/lit/ - Literature

None.

Feminism destroys form.
Feminism destroys marriage.
Feminism destroys the relationship between the sexes.
Feminism destroys the natural and God-commanded institution of human patriarchy

There is nothing good about it. All of it rests on a lie. That there is an a-gendered objective “self” that is being repressed in women by patriarchy. But it doesn’t exist.

>>22724390
Weininger.

Camille Paglia

>>22724390
The Polygamous Sex

>>22724397
Just be gay lol, free yourself from women if you don't like them.

>>22724495
Feminism is a hatred of womanhood.

>>22724390
Madame Bovary
When it was first published Emma was unironically seen as a liberated woman who did what others couldn’t.

>>22724390
Gunter Grass's The Flouner
John Milton's Paradise Lost
Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales
Leo Tolstoy's The Kreutzer Sonata
Boccaccio's The Decameron

>>22724390
Anything written by bell hooks

>>22724390
The Bible.

the diary of anais nin

>>22724390
The Awakening by Kate Chopin

>>22724390
some of the best erotica out there

>>22724495
>Being critical of feminism
>ZOMG just come out of the closet already
Reddit coal

>>22724390
JESUS FUCK LOVE YOU WILL BURN YOUR FUCKING HAND IF YOU'RE SMOKING TOBACCO LIKE THAT
AND ONE DOES NOT SMOKE MARIHUANA OUT OF A TOBACCO PIPE

THE BOWL WILL BE TOO HOT BY FAR.

You do however have a lovely draw for a 1970s photograph printed in CMYK and badly scanned. I suspect, however, that you're smoking something girly like straight turkish. Smoke something manly, full of sugar flavours and artificially cherry topped. Real men like their tobacco like they like their boys, sugary sweet and artificial.

>>22724390
Manazuru by Hiromi Kawakami. it's one of the few books I've read that earnestly talks about how women view pregnancy and children - that being that they feel a primal urge to have kids and be pregnant but don't actually want them when they finally achieve what they sought

>>22724495
Its not that he does not like women, its the opposite, he cares deeply for them and thats why he dares to acknowledge that feminism killed femininity and made women deeply unhappy by turning them into 2nd rate men who now have to also pay taxes.

>>22724462
>>22724804

ChadFaceYes.png

Picrel if your interested in Korean feminism

>>22724390
De Sade
>>22724804
Lol this. Feminists and incels are virtually identical

doris lessing

There's some really good Bell Hooks, where what she talks a lot about how harsh gender roles often hurt men as much as women and try to make them feel guilty for not being supernatural beings, etc.

My honest advice though is to just talk to and be friends with women. No better form of feminism and nothing more freeing than having a friendship with a woman that is completely platonic.

scum manifesto is over the top on purpose but i would recommend it

>>22727085
>On purpose
I found it funny but Solanas was genuinely insane lol. Not to mention how she mostly wrote it because she was fuming at Andy Warhol.

I just don't know if feminism is going to work
Almost all military, all gang, all mofia male dominated only, for all conflicts comes down to physical enforcement, the best female athlete on the planet are proficient enough to play in male armature the gap is so immense like you wouldn't believe it, modernity safe society advance weapons had render close quarter physical violence useless so feminism now starting to have a ground, US military higher up are getting more progressive makes room for female? you don't see this in gang/mofia yet, try convince a prison gang group on feminism, it's going to be impossible.
So such ideology couldn't flourish(ruling over patriarchy), so, not yet, not today.

>>22724390
>Feminist
>literature
Anon, I...

>>22724826
No one is reading this shite. Stop shilling her

>>22727619
>EFL barbarian or stoner being right but using the most retarded argument

>>22724390
Plato's Republic

>>22724397
>nooooo ahhh not my 1950 ideanerinoooo of the nuclear family ahhhh

>>22727846
It seems that unexpected demographics also frequent this board

>>22727846
All form qua form is propaedeutic to ultimate and true form, or essence. When in doubt, study forms that great and noble men accepted in the past. Talking to your son, friend, or brother, and have an uneasy feeling he is a retarded faggot? Know what you DON'T like about him, but don't know of any alternatives (yet)? Study what other societies have considered normal and formal. Trust your instincts: at base, they are the same instincts (that is, metaphysical drives toward truth, beauty, and goodness) that impelled innumerable civilizations to create advanced moral frameworks and civilizations. But they had to start somewhere. You can start, right now, with even the most vague prehension that your chum acting like a FAGGOT is "bad." Your very recognition of a binary between good and bad anticipates the fuller awakening of your metaphysical faculties for distinguishing between GOOD and EVIL.

Don't like that women all act like whores? Not sure where to go from there? Study the 1950s. Are they likely to have had everything 100% right? No, but nobody is. Again, trust your instincts. Look for signs of health where today you see only unhealth. Notice everybody is smiling more? Healthier? More poised, more graceful, more natural? Correlation does not prove causation, but a series of correlations implies a cause to be discovered. Can you go back further than the 1950s? Soon you will begin to contemplate the very essence and nature of male and female archetypes and their archetypal relationships, without even realizing it. This is the metaphysical sympathy for essence that defines the philosopher, as described by Plato in the Seventh Letter. That's right, just by hating whores and vaguely preferring the way people in the 1950s "felt," you are already practicing Platonism. Go forth!

>>22727866
You're single

>>22724397
your mindset sucks bro

>>22728419
Why?

>>22726970
Not really because patriarchy is the natural order of things. God didn’t create woman before man.

>>22729125
Don’t answer them it’s bait.

>>22724462

>>22729125
It doesn't. Some simp disillusioned by spooks wants to prove you wrong by roping you into his illusions. Don't fall for it

>>22726399
those numbers don't matter since there are vastly larger number of men on those services compared to women.

>>22724943
>Reddit
we are all posting on an obscure offshoot of a mongolian anime imageboard best known for its associations with child pornography, none of us are cool

>>22729285
how much breathing room specifically?

>>22724390
What are*

>>22729325
breathing room? hm?

>>22724397
Motherless hands typed this

>>22724390
>*hits pipe*
>imagine having a son

>>22729328
No lol ''is'' is correct here

>>22729328
''what are some actually decent literature?'' does that sound correct to you retard? you could say ''what are some actually decent pieces/works of literature''

>>22729285
I don’t care about being cool, I just care about being right

>>22727885
Who cares if he is or not. The very fact men cannot choose their own wives is very troubling. More men will check out of society if this need cannot be met.

>>22727008
>Bell Hooks
>During a 2013 visit to Rollins College, she told an audience that she always wrote her name in lowercase because she wanted people to focus on her books, not “who I am.” (Ironically, the spelling of her name became a matter of public fascination.)

>>22727846
Feminism would spare the extended family? Get real, hoe.

>>22729483
Men can choose their own wives? You're simply not allowed to force anyone in most parts of the world which should be absolute common sense, since i assume you don't want to get married to someone you find gross either. Try being attractive in any sort of way lol

>>22729483
I have respect for people who abstain, the ascetic lifestyle and the ones who earnestly practice it are worth looking up to, but anyone (man or woman) who actually wants to have a partner but cannot attract one is just pathetic, nothing else.

>>22729576
All your problems get solved by finding a partner who shares the same values as you. It's super simple actually, first step: Be attractive/valuable in some way shape or form with some actual self-respect. Step two: Find a partner who shares the same values as you. Done, solution to all the Incel shit. Instead of bitching and moaning.

>>22729669
If you're not attractive yet work on yourself, atleast have a nice body or be funny or have a good job or be passionate or have interesting stories. And if nothing works just fuck start fucking men condition yourself into that, even the most average gay men get so much fucking action its unbelievable.

>>22729677
Do this all without taking the easy route and being a simp thats the most unattractive thing ever honestly, have some self respect and work on yourself. just my two cents

>>22729158
>>22729171
>>22729125
Your mindset sucks because racism and sexism are symptoms of a simple mind that chose to be simple or was taught. In other words, you're undereducated, or alternatively, too stubborn to challenge yourself.

>>22729684
I agree with sexism but racism can most definitely be valid

>>22729241
This is also bumble, a feminist app which requires women to make the first move. And women almost never do that. They literally don't have the balls.
So the ratio being 76 to 24% is not surprising.

>>22724390
Wartens Farrell the myth of male power amd anything by Paglia and Christina Hoff sommers. Katherine McKinnons anti porn stuff is pretty good to. Same with old phyllis shafly stuff. Naomi wolf's new stuff is decent

>>22729696
Okay, I propose that everyone on the Earth takes a wet fart in you and your mother's face. It would be valid. Goodbye.

>>22727008
Bell is an example of how feminists are just unempathetic beings who cannot understand men

>>22724390
all ibsen's dramas

>>22724397
Don't ever let the haters get you down bro. What you said, real.

>>22729744
You're childish lol, using your own words you either have a simple mind or you're too stuborn to challenge yourself.

>>22724390
>What is some actually decent Feminist literature?
Duolicous profiles

>>22724390
Was Agatha Christie really a necrophile or is that just me listening to unreliable narrators again

Mary Shelley too, why do all good female writers talk so much about dead people

>>22730240
Wait fuck I read female literature and not feminist literature, I thought anon at the start was sperging about how women cant write or something IDK I dont read feminisn stuff

>>22724390
Silvia Federici
bell hooks

>>22724804
No. Modern feminism is a critique of tyrannical forces in society. bell hooks, for example, doesn't talk solely about patriarchal men, but also patriarchal women, and how both contribute to patriarchy, which is a tyrannical system just as much as matriarchy is. Actually decent feminists are interested in deepening the emotional bonds between men and women and approach things in a more psychoanalytical sense, instead diagnosing various mental illnesses which get in the way of intimacy and happiness.

Example: men are not more sexual than women, and lusting after women is not natural for men. This is the result of a patriarchal society which has 1) sexually repressed women and 2) emotionally damaged men, teaching them to hate themselves as part of their disciplinary education in childhood, which in turn creates a fear of vulnerability and thus intimacy, warping love into various perversions, like Freud's Madonna—whore complex.

>>22730257
>patriarchal men, but also patriarchal women
Ah yes. The whole "patriarchy is also bad for men" trope. Is there anything about patriarchy that benefits men? Surely, since we call it a patriarchy it must mean that men benefit from it?
No, patriarchy is bad for men.
But good for some men!
And some women...
Why are we calling it the patriarchy again? It's not even used in the same way that premoderns used it.

>>22729332
Feminists think that motherhood is oppressive or something. So if anything it's the other way around

>>22730257
>men are not more sexual than women, and lusting after women is not natural for men
can you actually prove that though instead of just pulling statements out of your ass like:
>This is the result of a patriarchal society which has 1) sexually repressed women
How? also, women do not seem very repressed today. There could also be something else behind it.
>and 2) emotionally damaged men
how?
>teaching them to hate themselves as part of their disciplinary education in childhood
oh, you mean feminism. got it. At least it's not as bad as saying "it teaches them to repress their emotions and not speak about them" because oh boy, those people have never actually had depression. Or they were too stupid and thought they could be impartial by constructing dubious causes for their depression that had nothing to do with their desires

>>22730272
>Is there anything about patriarchy that benefits men?
It was never beneficial for men, but it was beneficial for society at one time. That time is gone now due to industrial technology reforming the landscape of civilization. Now, patriarchy only serves to reinforce artificial boundaries that everyone can see are artificial.

>Why are we calling it the patriarchy again?
Because it's a system in which men are permitted tyrannical rule over others, like matriarchy is for women.

Pressure a tyrant and you find a weakling; pressure a weakling and you find a tyrant. What purpose does patriarchy have in the modern world, and what kind of people still want it? No one healthy and strong today wants it. Many men and women are having loads of sex and are happy without it.

>>22730257
>>22730285
>approach things in a more psychoanalytical sense, instead diagnosing various mental illnesses which get in the way of intimacy and happiness.
psychoanalysis is all about pathologizing other people by applying current behavior to dubious, if not made-up causes that happened in the past. The truth is that you will never be a reliable narrator.

Also, you want to deepen "emotional bonds"? tell women that the moment they reach 30 their fertility starts to drop.
You know, for all this talk about demanding people be productive and ambitious, these people still think people not having children is a problem that needs to be remedied by importing labor from "patriarchal" societies

>>22730257
>Actually decent feminists are interested in deepening the emotional bonds between men and women
Then why call themselves feminists if they don't believe in a male vs. female dialectic? Sounds like bs to brainwash male feminists

>>22724397

>>22730291
wow, you really are good at saying nothing at all.
>It was never beneficial for men, but it was beneficial for society at one time.
how so?
>That time is gone now due to industrial technology reforming the landscape of civilization
how so?
>Now, patriarchy only serves to reinforce artificial boundaries that everyone can see are artificial.
what "artificial boundaries" are you talking about and how does their being artificial make them, I suppose, bad?
>Because it's a system in which men are permitted tyrannical rule over others
but men are not permitted tyrannical rule over others? Tyranny has never really been permitted.
>What purpose does patriarchy have in the modern world
I don't know. I don't even know what the fuck you people even mean by the word "patriarchy". You certainly do not mean a family structure where the father makes the biggest decisions.
>No one healthy and strong today wants it
wow, what a shrewdly intelligent rhetorician you are.

>Many men and women are having loads of sex and are happy without it.
ok, THIS is interesting. I don't know how your sex life is but mine is pretty shit and I don't really feel happy without it. In fact, I feel very lonely as I'm sure plenty of other people do.

>>22730291
>Many men and women are having loads of sex
So are you arguing that the fuck rate has actually increased over the dedades?

>>22730313
decades*

>>22730312
I forgot to add: are you implying people would be happier if they stopped having promiscuous sex or something?

>>22730285
>How? also, women do not seem very repressed today.
That would be because we're not living under patriarchal rule anymore, but some men and women still perpetuate the values of patriarchy, and when that happens, there's usually a condemnation of sexually free women (and even men occasionally) that comes with it. Patriarchy sexually represses women because it forbids them from having much if any say or selection in the sexual or partnering process and it encourages values like timidity and passivity in women. If you wanted to spot a patriarchal woman, just find one who thinks that men are supposed to always make the first move and ask the woman out and also pay for the meal on the first date and all that; these are patriarchal values being perpetuated into the modern world which no longer suit it and uphold artificial boundaries.

>how?
Read bell hooks

>>22730297
Psychoanalysis is finding the underlying rationality in seemingly erratic behaviors.

>Also, you want to deepen "emotional bonds"? tell women that the moment they reach 30 their fertility starts to drop.
Women are aware of this. There are many other forces at play here, however, like capitalism, which is another system which perpetuates tyranny.

>>22730298
>Then why call themselves feminists if they don't believe in a male vs. female dialectic?
Because the label denotes concentration on critiquing a specific strand of tyranny in society which stems from a small group of men. It's not suggesting the promotion of female tyranny over men. It's about critique only.

>>22730312
Patriarchy was beneficial for society when the physical strength of men was absolutely necessary for our survival. Modern technology has made this no longer a necessary ingredient.

>what "artificial boundaries" are you talking about
Political and social ones. There is no reason anymore to prevent women from being able to vote, work, participate in selecting partners, be educated, have opinions, etc. It doesn't hurt anyone besides the most tyrannical, insecure men to allow women to do these things. It doesn't make women unruly and ugly, besides to these men, who want women to be repressed and passive.

>but men are not permitted tyrannical rule over others?
Patriarchy is no longer the rule, I said this already. However, patriarchal values continue to be perpetuated.

>I don't even know what the fuck you people even mean by the word "patriarchy"
You're on the literature board, go read some books on the topic then, or sit tight and give me the time needed to write out an explanation and answer questions.

>You certainly do not mean a family structure where the father makes the biggest decisions.
Yes, that is a huge part of it. Why did you think that wasn't what was meant?

>In fact, I feel very lonely as I'm sure plenty of other people do.
Most likely t's because you live under the thumb of patriarchal values that were passed along to you through your parents, teachers, doctors, and in the entertainment and media industries, which have prevented you from developing a personality that's attractive to women. It's very easy to have sex today, as long as you aren't a bore who takes himself too seriously.

non est

>>22730313
>>22730319
For men and women who have rid themselves of at least some patriarchal values, yes, the fuck rate has increased.

>>22730321
>just find one who thinks that men are supposed to always make the first move and ask the woman out and also pay for the meal on the first date and all that
why is that explicitly patriarchal? It does not restrict women's selection in partners at all. You can compare this to the selection in other animals like birds of paradise. Maybe you are just constructing some artificial view of the world
>these are patriarchal values being perpetuated into the modern world which no longer suit it and uphold artificial boundaries.
why do they no longer suit it?

>Read bell hooks
argue more

>Psychoanalysis is finding the underlying rationality in seemingly erratic behaviors.
Psychoanalysis is all about pathologizing people and trying to put blame for behaviours that are considered erratic on dubious causes.
>Women are aware of this
you'd be surprised by how many are not aware of this. A guy who works for a firm that deals with artificial insemination annually gets university students for visits and whenever he talks about fertility and the reason behind his job he can notice how the female students grow visually paler and dejected.
But hey, career first, kids later, right? Bell would agree. she's all for girlboss feminism (but not feminists who are still pro-life because her intersectionality is complete arbitrary nonsense)

>>22730321
>critiquing a specific strand of tyranny in society which stems from a small group of men
Do you realize that you cannot "deepen the bonds between men and women" when your critique consists in blaming men, right?

>but I'm not blaming men, I'm blaming a small *group* of men
You are still choosing to characterize such group by their gender. In your view, it follows that men who do not hold power are just tyrants in potential. For a critique that supposedly pretends to bring men and women together, it's hilarious how many gynocentric assumptions it makes.

If society is ruled by a small cabal of men, like you are saying, then it's natural to assume that a small cabal of women holds soft power. After all, men in power want sex. Men in power are more likely to benefit women than to benefit disenfranchised males. So your critique focuses solely on the perspective of the woman who resents the male despots, while it simply invalidates the perspective of the common man, whose status is lower than the women's.

>>22730352
>Patriarchy was beneficial for society when the physical strength of men was absolutely necessary for our survival
what does physical strength have to do with patriarchy?
>There is no reason anymore to prevent women from being able to vote, work, participate in selecting partners, be educated, have opinions, etc.
there's actually a lot of reasons that can be made for a whole host of things. I don't know why you call these things "artificial" though. they are as artificial as human rights. I can think of reasons why nobody should be allowed to vote, why women would benefit society more if they put family before careers. Then again, I'm not as obsessed about the vague dogma of "human liberty" as some people. Nobody wants to be a good person, I guess.
>Patriarchy is no longer the rule, I said this already
ok, we do not live under a patriarchy. got it.
>go read some books on the topic then
I have. I just think you guys make shit up. It's basically just a specter. You already admitted that we do not live in a patriarchy.
>Yes, that is a huge part of it. Why did you think that wasn't what was meant?
because that is detached from everything you have been talking about? That is the only thing that is meant by patriarchy. not the fluff you obsess about.
>Most likely t's because you live under the thumb of patriarchal values that were passed along to you through your parents, teachers, doctors, and in the entertainment and media industries, which have prevented you from developing a personality that's attractive to women
listen man, there is no way for you to actually know this. You don't actually know me but you have constructed a lens to see the world in a certain distorted way. I live in a highly progressive society and was raised by highly progressive parents with highly progressive teachers surrounded by highly progressive entertainment media industries. I'm not exactly stupid enough to just gobble up everything I see. Also, plenty of assholes who you'd consider to have "patriarchal values" or whatever get pussy so that is definitely not the case. Hell, my friend who you'd call a nazi (he thinks the Jews are trying to kill Europeans and absolutely hates modern society. He's also a drop out) is having a baby with an ex-miss universe contestant. lol
>It's very easy to have sex today, as long as you aren't a bore who takes himself too seriously.
for you maybe. not for me. It's really easy to just speak from your experience. also, I would rather have an actual relationship.

>>22730363
Does it follow that men and women who reject "patriarchal values" have more kids than those who don't?

>>22730363
too bad they don't have any children. In any case, I doubt it has, the fuck rate has actually decreased and you'd know this if you actually bothered to look it up

>>22730352
>you live under the thumb of patriarchal values that were passed along to you through your parents, teachers, doctors, and in the entertainment and media industries, which have prevented you from developing a personality that's attractive to women
>It's very easy to have sex today
Choose one and only one.

>>22730367
>why is that explicitly patriarchal?
Because it originates from previous patriarchal societies which defined masculinity as assertive and femininity as passive, roles that were never a universal constant among human tribes in history.

>It does not restrict women's selection in partners at all.
No, but it hurts men today, because it pressures men to be something they naturally aren't, and which there is less and less supporting infrastructure for, which feminists like bell hooks acknowledge, which is why women like her tend to be more critical of other women than of men.

>why do they no longer suit it?
Because we don't need the protection of physically strong men like we used to thanks to technological and medicinal advances, and the socioeconomic infrastructure has changed enough over time that it's hardly sustainable.

>Psychoanalysis is all about pathologizing people and trying to put blame for behaviours that are considered erratic on dubious causes.
Quack psychoanalysis is this. Anyone taking up the enterprise in a genuine manner approaches it scientifically. Good psychoanalysis is backed by statistics, surveys, and neurological tests.

>But hey, career first, kids later, right?
You can thank capitalism for that.

>>22730394
>Do you realize that you cannot "deepen the bonds between men and women" when your critique consists in blaming men, right?
bell hooks does not critique men exclusively, and it is critique, not blame.

>You are still choosing to characterize such group by their gender.
It was a small group of insecure men in the past who created these values, not men as a whole. Most men have been victims of this small group just like most women have been. You're projecting onto feminism your own fear of being persecuted right now by claiming that it's all about blaming men as a whole.

>the common man, whose status is lower than the women's.
Why do you think it's lower?

>>22730352
It's posts like this that really show that progressives are incapable of critical-thinking

>>22724397

Declamatio de nobilitate et praecellentia foeminei sexus (Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa)

>>22730403
>what does physical strength have to do with patriarchy?
When it was necessary for our survival, we formed political and social rules which encouraged it.

>That is the only thing that is meant by patriarchy.
Patriarchy is any system that promotes the domination of men over women and children.

>>22730411
Why do you think they're not having children? You probably have some caricature in your head of some angry middle-aged cat lady. In reality, most women, even feminist women, want children, but many don't end up having them because of money (which is why most men who don't end up having them don't either).

>>22730416
>Choose one and only one.
>as long as you aren't a bore who takes himself too seriously.
Missed this part, I guess?

>>22730418
>Because it originates from previous patriarchal societies
no? previous patriarchal societies arranged their marriages. Also, you are implying that there is nothing natural about men going for women instead of the other way around.
>No, but it hurts men today, because it pressures men to be something they naturally aren't,
so now you bring nature into this. what are men "naturally"?

>Because we don't need the protection of physically strong men like we used to thanks to technological and medicinal advances
again, you are really clutching it with this physical strength shit as if that was the only aspect of traditional societies or even universal to patriarchal societies. It really shows a lack of nuance or seriousness with the topic at hand.

>Quack psychoanalysis is this.
all psychoanalysis is this. it's pure pseudoscience. A product of men who were too stupid and uncritical for philosophy.

>You can thank capitalism for that.
I can thank progressivism for that. and feminism. I'm not a retarded marxist who thinks economics determine societies. Ideology is always more important.

>It was a small group of insecure men in the past who created these values
name them please. I want names

>Why do you think it's lower?
maybe because we live in a matriarchy that prioritises women over men?

>>22730437
>When it was necessary for our survival, we formed political and social rules which encouraged it.
Way to dodge the question. what does physical strength have explicitly to do with patriarchy?

>Patriarchy is any system that promotes the domination of men over women and children.
Or... a family where the father makes the biggest decisions. as it was envisioned in the past.
but sure, domination is the standard everywhere. Doesn't mean domination is bad. Someone has to rule.

>>22730418
>Most men have been victims of this small group just like most women have been
Yet you seem to refuse to engage with the opposite idea: that a small group of women benefit from such values, the same way that a small group of men does.

>Why do you think it's lower?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that feminists like you gaslight male complaints while pretending to oppose the status quo. Truly the system's biggest jannies.

>>22724390
Feminist lit? Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley is one of the best.

Shame she sexually abused her own and strangers' kids.

>>22730437
>as long as you aren't a bore who takes himself too seriously.
it's really stuff like this that show how unempathetic you people are. I mean, what if he's autistic? in the end, you just create your own precepts and expectations for people but your uncritical perspective prevents you from seeing this.

>>22730437
>Missed this part, I guess?
So are you saying that overcoming oppressive values imposed by media and institutions is as easy as not being a bore? Great, then no one needs this feminism thing. I'm sure you are not having lots of fun by trying to defend it anyways, huh

Dunno why you guys expect anything else but pilpul from the feminism lover lol.

>>22730440
>previous patriarchal societies arranged their marriages.
How does this contradict what I said?

>Also, you are implying that there is nothing natural about men going for women instead of the other way around.
It isn't natural. Men have to be conditioned to be assertive, and women to be passive.

>what are men "naturally"?
Adult humans with penises.

>It really shows a lack of nuance or seriousness with the topic at hand.
Instead of this completely pointless response, how about providing an alternative explanation for why patriarchy arose?

>all psychoanalysis is this. it's pure pseudoscience.
Nice opinion.

>Ideology is always more important.
For the common person, the need for security is always more important. In capitalist society, security is linked with capital, so the common person prioritizes gaining capital over everything else. For many people who don't have much capital, this means forgoing having children by necessity.

>I want names
Of men who didn't write their names down? Good luck with that pointless endeavor.

>maybe because we live in a matriarchy that prioritises women over men?
How does it prioritize women over men?

>>22730446
>what does physical strength have explicitly to do with patriarchy?
Men, since they don't get pregnant or have menstrual cycles, are better suited for physical strength training. Because physical strength was more necessary in the past, this means patriarchy was beneficial to the survival of humanity in the past.

>Someone has to rule.
Why does it have to be only one person within a specific unit?

>>22730452
>Yet you seem to refuse to engage with the opposite idea: that a small group of women benefit from such values
I'm not refusing to do this, though. In what way am I?

>feminists like you gaslight male complaints
What complaints am I gaslighting?

>>22730458
>I mean, what if he's autistic?
Most people aren't autistic and I wasn't referring to the exceptions, but the common person, who can definitely have sex rather easily today, so long as they rid themselves of outdated values pushed on them by adults during their childhood.

>>22730462
>So are you saying that overcoming oppressive values imposed by media and institutions is as easy as not being a bore?
Performing the former results in the latter, so yes. Without a methodical critique of these values, which is all feminism is, we wouldn't have a very good sense of this. We, as in those who actually read and reflect, not you, who pretends to read, but is far more ideologically driven than I am.

>>22730476
>How does this contradict what I said?
it was the father and not the son who made the move and he didn't even make it on the daughter. Even then, societies you deem to have been patriarchal had a lot of nuances and were not as monolithic as you make them out to be.

>It isn't natural. Men have to be conditioned to be assertive, and women to be passive.
read this carefully: if men are not naturally assertive and have to be conditioned into being assertive, then what are they? are they naturally passive? are women naturally passive?
then this: might men have to condition themselves into assertiveness in order to attract women?

>Adult humans with penises.
the patriarchy is pressuring men into being baby animals without penises? are you trolling?

>Instead of this completely pointless response, how about providing an alternative explanation for why patriarchy arose?
I'm not even sure if patriarchy is a useful word to describe whatever you are trying to describe. My problem is first and foremost with you taking these claims so seriously when you obviously do not have the full truth.

>For the common person, the need for security is always more important. In capitalist society, security is linked with capital, so the common person prioritizes gaining capital over everything else. For many people who don't have much capital, this means forgoing having children by necessity.
ok, Hobbes. Anyway, why are so many poor people having children? I mean, my nazi friend is not exactly rich. They live with his gf's mother.
maybe this talk of being "poor" is actually just about being broke and you just want to move away from your family as soon as physically possible. But that has more to do with psychology/ideology.

>Of men who didn't write their names down?
what did they write, then?

>How does it prioritize women over men?
I don't know. More women are graduating college and universities than men (at least in my progressive country) and their concerns are always on the front page. And we always still have "a long way to go" when it comes to feminist issues.

>Men, since they don't get pregnant or have menstrual cycles, are better suited for physical strength training. Because physical strength was more necessary in the past, this means patriarchy was beneficial to the survival of humanity in the past.
this is a non sequitur. first: you are assuming that physical strength is the sole reason behind past family structures and second: are leaving out other aspects of this system that may have been beneficial not because of physical strength which I can only see helping you with protecting your family and hunting food.

>Why does it have to be only one person within a specific unit?
It doesn't have to be one, but it is definitely not the children. In any case, I was more referring to the fact that domination is a constant. This specific family might not have any sole "ruler" or whatever, but they still adhere to a state.

>>22730522
>but the common person, who can definitely have sex rather easily today, so long as they rid themselves of outdated values
I'm pretty sure there's more to it than that. You seem to think people are all the same. Also, what if he is autistic? Do you just say "tough luck pal" because no woman likes autistic men or something? I don't think values have much to do with attracting a mate. Again, there are plenty of people you deem to have "patriarchal values" that have partners. Also, who's to say you aren't demanding they be something that they are not. In a lot of cases, they came to this conclusion by themselves since we actually live in a progressive society.

>>22730542
>More women are graduating college and universities than men
to illustrate this: in the countryside, about 40% of women graduate from college whereas for men it is only 17%
Maybe college environment is geared toward women? Maybe our society encourages women to be ambitious and reach higher and higher, break the glass ceiling narrative and all that. I don't know. I'm not going to pretend to know.

>>22730522
You state to not be ideologically driven in the same sentence you claim that people can only be pleasant if they buy into your feminist discourse. You're special. lmao

>>22730557
Ironically these people do the same mistakes that PUA's make: think there is some clear, explicit method and type of person you have to be in order to attract a woman

>>22730573
I don't think these types actually see you guys as human. They are so convinced and full of themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is simply unacceptable, they simply must be close to clinically insane. Carl Schmitt talks about this in his critique of liberalism.

>>22730542
>Even then, societies you deem to have been patriarchal had a lot of nuances and were not as monolithic as you make them out to be.
Does them not being as monolithic mean they should be exempt from critique? What's your point?

>if men are not naturally assertive and have to be conditioned into being assertive, then what are they?
They can be anything, as long as they're adult humans with penises.

>might men have to condition themselves into assertiveness in order to attract women?
Only to attract women conditioned into wanting assertiveness.

>the patriarchy is pressuring men into being baby animals without penises? are you trolling?
Are you following the conversation at all? This isn't remotely what I was implying. I was answering a question.

>I'm not even sure if patriarchy is a useful word to describe whatever you are trying to describe.
You're the one making this out to be some vague concept that's difficult to grasp. It's very clear what patriarchy means, it means a system where men have control over women and children, where the fathers make all the decisions for the family, and government is entirely of men, and the flow of society is dictated entirely by men, and all the values that are promoted by such a structure, which are varied and abundant, with the common trait being that they reinforce the complete domination of men over others.

>what did they write, then?
Most of them didn't write anything. We're talking about a process that predates recorded history.

>More women are graduating college and universities than men
Not related to matriarchy or feminism.

>their concerns are always on the front page.
Not true.

>And we always still have "a long way to go" when it comes to feminist issues.
We do.

>you are assuming that physical strength is the sole reason behind past family structures
No, I am saying it was the main reason. How about you get to the point though, because you're beating around the bush and saying nothing.

>>22730557
>You seem to think people are all the same.
When did I ever imply that?

>Also, what if he is autistic?
Then he's in an extreme minority and not relevant to the discussion.

>I don't think values have much to do with attracting a mate.
They do in modern society where women have more control over the flow of said society.

>>22730367
>Bell [sic] would agree. she's all for girlboss feminism (but not feminists who are still pro-life because her intersectionality is complete arbitrary nonsense)
She specifically argues against careerism because it creates the illusion of freedom, when what really happens to careerists is the exchange of one dominating force (patriarchy) for another dominating force (capitalism), both of which make authentic, mutual love of the other impossible. It’s painfully obvious you haven’t read her.

Likewise, intersectionality isn’t an invitation to let literally everyone into every movement. It makes the point that various kinds of social stigma overlap. For example, women are all under pressure to look pretty, but because whiteness is considered more attractive than blackness, black women are under additional pressure. It’s a critique of social trends. “Pro-life” doesn’t mark a woman in the same way that womanhood or race does, because she can freely change her mind.

>>22724397
They hate for telling the truth

>>22730575
>>22730600
>think there is some clear, explicit method and type of person you have to be in order to attract a woman
>anyone who disagrees with them is simply unacceptable, they simply must be close to clinically insane
Never implied this. Stop projecting your caricatures onto me.

>>22730638
>Does them not being as monolithic mean they should be exempt from critique?
no, but it does call your critique into question

>They can be anything, as long as they're adult humans with penises.
but they all have to be conditioned into being assertive? stop trying to weasel out of this.

>Only to attract women conditioned into wanting assertiveness.
or maybe because in order to approach the opposite sex with the intention or goal of attracting it you have to be assertive and self-confident to a degree? also, I don't know about you but have you actually asked women what they find attractive? because almost all of them will mention confidence. Also also, you do not actually know for certain that it was conditioned or if it was natural and society molded to it. What preferences are even allowed in your view?

>Are you following the conversation at all? This isn't remotely what I was implying.
I think you might be autistic if you didn't understand what I was getting at. You said that the patriarchy forces men to be something that they "naturally aren't" as if it is forcing them to go against their nature. but all you say that men naturally are is "human adult with penis"

>It's very clear what patriarchy means, it means a system where men have control over women and children, where the fathers make all the decisions for the family, and government is entirely of men, and the flow of society is dictated entirely by men
and we do not have that. that is evidently not what you are trying to describe. You are postulating some vague causes about people's preferences and behavior and attributing them to this thing that we do not live under (which you yourself said earlier we do not live under). you say that it is the structure that promotes these values and yet we do not live in a patriarchy.

>Most of them didn't write anything. We're talking about a process that predates recorded history.
you said that it was a select group of men and now you are saying it is a process that "predates recorded history" which might as well mean "it's natural"

>Not related to matriarchy or feminism.
ok? I supposed it was the patriarchy that gave women the right to education and encourages them to graduate from universities.

>Not true.
It is true. It's standard procedure in university courses and I was required to go through a gender studies course in high school which was just talking about women and sometimes minorities and how the current system is bad because there are more men in this picture than women. Women women women.

>We do.
no

>No, I am saying it was the main reason.
? what was the other reason?

>How about you get to the point though, because you're beating around the bush and saying nothing.
I could ask you the same thing. I'm just asking questions and not pretending to have the key to the universe.

>Then he's in an extreme minority and not relevant to the discussion.
very inclusive. also, it's not an "extreme" minority.

>>22730638
>They do in modern society where women have more control over the flow of said society.
ok, you might actually be autistic. In any case, I refer to my nazi friend and his miss universe model gf. Also, there's plenty of non-feminist men that have wives. hell, even misogynists are married.

>>22730651
>both of which make authentic, mutual love of the other impossible.
no they don't

> intersectionality isn’t an invitation to let literally everyone into every movement
yeah I know, it's just another very specific ideology grasping for power and domination. this is nothing new.

>but because whiteness is considered more attractive than blackness
maybe to you but not to black people.

>>22730702
>Never implied this.
yes you did. you literally said that you have to be a certain type of person in order to attract women. Try taking a breather before you type next and reflect on your opinions.

your problem is really just the fact that you cannot accept the fact that you are molded by the society you live in. Your obsession with authenticity is meaningless. You will never know what your "true self" is or if it even exists because you are the only one that has full access to your mind. and telling your mind to examine itself is like telling a department to audit itself. you cannot say with any certainty that you are not an unreliable narrator.

>>22730752
I'll add: you have been molded by progressives into being progressive.

>>22730726
>it does call your critique into question
How?

>but they all have to be conditioned into being assertive?
It comes naturally for some, but their genitals aren't the reason why. Their physiology is the reason.

>to approach the opposite sex with the intention or goal of attracting it you have to be assertive
Depends on who you're trying to attract, so no.

>have you actually asked women what they find attractive?
Neither women nor men are a hivemind.

>you do not actually know for certain that it was conditioned
I know for certain that society conditions people.

>You said that the patriarchy forces men to be something that they "naturally aren't" as if it is forcing them to go against their nature. but all you say that men naturally are is "human adult with penis"
Right, because that's all they naturally are, as a category. A man is an adult human with a penis. He belongs to other categories, with other properties, which overlap and combine to form his individuality. But as far as "man" is concerned, there is no specific set of behaviors that can be designated him, and by doing so, we oppress and damage people, persuading them that they are inadequate when they aren't, jeopardizing their well-being and self-esteem in the process, which in turn creates perverse and abusive behaviors. This is why any system of tyranny, like patriarchy, matriarchy, and so on, is toxic and deserving of critique.

>and we do not have that.
I've said this multiple times now.

>you said that it was a select group of men and now you are saying it is a process that "predates recorded history"
They're synonymous, and it's not natural for everyone else, just this small group of tyrants who traumatized people into obedience for their own personal gain. You are not part of this group, so why do you defend them?

>I supposed it was the patriarchy that gave women the right to education and encourages them to graduate from universities.
You said "more," I was responding to that. You aren't following the conversation properly.

>It is true.
It isn't, you just harp on it because you appear to have a problem with women.

>what was the other reason?
Why does it matter? This is rhetorical; it doesn't matter, and you are just trying to derail the conversation.

>it's not an "extreme" minority.
It is. In the US, not even 3% of the population is autistic, and among males specifically, not even 5%.

>no Mary Daly
Beyond God the Father is one of her best if you have the patience for it.

>>22730752
>you literally said that you have to be a certain type of person in order to attract women
Where? Because I certainly didn't, since I don't think this at all.

>>22730752
>power dynamics don’t preclude authentic love
This will ultimately come down to a question of definition, so I don’t see much point in arguing. But I do want to offer a problem: if you have power over your partner, how do you know they actually love you? They might be lying about how they feel to protect their access to your home or finances, or to avoid being beaten. If there is no power imbalance, they may still lie, but their motivation won’t be selfish or extrinsic; the lie can only stem from their compassion for you.

>noticing that multiple social prejudices can affect one person is an “ideology”
Is it also an ideology for me to point out that when you mix red and blue paints, you get purple purple paint?

>[whiteness is considered more attractive] to you but not to black people
Personally I like latinas, but the dominant cultural beauty standard, even in black communities, is that lighter skin = better. Haven’t you seen those cringe photos of black guys in their 20s dating obese white HR workers in their late 30s? The fetishization of light skin is so powerful that many objectively hideous white women are often considered more attractive than a fit, young black woman.

>>22730808
>How?
You might just be critiquing phantoms

>It comes naturally for some
how do you know? what if it comes naturally for most people who do this? Also, what even counts as it "coming naturally"? when there's absolutely no effort involved?

>Depends on who you're trying to attract, so no.
No, because in order to do it in the first place you have to not be scared of rejection and, in general, have the will

>Neither women nor men are a hivemind.
I did not imply that my man. But when you ask women about there preferences a lot of them will state confidence. That does not imply they are a hivemind but that there might be certain universal values.

>I know for certain that society conditions people.
sure, but you do not know for certain what is conditioned and what is not, especially not preference for confident men.

>But as far as "man" is concerned, there is no specific set of behaviors that can be designated him
What do you mean by designate? do you mean standards? And how do you know what is natural and what is not? Are you saying that a fat guy feeling envy or anxiety over seeing a fit guy is falling victim to oppression? would him going to the gym and losing weight contribute to this oppression?

>I've said this multiple times now.
ok, it is painfully obvious that you are hectically reading my responses now and being impulsive.

>You are not part of this group, so why do you defend them?
I don't even know who you are talking about. This sounds like an incel talking about chads and stacys.

>Why does it matter?
I want to know what the other reasons are since you said there were other reasons

>This is rhetorical
I do not care. I am giving you the opportunity to refine your ideas. Unless you are just making shit up for the sole purpose of persuading some gullible Joe into your ideology.

>>22730872
>Are you saying that a fat guy
better example: are you saying that a guy who has to work up the confidence to ask a girl out is being oppressed?

>>22724397

>>22730852
>>22730522
>Performing the former results in the latter, so yes. Without a methodical critique of these values, which is all feminism is, we wouldn't have a very good sense of this. We, as in those who actually read and reflect, not you, who pretends to read, but is far more ideologically driven than I am.

you can stop pretending to be retarded now.

>>22730857
Are you currently in love? What's your longest relationship?

Love *requires* power over the other person. You expose yourself and become vulnerable. There cannot be love without rejection and separation being painful. Layering a material power struggle over that just becomes tiresome. Someone leads with wisdom and consideration, and the other follows. Anything else will breed resentment.

>>22730857
capitalism does not make mutual love impossible. this is just absurd. and for patriarchy in the past, marriage wasn't even about love that much. even so, people have grown to love each other.

>if you have power over your partner, how do you know they actually love you?
by being empathetic? Of course, you can never peer into the mind of another person and see what they really think so idk. But if you consider getting beaten a power dynamic then I guess I have to remind you about the obvious that you can never get rid of power. there will always be power dynamics.

Again, your obsession with vague liberty prevents you from thinking about ethics and what it means to be a good person.

niggas here really do be blaming oppression for basic aspects of the human condition

>>22730888
leftists don't believe in human agency. mutual respect and power imbalance simply cannot happen because it is in man's nature according to them to fuck people over if he has a slight more advantage

>>22730888
I’m in love, we’re about 2 years in. My longest was 5, but she passed away before the wedding. Arrhythmia is scary stuff.

I don’t see the connection between opening up and being vulnerable on the one hand, and a power imbalance on the other. If we’re both open with each other, and we both emote, aren’t we on a level playing field?

Likewise, by “laying a material power struggle,” I assume you mean both partners being in similar economic and social positions, and therefore having the ability to contest an attempt by one to dominate the other. But as I’ve already said, the alternative — a power imbalance — corrodes trust, which by any cogent definition is central to love.

>>22724470
yea

>>22730909
>you can never get rid of power
Sure, in the same way that no ball is truly spherical and no floor is truly flat. But you can get close enough for practical purposes.

>your obsession with vague liberty
I think you may be confusing me with someone else. I haven’t appealed to freedom once.

>thinking about ethics and what it means to be a good person
Tell us, o wise one, what is “the good?”

>>22730936
>If we’re both open with each other, and we both emote, aren’t we on a level playing field?
no, it just shifts or fluctuates.
> a power imbalance — corrodes trust
nah, power quite often requires trust. Allowing someone to have power over you is the ultimate form of trust. If someone is more knowledgeable on some topic than you, do you trust that he's telling the truth? there's a clear imbalance going on here but you don't seem to care about that. Likewise, is a relationship between a man who is physically strong and a physically weak or just average woman power-imbalance. I mean, he could clearly beat her to a pulp but for some reason just because he can do it doesn't mean he will

>>22730872
>how do you know? what if it comes naturally for most people who do this? Also, what even counts as it "coming naturally"?
It's a rational estimation. I know that some of my behaviors come naturally to me based on my physiology, since I've reflected on and observed this process, so it stands to reason that different physiological compositions would have their own sets of behaviors that come naturally to them. Physiology is partly genetic, partly constituted in the nutritional foundation of the parents and the child during early development. By "natural" I mean stemming from a healthy physiology, "healthy" as in the absence of inflammation and organ failure, generally.

>in order to do it in the first place you have to not be scared of rejection
Passive natures don't necessarily lack confidence. Assertive natures find passive natures attractive, but both men and women can be assertive or passive.

>That does not imply they are a hivemind but that there might be certain universal values.
These values are rooted in two things: physiology (some of which is present at birth, but girls also continue to be brought up on a different nutritional base and physical routine than boys, further affecting hormonal and physiological development) and social conditioning (girls continue to be taught certain values regarding their sex and role in society and the home, specifically that they should be passive caretakers in both).

>What do you mean by designate? do you mean standards?
I mean attributed. The only definitive property of the category "man" is that he is an adult human with a penis. An adult human with a penis could be assertive or passive but would still be part of the category "man."

>And how do you know what is natural and what is not?
See above.

>Are you saying that a fat guy feeling envy or anxiety over seeing a fit guy is falling victim to oppression?
He is, but I wouldn't necessarily think the fit guy is the oppressor here. The oppressor is whoever taught the fat guy to measure his worth in such a way that he feels shame for being fat. That's the person, or people, who caused the fat guy emotional harm.

>ok, it is painfully obvious that you are hectically reading my responses now and being impulsive.
I just don't see why you feel the need to state over and over that modern society is patriarchal. It isn't. However, patriarchal values are still easily found everywhere. These values are embedded in society so deeply that it's going to take more than a few centuries to get rid of them.

>I want to know what the other reasons are since you said there were other reasons
But why does it matter?

>I am giving you the opportunity to refine your ideas.
I don't think you are.

>>22730936
There is no struggle if there is an imbalance. Without an imbalance, it will never be clear who should make any given decision, and every choice becomes a battle. What do you do? Is there a hierarchy or is it totally collaborative consensus?

>>22730957
>But you can get close enough for practical purposes.
tell me how close you can get

>Tell us, o wise one, what is “the good?”
I'm not claiming to have knowledge of "the good" or whatever, but I do believe one can be a good person and it is something that is worth considering. In the end, everything social is made up by humans and the only thing that matters is their character.

>>22730888
>Love *requires* power over the other person. You expose yourself and become vulnerable.
Love doesn't require political, economic, or existential power over the other person. If anything, the more power one has in this sense, the less likely the other person is genuinely concerned about you, and the more likely they're in a relationship with you because they have something to gain there.

>>22730961
>If someone is more knowledgeable on some topic than you, do you trust that he's telling the truth?
I don’t see how this involves power, other than in the more general sense that access to information is often gated by institutions. In the absence of coercion, I can choose to trust or distrust an expert by, for example, thinking about his character.

>is a relationship between a man who is physically strong and a physically weak or just average woman power-imbalance
This depends on the social context. In scenarios where the woman has no other protection, yes. In scenarios where she’s unaware of or afraid to seek help, absolutely. But as social institutions continue to stigmatize wife-beating (which makes men less likely to do it) and actively police it (which gives victims the ability to stop it without appeasing the abuser), that power imbalance begins to level out. Many of the reforms of the last 100 years actively aimed at leveling out this power imbalance, and many women are less afraid of their physically-strong partners as a result.

>>22730987
On the contrary, sleeping beside someone means they could slit your throat easily. The supreme existential vulnerability.

>>22730965
>I know that some of my behaviors come naturally to me based on my physiology, since I've reflected on and observed this process
problem is that the moment you become convinced of something you stop being critical.
And this isn't really answering my question. What is natural about you and how do you really know it is natural? Are you an essentialist?

>Passive natures don't necessarily lack confidence
sure, but they lack assertiveness and initiative. someone has to approach and it might as well be men. who cares if it's natural or not? sometimes you need effort.

>The oppressor is whoever taught the fat guy to measure his worth in such a way that he feels shame for being fat.
could this shame be good for him? I mean, it might help him try to get in shape. Drives are often motivated by some perceived lack. I guess I just don't consider it a real problem in every single case. "Emotional harm" is not something that you should beat yourself up about. Also, it could just be self-inflicted. For you, causes don't really matter if you are the one controlling your actions.

>I just don't see why you feel the need to state over and over that modern society is patriarchal
ok, it is painfully obvious that you are not reading my posts.

>But why does it matter?
why does physical strength "matter"? You said that there were other reasons and I want to be sure you are not lying to me.

>I don't think you are.
You are the weakest link, goodbye!

>>22730996
There'd be no concern here if you didn't have political or economic power over them which they could obtain by killing you. It's that power that's getting in the way of love.

>>22730969
>every choice becomes a battle. What do you do? Is there a hierarchy or is it totally collaborative consensus?
It depends. For little things like deciding where to eat on date night, we just take turns. For bigger decisions, we sit down and talk it out. Sometimes one of us persuaded the other with reason, sometimes we agree to a compromise. Often, I’m glad she challenged my thinking, because she knows things I don’t. Two heads are better than one, etc.

It helps that we’re both doing well financially, because things that single-income households may fight about like purchasing decisions don’t really matter as much to us. If she wants a nice dress or expensive bedsheets, she can just buy them with her own money. I do the same for things like tools and hobby stuff. We do sometimes disagree about furniture, since there’s only so much space in the house, but again, discussion and compromise come into play. We’ve already established a color scheme and a general style for the space, so the first thing we do before buying something new is sanity-check it against what we’ve already got. Then we talk about how we’d rearrange the space with the new piece, and whether we both like the resulting arrangement. If so, we’ll split the cost down the middle, since it’s something we share. If not, we’ll hold off and find something we both like.

>>22730988
>I don’t see how this involves power
knowledge is power, as the saying goes. Someone who has this power and status in society could always lie to you. power is ultimately a sign of trust. If no one trusts you, then you don't have power. And as you mention, the only thing you can think about is his character. Because character is the most important thing to any society.

wife beatings still happen, but that's beside the point. it's all about trust in the end, trust in your powerful spouse or some other institution that has power over you (the state). power imbalance will never go away.

>>22730972
Close enough. Its not like there’s a unit of power we can measure as though we were weighing something. See my prior post about buying stuff for a practical example.

>>22731012
Ok, but who actually wields political power? Certainly uneasy lies the head that wears a crown, but that's not a common thing in human love, and doesn't apply generally. Economic power should be weighed against another potential mate, not against the other of the pair, which is far more uniform.

>>22731012
not necessarily. Love is a complicated thing. It's like saying that love never happened in the 40s

>>22731040
my man, if you need so many checks and balances just to keep your marriage in check then maybe you guys don't actually trust each other.

>>22731036
>If no one trusts you, then you don't have power.
Trust in the federal government is at an all-time low, but it seems to be more powerful than it was in earlier, higher-trust eras.

>wife bearings still happen
They’re rarer, and no longer deemed good. Is that worth nothing?

>power imbalance will never go away
Nobody’s arguing that it will, but the degree can certainly change.

>>22731049
If there is any property or transfer of rights upon your death, then you have some form of power over the other person that is motivating them to kill you, which is of course not a feeling of love. To be better certain that the other person loves you, you should not have these forms of power over the other person in the first place. Love doesn't require these forms of power.

>>22731062
Good interior design just requires a lot of thought. We’d still get along fine if our house was an amalgam of whatever we both impulse bought, but that would make for an ugly living room. Better to think things through.

This is a more general pattern with decisions. Think of all the times an executive unilaterally does something stupid and tanks a company, or a quirky professor elevates a marginal theory that’s already been shown to fail. By making decision-making more democratic, these bad decisions become less likely, because more people can contribute to the process of reasoning.

>>22731086
Bloated corporate executives are obviously useless, they're far too abstracted to do anything of real value.

Your other example is bad and regresses to the mean in a way that is ironically conservative. Do you actually believe in decision by committee? I'll ask again, what do you do?

>>22731067
>Trust in the federal government is at an all-time low
Yeah right. And you get these numbers from polls that ask people who are mildly upset over something specific but still think certain departments are ok.
Blowing it out of proportion.

>but the degree can certainly change.
Sure, we can even ask whether these supposed power imbalances are significant or detrimental. Either way, putting women in the workforce has had an effect. Women have been encoured to be ambitious and to work and many other things have changed in our society. But nature sadly remains static and womens fertility does start to drop fast at around 30.
Could housewives really not have benefitted from any increased protection without having to go into the workforce?
But I don't really have any opinion on this. Sextus Empirikus has ruined me.

>>22724390
the bible, it offered a new life to women and took them away from the tyranny of the patriarchal society of Rome. Being one of the reasons why Christianity was so popular among women during that time.

>>22731110
>Do you actually believe in decision by committee?
Yes, that’s how most successful designs are done. A handful of people get together and work on a project, then their work gets reviewed by a larger body. In both the early and later stages, the process involves feedback from many people.

>I'll ask again, what do you do?
This is the first time you’ve asked me, but I’m an aerospace engineer.

>>22731114
>Could housewives really not have benefitted from any increased protection without having to go into the workforce?
They do have increased protection even if they aren’t in the workforce, thus the example of spousal abuse protections. These are good and I endorse them. However, they don’t fully address the power imbalance. That may not matter to some women, but it does matter to others. Thus the need for the ability to work, and access to roles that would make them peers to men.

>>22731151
Or not. People could just have obligations. Maybe it would be better if women entered the workforce later in life.

>>22724390
Who is the woman in the picture?

>>22729684
Racism and sexism are just natural order. Cope and seethe.

>>22730321
Who defines erratic behaviors? What constitutes normal?

>>22729684
Have you ever been divorce raped or been the target of a false accusation? No? Then shut your hole. All of them.

>>22729844
>>22731905
>>22731879
> t. peaked in Middle School

>>22731141
Who decides what to design? Who awards contracts? Do people design individual modules that are then reviewed, or are system elements fully designed in committee meetings? Even setting all that aside, you're confusing clear technical, objective systems with human life.

smug knowing the lot of boys in this thread type and post all the things they do while DESPERATELY craving (and failing to secure) the touch of a woman.
route of misogynists
> /b/
> /here/, to pretend they're intellectually worth something / higher than their compatriots
> /adv/ to post the 6,936,469,208th thread on support for:
> guys i cant get a gf im a khv at 30 helpp / my gf is dumping me should i rope / how do i get my cock to work again

Hehehehahaha.
Oh you kids.

>>22732220
The fuck is this post

>>22731007
>What is natural about you and how do you really know it is natural?
I know when an action is natural when there is no fear or shame tied to the motivation behind it. Fear and shame, while being natural reactions in themselves, are fueled by intrusive thoughts — someone else's will — which corrupt the naturalness of any actions that follow. If you have a problem with this then you simply have a problem with my conception of health and there is no point in discussing further with me.

>someone has to approach and it might as well be men.
Or it could be women, and neither would be lesser for it.

>who cares if it's natural or not? sometimes you need effort.
Living a lie hurts everyone involved, including and especially yourself.

>could this shame be good for him? I mean, it might help him try to get in shape.
Anything motivated by shame is bad and it's rare for shame to motivate someone into exercise, and when it does it typically turns the person into a gym rat (i.e., a fitness addict) or they get fit but also become irritable since they gave up the lifestyle that made them happy. But this is besides the point. The oppressor in this situation is not the fit guy, but the one who created shame in the other. Shame and fear are signs of oppression. These are toxic and destructive, and are at the root of all resentment and perversion.

>it is painfully obvious that you are not reading my posts.
I find your posts scatterbrained, actually. You jump around and answer with a question often.

>why does physical strength "matter"?
It's my explanation for why patriarchy occurred historically. It means that, at one time, patriarchy was good, or at any rate, the good outweighed the bad. But now, due to industrialization, the bad outweighs the good.

>You said that there were other reasons and I want to be sure you are not lying to me.
"Lying" to you? What a bunch of bullshit.

>>22732157
>Who decides what to design?
Usually briefs are written by government committees. For internal designs, they’re requested by other internal teams who collaboratively agree on requirements before making a formal request.

>Who awards contracts?
A formalized bidding process overseen by a group of reviewers.

>Do people design individual modules that are then reviewed, or are system elements fully designed in committee meetings?
Even individual modules require a few collaborating workers, since e.g. testing tends to be a specific persons expertise.

>Even setting all that aside, you're confusing clear technical, objective systems with human life.
What makes you think technology is more objective than architecture or interior design? All of these industries have standards, best practices, team-oriented workflows, and so on. Almost every type of intellectual work does. Even the novelist has editors and publishers giving feedback and suggesting changes. No man is an island.

>>22732316
>Anything motivated by shame is bad and it's rare for shame to motivate someone into exercise, and when it does it typically turns the person into a gym rat (i.e., a fitness addict) or they get fit but also become irritable since they gave up the lifestyle that made them happy. But this is besides the point. The oppressor in this situation is not the fit guy, but the one who created shame in the other. Shame and fear are signs of oppression. These are toxic and destructive, and are at the root of all resentment and perversion.
shame is a protection mechanism when military and gangs, italy mafia said pride and shame, it's social, pride bond and raises your status, shame is innate mechanism built in as self punishment so you'd survive the group attack.

>>22731141
>>Yes, that’s how most successful designs are done. A handful of people get together and work on a project,
they dont work on a project they work on milking money from whoever buys whatever stuff they produce

and if the commitee is full of public servants, they dont even try to improve the life of the population, they just take all the money from the population, and put them in their pockets and in the pocket of business men who formally reply to their public bidding

>>22724397
Basically this

>>22733731
You’re right, nobody ever actually makes new things. The money just disappears and we keep using the same technology forever. That’s why soldiers still carry 1911 pistols, fly propeller planes, and shoot non-homing missiles. Tank armor hasn’t improved at all, and anti-tank missiles haven’t had to evolve either. War is exactly the same as it’s always been.

>>22734728
what the fuck is this retarded argument you guys are having

>>22727008
This is impossible unless your needs are fulfilled elsewhere.

>>22724397

>>22724875
Going to samefag and shill for this novel. It’s a landmark of early feminist literature that still holds up in its portrayal of a woman in solitude, and it’s also really short.

I just don't think feminism is going to work as of now(ruling over), it's getting stronger, and although law and society became more non violence focused? I assume you live in a safe and peaceful area, but let's say it's in prison, on ship, on battlefield, in any places without camera filming, on the road, out of country——When shit can go down and you are alone with a male, avg male have 30%-60% more overall power than female, faster, longer reach, higher, heavier bodyweight, more fierce when enraged, all these combine togather in moment of conflicts, I am a 145lb 5'95height male I will innately want to back off a little when a 185-235lb 6'7height male stood right in front of me.

You understand that's essentially what female are working with?

You know just how fast the dynamic would change? willingly, I mean female willingly want to back off her power as a social compensation and became visibly more submissive.

I'm not saying feminism won't work, I'm saying female won't let it work, not yet.

>>22735116
კაკაი

>>22732229
A roastie posting her Ls

>>22732154
Pretty sure that’s where you pick up kids to groom, Redditor.

>>22733705
I should correct myself and state that I was referring to toxic shame, which is shame that persists even when there isn't an audience. The shame you're talking about is fine. Toxic shame, which is what the fat guy was feeling, isn't fine at all.

>>22735116
Feminism—let's say, the belief that both men and women are human beings, with thoughts and feelings, politically charged into a social movement—exists for two reasons, and you just gave one of those reasons: because women are at a physical disadvantage compared to men, and because many men use this to exploit women and suppress women's thoughts and feelings for their own gain. The second reason why it exists is because, due to that suppression, the bonding between men and women is stunted—the two could be enjoying far deeper friendship and love together as a general rule, if that exploitation wasn't happening. Whoever is against feminism is an ugly, wretched individual.

>>22735173
>toxic shame
you seem to really know about this, could you give detail elaborations dealt into the nature of it? love to hear from you, thanks.

That is one smug hole

>>22735230
Removing oppression to obtain equal rights, compliance from compassion and fairness and good faith. Everything sounds excellent, which requires a friendly and safe enviorment, includes 3 segments:

>No.22735116
we've just went over defensive measure, physical violence aren't as good of an options we have better gun and technology, protective law had help maintain a safe society, but that will never take away from the fact that as humanbeing we innately respect and willing concess which is compliance which is power to a bigger more powerful creature, see a bear what you're going to do? walk around it don't piss it off, compliance.

second, equal financial opportunity, we can't have that yet, first example, woman get pregnant, all liability, even an all female office will want them laid off. Second example, man work way hard takes more abuses it's just aren't the same. 3rd, in all blue collar jobs women's are unfavorable. We're not going to have equality anytime soon.

lastly social, in this aspect woman wins tremendously, being both more sensible, able to maintain deeper connections and super fine tuned excellent interpersonal skills. Minor issues? too much drama moodswing and female on female aggressions like spreading rumor, bitch calling, subtle mocking and social attacks, degradation etc.

3 fronts, you're losing 2, what do? ideology aren't going to help.

Any women or femboys reading this hit me up, let's date

>>22735269
I don't consider myself an expert (I'm not a licensed therapist / psychologist or anything), but I can certainly share what I know.

Regular shame — that feeling of embarrassment we get when we make a mistake in front of "the group" — is something we evolved with because it is beneficial to survival. We don't like to feel it, but it's a good thing we do, because it keeps us closer to the tribe, and thus safer.

Toxic shame is something entirely different. If depression is learned helplessness, toxic shame is learned worthlessness; due to inadequate care during childhood, a person with toxic shame lives with a harsh inner critic preventing them from developing a healthy self-image. This critic is typically the voice of a neglectful or abusive parent or guardian, but could be a combination of adults from childhood or adolescence. If you want to understand this better, I recommend looking into the terms CEN, CPTSD, and ACoA in psychology, and seeing where / if you fit into these anywhere.

Behaviors that stem from toxic shame are more like perversions. We think of perversions as being only related to sex, but any behavior that forms out of a wounded self-image is a perverse one. Perverse as in crooked, as in sickly — unnatural, according to my definition of what is natural (one could argue that everything is natural, but one would be misconstruing the point, or sidestepping it entirely).

>>22724470
this

>>22724390
>What is some actually decent Feminist literature?
Nelson L.H. - Biology and Feminism. A Philosophical Introduction (2017)
Garavaso P. (ed.) - The Bloomsbury Companion to Analytic Feminism (2018)
Haslanger S. - Resisting Reality. Social Construction and Social Critique (2012)
Crasnow Sh., Intemann K. - The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science (2021)
Bluhm R., et al. - Neurofeminism. Issues at the Intersection of Feminist Theory and Cognitive Science (2012)
Lloyd E.A. - The Case of the Female Orgasm. Bias in the Science of Evolution (2005)

Kaplan J. - The Genius of Women. From Overlooked to Changing the World (2020)
Williams J. - Women vs Feminism. Why We All Need Liberating from the Gender Wars (2017)
Bauer N. - How to Do Things with Pornography (2015)

>>22735116
>I am a 145lb 5'95height male I will innately want to back off a little when a 185-235lb 6'7height male stood right in front of me.

https://research.rug.nl/en/activities/female-wild-rats-irattus-norvegicusi-are-co-dominant-with-males-d
"The computational model DomWorld has shown that among group-living individuals, even when females are smaller than males, females may dominate some males via the winner-loser effect, and female dominance becomes greater the higher the intensity of aggression in the group. Although these predictions have been confirmed empirically in primates, including humans, they have not been tested in other taxa. Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are suitable to test this because they fulfill the assumptions of DomWorld: they form groups, males are larger than females, and aggression can be intense. Moreover, their intersexual dominance has seldom been studied."

>>22735116
>When shit can go down and you are alone with a male
http://thescienceexplorer.com/nature/bonobos-form-all-female-coalitions-target-violent-males

-Orlando, Virginia Woolf.
-The Lover, Marguerite Duras.
-Emily L., Marguerite Duras.
-The Hour of the Star, Clarice Lispector.
-Les Guerillieres, Monique Wittig.
-Nights at the Circus, Angela Carter.
-China Men, Maxine Hong Kingston.
-The Bluest Eye, Toni Morrison.
-SCUM, Valerie Solanas.
-Up Your Ass, Valerie Solanas.

>>22724397
typical red team fagit. Feminism's critiques are right but it inevitably dissolves into transgender gnostic nonsense. the soul is asexual but human beings are body plus soul

>>22724390
Thoughts on this recent femikino, sisters?

>>22737086
Fucking sucks, never dillute your brand quality will always trump quantity.

>>22736260
this

>>22736289
Women are weaker so they have to rely on each other, and are more group minded.
Men may be stronger individually, but precisely because we're individually strong, we don't tend to form coalitions in the same way.
Franz de Waal also wrote some analysis on the sex dynamics among chimps. Males would typically form relationships with other males only strategically, whereas female chimps had longer lasting stable social relationships.

>>22737861
Then why do females always assume they’re stronger than they really are?

The new testament was the foundation of feminism and the anti-male revolution.

Farmers are pieces of shit who created the agrarian revolution glorifying weaklings.
agriculture promotes weaker men and the rise of women. The only activity farmers need to do is get up in the morning and planting stuff. Woah. And farmers are naturally centralized which gives women more power by giving them a bigger pool of beta cuk devotees.
So there you have it: beyond hunter gatherer, the ruling class appears and it's full of merchants controlling the money market and women controlling the sex market.

>>22737865
>Then why do females always assume they’re stronger than they really are?
Based on what?
In my experience women commonly use and deploy their "dependence", that is to say their weakness, strategically.
"oh could you get that for me? *flashes smile, squeezes arm* thank you honey"

>>22724390
>What is some actually decent subversive propaganda specifically aimed at the most suggestible neurotic demographic?
fify

>>22737861
>Women are weaker so they have to rely on each other,
and on tools. Hence, intellect, probably.
https://royalsociety.org/news/2015/04/female-chimps-use-spears-to-hunt/

>>22737872
This may be true, but you'd have to be a retard to think agriculture is an undesirable thing on account of it.

>>22737872

>>22737873
Explain the proliferation of women entering male sports teams

>>22738270
Not him but don't women have their own sports teams? They're not entering male teams. Female sports is mainly a symptom of the media's obsession with fitness more than anything.

>>22735230
>the two could be enjoying far deeper friendship and love together as a general rule
So basically if the principles of feminism were followed, men and women would have deeper relationships and marriages would last longer and be happier? So we can definitely see that in our day and age, right?
fuck off with this bull shit.

>>22737873
>In my experience women commonly use and deploy their "dependence", that is to say their weakness, strategically.
>"oh could you get that for me? *flashes smile, squeezes arm* thank you honey"
THIS IS SO FEMALE

>>22736278
>"The computational model DomWorld has shown that among group-living individuals, even when females are smaller than males, females may dominate some males via the winner-loser effect, and female dominance becomes greater the higher the intensity of aggression in the group. Although these predictions have been confirmed empirically in primates, including humans, they have not been tested in other taxa. Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are suitable to test this because they fulfill the assumptions of DomWorld: they form groups, males are larger than females, and aggression can be intense. Moreover, their intersexual dominance has seldom been studied."

I've heard of how, the advantage lies in the leader's ability to bring cohesion and overall prosperity to the team, decreases internal friction between the although big and strong but short life expectancy/ quality of the individual and as a group due to unnecessary aggressions, this is where alpha behavior sets in bond the team togather, with excellent interpersonal skills I think you're right on that female does have advantages here, but could you go more detail dealt into this subject?

>>22735808
>Toxic shame is something entirely different. If depression is learned helplessness, toxic shame is learned worthlessness; due to inadequate care during childhood, a person with toxic shame lives with a harsh inner critic preventing them from developing a healthy self-image. This critic is typically the voice of a neglectful or abusive parent or guardian, but could be a combination of adults from childhood or adolescence. If you want to understand this better, I recommend looking into the terms CEN, CPTSD, and ACoA in psychology, and seeing where / if you fit into these anywhere.
>Behaviors that stem from toxic shame are more like perversions. We think of perversions as being only related to sex, but any behavior that forms out of a wounded self-image is a perverse one. Perverse as in crooked, as in sickly — unnatural, according to my definition of what is natural (one could argue that everything is natural, but one would be misconstruing the point, or sidestepping it entirely).

Thats very sharp, interesting.
much appreciated

>>22735230
>Feminism—let's say, the belief that both men and women are human beings, with thoughts and feelings, politically charged into a social movement
I opened this thread out of genuine curiosity, however If what you say were true then feminists would rally for men who are treated inhumanely or discriminated against, instead of this self-serving definition I have found feminism for most women simply to mean maximizing female power while minimizing accountability above all else.

>>22730437
>but many don't end up having them because of money
The fertility rate for poor people is higher

>>22730808
>we oppress and damage people
only the misfits, the majority by their definition wouldnt be
and the alternative is throwing everyone out into the void- even worse because our intelligence is based on mimicry, we need external information, models to build our identity from- a majority of people will fail to create anything meaningful

>>22739052
in medieval agrarian countries, maybe.
The more child-slaves, the less time you plough the earth by yourself.

>>22739163
Still true today

remember that the maximization of individual autonomy via the liberal project involves alot of lonliness.
Rather, a patchwork system of voluntary engagement, but none that would qualify as attachment, that which could threaten our autonomy

>>22739182
Turner J.H., Machalek R. - Handbook on Evolution and Society. Toward an Evolutionary Social Science (2015)

"The link between status and reproductive success among humans in preindustrial societies is clear for men. In foraging (hunting and gathering, fishing) societies, high-status men often have a few more children than lower-status men. As production intensifies in horticultural and agrarian societies, the difference in reproductive success between high-status men and low-status men increases such that high-status men often have many more children than low-status men. In addition, some men have many more children than the average woman. Particularly in large, complex, stratified agrarian societies, the very highest status men often have thousands of children"

"The link between status and reproductive success is less clear for women in preindustrial societies and is often reversed. In many societies, elite women are cloistered to protect their value on the marriage market, a market in which they face great competition from lower-status women given hypergynous marriage systems (Dickemann 1979). In such societies some elite women never marry. In preindustrial Europe, many daughters of elite families were sent to convents. In one analysis of the medieval Portuguese elites, by the sixteenth century, approximately 35 percent of noblewomen who reached early adulthood were placed in convents (Boone 1986)."

"But does sociobiology predict that humans will raise their birthrates as they get richer? It is true that sociobiology predicts that dominant, high-status individuals will outreproduce less dominant, lower-status individuals. But sociobiology also predicts that individuals adjust their behavior to their environment. Evolutionary scholars have argued that the demographic transition and fertility decline are a response to the radical environmental change from a rural, agriculture preindustrial environment to a modern, urban, industrial
environment. "
"a change in the role of children—children have gone from being productive assets to being economic liabilities."

"In fact, a growing number of studies of modern societies in Europe and elsewhere illustrate the difference between male and female fertility and show that males (but not females) turn some forms of status into offspring."
"Studies show that there is some variation across developed societies in the source of status that is associated with reproductive success for men. In the United States, the source of status for men is income (Hopcroft 2006); in other countries, sources of status for men also include education and job status (Fieder and Huber 2007; Nettle and Pollet 2008; Kaptijn et al. 2010; Goodman and Koupil 2010; Lappegård and Rønsen 2013; Nisén et al. 2013). In the United States, Hopcroft (2006), using data collected by the General Social Survey in a special module fielded in 1994, shows that for men income is positively associated with number of offspring"

>>22724390
haven't read much but zeroes and ones by sadie plant was an interesting read
i also enjoy alice capelles youtube essays

>>22724470
cringe

>>22739249
how do you read feminist works and not be put off by the impending lack of sophistication? like I have never regarded anything a woman has written as anything more than technically impressive or mildly novel. why can’t women write great works even though they’ve now been “emancipated” for the last 50 years or whatever?

>>22727713
I remember reading a couple essays by her in college, and it was something about her overhearing two frat boys talk about how they want a notch on their bedposts from black girls. And it's just her flipping out about that.

>>22739287
i disagree
and i dont care enough to elaborate

>>22724390
Feminism is just a cope for women who can't actually do anything well enough to gain recognition. Men have always been captivated by women who are actually intelligent, capable, and posessed an independent streak, which is why there have been so many stories written about such women. The problem is that in reality they are very few and far between.

>>22739401
>Feminism is just a cope for women who can't actually do anything well enough to gain recognition.
Feminism is just contextual empiricism with a focus on gender issues affecting background assumptions.


Nelson L.H. - Biology and Feminism. A Philosophical Introduction (2017)

"Rather, they contended, “recent research suggests the almost heretical view that sperm and egg are mutually active partners” (ibid., 29). What Schatten and Schatten observed is that when the egg and sperm interact, the sperm does not “burrow into the egg”; rather the egg “directs” the growth on its surface of small finger-like projections (called “microvilli”) to clasp the sperm so that it can draw the sperm into itself. Interestingly, Schatten and Schatten also noted that as early as 1895 E.B. Wilson had published photographs of sea urchin fertilization in which the egg’s extension of microvilli to the sperm was visible.

And there was more evidence to come that would support Schatten and Schatten’s observations and interpretation of them. In 1991, feminist anthropologist Emily Martin, who also compared the classic account of fertilization to “Sleeping Beauty” and maintained that scientists “had constructed a romance” between egg and sperm “based on stereotypical male-female differences,” studied research into fertilization undertaken in the late 1980s and early 1990s in a lab at Johns Hopkins University (Martin 1991). It had long been assumed that sperm used mechanical means to get through the zona (a thick membrane surrounding the ovum) and penetrate the egg. <...> Given these observations, Martin noted, the scientists concluded that “the egg traps the sperm and adheres to it so tightly that the sperm’s head is forced to lie flat against the surface of the zona.” Indeed, they told Martin that it was “like Br’er Rabbit getting more and more stuck to tar baby the more he wriggles” (ibid., 493). But, Martin also noted that the initial papers written by these researchers following these observations continued to suggest that the sperm is the active party “who attacks, binds, penetrates, and enters the egg.” "

>>More women are graduating college and universities than men
>Not related to matriarchy or feminism.
love when someone counters your point and you just go "that has nothing to do with my point bro" without explaining why. pay gap is real, pink tax is real, but statistics leaning in women's favor is no big deal.

>>22739756
>>22730638