery monsters, even incorporating sexually transmitted genes delivered by the various retroviruses and postules of microRNA sent throughout her blood stream at the behest of her vagina’s new tenants. Designed by nature to be a fertile pasture for reproduction, now her semen-soddened womb whistles hollow like a ghostly edifice remaining from a war. But in a trade-off, her sexual microbiome augments her biology. HPV hacks her dopamine and serotonin circuitry, making her bolder and more brazen, more risk-seeking and even more sexually insatiable. Neurosyphilis empowers Roasties to draw attention to themselves and to resist the mainstream tyrannies of society.

>>11736319
no i'm a girl

>>11736334
What's with you people and roast-beef?

>>11736316
Kike

>>11736362
Stay mad, stormfag.

>>11736256
I'm an unironic feminist, but there's no way I'd be caught within 500 feet of a Jessica Valenti book. She's a pseud who borrows heavily from other, better thinkers without bringing anything novel to the table.

Also,
>no Room of One's Own
>no Austen
>no Adichie
>no black feminists
>no latinx feminists
>no trans feminists
>no intersectional writers
>no fiction whatsoever
1970 called, they want their women's movement back.

>>11736383
I think The Purity Myth would actually be very valuable for people on 4chan to read because this place has an extreme fixation with virginity in regards to women. If you have a better book about that topic maybe it can replace it next thread.

>no Room of One's Own
>no Austen
>no black feminists
>no latinx feminists
>no fiction whatsoever
Good points.

>no trans feminists
Uhhh no. Fuck that.

>>11736433
>TERF
/lit/ is an LGBT+ board. If you don't want trans women in your women's movement, reddit may be more your speed.

>>11736433
The fixation on virginity is driven by the fact that it's so rare in any woman over the age of 15 or so these days that it's a mythical state of being. Recommending some manifesto about why all roasties should be toasty is missing the point.

>>11736316
>tfw she got what she deserved
I wish I could have been there to see it.

>>11736379
Only one mad here was Luxemburg when she got fucked into that river

>>11736463
>he thinks 16-year-old virgins are rare
Nibba the average age for a well-off woman to lose her virginity is 17 and a half (source: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/teens-losing-virginity-age).). And I know several women so insecure about sex that they've remained virgins well into their twenties. Stop buying into assblasted incel hyperbole.

>>11736463
Nope, patriarchal cultures have had this obsession for centuries and it's entirely driven by a dehumanized view of women that they're more like property and so can be "used goods" than individual people in their own right. This is a view the good folks of 4chan, especially /r9k/ where the obsession is most pronounced, have in spades.

Virginity, as a meaningless immaterial concept, doesn't get any more inherent value by being rare. It only gains value by the social fixation on it.

>>11736458
>If you don't want [men] in your women's movement
That's right. Blow it out your ballbag, you big-handed hon.

>>11736433
>>11736463
>>11736494
The significance of virginity is in the emotional not the physical (where of course its a largely arbitrary fact). If you're a woman who has been through several relationsips/flings/whatever and you're meeting with a guy who has had one serious relationship at best then he knows you've long lost the ability to connect with people like him intimately without seeing him as another temporary station or at best the arbitrary spot the dice landed on. Every interaction that follows is just casted from the shadow of so many other men.
This is what real purity is, actually still being able to come to genuine intimacy and attachment and not being a monkey hearted being too far lost for you to ever genuinely mean anything to them.

>>11736494
>>11736502
The Roastie is immunized against all dangers: one may call her a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off her like water off a raincoat. But call her a Roastie and you will be astonished at how she recoils, how injured she is, how she suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

>>11736502
Interesting that you'd assume only trans women think that trans women are valid. Reflects a lack of familiarity with the literature. I hope that you change your view and become a better ally to the women who face the most oppression of all.

I recommend reading:
>Gender Trouble, Judith Butler

Or, if you'd prefer a video:
>What is Gender?, Contrapoints

For the record, I was assigned female at birth, but I currently identify as genderfluid.

>>11736520
Why do you think being in multiple relationships annihilates the ability of someone to connect with their partner? That kind of insecurity is totally irrational.

If you've had multiple friendships does that weaken the emotional significance of future friendships?

>>11736256
You guys know that every normal person looks at you and the incels the exact same way, right? With Disgust.

Could exchange student help me spread/study feminism abroad?

>>11736536
The manner in which the female sex organ derives pleasure makes them hostile to any man less adequate than a previous partner.

>>11736520
>This is what real purity is, actually still being able to come to genuine intimacy and attachment and not being a monkey hearted being too far lost for you to ever genuinely mean anything to them.
I can tell you from experience that my current boyfriend means much more to me than any of the other 23 men I've slept with. It's possible to distinguish between sex for pleasure and sex with a person you love, and it's possible to love someone even if they're not the first person with whom you've had a relationship. All this business about losing the ability to bond is paranoia.

>>11736548
This isn't true. But even if it was, all you have to do is be adequate. You're an adequate young man, aren't you?

>>11736536
Absolute drivel. Its perfectly rational thing to recognize on every level. On the very basis of where worth is derived from its clear that something that is easily disposed of and exchanged is not something that will be valued.

>If you've had multiple friendships does that weaken the emotional significance of future friendships?

Yes absolutely. There's titanic difference a person feels between a childhood friend they stuck by for all their years as opposed to someone who constantly moves on from people and their current friends are just a circle of convenient connections

>>11736556
>There's titanic difference a person feels between a childhood friend they stuck by for all their years as opposed to someone who constantly moves on from people and their current friends are just a circle of convenient connections.
Is it not possible to move on from a childhood friend and go on to find a deeper friendship with someone else? I only ask because I'm pretty sure I've done this, and I'd like to know if my experience has actually been wrong all along.

>>11736553
>I can tell you from experience that my current boyfriend means much more to me than any of the other 23 men I've slept with.

Yeah I'm sure its so much more important like a pea to a rice grain. You're just proving my point, if you had 23 encounters and none of them are even in the question of competing with the latest then its clear none of them had any meaning to you as the women in his life did to him.

>>11736528
> I hope that you change your view and become a better ally to the women who face the most oppression of all.
This truly encapsulates the self-interestedness of the transgender movement. That the most oppressed women of them all, are the men who live and die by patriarchal gender norms. It is absurd.

I'll read the book though. But in turn I'd recommend The Transexual Empire.

>>11736564
>implying sex can't be meaningless for both the man and the woman
Clearly this poster is a virgin, or at least woefully inexperienced.

>>11736571
Yeah and you're not just a broken borderline whore. Not an argument you silly bitch

>>11736561
>Is it not possible to move on from a childhood friend and go on to find a deeper friendship with someone else?

Vast majority of the time no. "Old friends" is such a powerful expression for a reason. There can be circumstances that encourage friendships to grow more than them if the people have been through certain exceptional and revealing circumstances like war buddies but as a rule those who come late leave early and on it goes

>>11736575
The implicit argument was that it was possible (and was, in fact, the case) that both the men and women involved in the first 23 encounters were equally detached, and therefore the incel's assertion that there was an imbalance of attachment was false.

Either you're ignoring that argument because you can't refute it, or you're too dense to read between the lines. Regardless, you've resorted to ad hominems and have therefore ceded the point.

>The Lesser Sex general
Yikes

>>11736584
>both the men and women involved in the first 23 encounters were equally detached
>and therefore the incel's assertion

Seeing a key difference here dumb dumb? Its tremendously exceptional for a man to have had 23 sexual partners in his entire lifetime much less in the span of a young person's life.
You're right the guy who had 23 girls would be prone to see the next one to be absolutely nothing to him

>>11736548
Please don't call it "the female sex organ", that's creepy and dehumanizing. Call it a fucking vagina.

Not to mention that's completely retarded anyway. That's not how vaginas work and it speaks more to male insecurity about being "inadequate" (another very real, very dangerous patriarchal obsession) than it does about any inherent scientific value to "virginity".

>>11736556
>On the very basis of where worth is derived from its clear that something that is easily disposed of and exchanged is not something that will be valued.
Straight from the get go this logic is also completely irrational, money is easily disposed of and exchanged but it's still probably the most valued thing in our society. And trying to apply bastard-economics to women just proves what I was saying, that this obsession with virginity at root has everything to do with viewing women as objects and not as people.

>There's titanic difference a person feels between a childhood friend they stuck by for all their years as opposed to someone who constantly moves on from people and their current friends are just a circle of convenient connections
Indeed, but you've already loaded your answer with the reasons why it doesn't apply to your proposition. That being that the value of this childhood friend isn't that they were one of your earliest friends, it's that they stuck by for all their years. The magnitude of the relationship isn't in it being the first, it's in the durability of it.

Personally I didn't stay friends with any of my proper childhood friends. The oldest friends I have now I made when I was about 14 but I wouldn't value their friendship necessarily more than those of good friends I've made since. Because, for a healthy person, your emotions don't deteriorate with age. If as you grow older you feel less for other people and find it harder to connect with them then something is going wrong, it's nothing to do with people per se but with your own alienation.

>>11736590
You mean the Master Sex general.

>>11736601
>Straight from the get go this logic is also completely irrational, money is easily disposed of and exchanged but it's still probably the most valued thing in our society

Yeah but any particular dollar bill isn't is it you fucking retard. Not even bothering reading the rest

>male feminists

>>11736594
The number has nothing to do with it. When I lost my virginity, I felt nothing for the man involved, and it was obvious he felt nothing either. That's more or less how it's been most of my life. It's only my current bf who's ever meant anything to me. Just goes to show that attachment has nothing to do with history; it's about the people involved.

>>11736611
Don't you wish you saved it for your husband, sweety?

>>11736611
>It's only my current bf who's ever meant anything to me.

Literally the definition of how borderline people behave, then when the dumb monkey brain clicks one day he turns out to be just like the other 22.
The numbers do matter, each one is comment on all to follow and it gets stronger and stronger each time.

>>11736606
>Not even bothering reading the rest

>I'm perfectly rational
>I'm so outraged at you that I won't even listen any more

Fragile big-boy needs a safe-space.

>>11736615
I don't care and neither does he.

>>11736616
Source?

>>11736616
>The numbers do matter, each one is comment on all to follow and it gets stronger and stronger each time.
Was the first girl you had sex with the most emotionally significant to you?

>>11736620
Not reading anymore because you're either too stupid to be worth talking to or are entirely disengenuous with your own logic. You've already revealed your own loss of position. Money is valuable as a commodity but any particular bill can come and go towards how it advances your own position.

>>11736627
>implying he's ever gotten laid
incels are incels b

>>11736627
Absolutely and I can't even contemplate any happiness with women since. What I had is gone and whats left is so empty to myself much less trying to contemplate whats going on in the sour four tour veterans of women my age

>>11736433
>>11736611
>>11736633
BASED dubs
incels btfo

>>11736628
This is really funny, because you're doubling down on exactly the line of logic I was going on to criticize from that comparison.
> And trying to apply bastard-economics to women just proves what I was saying, that this obsession with virginity at root has everything to do with viewing women as objects and not as people.
Why are men so quick to meltdown when confronted with logic?

>>11736256
Okay I'm interested

but I only read books with stories. Philosophy bores me to tears.

Recently enjoyed House of Mirth, I'd say that counts as feminist. Rec me some more, preferably not modern

>>11736643
Women are objects because they treat themselves like objects. Subjectivity isn't something you have a right to, its earned and you don't earn it

Literally arguing with holes the thread.

>>11736639
that sounds like an issue you gotta work through
make some art, make some friends, let time work its magic
you'll find the one sooner than you realize
i wish you all the best anon, stay safe and practice self-care

>>11736639
Do you not see why that's really unhealthy? Most people, including myself, don't see it like that. To me personally the first time I had sex wasn't just not meaningful, it was outright horrible and an experience I'd never want to repeat. In relationships and encounters since there's been varying degrees of emotional intimacy and romantic feelings from none at all to a lot but the one thing that's really consistent is that the more comfortable I become in my own sexuality through experience the more of a connection it can be with the other person. I think emotionally as well as physically sex is all about reciprocation and if you romanticize and fixate on your virginity of course you can't fully be on the same page as your partner. But this isn't an insurmountable, you're not inherently "impure" and "damaged". You're still hung up on something that you need to get over so that you can accept the present as it is, and it's important to have a partner that's able to do that too.

>>11736649
>Women are objects because they treat themselves like objects.
How?
>Subjectivity isn't something you have a right to, its earned and you don't earn it
Why?

>>11736650
The worst holes being the ones between the ears of these incels.

>>11736669
>Do you not see why that's really unhealthy?

Fuck off healthy, what you mean is inconvenient. I hold onto what I lost and what I went through. How people throughout the ages would have experienced it even if its not the optimum path towards social capital and comfort.
This is exactly what I mean by earning subjectivity, you're not healthy you're just a fucking animal calculating every move towards the least resistant path

>>11736703
Moving on doesn't mean forgetting, anon. It's not a betrayal to move on with your life and try to grow as a person.

> you're not healthy you're just a fucking animal calculating every move towards the least resistant path
On the contrary, in life I usually aim for the most resistance because I'm a Nietzscheboo and life is all about overcoming. But the biggest overcomings of them all are within ourselves, overcoming our pasts, weaknesses and traumas to become stronger people.

Often times the real path of least resistance is the one that means being miserable.

>>11736256
More Jewish names here than my local bakery. Wew

>>11736601
>Please don't call it "the female sex organ", that's creepy and dehumanizing. Call it a fucking vagina.
I never saw the appeal of "humanoty" in the first.place.

>Not to mention that's completely retarded anyway. That's not how vaginas work and it speaks more to male insecurity about being "inadequate" (another very real, very dangerous patriarchal obsession) than it does about any inherent scientific value to "virginity"
Men's feelings of inadequacy derive entirely from the manner in which the female sex organ drives them to maximize pleasure in all sexual relationships. Unless you can provide the greatest amount of pleasure a.woman has experienced, she will never truly be able to muster up any love for you.

>>11736741
>Men's feelings of inadequacy derive entirely from the manner in which the female sex organ drives them to maximize pleasure in all sexual relationships
Seems like men should get a more healthy and constructive source of self-esteem. Like their hobbies or a network of positive and supportive friends.

>Unless you can provide the greatest amount of pleasure a.woman has experienced, she will never truly be able to muster up any love for you.
Strangely it's only men who say this, and never men who have particularly great relationships with women.

"Don't test me, whore!" Bellowed Brimley as he waved his sparking taser in the whimpering woman's face. She had been judged "thicc" and sent to what the owners of Four Frogs Roastie Refuge and Range refer to as their "Dairy operation," a dual methane and milk harvesting facility, and a highly lucrative one at that. Brimley is a stickler for maximizing those outputs lest Four Frogs fall afoul of the regional energy algorithms. The latest roasties herded onto their hilly mountain framed Dakotan property speak scarcely any English and the methane spouts, inserted anally, only have English signage. Brimley, however, is gifted at nonverbal instruction and more than dextrous, grabs the spout's handle and gestures into the air for the sequence of insert, then twist and trigger-pull motions that safely pressurize the harvester with the rectum of a braap hog. He noticed the silicone tip of the spout was void of petroleum jelly, so politely, pragmatically, he swiped it through a nearby barrel of well-whipped jelly and handed the spout back to the trembling chubby woman. "Comprende, mon ami?"

I noticed the capital "E" brand emblazoned on the woman's dangly labia, right beside the vague scars of older brands, marks and tattoos. Our cursive "E" tagged a roastie as an escapee, and alerts our rangers to their tendency for mischief. The frontiers between refuges was vast, and transient roasties could wander between settlements to exploit hospitality. There were no biometric systems to keep track of anyone, so our branding, actually an epidermal etching and cautery done by a sophisticated robotic laser took barely a full count of "Mississippi," was the only way to protect ourselves. The most recalcitrant and uppity roasties were traded to the Saracens and Semites who trafficked in roastie slaves and organs. But this "Echo" hog furtively poked the jellied nozzle into her anus, wincing as she twisted it, and pulled the trigger to lock the hose snuggly in place. I was relieved that I needn't leave my post, processing the new arrivals, who had amassed in such great numbers outside that I doubted if we could sort through them all before sun down. It had been almost a month like this, hordes of new roasties, shoeless, bedraggled, many nude but for cloaks of tarps and woven trash bags and cloth patches or wearing only a winter coat or insulated vest, whatever they could scavenge. The collapse of the pussy pedastle had sent many women into catatonia and some psychotic rage. Robotic burger machines and 3D printers were smashed by furious woman to answer for the crimes of those notorious sexual cyborgs that reduced Tinder and any other penis-sharing apps into ghost towns.

>>11736362
Based and redpilled

>>11736256

>>11736494

Roasties honestly believe that 90 days of not getting their poonanies pummeled by pugilistic penises returns them to virginity, so I always take a woman's profession to virginity with a grain of salt. Women are generally virgins to the extent that their class and status affords them surgeons and cosmetic routines that mask the anatomical signs of sluthood. Capably talented surgeons can trim enough beef and barnacles from a Mandingo-mauled minge to make her seem identical to actual virgins. The pornography industry subsidized the cosmetic and surgical techniques needed to reconstruct battered vaginas and made the technologies and training needed to trim beef curtains widely available. In an afternoon, an unrepentant roastie harlot can have her .50 cal exit-wound of a vagina stitched and soldered back into a delicate petite peach of a pussy. The modern vagina is entirely a medical invention.

>>11736571
I'd say it is harder for women to have meaningless sex. It comes with weird stipulations, like no kissing or any sort of intimacy. Why because they know that having sex with them in a certain way will lead to feelings?

>>11736836
You do realize that big labias don't come from having vaginal sex and that small labias aren't deformed by it either?

>>11736852

I can't tell if you're bargaining or in denial, but I care about you, Anon-lady, and think you deserve more than to be a spit-roasted dick puppet. I know the hypergamous compulsions to ride new cocks are driving you almost mad, and I understand your irritability. But your disgust and loathing for the biological predicaments facing beefed-out bologna bitches cannot change how skin tissue reacts to repeated physical forces shearing and smashing it. Have you bot heard of "cauliflower ear?"

>>11736875
>But your disgust and loathing for the biological predicaments facing beefed-out bologna bitches cannot change how skin tissue reacts to repeated physical forces shearing and smashing it.
It's a penis, dude. Not a bloody meat-tenderizer.

>>11736741
>I never saw the appeal of "humanoty" in the first.place.

>>11736883

Roasties are cybernetic. They don't fuck a penis. They fuck ten thousand men across an average radius of sixty miles, leveraging every bit of modern technology to deliver one set of genitals to another.

i'm lonely desu

>>11736256
I wonder what tits feel like.

>>11736836
>Mandingo-mauled minge

Nice one, Punchy.

Honest question: why should a man read feminist literature?

>>11737271
So he can virtue signal obviously

Feminism nowadays is pointless—not to say it's complete bullshit. You achieved what you wanted over the past 170 years. Now you only need a wake-up call.

No hymen no diamond

Reminder that, statistically, the more partners a woman has before marriage the more likely she is to divorce you. The people in this thread arguing against the value of female purity need to explain why, given these statistics, it isn't perfectly rational for a man to prefer a virgin.

>>11737271
Know your enemy.

>>11736767
>Seems like men should get a more healthy and constructive source of self-esteem. Like their hobbies or a network of positive and supportive friends.
It's really not about self-esteem, it's about finding a woman who will A, give you a child that's genetically yours (which is our biological imperative). And B, won't, after having said child, leave you for someone else. It fucking astounds me how women don't understand something this simple. Virgins are less likely to cheat, and can't possibly be pregnant with someone else's kid. It's that simple.

>>11737271
To see what you can learn. Same reason you read any other kind of literature.

>>11737297
>durr you have nominal legal equality ergo misogyny don't real
Brainlet level analysis.

No, dude. The astronomical amounts of violence against women that's still happening and the chronic under-representation of women in real political power says otherwise.

>>11737345
Women's underrepresentation in positions of power is real, violence against women is hugely exaggerated. The primary victims of male violence are other men. Men are more likely to be murdered and assaulted, and live shorter lives overall.

>>11737345
If feminists want everyone to be treated well and live in a society where people aren't abused, maybe they should stop pushing toxic ideologies that promote moral relativism and tell people that they have no intrinsic value.

>>11737332
Right, there's a lot of misogyny in this post to unpack.

A.1 - A woman doesn't "give" you a child, the child isn't your property and neither is the woman. You have a child with a woman.
A. 2 A woman who has had sex before you isn't automatically going to try and cuckold you. This is pure insecurity. Most people's spouses in the western world have had sex before them and most fathers are the biological parents of their kids.
A.3 There's no such thing as a "biological imperative".

B. The chances of your wife leaving you for someone else are not determined by how much sex she had before you got together, that is determined by your happiness within the marriage and general suitability for one and other. There are virgins that commit adultery and divorce their spouses, there are pornstars that retire and marry one person who they stay with for the rest of their lives.

C. You can frame it as it being acceptable for a man to prefer a virgin if you want, it is. It's creepy as fuck imo but that's none of my business if that's what you're into. But a man's freedom to have whatever standards he likes in a partner (no matter how weird) isn't what's being criticized here. What's being criticized here is the societal fixation on a woman's virginity and the general concept of "purity". By the same token that somebody can choose whatever partner they like for whatever reason someone should also be able to have as many partners as they like for whatever reason. If you don't want to date someone who's had sex before that's cool, as long as you don't make it anybody else's problem. If you want to have lots of sex with multiple people that's cool too.

>>11737350
>Women's underrepresentation in positions of power is real
Real in the sense they've significantly lower IQ and general competance than men

>>11737353
>literally victim blaming
lmao, and he thinks he's proving the feminists wrong.

>>11737350
>The primary victims of male violence are other men. Men are more likely to be murdered and assaulted, and live shorter lives overall.
Very true, and a very good observation. I'd go as far to say that even violence against men is in large part cultivated by toxic masculinity too.

But here's the thing, violence against men doesn't invalidate violence against women. And it especially doesn't invalidate the fact that violence against women, more often than not, happens precisely because they are women. It's absurd to say that sexual assault and domestic violence aren't decisively gendered issues in the way, general homicide for instance wouldn't be.

>>11737387
>woman acts like a nigger
>she's just a cunt
>man acts like a nigger
>T-toxic masculinity!

You chucklefuck dunce

>>11737387
Almost everyone I know has been abused in one way or another, including myself. I know how widespread abuse is. I'm also smart enough to recognize that it isn't just a matter of men abusing women. This is a serious human condition that we need to address and feminists are doing perhaps the worst job of anyone at actually addressing it.

>>11737383
>Real in the sense they've significantly lower IQ and general competance than men
So "real", in the same sense as IQ is real.

>>11737371
>A.1 - A woman doesn't "give" you a child, the child isn't your property and neither is the woman. You have a child with a woman.
If a man wants a child, he has to earn his breeding rights. Not having to earn one's breeding rights a privilege that woman have. Men having to bear the brunt of the selection process is something they have a perfect right to complain about.
>A. 2 A woman who has had sex before you isn't automatically going to try and cuckold you. This is pure insecurity. Most people's spouses in the western world have had sex before them and most fathers are the biological parents of their kids.
Around 10% of men are raising children who aren't biologically theirs (unbeknownst to them), and in some Western countries paternity tests are illegal, so the concern isn't unreasonable. And if something you don't want to occur is less likely to occur given a particular condition, it makes perfect rational sense to want to meet that condition.
>A.3 There's no such thing as a "biological imperative".
There absolutely fucking is you blank slatist. Most basic desires are inherited biologically, not culturally. You don't have to teach someone to want sex, or to not want to be abandoned.

>The chances of your wife leaving you for someone else are not determined by how much sex she had before you got together, that is determined by your happiness within the marriage and general suitability for one and other. There are virgins that commit adultery and divorce their spouses, there are pornstars that retire and marry one person who they stay with for the rest of their lives.
So you don't understand statistics, got it.
>What's being criticized here is the societal fixation on a woman's virginity and the general concept of "purity"
The concept comes from a time before paternity testing was a thing. The way to ensure genetic relation was for men to make sure that their wives weren't sleeping around, and the best way to ensure that is to marry a virgin. It also prevented the spread of venereal diseases that could kill you. It's really not that hard to get.

>>11737345
> The astronomical amounts of violence against women that's still happening and the chronic under-representation of women in real political power says otherwise
You're absolutely retarded. Feminism is about institutional rights. You already got them. The most you can do now is to educate people towards respect and kindness—something that has been done for centuries by the family and the Church. You can not change nature, man and woman will always be different, with all the good and bad sides of it.

Adieu.

>>11737399
Innate capacity to solve problems is real trip posting retard
Chimpanzees are dumber than humans, niggers are dumber than whites and women are dumber than men. Its just the way things are

>>11737387
>general homicide for instance wouldn't be.
If the gap between men and women in our homicide statistics is as large as the gap between women and men in our sexual assault statistics (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but they're close), then why wouldn't homicide be a gendered issue?

>I'd go as far to say that even violence against men is in large part cultivated by toxic masculinity too.
This fucking conception of violence and power is so simplistic. WOMEN PARTICIPATE IN THE SYSTEM AS MUCH AS MEN DO. Women commit violence by proxy, which is worse. You have women like Brooklyn Becky and Permit Patty calling cops on black people randomly, which is something done almost exclusively by women. They get the satisfaction of having power over someone, but without having to actually put their bodies at risk. This is toxic behavior.

>>11737394
Well when the overwhelming majority of people who act like niggers are men do you not think there might be a reason for that?

Could it be that patriarchal cultures encourage and enable men to act like niggers?

>>11737395
I'm not saying it is, but raising the objection of "but men get abused to" doesn't actually do anything to try and solve or enlighten anyone on the problem. In that kind of context it's exclusively used as a weapon to silence feminists, which if anything is an exploitation of the existence of it for political purposes.

>>11737414
>Well when the overwhelming majority of people who act like niggers are men do you not think there might be a reason for that?

Yeah because they're fucking bigger and can get away with it, its not a hard equation. They're individuals doing the math on whats the best risk vs reward for their actions and turns out women will suck your dick if you act like a cantankerous fuck. Its nothing to do with how society is structured its what every Billygoat in a farm knows what to do

>>11737414
>Could it be that patriarchal cultures encourage and enable men to act like niggers?
No, it's because of hormonal differences and because men can gain more (i.e. breeding opportunities) through domination. Most men work for positions of power in order to get laid, which is something women can do for free.

>>11737405
No, feminism is about women's liberation. And we still have a long way to go.

> The most you can do now is to educate people towards respect and kindness—something that has been done for centuries by the family and the Church.
Right, the family and the church. Great liberators of women they were.

>>11737424
t. retard

get the fuck out you brainwashed bitch

>>11737424
You can't liberate yourself from reality

>>11737424
>feminism is about women's liberation
kek, how to say nothing in one sentence

>>11737424
What would constitute women's liberation in your eyes? If it's equal representation in every position of power, then why are you assuming that men got to those positions of power through oppression as opposed through competence and interest?

>>11737414
None of what I said in that post was meant to solve the problem. My whole point is that feminism is not the solution. If you ask me straight up, the solution is Christianity. If you want a system that values all its members and honestly teaches men to respect women, we've had it for about 2000 years. I'm not saying it hasn't been corrupted and misused because obviously it has, but if you read the New Testament you'll get the real teachings of Christianity with regard to gender roles and how people should treat each other.

>>11737424
It seems to me that women try to make sense of their lives either through feminism or through cock. Sad, isn't it?

The best female writers of history didn't give a shit about gender questions.

>>11737453
Wrong. Virginia Woolf was the biggest female writer of history.

>>11737403
>If a man wants a child, he has to earn his breeding rights. Not having to earn one's breeding rights a privilege that woman have. Men having to bear the brunt of the selection process is something they have a perfect right to complain about.
>breeding rights
What the fuck is this shit?

"Oh woe is me, I need a woman's consent to have a kid with her. The injustice!"
KEK
>Around 10% of men are raising children who aren't biologically theirs (unbeknownst to them), and in some Western countries paternity tests are illegal, so the concern isn't unreasonable.
Absolutely it's something you can be concerned about. But did you not read what I wrote, I said most fathers are the biological parents of their kids even though most people's spouses in the western world have had sex before marriage, I think 90% definitely counts as most.
>There absolutely fucking is you blank slatist. Most basic desires are inherited biologically, not culturally. You don't have to teach someone to want sex, or to not want to be abandoned.
Here's the thing, desire =/= imperative. You have a natural desire to have sex, but it's not an imperative. You don't have to do it on pain of any consequences that aren't pure social insecurity. Doubly so for having kids given that most western people are straight up choosing to not have them.

>So you don't understand statistics, got it.
Lay em on me then.

>The concept comes from a time before paternity testing was a thing. The way to ensure genetic relation was for men to make sure that their wives weren't sleeping around, and the best way to ensure that is to marry a virgin. It also prevented the spread of venereal diseases that could kill you. It's really not that hard to get.
Okay, so now that paternity testing, condoms and advanced medicine have been invented do you agree it shouldn't matter?

>>11737446
>If you ask me straight up, the solution is Christianity. If you want a system that values all its members and honestly teaches men to respect women, we've had it for about 2000 years.
This. And not necessarily the rigid Christianity of the Middle Ages, I would add. During Renaissance women were utmostly respected because there was chivalry. Chivalry was the result of Christian doctrine + the recovery of Greek-Roman values.

>>11737413
>If the gap between men and women in our homicide statistics is as large as the gap between women and men in our sexual assault statistics (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but they're close), then why wouldn't homicide be a gendered issue?
Because most men who get murdered get murdered by other men. You could possibly consider it a gendered issue in the sense that it's yet another instance of men acting like niggers but that wouldn't be the same kind of gendered issue as sexual assault, where women are targeted specifically because they are women.

>Women commit violence by proxy, which is worse. You have women like Brooklyn Becky and Permit Patty calling cops on black people randomly, which is something done almost exclusively by women. They get the satisfaction of having power over someone, but without having to actually put their bodies at risk. This is toxic behavior.
Okay, so do you have some statistics detailing the prevalence of that kind of crime versus direct violent crime?

>>11737459
Virginia Woolf is not among the best female writers of history, you stupid bitch. It's also funny how the only name feminists can come up with is Woolf, always Woolf. Pathetic.

>>11737474
I'm not even a feminist you fucking tard and it's all true.

>>11737420
>Yeah because they're fucking bigger and can get away with it, its not a hard equation.
Yes, and do you realize that this has been the case since distant pre-history and we have built entire cultures around this dynamic that we now call patriarchies? This is what feminism is trying to dismantle, the socio-cultural mess that has developed from this simple observation over hundreds of thousands of years.

Men act like niggers, have been doing so since forever, and since they held all the power since forever society has been structured in a way that encourages men to act like niggers. We need to start structured society in a way that encourages men to act like civilized folk. Maybe we can begin with arming every last woman and girl with a gun.

>>11737476
It's all true what???

>>11737461
>"Oh woe is me, I need a woman's consent to have a kid with her. The injustice!"
You don't understand what i'm saying. I have a pessimistic view of the world. I'm not saying that women shouldn't have the right the choose who they mate with, i'm saying that the fact that women have all of the selection power is alienating to men. If I were to say that better-looking people are treated better (which is true), that wouldn't be the same as saying that beauty shouldn't exist, or that it's unfair that it does. I was merely being descriptive.
>I think 90% definitely counts as most.
10% is a fucking huge number. If 10% of people were victims of robberies, we'd create a police state. The fact that something that emotionally devastating occurs that frequently is a rational reason for wanting to do everything you can to avoid it, like marrying a virgin.
>You don't have to do it on pain of any consequences that aren't pure social insecurity.
The consequence isn't being ostracized, the consequence is psychological. Despair, loneliness, alienation. Sex isn't like hunger, but, like socializing, if you can't do it for too long you start to go crazy.
>Okay, so now that paternity testing, condoms and advanced medicine have been invented do you agree it shouldn't matter?
Paternity testing is illegal in many countries, which feminist don't want to change (the ability to cuck is a source of power that women have historically had). Modern medicine can only really teat most venereal diseases, not outright cure them. So that's still a concern. And even if I had a kid and knew the kid was biologically mine, there's still the concern of the mother leaving you and splitting up the family (the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women).

>>11737487
The Force. The Jedi. All of it.

>>11737436
Women's liberation to me would be a society in which women are fully independent. Economically, politically , socially. This isn't achievable through a society where 50% of the rulers are women, this is achievable through a society without rulers.

But here is the weakness of feminism, feminism in itself could never achieve this. And there are many other demographics that are also subordinated through economic, political and cultural means. This is why the only road to true women's liberation - is communism.

>>11737471
>Because most men who get murdered get murdered by other men.
We don't typically consider something a gendered issue based on the source of the oppression, but based on its victims. Otherwise slut-shaming couldn't be a gendered issue given that women seem to do it more often than men do.
>Okay, so do you have some statistics detailing the prevalence of that kind of crime versus direct violent crime?
There wouldn't be statistics because proxy violence isn't considered a crime. If I call the cops on someone unnecessarily I'm not being written up unless it was extremely egregious. If I get into an argument with a stranger and force my boyfriend into a fight, he's the one getting written up, not me.

>>11737485
>We need to start structured society in a way that encourages men to act like civilized folk.
THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE WRONG, YOU FUCKING BITCH. People act like civilized folk when you educate them since birth within family, school and church institutions. "Muh society" won't bring you anywhere, put that into your head. Nigger behavior is nature and you can't change it through an abstract and indirect business such as like politics. You need to educate people since they are kids, period. That is why mothers exist, that is why mothers are important. By destroying every bit of culture and tradition (solely because "muh women were oppressed in the past", which is an extremely generic and dull assertion) you only get the opposite of you want. "Muh society" is a spook, you demented bitch.

>>11737446
While Luke is woke as fuck to levels that wouldn't again be achieved until the 19th century, the rest of the bible and church history (with some exceptions) is extraordinarily sexist. Thanks again, Paul.

But here is the thing about this point
>If you ask me straight up, the solution is Christianity. If you want a system that values all its members and honestly teaches men to respect women
This isn't emancipatory, it is an improvement on the unrestrained misogyny of the classical era but a system where men are discouraged from behaving in some ways while still being dominant over women doesn't liberate women any more than restrictions on the treatment of slaves abolishes slavery. It's absurd to say we've had a solution for this for 2000 years when all throughout that time into the 20th century women were little more than property.

>>11737506
>fully independent, economically, politically , socially.
You already are, even more than men in some contexts.

>communism
Nice meme, it's really getting funny now.

>>11737506
Let's pretend that a society without hierarchical distinctions between rich and poor did exist, and a woman had complete financial and social freedom to choose what to do with her life. Would that make the biological distinctions between men more, or less important? Would that mean that no sexual hierarchy existed, or would that shift the sexual hierarchy from power (which one has some control over) to biological factors like looks (which one has almost no control over)? Feminism to me just seems like a primitivist revolt by women who don't want to settle for men with suboptimal genes. In the alpha fucks/beta bucks dichotomy they want the beta to be replaced by the state. They want men to face an even steeper selection process. Can't you see why men would be against this?

>>11736256
Surely I can't be the only person here who thinks that calling yourself a so yboy, feminazi, SJW, etc. is really smug and only shows how totally not mad you are, right?

>>11737520
I said we've had the solution. I didn't say it has been properly applied everywhere.

>>11737485
>We need to start structured society in a way that encourages men to act like civilized folk
lmao what does it even mean, I bet you can't even discuss it or expand the idea with concrete arguments

>>11737485
Dumb bitch, society already was structured to facilitate that. Thats the whole point of it being a society

>>11737506
>Women's liberation to me would be a society in which women are fully independent. Economically, politically , socially.

So you mean Capitalism, ok.

>>11737496
>, i'm saying that the fact that women have all of the selection power is alienating to men.
But they don't though, you also have full power to decide who you do or do not want to have sex with. It is literally a two-way street.
>10% is a fucking huge number.
Is 10% most?
No, it's about 41% shy of being most. Ergo the point stands.
>Despair, loneliness, alienation.
Here's the thing, that's part of the social insecurity I'm talking about. These things aren't caused by lack of sex in itself, they're caused by the absurd fixation our society has with sex. Especially in regards to men, the way our society expects men to have lots of sex and considers them lesser if they don't is disgusting. And it is a fine example of toxic masculinity.

Otherwise, outside the socially constructed element, you can just rub out a nut and basically achieve the same level of biological gratification.

>Paternity testing is illegal in many countries, which feminist don't want to change (the ability to cuck is a source of power that women have historically had). Modern medicine can only really teat most venereal diseases, not outright cure them. So that's still a concern. And even if I had a kid and knew the kid was biologically mine, there's still the concern of the mother leaving you and splitting up the family (the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women).
1. That's bad, paternity testing shouldn't be illegal. Though France is the only country I know of where it is.
2. Better wrap up then.
3. That's true, but that's also a concern in any kind of marriage. The only surefire way to avoid that is to get married to someone you're totally positive you're prepared to spend the rest of your life with and to invest a lot of effort into maintaining a harmonious, fulfilling and emotionally-reciprocal marriage.

>>11737506
>This is why the only road to true women's liberation - is communism.
Based and REDpilled
pls be my feminist gf

>>11737563
>These things aren't caused by lack of sex in itself, they're caused by the absurd fixation our society has with sex.

Oh right like homelessness isn't caused by people having a lack of place to live, its caused by the absurd fixation our society has with shelter

>>11737560
Kek. Feminists BTFO.

>>11737508
>We don't typically consider something a gendered issue based on the source of the oppression, but based on its victims.
Actually we consider something a gendered issue based on the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim surrounding the issue, particularly when the victim is targeted because of their gender. If we were to do it by exclusively considering one or the other that would be absurd, since every issue happens to people of a gender therefore everything would be a gendered issue.

In the case of heterosexual male on female rape a woman is targeted because she's a woman, in the case of male on male murder the circumstances surrounding the crime are usually totally unrelated to either party's gender besides the usual testosterone-induced niggerdry.

>There wouldn't be statistics because proxy violence isn't considered a crime
So it's an asspull then?

>>11737563
>But they don't though, you also have full power to decide who you do or do not want to have sex with. It is literally a two-way street.
IT ISN'T. This is actually the crux of this entire debate, and the entire source of male alienation. At the start of the agriculture revolution 17 women reproduced for every one man. We have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Most male mammals never get to reproduce. Women rate most men bellow average on dating sites.

Because sperm is so much more plentiful than ova, women are the bottleneck by which genes pass through, and this gives them an immense amount of selection power. Women need to understand that it's much, much harder for men to have sex than it is for women. THIS IS WHY MEN HORDE POWER. THIS IS THE SOURCE OF THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN.

>These things aren't caused by lack of sex in itself, they're caused by the absurd fixation our society has with sex.
"If you feel like crap because you have no friends and no one talks to you, that's not because we have built-in programming that releases cortisol when we feel ostracized, it's because muh culture"

>>11737512
>People act like civilized folk when you educate them since birth within family, school and church institutions
Family and the church are among the biggest causes of patriarchal nigger behaviour of them all. Fuck them.

Don't try and tell me they're going to save women when the Catholic church was using unwed mothers as slaves into the 1990s and ripping the babies out of their arms to sell them to Americans.

>>11737527
>alpha fucks/beta bucks
Okay, right.

>>11737546
It doesn't seem to have been properly applied anywhere.

We've arrived at a point where technology will increasingly help us transcend our own biology. However, a lot of what was considered essencecis in fact a social construct.
However, a construct implies that it is a shared experience by multiple people--subsequently people consenting to this shared experience.

For example with transgender people, transitioning does not make them the other gender. People accepting them as such does. It is a representative issue.

Trying to force a transgender identity onto other is counterproductive. People have to share in the experience of transgender--validate their position through consent and a mutually agreed game of representation.

Terfs are retarded, but transgender people howling and clawing to force their acceptation is so as well.

Book for this feel?

>>11737591
>in the case of male on male murder the circumstances surrounding the crime are usually totally unrelated to either party's gender besides the usual testosterone-induced niggerdry.
Criminals treat criminals who commit violence against women with contempt. And hardened criminals often modify their violence based on the victim's gender. Sexual violence against women isn't violence targeted at women for being women per se, it's targeted at the object of the rapist's desire, which happens to be a woman. Also, if you include the sexual assault of children, male rape isn't even that uncommon.

>So it's an asspull then?
If every pattern had to be proven statistically, then art couldn't exist. Sure, it's a hypothesis. But you can't prove something statistically which people refuse to study.

>>11737560
>independent
>have to sell your labour to the bourgeoisie to survive
>are subordinate to the bourgeois state
Hmmmm

Funny how non feminist women are much more respected by men. Really makes you think.

>>11737633
You're literally talking like in the 19th century, get updated retard

>>11737633
Oh yeah, lets rely on a centrally planned body to constantly survey and forcibly legislate your entire life. Thats indepedence
Holyshit women are pathetic

Are terfs even real? I see a lot of hons with furry Twitter profile pics screeching about them but I never see these "terfs" first-hand or have any idea what they stand for and/or what makes them so abhorrent to these people.

>gibs more books to unilaterally bias my view

>>11737623
>We've arrived at a point where technology will increasingly help us transcend our own biology
Stopped reading there.

>>11737616
You know Sheryl Sandberg, the billionaire CEO who's the hero of every ambitious feminist? This is what she wrote in her book:

>“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

This is a rearticulation of the phrase alpha fucks/beta bux

>>11737642
Terf is someone who doesn't think a large hairy man in a dress claiming to be a lesbian is any less of a rape threat than a regular man

>>11737602
>IT ISN'T.
It is tho. If you don't want to fuck a woman you can just say no lmao. The problem is that you're an utter incel who would never say no.
>"If you feel like crap because you have no friends and no one talks to you, that's not because we have built-in programming that releases cortisol when we feel ostracized, it's because muh culture"
As I said, if you want to get the brain juices flowing that happen when you have sex just rub one out, dude.

I fucking love this thread.

>>11737631
>Criminals treat criminals who commit violence against women with contempt.
Yes, that's why mixed-gender prisons would be a good idea. We can absolutely trust criminals to have the utmost respect for women.

>muh society
>muh politics

>trying to resolve problems with anything than culture and education
Holy shit women are retarded

>>11737652
>It is tho. If you don't want to fuck a woman you can just say no lmao. The problem is that you're an utter incel who would never say no.
The circumstances in which most man would say no are so rare that they it's safe to treat them like they don't exist.

>>11737657
It's really fucking ugly, mate.

>>11737652
>The problem is that you're an utter incel who would never say no.
Putting aside the fact that I have a girlfriend, the problem is that men know that they're always in a subordinate position when seeking a mate, even attractive men who still have to police their sexuality more than women do. Like I said, women rate most men on dating sites below average. The curve for men doesn't average at 5.
>As I said, if you want to get the brain juices flowing that happen when you have sex just rub one out, dude.
It's not the ejaculation you fucking retard. Your brain releases endorphins when you actually have sex with a real person.

>>11737639
Ah, yes. I forgot that we've since abolished wage labour and markets so people don't have to work to survive.

lmao, what did I say that isn't 100% true today?

>>11737640
You don't even know what communism is, nigga.

>>11737648
>the billionaire CEO
The bourgie pig that deserves a bullet you mean.

>>11737669
>You don't even know what communism is, nigga.

I do. I know what you think it is and I know what it actually is you fucking looner

>>11737661
Rape is the result of desire, not dehumanization. Sorry your feminist literature lied to you.

>>11737669
>so people don't have to work to survive.

Oh imagine that, people having to work to survive

>>11737665
Maybe that's cuz we don't slut shame men.

>>11737668
You're brain also releases endorphins when you're having a wank, dude. And when you do a lot of things come to think of it.

>Putting aside the fact that I have a girlfriend
After all your whinging about the importance of virginity, you hypocrite slut?

>>11737671
She still expressed the sexual desire of most women. Which is dominant and powerful men during their most attractive years, and loyal men when their beauty starts to fade. What she said is straight out of /r9k/

>>11737672
What is it actually?

And be warned, any answer that doesn't include the abolition of general commodity production is wrong.

>>11737678
Not an argument.

>>11737669
>what did I say that isn't 100% true today?
Everything. I'm not here to negate that we need a bit of communism in our lives, but certainly not for women, LMAO. You have already achieved everything, the feminist revolution was fast but effective. Now stop claiming things which don't exist and demanding things which you don't need. Being feminist today literally means believing and wanting the superiority of women.

>I want to be independant
>...And that means everything should be provided to me.!

So this is the power of women...

>>11737693
>Everything
Excellent answer. Gold star for you.

>. Being feminist today literally means believing and wanting the superiority of women.
What's wrong with that?

>>11737669
>so people don't have to work to survive
>dude robots do the job lmao!!!!
Imagine being this retarded

>>11737700
desu I should have remembered to say "work for somebody else to survive". But automation is a real thing.

>>11737699
>What's wrong with that?
If you actually think that's not wrong we're okay then, we're done. End of discussion. I want the superiority of men and you want the superiority of women. Fair, isn't it?

>I want to be independunt
>...And that means I shouldn't have to work!!

>I wans ta be independint
>And that meings eberything should be controlled by the state!

>>11737708
> I want the superiority of men
Well thanks for admitting it, dickpig misogynist.

>blglg blblg indepdnennta
>nanfna should no have to compete with men!!!

>>11737682
>You're brain also releases endorphins when you're having a wank, dude. And when you do a lot of things come to think of it.
Masturbation isn't a facsimile of being in a relationship. What drives us to couple isn't ejaculation, it's a lot of complex neural structures that we don't know much about.
>After all your whinging about the importance of virginity, you hypocrite slut?
I was defending virginity as an ideal and a preference. I honestly couldn't give less of a shit in my personal life. If I waited for a virgin my age i'd be alone forever.

>>11737694
>>11737710
>>11737713
>i wanna be indeependint
>dat meens my life should orbit around capital

>>11737647

That's not a counterargument. You're only evading what you dislike because of acquired biases.

>>11737714
Get the fuck out, you stupid misandrist.

>>11737718
>make tings free no work!

>>11737723
Wooah, big man needs a safe-space.

>>11737724
Woke brainlet telling it like it is.

I legitimately believe all women should get raped. Also fuck your thread. Women are the one group of people that need to be silenced for all eternity.

>working bad, competition bad
>make daddy fix everything fair!!
>I want to be independent

>>11737726
>I want everything to be free so I can have chad's baby despite him being poor
Just come out and say it, Jesus. Deciding between a okay-looking rich guy and a hot poor guy is the subject of like 80% of female lit.

>>11737721
That kind of bullshit constitutes a problem only for Anglotards and Amerimutts, who have transformed their disgusting countries to a critical point and destroyed every bit of culture. The rest of the world is not facing technological threats and upheaval of the natural order, perhaps with the exception of climate change and pollution. If you are an Angloshit or an Ameritrash it's your fault, and I'm glad to see you and your shitty life wiped out by technology.

>>11737735
Extremely redpilled

>>11736256
fuck off

>what if, what if... other people do work for me
>then I be indendent !

>>11737726
You're just trolling now, and it's really pathetic.

>>11737732
No one is pro capitalism on here, you fucking disgusting bitch. Start using your brain and actually read some threads before posting.

This is bloody hilarious.

Is there anything in the world that gets the people of 4chan's goolies in a twist more than feminism? For a place that prides itself on free speech and thick-skinned they sure are mad as fuck about women. Tells you where the soft-spots are.

>>11737748
>No one is pro capitalism on here

Speak for yourself pinko

>>11736770
Is there more of this?

>hmm have to find own money and job
>no sound like indepdenc to me

>>11737751
Free speech also consists of calling people retarded and telling them to fuck off. Free speech doesn't consist of everyone agreeing with you.

>>11737751
>it's not free speech if people disagree with me
what?

>>11737757
True, but strangely not even Nazism encites the sheer seething rage that feminism does.

>>11737752
I speak for everyone because I've been browsing /lit/ for years and I know that 90% of people here are traditionalists, which means they're neither pro capital nor pro communism. Your posts just show how retarded you are. Try to discuss your frustration with /b/ the next time.

>>11737764
Where are the violent riots against feminism?

>>11737762
Who are you quoting?

>>11737764
>an ideology with zero influence on modern life gets less reaction than the status quo goodthink of the West

Huh I wonder why

>>11737769
Where are the violent riots anywhere on 4chan? It's a fucking internet cartoon forum lmao

>>11737764
Why would Nazism incite rage on 4chan? This site is like half Nazi.

>>11737615
>Don't try and tell me they're going to save women when the Catholic church was using unwed mothers as slaves into the 1990s and ripping the babies out of their arms to sell them to Americans.
Literally "I heard stories"-tier

>>11737773
>feminism
>status quo
Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.

>>11737779
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland

>I WANT EQUAL RIGHTS
>well there's a draft coming up and you do all equal rights so great your high heels ladies were going to war!
>ahem hmm uhh p-plans change

>>11737783
And that's solely because of you, feminists.

>>11737783
Yeah and look how the entire rest of the established order reacts. God bless Trump

>>11737783
>ignoring that more people voted for Shillary than Drumpf and the sole reason she lost in the end was the FBI affair
Reminder that women are the foremost victims of war

>>11737776
That's my point. You can say "gas the kikes, race war now" with no irony and no one gives a fuck. But if you suggest that maybe, the way society treats women is fucked, the butthurt brigade is out in full force. It's interesting.

>>11737792
Thats because Jews are a problem and women getting treated unfairly is not, much the opposite

>>11737792
That's because Nazism is a LARP. Feminism isn't, and it effects how men and boys are actually treated.

And stop the nonsense. Western society treats women fine.

>>11737788
Didn't realize the electoral college is feminist, hmmm.
>>11737790
The rest of the established order, as in, the rest of the US government that is dominated by republicans and generally rallies behind Trump?
>>11737791
Didn't realize the status quo wasn't based on positions of power and rather, is based on what most people want. I guess white supremacy wasn't the status quo of apartheid South Africa because most people were black.

>>11737792
>That's my point. You can say "gas the kikes, race war now" with no irony and no one gives a fuck.
Because we've trained ourselves to regard such edgy idiots from above and with disdain, as non-entities.

>>11737792
I don't know where you've been in the world but what you just described is the exact opposite of modern Western society.

>>11737796
> and it effects how men and boys are actually treated.
Oh boo hoo they're not allowed to be patriarchs of their own little fiefdoms called "families" anymore. That's the real holocaust of our times, holding men accountable for being sexist.

>>11737810
>men shouldn't raise their own kids
>men should have to pay for raising other people's kids through taxation
Men died by the billions and toiled in fields for centuries all so that women could have children without starving to death. Now that women get a bit of money on their own, they create a revisionist history pretending that men abused them. Fuck right off. Women are garbage. That's why there's never been a female artist worth a damn.

>>11737738
> technological threat
> natural order

What are you rambling about? The success of mankind has been to superceed the natural order through the promethean application of techne.

The fetishization of technology by modernist movement has shown to play in the hands of some antihumanists but it doesn't render the underlying--technology--moot.

Life isn't being wiped out by technology. Human life especially. It's being extended, reshaped and freed.

>>11737803
>Didn't realize the electoral college is feminist, hmmm.
That "hmmm" is cute, but I still hate you.

Trump is a little shit, but he won the election thanks to a reactionary wave. This "reaction" is, among other things, the reaction to the excess of feminism. Feminism is good, but too much of it is just pointless and harmful—you end up achieving the opposite of what feminism struggles for.

>>11737767

Fuck off, you don't know me.

>>11737371
>There's no such thing as a "biological imperative".

Of course there is. Most people instinctively seek food when hungry or a drink when thirsty. You may believe the scope of biological imperatives does not cover reproduction (good luck with that) but you may not argue there are no biological imperatives at all.

>>11737819
Yeah, bro. It's not like women were basically property until the 20th century. Nahh, they were having a gay old time.

lol @ this joker

>Men died by the billions and toiled in fields for centuries all so that women could have children without starving to death.
Yeah, it was all for the good of the women. It's not like those men were sent to die for their also male overlords profits and international dick-swinging contests. And it's not like the women weren't basically a resource that existed purely to birth and raise children FOR men, nope.

Hey I have some questions

1- what attractive Asian women have that makes them so oppressive? I feel uneasy looking at OPs pic, they seem sexuality exploitative in some way
2 - do feminists have anything against virgin men in general?
3 - is femininity related in any way to some form of solypsism?
4 - what would your ideal society be?

>>11737823
>The success of mankind has been to superceed the natural order through the promethean application of techne.
>Human life especially is being extended, reshaped and freed.
Literally what every dumb, retarded, dull Amerimutt and Anglotard piede of shit believes. And in the meanwhile the planet gets destroyed and thousand-year-old cultures annihilated.
You unironically need to kill yourself, motherfucker.

>>11737839

Still no rebuttal but your own little scry mixed in with insults. Get back into the grave, old mean white man.

>>11737837
>Male overlords profits and international dick-swinging contests
Don't you realize that they compete and seek power to get access to women

>>11737825
What "excess" of feminism?

Like, seriously, I get that some stupid feminists exist (inb4 you're one of them) but realistically the USA is one of the most backwards western countries in terms of women's liberation and I don't see what's so scandalous about what's been achieved so far that warrants the outrage.

>>11736256
>jew
>French
>Jew
>jew
>jew
>nig
>jew
>French
>jew
really makes you think

>>11737837
>It's not like women were basically property until the 20th century.
Do you understand the material conditions of the average person prior to the 20th century? In a world without reliable birth control, sex meant pregnancy. And because shit like washing machines and cars hadn't been invented yet, domestic care was a full time job. What the fuck did you want men to do? "Yeah, we know that you're going to have sex and get pregnant, and we know that taking care of those kids is a full time job because we don't even have refrigerators and dish washers yet, but don't worry we'll pay for everything and demand absolutely nothing in return." You literally wanted men to be slaves to women.

>>11737846
Do you not see how that is sexist as fuck and another example of women being treated more like a commodity to be acquired than real people?

>>11737837
>men hoarding power has nothing to do with men slaving away in order to have better opportunities with women
LMAO men are weaker than you think

>>11737847
Yeah, the countries that are so progressive are doing sooo well
Nevermind that they are importing millions of violent immigrants to satisfy sexual fantasies of feminists, the suicide rates are skyrocketing, and the native population will get replaced in some decades

>>11737851
>working your ass off in order to have enough power to attract a woman means that you're treating them like property
The mistress thinks she's a slave, how obscene

>>11737851
Yeah, but they always have been complicit. They seek the most powerful (not all of women, but a substantive number)

>>11737849
I'm a Marxist, dude. This is basic historical materialism, the systematic inescapability of it still doesn't make it right. Women were basically slaves and men of the lower classes were only marginally better off, in part because they had at least one person below them to exploit called their wife.

>You literally wanted men to be slaves to women.
What I want is for anon to get real about history. Being a lower class woman was probably the worst position you could have been in.

>>11737857
Not her, but I have to ask: are you retarded or trolling?

>>11737859
Well yes, because you could literally replace "attract a woman" in that sentence with "buy a house". It fundamentally views women as a commodity.

>>11737864
Enter, communism. Enter, the abolition of the class system. Enter, equality. Can't have that when there is no "most powerful".

>>11737876
Good argument

>>11736316
rosa is waifu

>>11737865
I literally can't understand how you can be a historical materialist and still buy into feminist historiography. We can't go back in time and change the material conditions of the past. And we can't compare people who worked to support their supposed victims to slavers. A slave owner doesn't pick cotton on the condition that his slave doesn't leave him. That's an absurd reversal of reality.
>Being a lower class woman was probably the worst position you could have been in.
Working in the coal mines and getting black lung doesn't seem much better than changing diapers and scrubbing floors tbqh

>>11737877
>because you could literally replace "attract a woman" in that sentence with "buy a house".
This is a legitimately crazy way to perceive this. First of all, bettering yourself in order to attract a woman is literally the advice people like you give to incels. Second, the codification of sex was impossible to avoid give that The Pill hadn't been invented yet and having sex meant having kids, which required financial support.

>>11737877
So do you think women will simply abandon their evolutionary strategy because there would be no powerful men to seek in a communist system? Lmao you're delusional

>>11737843
You really need arguments to understand unncessary technology destroys culture, human relationships and the natural environment, which are the only things we stay alive for?

>>11737905
*commodification of sex

>>11737888
>And we can't compare people who worked to support their supposed victims to slavers. A slave owner doesn't pick cotton on the condition that his slave doesn't leave him. That's an absurd reversal of reality.

How does providing food for your family give you carte blanché to subject them everything you so desire?

This is a sickening argument that is used quite often by abusers; I bring food on the table so you owe me to accept whatever abuse I inflict upon you.

>>11737857
umm dude the suicide rate mainly only effects young white males so it's no biggie. they're causing a lot of problems rn and its better they go desu
>>11737865
This. read Dialectic of Sex, sure she was a schizo but shes one of the great intellectuals of our movement, we need to abolish the evil family like Marx and Engels wanted, but also revert to an unobstructed pansexuality of Freudian polymorphous perversity.

>>11737888
Of course we can't, I'm not saying we could, I'm saying we can make a better future and feminism is the way forward.
>And we can't compare people who worked to support their supposed victims to slavers. A slave owner doesn't pick cotton on the condition that his slave doesn't leave him. That's an absurd reversal of reality.
Are you mad?
For a woman in the past she had to do all the housework, for the man. She had to raise the man's kids. Everything she did was for him and from birth she was raised to one day serve a man. Women weren't allowed to leave their husbands and the husband could do whatever he liked except murder her (unless you're Muslim). There was no concept of things like marital rape or domestic abuse, a woman's entire life would orbit around a man from the cradle to the grave. Would you want to live like that? Would you want to live a life where everything you do is for somebody else?

>inb4 but de menz
Yeah being a lower class man was horrible too, as I already said. But women were the lowest of them all. At least in being a man and being the bread-winner you have some level of economic independence.

>Working in the coal mines and getting black lung doesn't seem much better than changing diapers and scrubbing floors tbqh
Mate, giving birth is already not fun and in pre-industrial medicine times it was utterly brutal. Women weren't just sitting on their holes mopping the floor and changing nappies every now and then.

Seriously, the misogyny in this thread is insane.

How can incels make broad claims about relationships and love, despite never having experienced those thing? Is it just infographics?

>>11737371
>misogyny

There's that word again.

>>11737920
Reminder that domestic abuse was punished more harshly in pre-modern times than it is today, including it being seen as a justifiable cause for murdering your husband. So the notion that a husband was allowed to inflict any sort of abuse on his wife is, for the most part, revisionist history.
>I bring food on the table so you owe me to accept whatever abuse I inflict upon you.
That's an incredibly snide way of phrasing paying for literally everything a person owns and working to keep them alive. The man was the slave, not the woman. He was the one picking cotton for her ribbons and bows.

>>11737847
I'm the anon you replied to. Thankfully I'm not an Ameritard, so I don't know the situation of US so well. But I can tell you that what's been achieved in Europe is already enough and feminists have no reason to keep their struggle going. It really looks like you're trying to get more power than men (consciously or unconsciously) instead of just settling for the already achieved gender equality. If you seriously seek more power, don't be surprised if men get pissed off.

>>11737905
>First of all, bettering yourself in order to attract a woman is literally the advice people like you give to incels
Are you a smol-brain? Very likely.

The topic at hand isn't "bettering yourself". It is.
>>11737846
Starting a war in the name of profit isn't quite the same as hitting the gym, lad.

>This is a legitimately crazy way to perceive this
Really? It's crazy to say that perceiving women as an object to be acquired is objectifying? Very strange.

>>11737938
>How can incels make broad claims about relationships and love, despite never having experienced those thing?
Not despite. Because.

>>11737943
>Women didn't work
lol and you claim the other poster is engaging in revisionist history

>>11737943
>The man was the slave, not the woman.
This is true, only the most retarded of feminists could deny that.

>>11737928
>women were in labor 14 hours a day 6 days a week year round
not saying it wasn't painful and dangerous but your whole shit is based on twisting everything around, exaggerations and spurious attributions of hatred when people disagree
you basically have to defame men before the 20th century as a gang of vicious tyrants and ogres. really makes you think

>>11737922
>its better they go desu
What about demographics and violence?

>>11737928
Like I point out here>>11737943
The notion that a husband could do literally anything to his wife is revisionist.
>For a woman in the past she had to do all the housework, for the man. She had to raise the man's kids. Everything she did was for him and from birth she was raised to one day serve a man.
Given that you already admitted that we can't go back and change the material conditions of the past, this entire exercise amounts to just pointing out how tough women had it. This is self-victimization and a plead for pity, not a constructive exercise.

I don't think that burping a kid and cooking food is as labor-intensive as mining for coal is, but this competition of who had it worse is based on entirely subjective criteria.

>>11737957
Who are you quoting?

>>11737922
>she was a schizo but shes one of the great intellectuals of our movement
Says a lot about your "movement" to be honest.

>>11737998
You, anon

>>11738006
Thinking that domestic work isn't anywhere near as difficult as most physical labor done by poor men doesn't mean that you think that women did literally no work.

>>11737963
>>11738003
autism.

reminder Beauvoir was a sexual predator and women's happiness has declined since the 1970's.

>>11737960
People in pre-industrial times didn't work 14 hours a day 6 days a week year round you fucking idiot. They worked less in terms of time than people do even today. You literally could not work as a peasant in the fields at industrial-level hours because the crops can only grow as fast as nature allows.

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html

Women on the other hand did have to raise kids and do housework, all year round, every day of the week, indefinite hours a day, for their entire lives. You don't get to stop being a house-wife on feast days, in fact it'd probably be one of the busier days of the year.

>you basically have to defame men before the 20th century as a gang of vicious tyrants and ogres.
I didn't. I said that they were empowered compared to women of a similar socio-economic station, which they were. Men were the dominant members of the family, that's just a fucking fact.

>>11738015
Well the >payed for everything you own line certainly seem to imply it. That aside, women did more than just domestic labor.

>>11737944
>If you seriously seek more power, don't be surprised if men get pissed off.
Yuropoor knows what's up. Too bad most of them I've met are literal communists. Eventually, these feminists will run up against biological reality. Look at how they screech when Jordan Peterson brings up the simple fact that women, when left to their own devices, overwhelmingly avoid STEM fields.

>>11738017
>and women's happiness has declined since the 1970's.
"Yay equal rights!!"
"Wait, this means I have to actually work for a living?"

Doesn't surprise me that the bitch in this thread wants free shit. Women are lazy as hell.

>>11737916
Assertions and assumptions don't make for good argumentations. Put your biases into question.

>>11738024
>>payed for everything you own line certainly seem to imply it
That's literally true. The work that women typically did wasn't financially compensated because it wasn't productive in the traditional sense.

>>11737943
>Reminder that domestic abuse was punished more harshly in pre-modern times than it is today, including it being seen as a justifiable cause for murdering your husband. So the notion that a husband was allowed to inflict any sort of abuse on his wife is, for the most part, revisionist history.
I wasn't referring to the punishment for domestic abuse in pre-modern times, I referred to your reasoning which states that having worked to feed a woman invalidates any allegations made by her.
>That's an incredibly snide way of phrasing paying for literally everything a person owns and working to keep them alive. The man was the slave, not the woman. He was the one picking cotton for her ribbons and bows.
Having paid for everything your wife owns and her living of the food that you provide for her does not make you a slave to her. Or we must come to conclusion that concubines captured in slave raids were actually the slave masters of the tatar camps.

>>11738023
lol I was clearly talking about industrial era coal mining which you compared to giving birth.

>>11737993
>The notion that a husband could do literally anything to his wife is revisionist.
Only it's not. In most pre-19th century societies there was literally no such concept as domestic violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#History
>Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems viewed wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife.[34][35]
At this point you're literally pulling nonsense out of your arse.

>Given that you already admitted that we can't go back and change the material conditions of the past, this entire exercise amounts to just pointing out how tough women had it. This is self-victimization and a plead for pity, not a constructive exercise.
I didn't bring it up, bro. This guy did.
>>11737819
And it's completely retarded and I've extensively explained why.

>I don't think that burping a kid and cooking food is as labor-intensive as mining for coal is, but this competition of who had it worse is based on entirely subjective criteria.
This is completely ignorant and if your own mother heard you say that you'd get slapped despite the fact that being a 20th/21st century mother is obviously magnitudes easier than one in pre-industrial times.

If you want to see just how ignorant this is then go to a godforsaken part of Africa where they have limited access to modern medicine, still live in peasant-like conditions and women's rights are non-existent. See how the women there are doing. It's not as simple as burping a baby and cooking food. And I don't think you appreciate how hard cooking food is without modern technology and good packaged from the grocery store.

>>11738023
>Comparing sitting at a desk for 40 hours a week to literal backbreaking labor under the hot sun

L O L

I have never seen a more soiboi opinion than that one. There's a reason they had an average life expectancy of about 40 and it's not just the lack of modern medicine.

I bet the asshole who wrote that also pontificated about how terrible working on the plantations were for slaves, unironically.

>>11738046
Coal wasn't invented in the 19th century, bro. People have been mining coal since at least the bronze age.

damn, incels are seething in this thread, im not into feminism at all and think it is dumb in some ways, but man, how much some men have to rationalize their hurt pride itt

>>11738062
I didn't, I said they worked less in terms of time. Which is objectively true.

Incels should grow up. Women are people too and they're entitled to their choice of partner. You're just the low tier of the love market.

Get a hobby. Be interesting.

>>11738044
You're strawmanning me. It's not that paying to keep a woman alive justifies any treatment of her, it's that it justifies the typical expectations of the time, like monogamy and the dutiful fulfillment of domestic responsibilities.
>Or we must come to conclusion that concubines captured in slave raids were actually the slave masters of the tatar camps.
The operative differences are that the material conditions of the sex slaves were signifianctly different from that of their master, and that they had no choice in determining who their masters were. Western women in pre-modern times still had some choice over who they married, and shared their husband's wealth pretty equitably.

>>11738070
Incels are toxic-masculinity gone wild, dude.

>>11738052
>traditional food is ridiculously hard to cook
t. can't cook ramen.
>>11738063
What's your point?

>>11738071
>Let's compare apples to oranges
Nice "logic" you've got there

>>11738081
>muh toxic masculinity
you people are all pseuds.

>>11738093
> muh muh toxic masculinity

Grow up, read more, more diversely. Lose your a-prioris.

>>11738081
I hope there can appear some catharsic discourse that would let men speak out all their anxiety without going in to the radical direction of "kill all wamen they want to destroy our society". I think Peterson does this in somewhat good way. Trying to narrate your problems, weaknesses and anxieties without blaming it on feminism/jews or some other figure is hard today for men

>>11738093
You've got the floor dude, explain why toxic masculinity isn't a real problem.

>>11738100
>toxic masculinity
>not a thought-terminating a priori assumption

Fucking lol.

>>11738075
isn't the incel bogeyman a media driven moral panic?

>>11738105
Not that guy, but explain how a guy who literally can't have sex is "toxic masculinity" by any definition. Back when I was growing up, toxic masculinity referred to the Weinsteins of the world, ie people who abused their power to obtain sex.

What kind of fucking twisted definition have you zoomers come up with?

>>11738106
I mean isnt it evident for you that some replies in this thread are the symptoms of lost pride in masculinity? Shit like ad hominems, pictures of sandwiches and stuff, isnt it obvious that incels are seething?

>>11738034
It's "literally true" only in the most basic, reductionist sense of the phrase: without women work civilization wouldn't exist in the first place. You make it seem like women were simply rent seekers. Also, what do you mean "traditional sense"? There's plenty of economic literature analyzing invisible labor and how it was productive.

>>11738100
>you're immature and unread if you don't believe in toxic masculinity
>supposed to be rampant in the most low T feminized society in history

>>11738115
>Kick someone who is at the literal bottom of society
>Surprised when they lash out at you

Once again, the self-awareness levels of leftists are at zero.

>>11738105
you just fucking made it up. you live in a fantasy world crafted for you by the media.

>>11738106
Nobody ever said that toxic masculinity is an a-priori. Stop smoking the sargon weed.

Toxic masculinity has never been about a primordial sin incumbent to every and all men. That's utterly retarded. Toxic masculinity is a strain of behaviours majoritarily represented among the male population that are detriment to themselves and others--and are consequence of living in a self-reinforcing milieu like ethnic ghettos in Europe and disenfranchised city centers in Eastern US.

Gang culture is an example of toxic masculinity.

>>11738123
I only see ad-hominems. Get back to /pol/ if you want to feel at home.

>>11738132
>sargon weed

The fuck is that?

Toxic masculinity IS an a priori, all encompassing worldview not dissimilar from Christians' Original Sin. It has no real definition, it's just whatever we don't like about men today.

>>11738052
>you were allowed to hit your wive if she committed a particular offense, therefore domestic abuse
Disciplinary systems have changed over time for both men and women (boys were beaten, debtors were stocked, men were whipped and branded for minor offenses). You're viewing the disciplinary customs of the time through a feminist prism, not an objective one.
>This is completely ignorant and if your own mother heard you say that you'd get slapped despite the fact that being a 20th/21st century mother is obviously magnitudes easier than one in pre-industrial times.
Child-birth was deadly, talking care of children wasn't. There's a distinction here. Male jobs have always been deadlier and more physically strenuous.

>>11738142
You're parroting the "classical liberals" from Youtube and their strawman of real sociological studies into male patterns.

Cite me a single published academic who defended a original sin for all men.

>>11738141
>ad hominems
lmao, christ.
this board is for intellectuals sweetie. if your brain don't work so good it's going to be pointed out.

>>11738156
You're several standard deviations on the wrong side of 'intellectual,' boyo.

>>11738152
>social psychology is replicable
might want to look into that...
your propaganda front can't even produce studies that work on paper.

>>11738025
What are you even talking about, female? I'm not the kind of retard who watches Jordan Memerson youtube channel. You have no idea who you're talking to, woman. Europeans have yet to reach the level of triviality and retardation of Americans.

And I'm not a communist, btw.

>>11738152
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that anyone who unironically believes in toxic masculinity is making an all-encompassing assumption about men.

Imagine the converse. Imagine if every time a woman did something a man didn't like, they blamed it on "toxic feminity." Do you understand how fucking insane you sound from an objective standpoint?

>>11738031
Shut the fuck up, Angloshit.

>>11738168

Sociology and psychology are two different things... so is social psychology which I am not refering to. Whose ideologically driven pundit's tit milk are you breastfeeding on?

>>11738163
>leftists still think they can maintain the charade of superior intellect
It's funny and sad, and ultimately a meme. Care to offer a high IQ response on why your movement's icon Simone de Beauvoir was supporting pedophilia and was an abuser of young women herself?
What's your response to the decline in self reported happiness since the 1970's?

I read "The Yellow Wallpaper" yesterday and it was fantastic, reminded me quite a bit of "The Turn of the Screw." Does anyone else here prefer feminist writings that aren't overt?

>>11738120
The point is that if men, en masse, decided not to pay for their breeding rights, women would've starved to death. In that circumstance we could've farmed out breeding to literal slaves. We didn't though.

>a bunch of men LARPing as women literally managed to take over the entire feminist movement and force the lesbians and feminists to pander to their every whim or suffer social ostracization if not outright violence if they dare stand up for themselves
this will never not be funny

>>11738171
> it's just common sense
Wow, nigga, that's a profound argument for your ill-advised and unbased views.

> What about wymyn
Wymyn gonna wymyn. Us having negative behaviour patterns do not make men's go away.

>>11738172
Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>11738185
A good metaphor is that you can still like Heiddeger's philosophy in Being and Time and not be a nazi. A genetic fallacy doesn't work as a debunking argument.

>>11738172
Alright Pedro, enough

>>11738080
>You're strawmanning me. It's not that paying to keep a woman alive justifies any treatment of her, it's that it justifies the typical expectations of the time, like monogamy and the dutiful fulfillment of domestic responsibilities.
You didn't state that, you stated that men were slaves because they provided for women and that this invalidates claims of abuse and oppression of women.
>The operative differences are that the material conditions of the sex slaves were signifianctly different from that of their master, and that they had no choice in determining who their masters were. Western women in pre-modern times still had some choice over who they married, and shared their husband's wealth pretty equitably.
Those differences are beside the point when the mere fact that a man that keeps a woman alive is argued to make him into her slave.

>>11738201
Funny because the only one who doesn't have any fucking argument is you, pathetic turd. You keep destroying everything because "MUH TECHNOLOGY" and you're okay with that. What a literal piece of shit.

male here, i know it's been 300 posts and bump limit is coming close but can we please get this thread back on track and actually talk about feminist lit?

>>11738194
This lol. Feminism was the gambit of ugly women against attractive ones. They lost even that gambit to literal men in dresses.

>>11738214
No, its all garbage anyway

>>11738210
Say that to my face, faggot

>>11738214
kys faggot

>>11738221
Sorry I don't need my lawn mowed

>>11738221
t. basement dwelling fatass with mommy issues.

Your mom reads feminist literature and your father smells of morning alcohol.

>>11738180
"Toxic masculinity" is typically presented under the rubrik of social psychology. But you've never a read a study in your life, just regurgitate from the propaganda machine while claiming this is what others must do. It's funny, all the intense projection, it's like how "woke" """men""" are usually low key absolute shitheads.

>>11738228
> typically
Except it's not. I'm mostly gender theory which is foremost a sociology question. That it draws on some points issued from social psychology doesn't make it only so.

>>11738201
Well, you didn't say whataboutism, but almost did. It's next on your repertoire of "fallacies".

>>11738113
This is the thing, it refers to both. Toxic masculinity doesn't describe a specific type of person (well, not exactly) rather it describes ways in which conventional norms of masculinity can be harmful both to society and to the person beholden to them.

A good example of this that clearly demonstrates the duality between incels and sex-predators is the fixation conventional masculinity has on sex. Having sex is fundamentally a very manly thing in the conventional view, the more of it you have and the more women you do it with the manlier it is. But this view of sex doesn't actually have anything to do with the woman, people like Harvey Weinstein don't give a fuck what the woman thinks about sex all that matters is that he has sex. And some would go further to say it doesn't even have that much to do with the act itself so much as with power, having such a sex life is a kind of status-symbol that validates ones masculinity.

Incels are the opposite. Incels don't have any sex but they're still trapped into the conventional view that sex is something they should be having as a man and the lack of it doesn't just make them horny, it is actively existentially frustrating. They don't just feel lonely, they also feel powerless and emasculated. They feel like they don't have the whatever (literally this could be anything, incels will find absolutely anything they're insecure about to justify why they think no woman could ever want them) that they need to be desired. And again none of this actually has anything to do with anything a real woman thinks and everything to do with their own self-image. They feel like their masculinity is completely invalidated and this causes a mess of emotions, particularly anger and resentment.

Enter, Chad, (disclaimer: Chad as a phenomenon was a lot more interesting before the memes really took off when every individual incel had their own totally unique idea of what a Chad must be like). Chad is not a real person, Chad's not even a real archetype of a person. Chad is just the mirror reverse of incel-insecurities and the personification of their vision of masculinity. This is a kind of avatar of masculinity in the incel mind and a symbol of what they are not. It's a kind of crystallization of the contrast between toxic masculine gender norms and their self-image. When really the real "successful" example of toxic masculinity is not Chad, it's Harvey Weinstein.

Toxic masculinity extends to a lot more than just this. Broadly it's conventional male norms that serve to reinforce male dominance and dictate what kinds of male behaviour are acceptable. Things like aggression, competitiveness, being territorial, emotional repression and insensitivity are all examples of things that could be considered toxic masculinity.

>>11738245
If you can spot your own logical faillings, don't use them.

>>11738129
Not a very good argument, boss.

>>11738238
>>11738228
(((Sociology))) and """social psychology""" are both meme pseudo sciences so stop speaking as if the distinction matters whatsoever

>>11738238
BTW, Heidegger wasn't foremost a foundational political philosopher, activist and cherished icon of that political movement. It's like, uh, there's a difference or something... It's like the deepest of hypocrisies means nothing to the phoney moralists of any stripe.

>>11738248
This anon gets it.

>>11738212
>You didn't state that,
I stated that in the post you quoted.
>Those differences are beside the point when the mere fact that a man that keeps a woman alive is argued to make him into her slave.
It's the difference between consensual labor and literal slavery.

>>11738248
I could almost agree with your post
>Things like aggression, competitiveness, being territorial, emotional repression and insensitivity are all examples of things that could be considered toxic masculinity.
Do you want to imply that aggression, competitiveness and being territorial are inherently bad?

>>11738248
>wanting sex is a socially-influenced desire, as opposed to an inherent drive
You're a legit fucking retard

>>11738275
Mostly, it's in situations where it's not necessary--especially in social milieu.

Being "territorial" when it comes to interact with women is part of what feminists have been against: objectivisation. Women are not territories to conquer and plunder like a piece of land of furniture.

>>11738226
>>11738227
t. brainlets

>>11738171
>I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that anyone who unironically believes in toxic masculinity is making an all-encompassing assumption about men.
I don't think you understand what toxic masculinity is. It's not just "anything a man does that a woman doesn't like". It's behaviours and attitudes built in to the gender norms we socialize men to adhere to and how they negatively effect society.

Just look at a prison to see the proof of this. Prisons are basically massive pressure-cookers of toxic masculinity and the kind of behaviour and social-order that develops in there is nothing like the kind that you see outside in the normal world. Because most men aren't toxically masculine.

>>11738256
it's just the truth. I don't have to argue fairly with actual invalids, or drunks on the street accosting me to spew their delirium. It helps for my sanity to point out the truth in this kingdom of lies your retarded kind wholeheartedly assent to though.
>>11738254
>it actually thinks whataboutism isn't the cringiest media talking point to shut down 100% correct allegations of hypocrisy
ok if you feminist theorists are such logic experts let's talk ZFC. No?

>>11738248
So what is the alternative anon? Toxic masculinity by your twisted, all-encompassing definition is no different from male sexuality. Do you expect men to be sexless smurfs? Do you expect people to NOT feel resentment when they're on the bottom of society.

Look at this logic from another perspective. For example, take jobs. You're saying that a person who can't find ANY job after getting rejected from hundreds of applications shouldn't feel any resentment? What kind of pathologically callous viewpoint is that?

>>11738288
>and how they negatively effect society

Which is just a disguised way of saying "things I don't like". Who the fuck are you to decide what's negative for society

>>11738288
>Just look at a prison to see the proof of this
Prison is the literal opposite of your thesis. People are in prison because they cannot abide by social norms. They're not subject to social norms.

If anything, prisons are expressions of nature gone wild. If we were in war, then a person who can kill another man without feeling anything might be useful. But they're dangerous in modern society.

>>11738289
Sorry, I don't want to talk about Zambia Forestry College.

>>11738285
>Being "territorial" when it comes to interact with women is part of what feminists have been against: objectivisation.
What's being territorial when it comes to women? Not wanting your girlfriend to sleep with other men?

>>11738248
1. Masculine norms are the result of female selection. They police it more than men do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mmIEZKWi3A
2. A man's fixation on sex is almost entirely hormonal, not social or cultural. Teenage boys think about sex constantly.
3. Despair and loneliness are the inevitable result of not having a partner.
4. Violent aspects of masculinity like aggression and competitiveness are evolved traits that exist in other ape species we're closely related to, and are the result of natural and sexual selection.

>>11738288
>Just look at a prison to see the proof of this. Prisons are basically massive pressure-cookers of toxic masculinity and the kind of behaviour and social-order that develops in there is nothing like the kind that you see outside in the normal world. Because most men aren't toxically masculine.

This is absolutely pants on head retarded. Every awful thing that happens in prisons has a clear practical reason behind it. People form gangs, stab each other, rape each other and extort each other in prisons because they are ensuring their own place of well being. It has nothing to do with (there is no even fucking women in there) and the same activity goes on in any serious women's prison
But again you're a deluded fucking lunatic so you think everything bad happening must have to be because of the imaginary spectre of """masculinity"""

>>11738288
>someone who doesn't have to live with male hormones telling men which aspects of their behaviors are learned and can be minimized through proper socialization

>>11738307
keept trying to think women like objects, that's how you get them.
*clap clap*

>>11738337
Considering I can easily buy a woman for a time and fuck her then yeah it easy a pretty straight forward way to go

>>11737623

Terfs aren't retarded, though. Trannies can't be women, whatever else they're destined to be, which must be more than biology and genitalia. Grotesque medical businesses preys upon these vulnerable people and that's more disgusting than having bathrooms to match your avatar. You can no more will yourself to be a woman than a Bantu can opt to be an Inuit.

>>11738337
You don't have to perceive someone as an object to not want them to cheat on you

>feminism
>342 replies

>the government pays people to produce random """theories""" as laughable as any Bro Science and society has to take them seriously

>>11738337
People are objects. We don't have bodies, we are bodies.

>>11738275
Not necessarily. I mean you also have things like protectiveness, sportsmanship and boundaries which are positive things and very much related qualities. But I would say masculine values and behaviours become toxic when they cease to be about empowering oneself or other people and begin to be about dominating other people and sacrificing your emotional wellbeing in the name of upholding "masculinity".

>>11738282
I didn't say wanting sex is a socially-induced desire. Obviously wanting sex is as natural as wanting food. What I said is that we've made a status symbol out of sex and that this is very harmful. It's not the want for sex that's socially constructed, it's the status and ritual that we've build around it.

This is what I mean when I say
>But this view of sex doesn't actually have anything to do with the woman, people like Harvey Weinstein don't give a fuck what the woman thinks about sex all that matters is that he has sex. And some would go further to say it doesn't even have that much to do with the act itself so much as with power, having such a sex life is a kind of status-symbol that validates ones masculinity.
Sex ought to be a recriprocal moment of mutual enjoyment or even affection, not a validation of one's social position.

>>11738337
>thinks we don't know about hardcore feminists all being the biggest BDSM freaks
you can't help liveblog your entire lives literally everywhere so, yeah, we know

>>11738367
>What I said is that we've made a status symbol out of sex and that this is very harmful.

We made shit. Reproductive privilege is an innate status symbol in any animal

>>11738367
My point is that incel alienation isn't entirely the result of how we've turned access to sex into a status symbol, it's the result of a natural feeling of despair that comes from a combination of loneliness and sexual frustration. The problem with incels isn't toxic masculinity, the problem with incels is that they're fucking lonely.

>>11738367
you've just made this up based on high school social dynamics or just your personal wishes or something as well.
Weinstein is a disgusting pervert and everyone hates him for what he did. How is that status attainment?

>>11738379
No no, don't you see they should only feel what *I* want them to feel. Otherwise its toxic masculinity

>>11738367
>What I said is that we've made a status symbol out of sex and that this is very harmful
I think this is true at at least some degree, though it's not the exhaustive source of various sex-related problems in our society. Now, do you have any idea of how to stop sex from being a status symbol? Short of distributing waifu/husbandobots to everyone.

I am a young white virgin homosexual that happens to have social anxiety. People just assume I am hetero and I have lost count of how many times I have been shamed for being a virgin or have poor abilities to interact with women. I so far lived a regular life, as have women around me, yet they have opportunities thrown at them. I don't understand why feminism is still a thing desu

I feel I am under attack by mainstream narratives. I am being marginalized, alienated. Demographic replacement is a reality, I feel my society has no future for my ideals, my culture, race.
The future will be characterized by homogenization, the gigantic, the destruction of the environment, globalization, world governament, until everything gets destroyed and it goes on floating in the void until the end of times. Is this the future you envision, leftists?

>>11738347
That's not what objectification is.

>>11738394
I'm gay and hispanic and I feel the same way. I know I can't know what it's like to live in a woman's shoes, but even looking at straight white men (whose shoes I also can't fill), I can't fathom a reality where even non-white women don't have as much privilege as those straight white men do. Women live in a different reality.

>>11738395
Who gives a shit. I can rent a dumb bitch and slap her in the face with my cock and give her some money to fuck off. This is a phone call away for me.
The idea I ever have to give a shit about anything going on in a woman's dumb head to stick something in her fuck hole is deluded. Plenty of whores out there of all varieties

>>11738292
I am a man, indeed I'm a heterosexual man. I know what male sexuality is like and I know it's not toxic masculinity. I don't expect men to be "sexless smurfs", I expect other men to not feel entitled to sex and not take it as an affront to their dignity when they're not having it.

>Do you expect people to NOT feel resentment when they're on the bottom of society.
This is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Not having sex doesn't mean you're at the bottom of society, this is toxic masculinity talking. Really it's up to you to decide what's important to you and derive your own sources of fulfilment and self-esteem. Don't let society dictate it for you.

>>11738296
Well clearly the most hypermasculine people are in prison so the courts have already decided what's negative for society.

>>11738303
Prison is absolutely is subject to social norms. Prisons have very sophisticated social networks and hierarchies going on within them that are chiefly constructed around extreme toxic masculinity. It's not a place in absence of social norms, it's a place that features extremely amplified versions of social norms that already exist in the outside world as fundamentally that's where prisoners come from.

>>11738330
>People form gangs, stab each other, rape each other and extort each other in prisons because they are ensuring their own place of well being. It has nothing to do with (there is no even fucking women in there)
Dude, are you even reading my posts?
a) Yes, of course they're ensuring their own place of well being. That being within the toxic masculine hierarchy.
b) I've already said toxic masculinity doesn't have anything to do with women and everything to do with men.
The fact that you idiots are getting so outraged at the suggestion that maybe, masculinity can be bad sometimes, is fragile masculinity to the max.

>>11738422
>That being within the toxic masculine hierarchy.

No that being in the "I don't want to get stabbed" hierarchy you dumb cunt
Its hilarious seeing a dumb bitch with an IQ of 105 thinking she has any clue what she's even trying to say

>>11738422
>I expect other men to not feel entitled to sex and not take it as an affront to their dignity when they're not having it.
NOT
HAVING
SEX
IS
ALEINATING
IN
AND
OF
ITSELF

Fucking Christ dude. It's not entitlement, it's an expression of frustration.

>>11738414
With no potential for reproduction. I pity your future wife and kids, if you ever have any.

>>11738422
>Well clearly the most hypermasculine people are in prison so the courts have already decided what's negative for society.

Yeah they're also on Wall Street and Congress you absolute looner. Again this "hypermasculine" behavior is just doing what is rational to succeed and why silly cunts like you can never achieve anything

>>11738422
The desire for sex is a primary drive. Being angry or depressed that you're not having it isn't the result of a failure to live up to a constructed masculine ideal, it's the result of a feeling of loneliness that most single people throughout all of human history have felt. Every competition for dominance is a fight for life (i.e. sex). Men will never be contented with being alone, in any potential future reality.

>>11738422
>I was a man all along
FUCK YOU IDIOT I THOUGHT YOU'RE A NICE COMMIE FEMINIST GIRL BUT YOU HAD A COCK ALL ALONG
NICE JOB YOU FUCKING DEFLATED IT HOPE I YOU'RE HAPPY NOW

>>11738377
>We
Who the fuck is "we"?
>>11738379
Only it isn't. Female incels are a real thing, there aren't as many of them true, but you don't see the extreme bigotry and self-flagellation coming from them either.
Being lonely is one thing. Cultivating a violent hatred for women and your own self is something bigger than that.
>>11738382
Donald Trump has done similar things and he's fucking president of the USA.
You're massively oversimplifying the problem, it's not that people like toxic masculinity - most people don't. Yet as a society we still encourage the behaviours and attitudes that come to fruition as toxic masculinity anyway. /r9k/ is a good example of this, they don't like being virgins, but rather than accepting this and coming to peace with themselves they just reinforce their own insecurities and sexism amongst each other.

>>11738393
>Now, do you have any idea of how to stop sex from being a status symbol? Short of distributing waifu/husbandobots to everyone.
I think the best we can do is to not compare ourselves to other people and concern ourselves just with our own sex-lives or lackthereof without caring what other people think. This is why I think the anti-slut shaming movement is good and the next logical step from that is an anti-virgin shaming movement. A person's sex life is nobodies business but their own and their consenting partners.

How do you stop Supreme t-shirts from being status symbols? You can't really, only a big society wide push against consumerism could do that. But you can not buy into the consumerist culture that enables it.

>>11738395
last i checked the leftist mongs are the ones chanting "bodies" all the time
>>11738422
>it's a woke straight dude
oh no no no

>>11738461
>but you don't see the extreme bigotry and self-flagellation coming from them either
YES YOU DO. Go to r/femcel. The bitter feminist catlady archetype is how female inceldom is expressed. The only difference is that we've constructed a respectable political ideology around female inceldom: radical feminism. And that gives it a veneer of respectability.

>>11738461
>Who the fuck is "we"?

The we I quoted in your fucking post you dumb ass.
Dumb woman can't even keep track of her own speech

>>11738412
I think white western women are being manipulated. Women in general tend to be more conformist I guess, they are less likely to go against social conventions (in this case, the narrative that had been fed to them by the media, school system, etc).
I also think that the fact that women tend to be more solipsistic (pic related) plays a role in this, they are less likely to spot inconsistences in this ideology.
They overwhelmingly support leftism, open borders, globalism, and capitalism ("if you buy this you will be empowered", consumism, etc). They drive the market (80% of consumer decisions).
They are being used to destroy their own Nations

>>11738461
>I think the best we can do is to not compare ourselves to other people and concern ourselves just with our own sex-lives or lackthereof without caring what other people think.

Literally impossible. You have no idea how the human mind works. No fucking clue.
You garbled fucking shit for brains. You have absolutely nothing to say of any consequence to reality

>>11738432
No it's not. It's only alienating if you buy into the social importance attached to it. Get stoic, boy.

>>11738436
>what is rational to succeed
There are total beta-males like Mark Zuckerberg among the richest people alive and there are masculine giga-Chads in supermax prisons. Success doesn't really have as much to do with masculinity as you think it does.

>>11738461
>bro if you're upset that you're poor and nearly homeless just accept it bro
>stop comparing yourself to other people bro
You're a fucking clown

>>11738488
Oh wow, two whole anecdotal references. This is some heavy thinking here

>>11738461
>the next logical step from that is an anti-virgin shaming movement
Anti-virgin shaming movement will be good, but it will be not enough. It will be like ending segregation in USA in the 60s. Any real effort to bring equality to the sex life will require affirmative actions towards people with lower dating market values.

>>11738488
>No it's not. It's only alienating if you buy into the social importance attached to it. Get stoic, boy.
How can someone legitimately think this way? You couldn't believe how little credence I give to social standards of acceptability. In every respect. I'm not on social media, I don't dress like other people, I don't really share common interests. But despite this i've never found a way with being okay with being alone. The desire isn't imposed, it's inherent. My stomach goes numb when I see couples on the street, no matter how well i'm doing in my life otherwise.

>>11738471
There's literally 4 posts and 10 comments combined lmao. And none of them are anywhere even resembling the bigotry and madness of male incels either.

>>11738486
Me, an intellectual: just be yourself and don't care what people think
You, a smol brain: uh wot no I can't think for myself I can only think what society tells me.

>>11738461
lol trump is a massive anomaly. incidentally also why he lives in your head rent free. your cultural analysis is trite and worthless. it's not that it's "too complex" it's that it's bunk you're repeating which flies in the face of observable reality.
the thing is you're almost certainly a limp wristed mumble mouthed weakling with social issues yourself. So you want to reduce masculinity you perceive in other men to increase your own sexual attractiveness, which is also why you pose yourself as a noble defender of women. yet you're horrified by what you perceive as residual sexism in yourself, which is absolutely there, if you can even admit it, so you project. this is likely the real psychosexual dynamic at play here, and your entire autistic spiel is nothing but an elaborate manifestation of it.

>>11738508
>There's literally 4 posts and 10 comments combined lmao
r/Trufemcels has hundreds of posts. And, like I said, most female sexual frustration is funneled into politics.

>>11738499
>Any real effort to bring equality to the sex life will require affirmative actions towards people with lower dating market values.
Uhm, what?

>>11738507
>My stomach goes numb when I see couples on the street, no matter how well i'm doing in my life otherwise.
Do you not think that's a sign that maybe you have an unhealthy fixation on how other people are doing in life?

>>11738507
If you can't deal with your inherent desires never being fulfilled, that just mean your level of spiritual development is too low There were enough people in the human history transcending their desire for comfort, their desire to have sex, their pain, even the very desire to live. That being said, when "just deal with it bro" is the advice from the rich to the poor, it's one of the most disgusting displays of hypocrisy I can think of. Only after I experienced pain I can ask others to experience it.

>>11738522
>Do you not think that's a sign that maybe you have an unhealthy fixation on how other people are doing in life?
I don't in every other domain except this one. I don't care if people are more successful or better looking than I am. Which to me indicates that it doesn't come from a place of social coercion, but of inherent psychological desire.

>>11738522
>Uhm, what?
What's not there to understand? We need to end the privilege of people who look good, talk well and can attract a lot of sexual partners because of that. Sorry, I haven't invented a catchy name for this privilege yet.

>>11738522
Living is unhealthy motherfucker
You do realize every time you breathe you do irreparable damage to your lungs. The fuck are you calling """"unhealthy"""" you fucking anti-human ingrate. That suffering is his life, its his universe. Unhealthy, you fucking worm. I genuinely hope you get fucking hit by a bus. Down a bottle of pills while listening to your own batshit Newspeak nonsense

>>11738521
Impressive. Women incels channel their frustration into women's liberation while men incels channel their frustration into fantasies of women's subjugation. Enlightening.

>>11738549
The dichotomy isn't liberation/subjection. It's a simple power struggle

>>11738549
>subjugating all of society to be organized around propping my obvious inferiority
>but I'll call it liberashun, haha not like what those nasty men do

>>11738537
>Which to me indicates that it doesn't come from a place of social coercion, but of inherent psychological desire.
You mean insecurity, if it's triggered by being reminded of something other people have but you don't that sounds like insecurity. Which is okay, but in order to escape it you first need to come to terms with that.

>>11738540
I mean what does this mean
>Any real effort to bring equality to the sex life will require affirmative actions towards people with lower dating market values.
What would "affirmative actions" entail?

>>11738570
>if it's triggered by being reminded of something other people have but you don't that sounds like insecurity.
It's not what other people possess that I want, it's the act of being in a relationship that I want. There's a huge distinction between envy and longing.

>>11738549
god damn you're an insufferable little twat. thank you for reminding me how much i despise these people (you), i was losing my focus for a bit there.

>>11738569
>>11738565
Well yeah. I don't see them talking about state-mandated female-on-male rape and mutilating men out of "revenge".

I mean /r9k/ is straight up perverse while this is just feminist themed feelsposting and taking the piss out of dude incels.

>>11738586
That doesn't sound so unhealthy, it sounds like it'd be sad but there's nothing wrong with being sad.

>>11738394
>>11738478
you articulated my thoughts

>>11738603
>#killallmen was just a vent, not weird violent ideations at all

>>11738570
>What would "affirmative actions" entail?
How would I know? It would require creating an entire new branch of feminism, filling hundreds of research positions and writing tens of thousands of papers to create an answer that wouldn't sound like an advertisement for a new dystopian film. The only think I can say here is that struggles of people who can't get laid deserve just as much effort and care as struggles of any other disadvantaged group that has so far been identified on our bumpy road to equality.

Wow.

>>11738607
It's a sadness that veers on genuine despair. My point is that the issue with incels isn't that their feelings aren't legitimate, it's how they choose to express those feelings and turn them into resentment. The way to reach incels isn't to delegitimize their feelings, which I feel is what you were doing earlier, but to show them other ways of processing them.

>>11738394

There's nothing certain, Anon, least of all the leftist mothership landing. Fortunately, people other than leftists have a say in how the world develops.

>>11738651
That makes sense. I suppose I'm not an incel so it would be valuable to listen more because I don't fully know what it's like.

I just want someone to hold my hand