/lit/ - Literature

I mean

Christ alive

Why would men in powerful positions surrounded by men as advisers, colleagues etc give a shit about how things are for women when there isn’t anyone in their immediate circle that they need to listen to in any way?

The Second Sex was influential to a large degree I think because it allowed for a unification of voices, instead of women gathering in whatever social contexts they could when not caring for their husbands they had a book written by a culturally significant person that so brilliantly expressed and resonated their experiences. Who else with influence was listening?

Wouldn’t respond to this bait if it wasn’t for smug Ethan face.

>>12043068
that's toxic masculinity sweetie xoxo

Big if true

>>12043068
Benevolent actions can still be harmful. Anyway anything like that is going to be a mix of genuine benevolent overtones and conscious and unconscious self-interest. Not that women turned out to deserve emancipation, but I can see why they’d complain :^)

>>12043094
Because they were raised by women and their offspring will be raised by them

Saying that, The Second Sex is still on my to-read list so you're probably fuckin right

>>12043068
so you mean roasties suck?

>>12043200
*would be raised by them

>>12043094
Because most normal men love women and want to take care of them.

>>12043068
>muh hypothesis
>debate me

first you have to explain why you think women are designed to be subservient to men.

>>12043270
Biology. Getting mounted by a man and stuffed with his penis is a pretty subservient act, don't you think? Women do that by instinct, just like we mount them by instinct.

>>12043068
>Patriarchy is by definition benevolent
No, that's not what that word means. Lets go with something less retarded
>Patriarchy is benevolent
For the Patriarchs, and their male heirs, usually. Even then it tends to end with bloodshed and social upheavals, very few dynasties last longer than a half a decade.
>for the protection of everyone
For the protection of the land owning classes and warrior elites, and their subjugated peasant caste, sure. To a degree this can be true when the nobility isn't slaughtering or starving its people, they can do quite a bit to shield them from bandits, raids, and slavery.
>change my mind
You're retarded and posted Ethan.

>>12043204 bullshit. read the replies to this thread. And men exploit younger women all the time.

>>12043294

you sound like a horny creep. go fap or something freak.

>>12043317
Everyone exploits everyone. Most white men feel a natural inclination to keep women safe. Niggers not so much.

>>12043317
>men exploit younger women all the time.
young women throw themselves at older men*

also you are seriously memed if you think men dont have extremely strong instincts to protect and provide for women, instincts women totally lack in return

>>12043321
Sorry princess, but that is just how it is. Men have higher testosterone, which is why we are the more dominant and aggresive sex.

>>12043328
yeah, because 14 year old girls just love being emotionally abused by 18 year old men constantly. those men are just so so "loving". dumbass. You're totally memed if you think you have anything on the inherent compassionate nature of women.

>>12043334
>the inherent compassionate nature of women.
it extends to their children and to a small subset of men they like.

And yeah 14 year old girls clearly do like that since they constnatly choose those guys. Youll notice that women teachers are constnatly fucking underage boys in highschools as well, as though this were some onesided thing

>>12043334
>humans who are not fully developed do dumb shit
Seems like you're giving out cherry picked examples and can't understand a generality

>>12043343

all men want is sex sex sex. I'm sure how girls were sold as slaves into prostitution was just to do with how much they wanted to "protect" us? Absolute retard. Men commit the vast majority of violent crime. Why should women be compassionate to incel douchebags like you who think you are better than us? Go choke on your own dick

>>12043325

woman "exploits" man: "wahh she didnt give me sex when i paid for dinner"

man exploits woman: "i fucking raped and murdered that bitch"

>>12043352
>devolving into an incoherent slew of insults and random statements
I dont know why i bother, have a good one.

>>12043371
Sorry honey, you've been cancelled.

>>12043360
I've manipulated girls by telling them I wanted something more, when I only wanted to fuck them and move on. The majority of men don't rape and never would rape.

>>12043094
>le epic powerful positions "argument"
the patriarchal conspiracy is to feminists as the bourgeoisie conspiracy is to communists as the jewish conspiracy are to nazis. it focuses on one half-truth far more significantly than should be reasonably considered. daily reminder that women have a large power across the rest of the board, and this matters just as much as what goes on at the top.

>>12043377

"I'm only a small piece of shit, not a giant one!"

>meanwhile 9/10 men admit that if they could get away with it they'd cheat on their wives

men ARE all rapists. men ARE all adulterers and degenerates.

>>12043352
Men only want sex with you because they can sense you're an unstable feminist lunatic that's not good for anything else. Hence why you get pumped and dumped. Us men are pretty good at discerning which women would make a good partner and mother.

>>12043352
>that broken English

>>12043383
Yeah this is an obvious larper. Pretending to be a woman on the internet is weird bro.

>>12043394

>"I-It couldn't possibly be a real woman, they know we're better right?"

Most women hate men. it's natural, we just don't feel a need to gawk about it because we know you are too dumb to understand. Y'all on the other hand can't stop mansplaining kek

>>12043400
Most women love men, which is why most women are in relatioships with men, have their children, and spend most of their lives making themselves look attractive. It's biology.

>>12043317
>the demographic on 4chan is normal and comparable to society

>>12043068
>benevolent
Nigga its the only way a society should function. The west is a degenerate hell hole thats been collapsing at a steady pace since we gave women the right to vote.

>>12043411
yeahh sureeee that's why lol and that has nothing to do with men trying to teach women that they're necessary and please have sex with us ma'am

>>12043418
it is unironically

>>12043428
happened long before that and u know it

>>12043467
>happened long before that and u know it
Yeah it started with the jews

>>12043469

patriarchy is a jewish construct and for most of primitive history society was matriarchal. It's natural and we will return to it soon enough.

There is not a single woman in this thread.

But whatever, I'll leave my gripes with feminism in here cause why not.

Feminists are practically incapable of making a coherent point. They always form their arguments into emotional buzzwordy statements about general trends or anecdotes. The lack of statistics and honest statistical analysis causes the concrete problems they discuss to appear flimsy and fleeting. The lack of policy suggestions makes it appear that they have no interest in actually changing society. Also buzzwords are deliberately ambiguous and are an obstacle in communicating ideas. I blame the government. Women buy 80% of consumer products and so the whole of capitalist persuasion is aimed at them, usually by selling them faux feminism that's really self defeating complacency. It's a tactic for selling, but because most women don't know how widespread faux feminism is, they adopt plenty of it's tactics (vague sloganeering for one) and the result is a movement that spins in circles

>>12043068
PATRICIANS ARE EVIL
PLEBS ARE COMPLACENT
SERFS ARE REALLY NOBLE AND SHOULD RULE
FUCK I HATE LIFE SO MUCH

>>12043068
Look up fundamentalist Mormon communities

>>12043068
No, it usually only arises where the balance of female to male wealth has a female bias (i.e. a war or disease has wiped out their more war casualties and disease prone husbands leaving a generation of hyper rich and sex and stability deprived women to which men react). Female coverture only exists to stop women owning war veterans. The Romans didn't ban female property because they were teenage boy eating sex cultists like the reactive patriarchal forces claimed; the problem was females owned most of the wealth of Rome and had no intention of paying sex desperate men for sex when they could go shopping in a gold sedan chair instead.

>>12043068
Roastied crave beatings and sharia

>>12043317
>bullshit

If you had a normal and healthy relationship with your father you would not reflexively deny the truth.

>>12043094
For the same reason they did in the past, because women are useful biologically and because it's wired in the man's brain to protect them and want them to survive.

>>12043094
>Why would men in powerful positions surrounded by men as advisers, colleagues etc give a shit about how things are for women
Because the more masculine a man is, the greater a lover he is of the feminine. Naturally, healthy men want their women to be healthy too.

>>12043325
I have completely lost my inclination to protect women desu.

>>12043744
Fuck you

>>12043068
Your position is easy to attack as your claim relies on definition you don't provide. Aslong asI have reputable source with definition twistable enough or just obscure enough to deny your stance I can crown myself as a king of retards and be done with it.

>>12043747
That's what they say.

>>12043543
This. The fallacy in a lot of modern feminism or mainstream arguments about feminism is that the respectability of feminism is already taken as an axiom. It’s argued on extremely emotional as opposed to rational grounds. “Whoa, dude, you’re not a feminist? You don’t think men and women are exactly the same and all differences in their psyche are due to socialization? Whoa, you must be some kind of psychopath... ugh, what a chauvinist! You must be an incel, or part of the alt-right!”

All the data is then interpreted to argue in favor of the idea that men and women are exactly the same and all differences in them are due to socialization. Even if you bring up data of the extensive neurological differences between men and women, this is met with, “The different ways men and women are socialized cause their brains to grow differently!” or “But this doesn’t mean they’re REALLY different on the inside, we don’t know much about the brain and it only proves their brains are physically different!” Basically, they start with an axiom taken to be self-evident, then twist everything to suit it. It’s hard to rationally argue with such irrationality.

>>12043352
>>12043467
If you’re not trolling, you’re probably depressed and/or have anxiety issues, people who are so angry and try to convince people who obviously will not be convinced often are. This depression actually only gets worse the more and more you are angry. This is because you are not capable of feeling much real joy, interest, and meaning in life in your normal state. Because of this feeling of emptiness, you seek out conflict and passion in the form of negative emotions, i.e. such as feeling you are wronged by other people and you need to tell them what is wrong with them. Such disturbed ranting, though, only helps for a bit, and ultimately leaves you feeling more empty and drained of energy after. If you continue on this path, you will ultimately reach full-blown psychopathy and the destruction of your soul, and probably even suicide, or, even more accurately, failed suicide attempts to gain attention or to gain some more excitement or emotional drama. This is a common fate for certain of those who get too absorbed into the “SJW” mindset of criticizing and resenting others so passionately. If I’m wrong, well, I guess I’m just an idiot armchair psychologist “projecting”! Good luck, you need it.

>>12043068
Post a Jew again and I'll fucking blow your brains out.

>>12043294
Not really, I think that's just how your ego wants to see it. I mean you could easily flip it around and point out that man's compulsive need for sex makes them subservient to women.

>>12043400
Anon was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

>>12043068
no, patriarchy is simply men having sanctioned power over women. factors such as a high degree of sexual dimorphism makes patriarchy a better alternative to feminism in the west, other races have low levels of sexual dimorphism when compared to whites and so female liberation works better there than in white countries.

>>12043068

in ancient times sure, but it became functionally useless some time after the industrial revolution

>>12043068
I don't subscribe to social constructivism and postmodernism. Delusions are only real in your lifeworld. It is interesting for research purposes to get to know schizophrenic construction of reality.

Women deserve to be worshiped as gods and placed in every conceivable area of task management or other forms of administration/management. They are simply superior. Men are angry filth and amount to hard labor or other forms of menial exertion. Completely unironically.

>>12044117
I think a lot of third wave feminism has a negative effect, but that's not to say it doesn't have its place. Women have traditionally been taught to be 'ladylike' and their discourse strategies reflect this. They are taught not to be vulgar, but with boys it's always been a different standard so they swear and curse more liberally because they haven't been ostracized for it. This has been slowly changing and many feminists refuse to let their discourse be influenced by societal expectations. It can be particuarly jarring for men to hear/read from these women. But at the same time if Trump flippantly says or tweets something even more offensive, that is generally condoned by these same men.

>>12044156
these are really puerile points you are bringing up. idealized women behavior goes back to motherhood, because women specialize in child-rearing genetically and psychologically. a mother with an asshole for a mouth isn't good for children and therefore society, and this embracing of profanity for the sake of so called "equality,"to somehow "impress" upon men some disturbing feeling is not equality at all, but the debasement of femininity and the degrading of the public consciousness.

in the old days it was rude to curse around women, or even speak harshly around women. it was something men did amongst themselves, and even then it was among older men. boys cursed to emulate their older forebears, and girls were expected to restrain themselves because of their elevated status as maidens, to become mothers.

>>12043200
>>12043204
>>12043709
>>12043729
Women aren’t like, pets to be cared for in a certain way. Complicated full-blooded human beings have dreams, desires and needs regardless of gender - isn’t it at all possible that a society led by men won’t understand what it is that is best for a woman, and especially won’t desire to change their values if what they think is best makes society more comfortable for men?

Look at it this way: scientific arguments arguing for women’s belonging in the household and not working have been by and large listened to by men in history l far more than the genuine concerns and outcries by women against their practical sidelining into the household (hence the importance of The Second Sex) - men might genuinely believe that women being sidelined into the household is what’s best for women and be ‘benevolent’ in that way, but believing that doesn’t involve listening to women, and it’s in the best interests of men, who get to come home to a nice roast dinner every Sunday.

>>12044156
Double-standards can only exist between equivalent things. What is good for the chimp is bad for the house cat. What is right for the man is not necessarily right for the woman.We have a lot in common, but we differ in spirit.

When you draw false equivalences like this. and when you then use that as justification for your utopian social engineering schemes, you are interrupting the natural process that assists people in growing into the gender role the Patriarch demands of them. Like smashing a pupa to prevent a moth from forming

Women who suppress their desire for motherhood become sterile and avaricious harpies. Genius bulldyke Camille Paglia mentioned in some article how strange it is that feminism has been so far incapable of creating a narrative for motherhood that doesn't amount to "man exploits woman for personal gain." Fucking absurd that anybody could condescend their own mother so completely.

Men deprived of their masculinity are pathetic. They play mario and post on 4chan. They would be incapable of any meaningful act of self-sacrifice. Of fatherhood. Of dying for something they love. Even the most enlightened feminist woman is disgusted with these men. As a woman, she has an eye for weeding out poor genetic material.

It's interesting that on eharmony women rate 80% of men "below average" as prospective partners. Maybe it's as much the poor quality of the men nowadays as it is women being picky with their mates.

this is why im drunk when i have work in the morning

>>12044242
PS men rate women according to a standard bell curve. that is, 50% are below average. fyi.

>>12043270
Men’s increased testosterone makes them significantly stronger and more aggressive. They’re also better suited to short bursts of anaerobic activity, such as fighting. It’s hard not to be subservient to a group of people when any one of them is capable of throwing you around and tearing your limbs apart

>>12044228
You dont listen to a child who wants to eat candy instead of healthy food either.

>>12044304
There are many people, man or woman, who acquire power despite not being particularly physically strong. Men are not brutes - status is more important than strength.

>>12043379
>big property owners no matter creed or belonging is a conspiracy, and the same as a small, shrouded cabal elite that seeks to destroy humanity
wew lad

>>12044334
Lol. It's only in this hedonistic society do we have the privilege of not needing to learn the control of violence through the arts of war. The ideal man is both able warrior and scholar. To be deficient in this aspect of ourselves is neglect.

>>12044352
You certainly seem like someone who understands what the ideal man is

>>12043068
Would you still be singing the praises of patriarchy if you were a woman though?

>>12044331
I’m so glad that you know what’s best for women everywhere - truly, women who want to work, get into politics and into science rather than cooking your Thursday roast dinner and giving you unenthusiastic head once a month are lucky to have a bastion such as yourself.

I’ve also read that quote in Infinite Jest and it was better when a Canadian guy in a wheelchair was shitting on America.

>>12044361
Funny how the manchild, though he is stunted, still has this basic inclination to revere and emulate the martial tradition. I'd call it ancestral memory. Something "well-adjusted" adults seem to lack. You know that women love violent men, right? The only thing they find even more intoxicating is men who are able to temper violence with reason. The warrior becomes the soldier.

>>12043317
Did your father touch your no-no?

>>12043352
Did your father molest you as a child? Just curious about how one can become such a disgusting cunt like yourself.

Thinking you know what is best for other people is by nature uncivil. I think people are very confused by what a patriarchy actually is. It has more to do with the cultural narrative and by extension the psychological development and perception of self and others. “Undoing Yourself” and “Prometheus Rising” helped me understand this better. I hear “Info Psychology” is really good too.

>>12044373
I think what you mean is that women love men who will protect them. I mean it's definatly true some women like violent men, but they are in a minority. Seen plenty of girls get turned off by a guy who showed his thuggish side. But that's anecdotal I guess.

>>12043400
>Y'all
LOL

>>12044387
>I think what you mean is that women love men who will protect them

To women, that is what I wrote translates to. Protection. You're female.

>>12044373
Truly an expert on women is in our midst. Please, great scholar of the female sex, shower us with more of your wisdom

>>12043334
I’ve never bought into the women are inherently compassionate meme.
Most men are cannon fodder to women as well

>>12044395
Read 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins. To pilfer the ponderings of a certain someone, women are hens and men are cocks fighting eachother for their eggs. You are a rooster, dress like one. Always keep your spurs hidden beneath your feathers and always razor sharp. The one who crows loudest will be on top of the pecking order.

Imagine letting your hormones dictate you, sexual roles are a spook.

>>12044088
Ask me how I know you are a virgin. Women are into sex just as much as men are, if not more. And even if what you said was true, for arguments sake, the normal act of sex is still an act of submission on the part of the female.

>>12044410
Christ aliveeeeeee what a mess of a reply. Vague notions of chicken behaviour when trying to write about human interaction. We live in a SOCIETY, not even memeing. Awful.

>All the long posts, appeal to emotions and senseless rambling in this thread.
Guys, I think they might be actual females here.
PS: all the good chefs and cooks have always been men.

>>12043068

Every form of governance is by definition benevolent.

>>12044228
Most women are much happier staying at home and taking care of children. My wife is looking for every possible excuse to quit her job (which is high paying and required a specialist education) and become a full time mother. Alas we need to save more money first. Most women are working much shittier jobs than her, not even at half the wages she gets.
There are some rare exceptions to this rule and I do believe those women should be allowed to pursue those dreams.

P.s.

Women staying at home with children is far more important than any career, whether done by a man or woman.

>>12044418
You are being dictated to by your biology. Most of your decisions are made before you are even aware of them. Spend more time reading real things.

>>12043068

It actually makes perfect sense
It's a natural instinct for men to protect the women of their society
In a more primitive tribal society where humans gathered in much smaller groups a lack of healthy child bearing women would be a death sentence

>>12044445
I agree with that last part to a certain degree. But the normal act of sex does not constitute our lives. The general idea that men are the hunters of a sexual relationship is a gross misunderstanding.

>>12043485
You wish you were a man.

>>12044445
Also
>women are into sex just as much as men, if not more
I wrote that men have a compulsive need for sex. Most women can cope just fine without it. I'm sure that trope of a wife punishing her husband by refusing to sleep with him doesn't stem from virgin ideals about sex.

>>12044506
>Most women can cope just fine without it.
Is that why they buy the most sex toys?

>this thread
I guess talking about books you haven't read is perfect training for talking about women for /lit/

>>12044510
I want a citation on that. Not that I don't believe it but just curious. Men buy sex toys for their partners too you know. Can't say I have though, my ego is too big for that. Even so I don't think it means much. Sex toys are very practical for women to masturbate with. I don't know any guy who has bought a fleshlight for himself. You can just rub one out with your hand and some oil to get a similar effect.

While you get the citation you should also look up statistics on which gender watches the most porn.

>>12044510
Social acceptability.
>>12044542
No a penetrable toy feels way better desu.

>>12044506
Women lose their minds without sex. Any man that has been with multiple women knows that a good dicking solves almost any problem.

>>12044529
this thread is for myself and other anons who want to brag about their sexual experiences and to argue about who is ultimately better at knowing the female sex. If you don't like it then fuck off.

>>12044464
Spooky stem autist

>>12044580
But you haven't had any sexual experiences and you don't know any women

>>12044228
>arguing for women’s belonging in the household and not working
No human society has *ever* had women who don't work. In fact, in traditional societies it's the women who have "day jobs", men are expected to work short bursts of back-breaking labor.

The idea that women aren't supposed to work is a highly degenerate idea that was invented in the USA after WWI.

>>12044596
I've had quite a few, including several long term relationships. And I'm currently married.
I've also been with women from every race and social background, low IQ and high IQ, fat and thin, etc.

>>12044596
Thanks for reminding me.

>>12044623
>married
Loss all credibility, fake or not.

>>12043379
>implying the communists and Nazis are wrong

>>12044635
What's wrong with marriage?
Please have some interesting to say, don't bore me with mgtow drivel.

I’m a firm believer that patriarchy has caused us men to repress our sexuality. Bum stuff is super vulnerable and so much fun!!

>>12044639
You don’t need to argue it from a MGTOW perspective. Marriage is an outdated ceremony that exists solely to make wedding planners and divorce lawyers money. At what point do you need to blow thousands on a single party and on a dress that will never be worn again just to prove you love someone? Love transcends the material, so material displays of affection prove nothing.

>>12044957
That’s definitely a downside of the patriarchy.

>>12045030
Marriage is a process not an event, geology not weather
But definitely patriarchy makes men reluctant to bottom, which means they miss out on the most pleasurable sex

>>12044957
>>12045030
yikes

>>12045031
Marriage doesn’t even result in anything of note beyond the ceremony. In the past, it affected property rights and the ability to have children without social stigma. Now that’s no longer the case, and break ups become more complicated to to the shared ownership of assets that comes with marriage.

MGTOW and Feminists have both got it right: Marriage is dumb in the current year.

>>12045045
Marriage is what the two people involved make it. It's definetely not for everyone. Most people don't have the necessary characteristics to make it work. The modern world produces less and less such people.
And your point about there being no legal or financial benefits is false.

>>12045030
>You don’t need to argue it from a MGTOW perspective. Marriage is an outdated ceremony that exists solely to make wedding planners and divorce lawyers money. At what point do you need to blow thousands on a single party and on a dress that will never be worn again just to prove you love someone? Love transcends the material, so material displays of affection prove nothing.
This is a strawman argument. Seems like from your own personal insecurity.

begone thots
where my bois at

>>12045063
There’s just too much baggage associated with marriage nowadays to be worth it for 90% of the population. It’s no secret people stay in marriages they’re unhappy with so they don’t upset the children they have. And believe me, I speak from experience when I say that that period, plus the inevitable divorce that follows can be a living hell for a child.

There’s also the fact divorce courts are objectively biased towards the female party due to a perception of them being more vulnerable (a fact certain feminists are actively campaigning against). There are plenty of cases where this can affect the male even if they’ve done nothing wrong.

I’m not saying marriages can’t work, but most of the happy couples I’ve seen at least are boyfriend/girlfriend rather than husband/wife.

>>12043068
There are two reasonable things to say: first, if what you’re giving us is a definition then there is quite literally nothing to argue about. A definition is a definition is a definition. It makes no claims (unless your a Platonist, in which case you have bigger problems) and thus has nothing to be debated.
Second: If this is your definition, we must be using very different dictionaries OED defines patriarchy as “A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line,” which includes nothing on benevolence or purpose.
Stop bating and talk about books.

>>12043068
Given that men will always be female-centric in that the views and feelings of women are above men, it means that patriarchy is also a more privileged mode for women than an equalised society. Well, in theory it would be. In practice it means women are given favour and female-centrism is made state doctrine.

>>12045128
I am fine with this. I think this is the natural order and would make both sexes happier.

>>12045118
Once people take the 'my individual desires and my happiness are the ultimate good' pill there's no way back for marriage, or in the long run, the family unit. It can't be too long before capitalism erodes the remaining ties between individuals and we are perfect atomised consumers. Land is onto something. Maybe its good, but how long before we see something like:
>we need to stop pressuring women to raise and look after a baby just because she gave birth to it
>why children own their parents nothing

>>12045171
Capitalism itself will collapse before that happens. Infinite growth is unsustainable in the long term.

What's the best alternative to the patriarchy? A matriarchy? Wouldn't that just be the same except reversed, thus resulting in no real advancement towards equality?
Is an -archy of any kind necessary at all, or are we supposed to just select the least "harmful" option, even though one group would be getting the raw end of the stick?

>>12045190
I think it's a general prescription, not really a system or formal thing. They're just convenient words, not things in and of themselves.

>>12045190
AI autocracy

>>12044228
>isn’t it at all possible that a society led by men won’t understand what it is that is best for a woman
No, because then they wouldn't be men.

>>12045197
I have some issues understanding the whole patriarchy thing. Don't women have as much access to positions of power, be it political, military, financial or social as men do nowadays? I don't see many institutions barring women from actively joining them, in fact, now that both men and women are free to choose whatever areas of expertise they wish to purse we're seeing an astounding increment of women in the arts, medicine and humanities, while men continue to prefer hard sciences and other branches of ingenuity and production.
I can understand why some societal roles are still attributed to certain people, but I believe that's just them being conformist with the hand they've been dealt with while in reality there's no real machinating force pushing them in one or other direction.
I might just be completely ignorant; that's why I want to finally understand this whole debacle.

>>12045183
>Capitalism itself will collapse before that happens
I doubt it. We aren't far off from parents being able to completely divest from their own children. The rich can already do it, and do, (and always have done)
It will be voluntary, people might think it's bad like they do sweatshops but will do it anyway. Will you really wake up at 3am to clean a shit stained infant or will you let your Amazon/Apple service take care of that for you?

>>12045244
That's a poor analogy; people "care" about sweatshops but really don't because they are so far away and hidden from direct sight; there isn't a constant reminder in your face to elicit your empathy. A baby, your baby, on the other hand, is present at all times (or should be) before their parents. Most of them can't get over the fact that it is their baby and that they have to care for it.

>>12045221
Patriarchy refers to a society that adopts a masculine form of thinking to a harmful degree. Characteristics such as warmongering, treating women as sex objects, being unemotional and lacking in empathy are often seen as masculine characteristics of the “toxic” variety.

These problems are mostly observable in the third world, but some would argue the first world has these problems to a lesser extent.

>>12045256
>to a harmful degree
Not the guy you're responding to, but that's not part of its definition. You're talking about the inevitable side effects of a male-oriented system; but there are such side effects of ANY system, and they are not the primary intended effects. All of the negative side effects you listed each have a positive creative effect as well.

>>12045256
What would a matriarchy be like, in those terms?

>>12045268
I’m not sure myself, although I do know that it’s mostly Radical Feminists that push the Matriarchy angle, whereas others push a whole other bunch of systems ranging from Communism, Laisse-Faire Capitalism and Classical Liberalism. Feminism is a big topic for that reason.

Matriarchies have existed in historic tribes, but they were mostly wiped out by larger nation states and Empires due to them having a better military and better resources.

>>12045252
>your baby, on the other hand, is present at all times (or should be) before their parents
Aye, but for how long? The rich already farm this stuff out and see their children only when they specifically want to (how present do you think Trump is for Barron) If that becomes available to everyone I see no reason why they won't behave as the rich do

>>12045299
If anyone would resist that, then it would be women. They’re genetically hardwired to care about their children in a way men aren’t.

>>12045307
Infant mortality is rising in the US. So is the infant homicide rate. Killing your young is sometimes a valid survival strategy in resource poor environments. In lions, a new male kills all the young from the previous male and the females just got with it and hunt more meat for the new offspring they have with him. In humans, the mother is usually the greatest risk to an infant outside disease. They usually bond and think they will be better humans than everyone they've ever met, but usually it's females who kill infants, not men. Men kill older children and usually not their own. Both are probably some vestige of genetic optimisation, but expecting women to resist baby killing is just naive. Men resist that, and try to kill rival males from 5 and up, in order to secure more women and therefore babies. Women kill babies, but think killing anyone above 5 means your mother didn't teach you compassion by letting you survive, and if she let you survive then you should have manners. It's why women claim there's be no war if they were in charge. We're still pack predators, male and female, so getting rid of the weak makes sense to us, but when we assess weakness is different.

>>12045364
>It's why women claim there's be no war if they were in charge.
women havent even shown they can run a company alone and theyve been emancipated for decades

>>12045369
There's be no war because there's be Brave New World style eugenics and mass infanticide. I'm not saying that would be better, but it does cut down on military service by requiring men to stay with their young to ensure survival of their young. Aristophanes wrote several plays about this as a major criticism of Athenian democracy. Read more and better, I'm saying they're right for a horrible reason, not that we should let them do it.

>>12045380
there would be none of that, society would just collapse within like 5 years

>>12045380
>there's be
Fuck my fat fingers. There *Would* be

Let me get this straight, women need special priveleges now because there is a patriarchy but once thats gone they wont want, need or use special priveleges? Am I supposed to believe this?

>>12045383
Yes, everyone said that when the pill and abortion were made available, but it turns out there is still genetic value in those things. Humans aren't going to die off because women kill babies any more than humanity will die off because men wage war. Some humans will die in the process, but a lion taking over another lion's harem of lionesses and killing all their young doesn't kill off lions; it keeps them from becoming herbivores and provides the new lion's genetic advantage to the lionesses, and so stops lions from dying off and being eaten by tigers. Society won't collapse because of it. The infant mortality rates have been rising far longer than five years in the US. It doesn't mean there will be no people there to compete for resources in 200 years. It's just a different genetic selection mechanism than was in use 50 years ago, though it has happened before and will probably have to happen again. We go through phases of both males and females weighing in on who dies and how, but females tend to spare the older and kill the younger, while men tend to kill their male rivals. Men killing other men also won't collapse society in 5 years and it's probable that men killing men and women killing babies are actually ensuring society survives.

>>12043068
You're isignificant enough to lack a mind worth changing. Change my mind.

>>12045424
Society is in fact collapsing, the fertility rate is about 1 all over the West and importing Somalis isn't going to fix it

>>12045435
>Society is in fact collapsing
Just parts of it, and all systems possess entropy.

>>12045435
>But if we lose a couple billion people there will only be a couple billion people left! We'll run out!
That will be your dumb genetic code talking through your dick. We could kill six billion and still be apex predators with a bright future.