/lit/ - Literature

OK... thanks

>Valuable information about what makes a social movement succeed
non biased, morally-neutral information? because if so, i'm interested

Actually yes it's pretty objective. She's not afraid to criticize some aspects of the movement that didn't work out so well. There was the whole 'lesbian vanguardism' thing. And the more leaderless consensus based branch of the movement was having issues, the same reason why Occupy Wallstreet tanked because their heads are so far up their ass with this unanimous consensus bullshit.

>>2778073
did it actually tank?
i don't live in north america
i guess it's not really in the news so much anymore, but people get bored of shit

You should all check your test. levels, and hormore ratios.

The focus became more on the assembly then any substantive political activity. When you require unanimity, you essentially paralyze the whole community. Idiotic ideas have to be taken just as seriously as every other one. I've been observing it and I'm convinced this is the reason why it didn't take off.

You should dedicate a bit of your time to watch some girlwriteswhat's videos on YT.

If you can stay a feminist after she shows you all that evidence about males being the ones that have it shit in the society, then fuck you.

>>2778092
Patriarchy does not mean ALL men have it good ALL the time. It is not a happy or kind system for a large portion of men as well as women, and feminism has acknowledged and at times studied this fact for decades. Do you know what feminism actually is, or are you working from a perspective of no actual study on the subject? I ask because feminism is hands-down the concept most commented on by people who have never read a single substantial work about it.

>>2778107

wtf @ naming an equality movement after a particular gender

this is what niggas in the battle rap world call "cockamamie twaddle", then spazz out and go ham on

BATTLE RAP QUOTE OF THE DAY: "MY BEST SHOOTER'S GOT ECZEMA, THAT MEAN HIS ARMS PEEL!" - Charlie Clips (SMACK/URL PRESENTS: CHARLIE CLIPS VS. BIG T)

>>2778059

Feminism is bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8&feature=plcp

oh hey is this another thread with people yelling about how they don't understand the most basic elements of feminism and WHY ISNT IT CALLED EGALITARIANISM!!!!

oh, it is

fuckin' rad

Does the book only talk about MURRIKKA or also parts of the world?

>>2778122
Yes. I particularly appreciate how women hoard all of the safety because "Feminism!" but don't crow nearly as loudly about the lack of equality in, for example, the mining sector.

EGALITARIANISM MY FUCKING ANAL SPHINCTER.

>>2778128
feminism is for equality of women with men. this isnt a sementic argument

>>2778163
>sementic

Feminism has failed you.

Also, when your movement is premised on the idea that men=evil, women=good, that's not an egalitarian movement. Stop spouting shit.

http://community.feministing.com/2010/09/07/feminism-and-egalitarianism/

>>2778163
1) feminism wants equality for the genders
2) the most significant, largest, most important, most necessary to address obstacle in the way of that goal is the massive inequality towards women which pervades our society
3) therefore, anything seeking to redress inequality of the genders will mostly address inequality towards women and fight for women
4), ergo, the use of the term feminism

even if the term is not specifically accurate, it is useful in the sense that it foregrounds the fact that the struggle is in large part about women. if you want to make an argument about gender inequalities facing men, great. but there's no reason that you can't make that argument separately from feminism - there's no reason that argument has to be tied up with feminism, no reason to bring it up every time feminism is mentioned, no reason to use it as a stick with which to beat feminism. just make the argument as well as you can w/o getting all worked up about "the feminists putting you down".

>>2778174

Case in point: look at that "MEET US" sidebar. Not a single man. That's some amazing egalitarianism on display, eh?

>>2778183

>misses the point entirely

>>2778181
>if you want to make an argument about gender inequalities facing men, great. but there's no reason that you can't make that argument separately from feminism - there's no reason that argument has to be tied up with feminism, no reason to bring it up every time feminism is mentioned, no reason to use it as a stick with which to beat feminism.

That's ludicrous. So the MRM should avoid referencing feminism, but feminism should be allowed to attack "the patriarchy"?

>ITT: hypocrisy, a patent lack of eglitarianism

>>2778187
>I'm cherry-picking the bounds and content so I can make the case for feminism, because it's otherwise impossible to make the case for feminism

>>2778199

>implying feminism is a unified body of thought and not a wide range of beliefs

>>2778192
what how are those even equivalent things. feminism is not the equivalent of the patriarchy but i guess if you're a MRM that's how it looks or something

also, i guess what i'm trying to say is this: what bothers me about these arguments is that there's no reason why making the argument "certain aspects of society disadvantage men" should always be a part of the larger argument "feminism is totally shit and should be rejected." if you want to make that argument and make it seriously, fucking fine, but why does it always need to be centrally tied to that other argument about hating feminism? i mean, i would have a lot more respect for men's rights advocates if they would just say "We want to fix problem x, problem y, and problem z, how can we address those things" without also saying "oh by the way all those problems are the result of a massive feminist conspiracy to create a gynocracy and sissify all of us". Fucking address the problems instead of turning those problems into a stick to use to beat feminism. i mean i guess this is what happens when you see the patriarchy and feminist movements as literally equivalent buttttt

the argument against feminism is that it somehow focuses exclusively on advancing womens rights while ignoring or at the detriment of men.

first of all thats bullshit. Read antipode. feminism is not some isolated sect.

second, and so what? are you going to get on at greenpeace for not pursuing advantages for the oil industry, or maybe you think its just terrible that an aids relief charity isnt distributing information about climate change.

You should know better than to expect a civil, mature discussion of feminism on the internet. I've given up trying to discuss it in places like these.

>>2778163
>feminism is for equality of women with men. this isnt a sementic argument
I must have missed the part where feminists were advocating that more women need to be homeless and in prison.

>>2778205
yeah exactly

their real problem is almost always that they just dislike feminism for whatever reason. i'm fucking sick of people pretending that they just consider inequality repugnant and that's why they dislike feminism. shut the fuck up with that shit, it's disingenuous as hell and we all know it. it's in such bad fucking faith. you just don't like feminism as a movement for and about women.

god, op (and other cunts), stick to talking about the fucking book or get the fuck to /pol/

>>2778204
>i would have a lot more respect for men's rights advocates if they would just say "We want to fix problem x, problem y, and problem z, how can we address those things" without also saying "oh by the way all those problems are the result of a massive feminist conspiracy

How do you think it is that men came be to be so legally inferior in family court? In sexual assault cases? In spousal abuse cases?

All the result of feminism, you idiot.

If women want power, it is incumbent on them to also take responsibility for wielding that power. But we can't ask women to take responsibility or admit their mistakes, can we? No, of course not. Because they're so weak that they need extra protection in every aspect of their lives, right, feminism?

>feminism demeans women

>>2778092

What does being a girl make her an authority on this? What do I care if she thinks men are oppressed. There are plenty of self-hating, sexist women in the world.

>>2778218

Actually, the reason people like to link to women on the subject is because nobody takes men seriously when the "whinge", "whine", "bitch" about their problems. But everyone will run to help a woman, right? The MRM needs women, because men don't matter when it comes to gender rights.

>>2778131

It's only Murka. After all your strategy depends on the political system you have to work with.

>>2778214

This is op. That's not me, i'm talking about the book.

>>2778223
people don't take it seriously because the MRM is like 90% men bitching about how terrible feminism is

which, again, obscures real fucking issues and turns them into vendettas and rants against feminism, where apparently you can't address child custody without also ranting about how evil feminism is. which - even if feminism played a role in the present unfortunate state of affairs with regards to child custody etc - is not necessary or helpful in solving the problem. i mean, shit.

a hint: most reasonable people who are feminists would agree that there are problems with the state of affairs for men and that they should be addressed. what they do not agree with - that those problems are more significant than problems for women; that those problems deserve to be brought up in every conversation about gender or feminism; that the existence of those problems invalidates feminist objections to male privilege. like, if you would just do 3 things - 1) don't bring up problems for men in literally every conversation about feminism 2) don't start ranting about how evil feminism is every time you talk about these issues 3) do bring up these issues at times when feminism ISN'T being discussed - it would be a lot better i think.

>>2778181
>2) the most significant, largest, most important, most necessary to address obstacle in the way of that goal is the massive inequality towards women which pervades our society
I'm fine with the idea of feminism. I'm fine with a women's advocacy movement, as I'm fine with any group of people having their own advocacy movement. But as long as feminists keep spouting this horseshit about women perpetually being the "more oppressed" gender, they're simply going to alienate the vast majority of men.

It's funny, because feminists continually assert that part of the privilege of being male is being blind to your male privilege, and then when you turn around and point out all the privileges women have in countries like the U.S. that men don't, they find some ridiculous, fucking arguments about how those things don't really matter and aren't problems. Like when you point out that women have the privilege of having their genitals protected form mutilation without their consent, they claim it doesn't matter because women in Africa have it worse (as though the poorest people in the poorest nations on Earth hacking away at genitals because they probably literally believe it will keep evil demons away is comparable to the wealthiest, best educated nations doing to men just because). Or when you point out that women have the privilege of being able to opt out of parenthood via abortion, feminists say that's irrelevant because it's her body and thus her choice (as if the man being financially obligated for years of his life means nothing).

It comes down to a surprisingly chivalrous point of view - women, and their concerns and feelings are worth an infinite amount of attention and energy, and men's concerns and feelings are irrelevant, as men are the disposable, macho sex - they can take their injustices, in other words.

>>2778226
good man
have you read other books about making social movements succeed?
is this book of yours like gene sharp-type stuff? basically (sorry) i don't care about feminism but i am very interested in social movements and how they should be channeled properly

>>2778107
>It is not a happy or kind system for a large portion of men as well as women, and feminism has acknowledged and at times studied this fact for decades.

No actually it hasn't. In fact, modern feminism actively denies and demonizes the male perspective or concerns for males. Try to get a feminist to talk about misandry, it's like pulling teeth. It shouldn't be any surprise, as a special interest group continues on it's natural degradation towards a supremacist movement it's expected that engaging in too much sympathy with "the enemy" only weakens the appeal and power of the movement.

>Do you know what feminism actually is, or are you working from a perspective of no actual study on the subject?
I like how feminism oscillates between being so simple a caveman could understand it with adages like "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people" and being so complex that no filthy pleb has any right to criticize it without getting a PhD in Women's Studies from one of the Seven Sisters depending on the needs of the advocate.

>>2778235
>people don't take it seriously because the MRM is like 90% men bitching about how terrible feminism is
>>2778202
>implying feminism is a unified body of thought and not a wide range of beliefs

>>2778236
>>2778236
>they're simply going to alienate the vast majority of men.

well, i don't think that's numerically true

wrt the rest of your claims, i agree (as i have always agreed) that there are real problems for men and there are problems with the way feminism thinks through the world. i have not denied and i am not denying that. i think, though, that in a significant way the kinds of issues that women face are much more pervasive and much more significant - but i think i am going to have some difficulty illustrating the precise sense in which i think that is true... unfortunately the only term that i can think that comes close to what i have in mind is "empowerment", which obviously has a load of hippy wanky garbage associated with it. and even then it's not precisely right. shitdammit.

in any case, the broader point is that the real issues facing men can easily be addressed without flipping out about how terrible feminism is. nothing in feminism says men's feelings are irrelevant, it just says that women's feelings are also relevant (of course, the one can sound like the other - for instance, if you try to bring up men's problems in every conversation about feminism, they're going to be treated with some degree of hostility - but that's not because they're unimportant problems, it's because they're not relevant in the context of a conversation about the problems of women)

>>2778248

Those two posts aren't the same person, if that's what you're implying.

>>2778245
feminists probably don't want to talk about misandry because everyone who wants to talk about misandry is a terrible misogynistic asshole

essentially, what i'm saying is that your movement suffers from the fact that you're all terrible fucking people

>>2778248
the difference is that feminism has been around for about a hundred years longer, has many more followers, many more branches and divisions, isn't primarily conducted on message boards, and isn't almost entirely composed of assholes whining about how women all have it in for them and how terrible feminazis are

your movement is fucking terrible and ridiculous. i don't know, maybe i'm wrong and there's some reasonable, eloquent, responsible, mature men's right's advocates out there. ahahahahahahahaha no i'm not wrong

>i think, though, that in a significant way the kinds of issues that women face are much more pervasive and much more significant

I'll just leave this here for the consideration of the thread: the vast majority of work injuries (that's basically a third of the life of every human being) are suffered by men, and the vast majority of violence is suffered by men, and men in every culture ever live shorter lives than women (and breast cancer research gets 16x the funding that prostate cancer research does, despite them affecting a similiar number of people; there's your clue) and yet! and yet women somehow have it harder.

>>2778269
men live in worse material conditions, sure. that is not (in my mind) as politically significant as the kind of thing appertaining to women (which as we have already established i am not capable of defining well)

also i would consider those economic issues, not gender issues. we should fight violence, yeah, that's not a men thing. we should have better health care, yeah, that's not a men thing. we should have better job safety and work protection and health insurance, yeah, that's not a men thing.

>>2778266
>essentially, what i'm saying is that your movement suffers from the fact that you're all terrible fucking people

I'm the person you're quoting and I'm not whatever you think I am (MRA?). I just think feminism is a crock of shit that doesn't believe in real egalitarianism but instead women's interests over men's.

>>2778258
>i think, though, that in a significant way the kinds of issues that women face are much more pervasive and much more significant
What problems do first world women face that's more significant than having your genitals mutilated without your consent?

>in any case, the broader point is that the real issues facing men can easily be addressed without flipping out about how terrible feminism is.
I already said it once, and I'll say it again - I do not have a problem with feminism. I discuss men's issues in the context of feminism only because feminists don't only discuss resolving particular issues that affect women, but they discuss an abstract notion of "male privilege". This, in my mind, makes me obligated to call them out on their own privileges they seem to be blind to.

>>2778274
so you're not an MRA you just adopt their rhetoric

cool, guess you're a real rad guy

like for real, there are some feminists who probably do fit that description, and there are feminists who are egalitarians. feminists can be wrong, being human. the point i want to make is that many of the claims that feminism is making are real and many of the problems they are identifying are real. equally real to the ones that MRA people feel so very strongly about.

>>2778273
>also i would consider those economic issues, not gender issues. we should fight violence, yeah, that's not a men thing. we should have better health care, yeah, that's not a men thing. we should have better job safety and work protection and health insurance, yeah, that's not a men thing.

Except, it has become "a men thing", because women are constantly demanding more protection for themselves while leaving men behind, and because they now comprise a significantly larger portion of the workforce that works in comfortable, non-dangerous jobs (again, I don't hear women decrying the lack of equal employment in, say, mining or treefelling). Women take all the comfy spots with regard to violence or workplace safety, and fuck what happens to the men, right, because feminism is not (also) about the men (which it would have to be, if it were to actually be an equality movement) -- it's about women, what women need, what women want.

>feminism != egalitarianism

>>2778266
>the difference is that feminism has been around for about a hundred years longer, has many more followers, many more branches and divisions, isn't primarily conducted on message boards, and isn't almost entirely composed of assholes whining about how women all have it in for them and how terrible feminazis are
The primary difference is that feminism is part of the establishment and MRAs aren't. You don't sound much different than the men of 100 years ago who called feminists bitchy old maids.

>>2778277
>What problems do first world women face that's more significant than having your genitals mutilated without your consent?

that language is not entirely fair, it's not like people are holding you down, today, and forcibly cutting your dick off. i'm circumcised and while, yes, it is unfortunate, it's also not something traumatic for me. i think you're really overstating the significance of circumcision. also is it really that widespread in america, i thought it was p much a religious thing more than anything else?

>I already said it once, and I'll say it again - I do not have a problem with feminism. I discuss men's issues in the context of feminism only because feminists don't only discuss resolving particular issues that affect women, but they discuss an abstract notion of "male privilege". This, in my mind, makes me obligated to call them out on their own privileges they seem to be blind to.

the problem here again is that the privileges possessed by women (which, again, most feminists will agree probably exist in some form) are (1) less important, significant, pervasive, influential, relevant than male privilege and (2) ARE NOT NECESSARILY RELEVANT IN EVERY CONVERSATION ABOUT MALE PRIVILEGE. the existence of female privilege is not something that necessarily has to be mentioned when talk about the ways that male privilege operates.

sorry if my language is getting bad, i am real tired.

>>2778277
>I already said it once, and I'll say it again - I do not have a problem with feminism. I discuss men's issues in the context of feminism only because feminists don't only discuss resolving particular issues that affect women, but they discuss an abstract notion of "male privilege". This, in my mind, makes me obligated to call them out on their own privileges they seem to be blind to.

Yep. I'm an egalitarian and I support the MRA only because I think feminism has gotten out of hand in first world countries.

Attention egalitarians: Equal does not mean 'the same'.

>>2778283
this is actually kind of interesting to me in that you're interpreting literally everything (including things that are at least equally economic issues, like the relation between white collar jobs, blue collar jobs, education, and gender in america) through the prism of why feminism is bad

>>2778285
lol dogg i literally agree with all of your goals, i am asking for a sense of proportion.

or did men lose the vote when i wasn't looking

>>2778287
whatever. fuck this. i'm done. "feminism has gotten out of hand." jesus

What bothers me about feminism is that it's just a politically correct herd mentality.

Get a couple feminists who are deep&edgy (say, Beauvoir or Camille Paglia or some other equity feminists) and then the entire sheep-herd of feminists start railing against them calling them "anti-feminists" and "misogynists" and all this shit.

Doesn't seem like feminism affords a variety of opinions. You must agree with the majority of bull dykes or else they lash out at you.

That's not unlike, say, school girl bullies.

>>2778269

I'd just like to point out that this post raises issues that predominantly affect men, and

>>2778273

immediately goes on to say that it's not about a man problem.

But rape is a woman problem and women deserve extra protection with regard to rape? With regard to employment? With regard to sexual harrassment?

What?

ITT: feminists (NOT egalitarians) with double standards

>>2778296

Yeah, you can't argue about feminism on 4chan anymore. You'll be dog-piled by stormfronters, /pol/ bigots, and /r9k/ misogynists. Thanks for trying, though.

>>2778298

Feminism is a diverse movement with at least three distinct schools of thought. Disagreement and nuance of opinion exists within those schools as well. You're strawmanning so hard.

>>2778299

You're a bit dense.

>>2778296
>this is actually kind of interesting to me in that you're interpreting literally everything (including things that are at least equally economic issues,

Okay, let's tackle this:

>like the relation between white collar jobs, blue collar jobs, education, and gender in america)

Considering that women get more support in education nowadays than men do (grants, etc.), and that they now have earning parity (the reason woman earn 70% of what men do is because they opt not to work overtime, etc.), you bet it's feminism's fault.

>through the prism of why feminism is bad

That is why feminism is bad.

>>2778286
>that language is not entirely fair, it's not like people are holding you down, today, and forcibly cutting your dick off. i'm circumcised and while, yes, it is unfortunate, it's also not something traumatic for me. i think you're really overstating the significance of circumcision. also is it really that widespread in america, i thought it was p much a religious thing more than anything else?
Women in Africa are fine with their mutilation too. Contrary to popular belief, most of them also can orgasm just fine as a good portion of the clitoris is internal and can be stimulated through the vaginal wall. Both the foreskin and the clitoris exist for one reason and one reason alone - sexual pleasure. And no, circumcision in America is not just a "religious thing".

>the problem here again is that the privileges possessed by women (which, again, most feminists will agree probably exist in some form) are (1) less important, significant, pervasive, influential, relevant than male privilege and (2) ARE NOT NECESSARILY RELEVANT IN EVERY CONVERSATION ABOUT MALE PRIVILEGE. the existence of female privilege is not something that necessarily has to be mentioned when talk about the ways that male privilege operates.
Less important by what metric? This is baseless shit feminists assert to justify not having to talk about female privileges every time. Seeing as feminism is a woman's advocacy group anyways, I don't exactly trust them to be impartial about how unimportant and marginal women's privileges are compared to men's. When feminists can bring up individual first world women's issues that suggest a great level of disparity and oppression than individual first world men's issues, then they can get away with claiming that. Until then, it's just hot air.

>>2778303
> Sommers relates that when Paglia appeared at a Brown University forum, feminists signed a petition censuring her and demanding an investigation into procedures for inviting speakers to the campus.[43]

Care to elaborate on these three distinct schools of thought? Because whenever I see feminists arguing with each other, it just makes me think that women are, in fact, lowly cannibals and all the stereotypes are true.

I read Beauvoir's The Second Sex and thought it hit the nail on the head but now I'm told she's a misogynist. I find it difficult to sift through stuff that is lucid and useful and stuff that is merely political correct apologetics.

>>2778316

No, I don't want to try to educate someone who's already biased and would rather wallow in ignorance.

These aren't super secret indepth facts I'm talking about. If you really wanted to learn about feminism in a fair way, you could easily do it all on your own. You're willfully ignorant, and I'm not in the game of teaching the willfully ignorant.

>>2778296
>lol dogg i literally agree with all of your goals, i am asking for a sense of proportion.
>or did men lose the vote when i wasn't looking
Did women?

>>2778324
Jesus Christ, why so much sand in your vagina?

>>2778324
> he doesn't agree with some points
> HE'S WILLFULLY IGNORANT HES BIASED HES IGNORANT HES BIASED

So, let's tally it up.

Men:
>suffer more violence, but don't have many special interest groups lobbying for them
>suffer more workplace injuries, but nothing's done about this
>disproportionately work more dangerous jobs than women
>are underperforming scholastically, but get less support
>suffer about the same amount of domestic violence as women, contrary to popular belief (no, I'm not citing sources; if you're a serious egalitarian, you'll hop on over to girlwriteswhat and hunt down the source yourself and educate yourself)
>suffer genital mutilation
>are legally inferior to women in many respects

Women:
>are less likely to be CEOs
>suffer more rape
>...
>uhm
>Christ
>jesus
>ehr ...

Right.

/thread

>>2778336
Oh, I forgot.

Men:
>live shorter lives than women, but get less support in medicine, especially for reproductive and sexual health

>>2778331
>>2778332

You guys are cute.

>>2778336
>>2778341

You're not, though. You're probably a failure who needs a victim complex.

I always figured that women did better in school because they like to please.

>>2778344

I should "man up", right? If I have problems as a male, I shouldn't "mansplain". If I raise the facts and point out just how shitty modern life is for a first-world male, I'll be told that I must be basement-dwelling neckbeard, but if a woman raises concerns, she's empowered and confident and to be applauded, right?

ITT: double standards, misandry

>>2778352
Pretty much.

Women do not like wimpy men. Women have always had more fluidity when it comes to "what they are." They can be wimpy, strongy, dress feminine or wear short hair and still look hot.

Don't be a fucking cry baby. Man the fuck up.

>>2778352

Settle down there, half-dick. You really do have a victim complex, jesus.

>says nothing related to anything
>PROBLEMS MISANDRY LIFE IS HARD WOMEN WOMEN MUH DICK

Fuck, man.

>>2778344

Where i'm from, we call that an ad hominem and it's generally regarded as non-constructive and frowned upon.

>>2778360
>>2778361
>ITT: double standards, misandry

And women accept and even encourage it, and men go along with it.

Are there any true egalitarians ITT at all?

>>2778366

That's the way society is man, always has been. If you can't deal with it you should kill yourself. Complaining like a bitch isn't going to solve anything, for men or women.

>>2778365

Notice that there is no argument in that post. It's just an insult. Learn the difference between an insult and an ad hominem.

>>2778366
I'm a man and I'm not complaining. I think feminism is "cute but mostly harmless."

The shit you're complaining about is so easy to work around. You must be pansiest of pansies. No girl wants that. And if you find a girl who's into pansy men, she's just getting off on her dominance and you're totally exchangeable. Women can be weirdly narcissistic like that.

>>2778344
>Makes some fairly decent if somewhat unbalanced points

>>2778336
>Gets mad, doesn't address any issues, makes personal attacks

stay classy internet civil rights activists

>>2778372

Yeah, but I think we can do better. Humanity is about improving, incrementally or in spurts. I think we can eventually get to a place where the majority of women can admit to themselves that they ought to try to be better human beings, and where men can stand up to them.

Anyway, I have to get to studies. Adios.

>>2778380

>Humanity is about improving, incrementally or in spurts.

Haha, no it isn't. If anything, we've been slowly degrading since the Greeks.

>>2778380
>>2778380
>>2778380
> and where men can stand up to them

You realize that this is exactly what women want? Have you ever spoken to a girl, ever?

>>2778381
wow hope you enjoy slavery and dying at 50

reading this thread has made me realize that "feminism", at least the thinkers (butler, beauvoir, paglia) is generally spot on and has a lot of insights into "our gendered society" or whateverthefuck

"feminists", however, tend to be, like the majority of people, retarded, and looking for something to be, believe themselves to be part of some sort of "women's union" that if women don't buy into, are scabs, self-hating, airheads, etc.

the feminism-haters in here hate the "women's union" because they see it as unfair and stupid to divide society in two like this: the proletariat may be being exploited, the slaves didn't need their masters, but women need men (as men need women). so these retards here don't hate "feminism", they hate the ridiculous concept of the women's union that threatens to tear society apart on an impossible seam. please define your terms; dissolve the argument.

>>2778386

Slavery is the fate of those with a muddy bloodline or have been damned by God.

50 years is plenty.

>>2778385

It's odd that you assume that I am not in a relationship, am not having sex, and am a "beta" male just because I have a problem with the way that men are treated in society.

Check your assumptions, brother/sister.

>>2778389

Fuck off with your superiority complex. No one asked for you to interject your dick into this thread and wave it around. Who the fuck are you and why should we give a fuck? Engage in the discussion or fuck the hell off.

>>2778391

>in a relationship

Oh so you're a feminist? Or do you actually buy their bullshit rhetoric about relationships being natural and healthy?

>>2778374
And girls who want abortion to be legal are just diseased sluts who can't stop spreading their legs, amirite or am I right?

>>2778393
the thread is like this:
"women have gone too far"
vs
"you don't know what feminism is"
do you not see the problem?

feminism is about liberation, not equality. there is no feminist concern for mining or whatever because it's not women who are oppressing men and forcing them to mine. men however have been the oppressors of women since around the dawn of civilization, thus they want liberation and you get "feminism" not "egalitarianism"

basic history you idiots

>>2778381
what an outdated point of view

>>2778391
Pretty much.

As I said before, women are fluid, men, not so much. It has never been man's lot to sit around and cry and call himself a victim.

You're not going to earn the respect of other men and you're sure as hell not going to attract a female.

Most of the things that men claim as inequalities are based in patriarchal attitudes towards women.

>Disadvantages in paternity and family law >Women as child-rearers

>More likely to have a difficult labour-intensive job
>Man as provider, woman fragile
etc.

So the point is basically that patriarchy is shit for men too, but hating women and being sexist just makes things worse for everyone.

smh @ bitch-niggas indirectly addressing my post w/o any quotes or shit and my comment devolving into a shitfest between two faggots subsets of humanity that deserve scroll of genocide total annihilation

btw bitch-niggas is a gender-neutral term as articulated by the god Head Ice himself. may his blessed word carry our culture back to righteousness in bleak eras like today's, whose adherents must recede to vile electric pits for truth's elixir and grace battle rap forums for modern philosophers' most profound insights

SPECIAL FOURTH OF JULY AMERICAN BATTLE RAP QUOTE OF THE DAY: "STEP DIFFERENT...REP DIFFERENT/SHIT, LOOK AT MY CREW...SET DIFFERENT!" - Head Ice, addressing similarities between battle rapperism (a movement intent on redressing the minimization of battle rap's contribution to modern literary culture) and stupid ass feminism/manism movements via a battle w/ Goodz Da Animal

>>2778414
most of the things men complain about have little or no relevance. the courts may be in favour of women (it's dubious) but that is only in regards to the patriarchal family where the father is head of the household. of course the end result of feminism is going to topple these structures but seriously why is it a loss?

>muh family structure

>>2778391

Anyway, this guy here. Like I said, I've got stuff to do, and the replies basically just seem to be "men have to be this way to succeed", which isn't true and is kind of self-defeatist, which is kind of depressing, so I really am out now. Enjoy capitulating to vaginas, guys. Or, you know, you could try to improve humanity by, like, not putting up with the bullshit. There's a way to be "strong"/"male"/"whatever" and still raise these issues and still be an individual and not some cookie-cutter assembly line man. Seeing as I've managed to score myself a woman while still having talked about this stuff with her, I think I'm kind of proof of that. There are good women out there, and there's a way to have this discussion and raise these issues without appearing weak, and you should open your eyes to that fact.

>>2778419
> pansy apologetics

>>2778406

To say that men have been the oppressors of women since the dawn of civilization seems anachronistic to me. You're projecting our modern standards back on to people of other times.

Time was when the woman staying at home to birth babbies and make sammiches while the man went out to earn a living was simply a sensible decision of labour that was evolutionarily favoured. Sexual dimorphism provides really excellent reasons why it couldn't practicably be the other way round.

Nowadays we don't need to worry too much about dividing labour in the most efficient way just to get by in the world, because we have whole societal structures which allow people to act in ways that would otherwise be massively disadvantageous in evolutionary terms. That has allowed things like feminism and gay rights to flourish. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about that, but to project those things backwards through history as if they are first principles that should always have been self-evident is a bit silly.

>>2778425

>social darwinism

Can we please abandon this thread now? If it gets any more retarded there may be irreparable consequences.

>>2778425
>Time was when the woman staying at home to birth babbies and make sammiches while the man went out to earn a living was simply a sensible decision of labour that was evolutionarily favoured.

this isn't the only way oppression manifests itself

>>2778428
>not believing in social darwinism even though it's the best explanation just because it goes against what your feminism would have you believe

>>2778430
Not a feminist but social darwinism is just reddit logic. So easy to just half ass a stupid easy answer for something.

I bet you think Dennett and Dawkins are good philosophers.

sorry guys this thread is at irreparable gay capacity

as an avid promoter and supporter of the battle-rapperism movement i'd like to take the time to make -my- positions known on 4chan's global advertising platform through a series of "bar" transcriptions from youtube video to /lit/ post

each picture will be accompanied by a screenshot of the battler saying it, a youtube link to the battle from which the bar originates, and the location in the video where the bar begins

i'll start with one of my favorites:

"I MASK UP LIKE RIP READY TO PULL SHIT
NINE FROM MY SPINE GOES *DING*, HE'LL DO A FULL FLIP
LET'M BUY A ROLLS-ROYCE, I RUN UP WITH A FULL CLIP
SEND ONE THROUGH THE ROWS AND TEAR HIS A-C-L, NOW THAT'S SOME BULLSHIT!"

Charlie Clips (vs. Big T)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkiV-rt7Kqw
3:10

>>2778430
oh jesus no it is not the best explanation. the best explanation isn't a buzzword and acknowledges how insanely complex human society works. have you actually read any alternate explanations or do you just think it's the best because you personally believe it and you think you only believe "best explanations?"

>>2778428

>social darwinism

So let me get this straight: social darwinism is crimethink because it was once used to justify eugenics (which is crimethink because of the Nazis). What I wrote implies that human behaviour is, or was at one time, influenced by evolutionary processes, therefore you slap it with the label of social darwinism and discard it without even considering it on its own merits. Is that about right? Is there a stage of that process that I've got wrong? I'm trying to understand what motivates the actions of the worst kind of liberal faggot, if it's not evolutionary psychology.

>>2778433

Tripfag of the year

>>2778437

Yo wow, did you need a pogo stick for those leaps of logic?

>>2778437
it's "crimethink" because it's entirely speculative

>>2778435
Please list these other reasonable explanations. "The patriarchy" is not an acceptable one.

>>2778443
>Please list these other reasonable explanations

translation: no i have not heard of or even read into the possibility of other explanations

thanks for playing

>>2778444
In other words

>No "the patriarchy"?
>Oh shit

So, there are no other reasonable explanations?

Thanks for playing.

>>2778440

I do it for the love...WOLF LUV. ICE, NIGGA.

Speaking of which:

"If I can't get him to ride, I got to ride out -
Wherever he hide, I got to hide out -
If there's a bush nearby, I get my scope on -
Or let that doorbell ring, and get my close on.
I get busy, no clothes on -
still got the HAMMA, PAJAMAS, AND MY ROBE ON!"
Head Ice (vs Double O)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vm91SZEeDk
2:30

>>2778448
me telling you other explanations is completely irrelevant to the conversation. the point at hand is you are positing social darwinism as the end-all be-all explanation for human behaviour without actually acknowledging the existence of other explanations. very intellectually dishonest. everything else other than this is entirely beside the point

>>2778455
No. There were definitely other influences, but it's reasonable to assume that these other concerns would revolve and swing around the survival of the species, considering that human existence has been pretty goddamn tough until just a few centuries ago.

So, again: please relate to me what you consider these other good explanations to be.

>>2778459
[citation needed]

regardless
>me telling you other explanations is completely irrelevant

should have done your own homework

>>2778463
In other words

>I have no better explanations, and you're right, social darwinism is the best explanation, but I can't admit it because then I'd just have to hand in my "egalitarian" ("ie" feminist) card.

Thanks again for playing.

Double feature, from Arsonal and Hitman Holla.

"I WILL CARJACK YOU, YOU WILL NOT GET YO HONDA BACK
SIX SHORRR-YUKENS, THEN AN OPEN HAND E-HONDA SLAP
TWO SONIC -BOOMS-, THEN SHOW YOU WHERE MY BLANKA AT
THEN SWITCH CARTRIDGES, SLOWLY EQUIP MY CONTRA GAT!"

Arsonal (vs. Hitman Holla)
10:50

"YA'LL REMEMBER WHEN HE GOT ON YOUTUBE BLUFFIN'?
HIM AND T-REX GOIN' BACK AND FORTH 'BOUT A WHOLE LOTTA NOTHIN'?
ARSONAL SWORE UP AND DOWN HE'D CLAP TECS
I REMEMBER LIKE IT WAS YESTERDAY...HE SAID
'AT THE NEXT URL EVENT, I'MMA *SMACK REX*!'
I SAID DAMN, DOOD MIGHT BE GANGSTA
I MISS THIS, YOU SHITTIN' ME? WHO'S ON THAT CARD, SMACK?
ILL, SURF, ICE, TEC, HOLLOW AND...BIG T?
FOR SOME STRANGE REASON...I FUCKIN' BELIEVED HIM!
NOT ALL RAPPAS LIE, WELL, MAYBE MOST OF'EM
TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, I WALKED EEN, SPOTTED BOTH OF 'EM
I SAID 'AWWW SHIT!'...ANYTIME NOW, ARSONAL SHOULD BE APPROACHIN' HIM!
HE SHOULD TAKE THAT ANGLE 'N SMACK'EM THAT WAY WAY - IN MY HEAD I STARTED COACHIN' HIM!
HE TURNED 'ROUND, SAW REX, SAW ME, DID THIS...
MAN I COULD SEE THE GHOST IN HIM
HEART BEATIN' FAST, HE GETTIN' NERVOUS, I'M LOSIN HOPE FOR HIM
I GAVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT LIKE MAYBE HE TOO SOBER
HE DON'T WANNA FUCK UP THE BATTLE, HE'LL PROBABLY WAIT TIL IT'S OVER
WE GET OUTSIDE - THAT'S ON MY MOM'S CHILDREN
THIS NIGGA WAVIN' BYE TO EVERY RAPPA IN THE BUILDIN'!"
Hitman Holla (vs Ars)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou77snUb7Qg
12:50

>>2778454

that video is easily the best thing in this thread

>>2778455

As the guy who first merited the accusation of 'social darwinism' I can say that no, I don't discount any other possible explanation for human behaviour. Still, considering that we're perfectly happy to explain every other species' behaviour and habits in terms of evolution, it seems to me that the intellectually dishonest thing is to completely discount it as an explanation for human actions just because of some negative connotations from last century.

As for 'entirely speculative' so is ANY explanation for any behaviour whatsoever. We can never know for sure, but that doesn't stop people from forming working hypotheses based on observed data.

>>2778466
what the fuck are you even talking about? IT'S IRRELEVANT IF I KNOW ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS OR NOT

THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT IS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL DARWINISM AS THOUGH IT'S COMPLETELY INFALLIBLE WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING INTO ANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS

THIS HAS LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OWN KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECTS

YOU'RE SO INTIMIDATED BY ME THAT YOU HAVE TO STEAL EXACTLY WHAT I SAY IN ORDER TO USE IT AGAINST ME CONSIDERING IT WAS SO EFFECTIVE AGAINST YOU

YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT

>>2778463

>I don't need to present arguments, I'm just right, if you were better informed you'd know that

Great, that sure does make for fruitful discussions. Let's give this guy a hand for 'winning the argument'; now if you'd like to fuck off and stop shitposting, maybe somebody can point me to an actual refutation of evo psych?

Male.
Not feminist , but support basic womens' rights.

Simple math for you kid:

They want the same pay, they do the same work.

That means in companies they work for they work the same hours, do the same physical tasks, and answer to the same pressure every worker does.

That doesn't mean they still get to be treated special.

A female wants to be treated equally then throw out the garbage about ''ladies first'' and ''pulling out the chair'' nonsense.

Make it the same. Make it equal.

>>2778475
>missed the entire point
>like the other guy

go back to reddit or something holy shit

>an actual refutation of evo psych

do you not know what burden of proof is?

>>2778476

Equal does not mean the same.

>>2778476
feminists don't actually control the thoughts of all the women in the world

>>2778477
You're not adding anything to the thread other than "I'm right". You're not even giving us the information on the basis of which you're asserting "I'm right". Do you know how to into argument?

>>2778473

actually you ain't pullin' much for the feminist movement with this post my nigga

anyway i ain't a team playa battle rapperism for life

big terrance time baby

"They say I'm scared of Surf
I say Surf who
They say Tsu Surf
I say Surf cool, what it do Surf, getchu for what you worth because Surf sue
Me versus Tsu, I will murk Tsu, and re-hearse Tsu, no rehearsal,
I will hurt Tsu, but it hurts to
know that I won't be the first to"

Big T (vs Tsu Surf)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUMl2ut6hsU
10:47

pic isn't T obvious but that scheme GOD DAMN SON!

>>2778485
i'm not even claiming that i'm right. what the fuck are you reading?

>>2778488
>social darwinism is not the best explanation
>i'm not claiming i'm right

What? Logic? Where?

Not threatened by feminism. Not threatened by the double-standard.

The only thing worse than feminism are the men that bitch about it. You complain about women, yet every day a feminism thread gets over 250 replies on /lit/. Talk about feminine.

>>2778490
And he/she still hasn't provided any argument as to why social darwinism is not the best explanation. Perfect example of a feminist.

>>2778490
>you're wrong
>thus, i'm right

>>2778477

>burden of proof

But I'm not interested in trying to 'prove' evo psych. If you'd like to read somebody trying to do that, I'm sure there have been books published that you can look up. To me, though, the idea of 'proving' a psychological model is pretty dumb. Such models are only 'proven' in so far as they provide a working explanation for human behaviour.

Personally, I find evo psych provides a certain amount of insight into at least some human behaviours, so I'm not going to write it off. If you have some total debunk of it up your sleeve, by all means, produce that. Otherwise I guess we have nothing to talk about, it's just you saying 'lol social darwinism' and me saying 'yeah and...?' forever and ever.

>>2778486

from the same battle, and I got a pic of TSUNAAAAMI so fuck it

"Every day in my hood I bang
I'm a nice worker
I'll Kenneth Cole, two-piece, bow-tie, nice-shirt ya
Choir in da pul-pit, mama in the front-row, white hearse ya
with a clip 'bout this long, and it flip both ways like vice-versa"

Tsu Surf
5:08

Link to Surf's music because his shit is dope as fuck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZURNPEMcps

>>2778479

In this case it does.

Why should two people who, let's say, are shipping-yard workers.

Their job is to lift sandbags and place them on boats.

Person A is male.
Person B is female.

Person A can lift the 50 pound bags with no problem and place them on the boat. He can work for a few hours without resting.

Person B on the other hand can NOT lift the 50 pound bags and has to take frequent breaks , making the work day slow down.

Person A has to do more work because Person B can not keep up the pace. His day is not only more difficult, but longer as well.

In my mind, there is no reason why Person B should be paid the same amount as Person A. The work load is being shifted due to not requiring the proper strength (which can be seen as a skill) by the female.

Another example is the military. Males must do full sustained push-ups and their number is higher than the female ''knee'' push-ups. A female also need not cut her hair and has additional health benefits due to being a female.

Fair? Not so.

I won't touch upon the subject of law enforcement and regards to rape, domestic violence, assault, battery, and numerous other areas that are unequal based on gender.

>>2778493
perhaps you can't read

> the best explanation isn't a buzzword and acknowledges how insanely complex human society works

>>2778494
GOOH, you shitposter, you, unless you want to actually contribute something of substance.

>>2778459
>considering that human existence has been pretty goddamn tough until just a few centuries ago.

hahaha, wow. so is humanity continuous with the animal kingdom - survival being UNIVERSAL, as you put it - and you are jealous of chimpanzees because their cocks are larger than yours, or are you one of a depressingly growing field of biological animists (on this account I agree with your "Fall of Man" hypothesis) who believes we can become discontinuous with nature by saying so? Has your depression caused you to lose faith in humanity, or do you enjoy deluding yourself?

go2bed dad plz

>>2778497

Oh, you're another MRA in disguise. Fuck off.

>>2778497
so then there should be a difference in pay between all peoples' pay rather than men vs women and it especially shouldn't be based on stereotypes

>>2778499
>durr i can't understand there is no logical connection between someone saying someone else is wrong and that person saying they're right it must be shitposting

>>2778505

Yes. we should measure out exactly how much each person is capable of and pay them based on that. If you can lift five pounds more, you get a penny raise.

If you get colds more often than other people, you get less, because fuck you and your colds. This is a good system and a reasonable belief.

smh @ continued ignorance from the anonymous population about the real issue of battle rapper's unfair treatment by the literary community

i hope my few posts have educated you folks about the intricacies of a spoken word form so rarely discussed in this premium venue for intelligent, civil conversation

a parting word from my man shotgun suge:

"YOU DEAL WITH FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS, YOU A PUSSY NIGGA!"

>>2778506
Christ, you're the most worthless piece of shit to post ITT yet.

>>2778501

Why are you setting up these two strawmen? As far as I can see they have nothing to do with anything that was implied in the post you're linking to.

People once had to struggle to survive
Certain behaviours and instincts were formed by that struggle
Those behaviours and instincts still impact upon us although they are no longer relevant

What part of that doesn't make logical sense? What part of it necessitates that I should either be jealous of chimpanzee cocks or else be a 'biological animist', whatever the fuck that term is supposed to mean?

>>2778503
What the hell is an MRA?

>>2778505
Exactly my point, but at the same time you have to respect an employer's choice in the matter.

If the employer deems that two men can work more effectively than say two women, respect the employers choice. Same goes in reverse, if there are two strong women that can do the lifting, and the employer wants to hire them on these grounds, let them.

But if a company is mixed, set the standard. If the people can't meet it, fire them. That simple. Spartan, I know, but it's just what means to be fair.

Same thing with the military and laws that are gender bias (law is supposed to be ''blind'').

>>2778507
hypothetically say a man and a woman are exactly as good at their job as each other. they are both due for a pay rise but you can only give one of them the pay rise. who do you pick?

>>2778467
This lad "just gets it."

>>2778517

Men's Rights Activist. Don't play coy, please. You're vomiting up their rhetoric like a mad man.

>If the employer deems that two men can work more effectively than say two women, respect the employers choice. Same goes in reverse, if there are two strong women that can do the lifting, and the employer wants to hire them on these grounds, let them.

What? No, fuck the employer.

>Same thing with the military and laws that are gender bias (law is supposed to be ''blind'').

Wow dude like seriously you're fucking retarded as shit. You should stop talking for at least five years.

>>2778517
>you have to respect an employer's choice in the matter

why, exactly?

>>2778524

Split the raise between them.

>>2778515
>i can't understand it! it's worthless

>>2778531
you can only give one

>>2778536

Why? That's a nonsense situation.

>>2778543
it's hypothetical

>>2778533
>I don't understand that there's nothing of substance I've yet offered that needs to be "understood".
Seriously, please fuck off out of this thread if you're not going to contribute in a concrete manner to it. You haven't offered single a piece of information besides "it's more complicated than social darwinism". You haven't even bothered to tell us what those oh-so-important other influences are, even though WE WANT TO KNOW.

You're intellectually dishonest filth. Please get the fuck out of /lit/.

>>2778544

It's hypothetical nonsense.

>>2778525

clark, i just don't know what to tell these people.

they're so entranced by their male/female dichotomy they don't acknowledge the real divides in culture that keeps battle rap from exploding out into the literary world alongside novels and poetry as a viable form of artistic expression. the brutality of its conflict, the myriad approaches in its delivery - a fusion of words and actions solidifying boys into men, girls into women, juveniles into grown-ups. Conflagrational baptisms in congregational battles. Such is life in hip-hop's deadliest arena.

I just can't get them to understand. And I don't think I ever will. A cause lost before its founding.

>>2778527
>>No actual counterpoint made.

>>Has no logical, moral, or explainable comeback.

Wow, you're fucking dumb.

And no, I honestly have no idea what an MRA is, but if they are saying what I've been saying - sign me right up.

By the way, you really should look at the typical statue of justice (blindfolded) or in my country the weight scales. Those have special symbolic meaning.

>>2778548
>You haven't even bothered to tell us what those oh-so-important other influences are

why do i need to?

>WE WANT TO KNOW

look them up. don't rely on me. i'm not arguing - only saying it's stupid to posit one explanation without knowing any of the others. just look it up bro. i'm not going to hold your hand

>>2778549
basically you don't want to say you'd just give it to the man as you'd feel you'd be taking less of a risk by doing so but you'd look sexist if you did say this

>>2778555

justice is never blind you dumb faggot

any judge who makes decisions without incorporating his or her life experience/education/familial upbringing is a judge i'd trust less than orange juice simpson

>>2778556
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCUUUUUUUNNNT

getoutoflit

>>2778565
so i guess it isn't stupid to posit one explanation without considering the others?

are you religious?

>>2778555

>>No actual counterpoint made.

>>Has no logical, moral, or explainable comeback.

I don't have the time or the energy to argue with MRAs, holocaust deniers, white supremacists, anti-semites, or any other group of willfully ignorant, insane people.

It's not like you care about argument, anyway. You're just entrenched in an ideology and you've found all the argument you need to support it, just as the other groups above.

>>2778556
>i'm not arguing - only saying it's stupid to posit one explanation without knowing any of the others.

If you'd bothered to read what anybody had written in response to you, you'd realise they've considered other options, but found them to not be as fitting as social darwinism, evopsych, whatever you want to call it.

Instead, you're concentrating on the fact that they're favouring that one model over others without explaining why you think they shouldn't. And you're putting the onus on them to explain why they trust that model more than others, without accepting a similar onus for yourself.

Intellectually dishonest. Agree with the other guy: Get the fuck out.

>>2778572
>It's not like you care about argument, anyway. You're just entrenched in an ideology and you've found all the argument you need to support it, just as the other groups above.

The same could be said of feminists.

>>2778575
>you'd realise they've considered other options

is that why they're asking me for examples?

rewrite

>>2778557

Uh, no. The situation the way you've posited it literally does not make sense. And it's a really dishonest rhetorical catch-22, and it's awfully transparent.

>pick the man

LOLO SEE YOU FAVOR MEN TOO

>pick the woman

LOLO MISANDRIST IF THEY'RE THE SAME WHY WOULD YOU PICK THE WOMAN

So yeah, I'm not answering your nonsensical, illogical hypothetical so you can catch me in a rhetorical trap. Not gonna do it.

>>2778572

this is gloriously ironic because only myself and that clark gable gentleman have not entrenched ourselves into ideologies

i'd report, sage, and hide this thread but i don't use 4chan extension and don't feel like wasting my own efforts in branching these issues out from their dichotomous origins

>>2778530
Because, you simply don't walk into someone else's business and tell them what to do, if it isn't breaking the law.

It's the same principal as , let's say, a kid opened a lemonade stand.

He's selling his lemonade for 25 cents or p or whatever the currency of the country would be.

He has the right to say ''I want these kinds of lemons'' and has the right to say '' I don't want to hire anyone or if I do, I want to hire my friend (insert name here),''.

Then some stranger comes along and asks to be hired. The kid says no, he is going to hire his friend. The stranger gets pissed and says what he is doing is wrong.

Every company has a founder or founders. They have the right in the matter of hiring for their company and setting their company standards. As long as it doesn't break any laws, they have the right to make the choice in regards to the best person for the position.

You would do the same and so would every person.
It is people like the OP who have never done such a venture and falsely believe they would stick to their guns.

If you had a woman out of college with a great degree and a guy who just came off the streets and is high, guess who I am going with? The woman.

If I have a job that requires hard manual labour and is continual and difficult and my choices are between a man who chews up nails and spits out quarters or a 23 year old high school drop-out woman who can't lift very much - I am going with the man.

I shouldn't be forced into the choice of someone that may hurt my business by other people.

>>2778576

>PERHAPS THE SAME COULD BE SAID OF ALL RELIGIONS

>>2778580
it's so transparent that you only ever mentioned it was a trap after i gave my explanation as to why you refuse to answer

>>2778579
Bored now. Also, you're depressingly filthy.

>>2778585

>Because, you simply don't

Oh, you have to respect the employer because you have to respect the employer.

That's not circular or anything.

Lemonade stands should be against the law, by the way.

>>2778591

You're not half as clever as you think you are.

>>2778583

Actually I'm trying really hard to get the anti-evopsych guy to explain his position because I'm interested in understanding where he's coming from if it's not a knee-jerk reaction grounded in history.

Pretty sure I'm not entrenched in any one ideology.

Also, try to understand, we all love battle rap already, now we just want to sort out the small shit like this.

>>2778555
The blindfold is supposed to symbolize objectivity, not blindness.

>>2778585
well i guess in a society that promotes social mobility it should be illegal for employers to discriminate

>>2778607
my position is that you shouldn't posit one explanation without having read into other explanations especially if you're going to say it's the "best explanation" - i've stated this three times now

>>2778604
not very convincing

>>2778576
Incorrect. I am only saying what makes sense and have presented a logical argument which demonstrates that. Feminists have yet to do that ITT.
I fully support women's rights, but I also support equality and fairness. If you are saying women deserve special treatment, then you are saying they are not equal.

>>2778580
Can't tell if you are an idiot or trolling.

Also, if you are serious:
Then this would be were I explain to you in the simplest of terms (because apparently you've not completed high school yet or more likely: flunked out) -

Simply pick the best person for the position in question.

Women and men should not be treated any differently and should be treated the same.

If the job in question has certain requirements they should not have to be bent based on a person's inability to meet them.

You would not hire a person for a PR job who failed high school , but rather you'd make the choice of the person who has the degree in that field.

If there are several people with this degree, a company can make up its own mind on who to hire.

It is that simple.

The simple fact that you can't logically tell me why your cause is right, tells me that you just have a mindless agenda with no thought behind it.

You just accuse people like myself, who can't help the fact that I was born with a cock, of being sexist because I dare disagree with your policy.

Now who is being sexist?

>>2778632

Don't stick your dick into discussions you're not even following, fuckhead.

>Simply pick the best person for the position in question.

It's not a position, it's a raise, retard. In the hypothetical situation, they're exactly the same, fuckface.

>>2778632
>Feminists have yet to do that ITT
musn't be paying attention

>>2778406

>>2778516

He asked for an explanation for behavior outside of Darwinism and I gave it to him, if you consider transhumanism valid. One problem with Darwinism is that it makes this assumption that at a certain level of intelligence you act out of necessity. This is all well and good for animals but we've evolved beyond necessity (you'll likely disagree with the concept of "the accursed share," but I suggest you look it up all the same). I understand that we're shaped by the past, but I also understand that history is necessarily an imperfect narrative in the light of real human experience. I only called him a biological animist because his talk of behaviors "revolving around" survival reminded me of geocentrism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#The_view_of_the_public

>tfw the space race was 40 years ago
>tfw the capitalist pigs are winning

>>2778601

You don't know what ''circular argument'' means, do you?

In actuality, I gave you a very detailed address about it.
The simple fact that I am making sense as opposed to you (who isn't) just shows the thought process in which you work.

People are allowed to make a living and if it is by selling lemonade or hair-spray, it doesn't matter.

All people have rights and they also have the rights to make choices when it pertains to their lives and business.

Just as you would want people to respect you and your home or business, so too would I want people to respect my home and business.

Get used to it, kid. It is how the world works and if you can't meet the mark, find another avenue of work.

>>2778612
The ''blindness'' part is meant to be that objectivity and unbiased nature of law. At least it is in my country.

>>2778564

>>2778649

Okay, actually interesting, thanks for explaining yourself.

I definitely agree that we've evolved beyond necessity, in fact that was more or less my point - feminism, and indeed all the politics of equality and progress are really a type of luxury. Still, the necessity that once was seems to continue to influence us on an instinctual level to some degree.

>>2778662

>People are allowed to make a living and if it is by selling lemonade or hair-spray, it doesn't matter.

If it's lemonade made by some shit handed child who doesn't understand basic hygiene, it does matter. If it's hair-spray that has a skin irritant in it, it does matter.

>All people have rights and they also have the rights to make choices when it pertains to their lives and business.

Rights have limits.

>Just as you would want people to respect you and your home or business, so too would I want people to respect my home and business.

You're getting into ideological area so foggy I'm not even sure what to address anymore. Yes, I want people to respect my home. What the fuck does that mean, again?

>Get used to it, kid. It is how the world works and if you can't meet the mark, find another avenue of work.

You're an asshole.

>>2778649
>One problem with Darwinism is that it makes this assumption that at a certain level of intelligence you act out of necessity.

Does it make that assumption? I support social darwinism because I think that at any level of intelligence you're going to act in your best interests. Women are acting in their best interests, regardless of what it does to men. BUT, we've gotten to a point where we can choose to go a different route, toward egalitarianism, and women should become better human beings. In order to do that, they have to abandon this strange notion that they're "oppressed". They never have been. They're the ones who chose to stay at home instead of having to go out and, as another poster points out, mine or fell trees, because while staying at home to take care of the kids might not be all that interesting, it's a hell of a lot safer and (physically) easier. Feminism is just doing what women have always done: disadvantaging men. But we can choose a better path, now. And we should.

>>2778643
I am the person you having the discussion with, fuck-wit.

It is a position. I've already given examples as to what my argument stands on.

In the case of the raise - it is based on merit.

You have two kids in school, one kid makes honours and the other makes sub-par grades. Guess which one gets the golden-sticker? The one who did the best work.

That is how it works. To give both kids the same gold sticker goes against the idea of rewarding those who excel and work hard. To give the same to everyone does nothing and gives nothing.

Notice I did not mention gender. I left it open. You can fill in the blanks.


>>2778648
You haven't done it for me yet. You've just been slinging abuse. Not a very good argument. Maybe if you could articulate yourself better, you might be winning more people over.

>>2778681
i did it for you just then

apart from that, my point has been this
>>2778627

>>2778681

Did you forget what your original hypothetical was, or were you just hoping I did?

Here, let me link it to you.

>>2778524

>hypothetically say a man and a woman are exactly as good at their job as each other. they are both due for a pay rise but you can only give one of them the pay rise. who do you pick?

For emphasis
>EXACTLY AS GOOD AT THEIR JOB

So please explain how you decide this based on merit.

>>2778677
An asshole who is making sense and believes in being fair.

Basic human rights are within their own limits. They can not and should never be taken away, just to fit someone's ideology.

You're putting in straw-man arguments by the way regarding the business. It still doesn't matter what is being sold, the basic premise is the same.

A person who owns a home is an owner. A person who owns a business is an owner. It is theirs to make the choices as to how it is to be run or kept.

That is not a difficult concept to pick up.

The very fact that you can't understand that concept makes me think you aren't very experienced in the world.

>>2778693

>You're putting in straw-man arguments by the way regarding the business. It still doesn't matter what is being sold, the basic premise is the same.

So it's cool to sell rat poison as a snack food?

HEY OP DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE????
NEVER DO IT AGAIN
TAKE IT TO /POL/

>>2778690
Isn't me, sorry, for some reason I got linked to your discussion by the No.

WTF?

Again, my apologies.

>>2778697
Again another straw-man.
You are trying to derail the topic by using another argument that has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

>>2778680
amen brother

>>2778680

"If a daughter-in-law strikes her father-in-law she shall be dedicated as a sacrifice to his ancestral deities." - from laws set forth by Romulus
I understand your meaning, that women have chosen their identities as much as men have, but that doesn't address the need humans have for setting up artificially objective structures like the legal system. That being said, trying to determine who's winning the oppression Olympics is one of the reasons Amerifat activism is in the shitter right now.

>>2778819

>>>>2778680
>women chose to stay at home

No.

but you you are on the right track. Feminism and equality generally is about providing choice.

There are women who had the choice and assume all women in general must have/had the choice. But they are only extrapolating from their own privileged position and that's where their antifeminism comes from.

>>2778819
>from laws set forth by Romulus

You realise, of course, that during those times, all children, regardless of sex, were basically slaves, and parents could do with them pretty much as they pleased.

>that doesn't address the need humans have for setting up artificially objective structures like the legal system

Which hasn't been objective in a while, by the way, thanks to feminism.

Feminism is an inherently faulty structure. While women have historically had less direct control over resources, they were compensated for this by not having to risk themselves for those resources. While women were historically not allowed a vote, men who were, had this privilege balanced out by the fact that they could be forced to go to war for their countries. Etc. Historically, societies have always found a way to ensure commensurate joy and sacrifice on the part of both genders. What feminism wants is all of the privilege and none of the responsibility. It's an unworkable model.

Which leads me to this:

>trying to determine who's winning the oppression Olympics is one of the reasons Amerifat activism is in the shitter right now.

Determining a societies weakest points is a good idea. Doing things to fix those weakest points is a good idea. But pretending that certain weak points don't exist is a bad idea. And that's what feminism calls for.

I wish we could all abandon this notion of feminism and MRM and just be egalitarians. But I don't see feminists abandoning feminism any time soon, so I must support the MRM.

>>2778950
>society's*

>mfw female antifeminists think their ideas are new and interesting

>>2778972
>tfw you're imagining and ad hominem-ing because you have nothing of substance to offer
>tfw you are a typical feminist

How does it feel?

>>2778979
You obviously don't even know what I'm talking about. if you think it 's anything resembling 'imagining and ad hominem'.

also,
>implying I'm a feminist

>>2778992

How does it feel to have the mind of a feminist even though you aren't one? Is it scary? Do you feel dirty? Ashamed?