/lit/ - Literature

>Rights have to be earned

Have they not earned them after being suppressed by men all this time?

I like that we like in a "democratic" society, and that women are more than 50% of the population, but that women still complain about oppression.

If women really wanted to, they could vote other females into every position of authority available.

Why don't they? Because women hate other women. Why is this? I don't know. But it's not men who are opressing women today; it's other women.

/pol/ pls go

>>3033414
I dont think so, personally.

Yes, men were the aggressor, but why have women not defended themselves?

The quote; "The power to cause pain is the only power that matters" comes to mind. I generally disagree with it, but in this particular context it's correct. If you are unable to fight for yourself, to fight for your rights and destroy or fend off the opposite sex that supposedly oppresses you, who are you to shout equal rights now after centuries of inaction?

I suppose I should support the movement. But I simply do not see -why- they should receive equal rights. "human rights are a universal law" is not a satisfying answer to me. I need practicality.

>men
>Jonh Locke
>Epicurus
>Avicenna
>Confucius
>Plato
>Aristotle

>women
>Ayn Rand

Women (fertile ones) are inherently valuable. Men have to prove their worth to the society

>implying ancient slavery was racial
>implying outdated gendered hunter-gatherer dynamic
>implying Lucretia had any less of a role in the overthrow of Tarquinius Superbus than Brutus
>implying women didn't literally and metaphorically weave the fabric of society
>implying it's a coincidence this ended with the industrial revolution
>implying you know anything about history besides babby post-Enlightenment garbage
>implying this is /pol/
>implying I'm even mad

>>3033447
look at the edgy teen using greentext to discredit a well written op

go back to /v/ or /a/. whichever shithole you crawled out of.

>>3033447
>outdated gendered hunter-gatherer dynamic

To be fair, this dynamic was invented in the 1950's and became outdated in the 1960's.

Why we are still discussing it I don't know.

>>3033447
>ancient slavery was racial

It wasn't racial only in Rome. Every modern empire after them almost exclusively used black, hispanic or asian slaves. Rarely would you see a white slave, unless he was poor and a criminal.

>outdated gendered hunter-gatherer dynamic

I wasn't supporting it. I was using it as a basis for a follow up explanation on the evolution of men as a sex, as opposed to women. Reading comprehension, ho!

>Lucretia had any less of a role in the overthrow of Tarquinius Superbus than Brutus

Isolated incident. Just like when you ask what women have contributed to science, they'd be yelling a single, specific name like Marie Curry. Which is still a name under heavy critique.

>women didn't literally and metaphorically weave the fabric of society

In what way, exactly? I dont see how they've weaved the fabric of society, when it's probably their sex appeal that made men change society accordingly. They haven't done anything as far as I can tell.

>>3033460
Give it a rest, mate. You're clearly an idiot.

>>3033460
i love how racists and misogynists can choose to ignore things just by labelling them isolated incidents and exceptions, and they think this is legitimate.

>>3033470
>>3033466
>WAHHHH IDIOT!
>WAAAAAAH RACIST! MISOGYNISTS!

I like how neither of you answered anything in his post.

Fuck off back to reddit, you whiny little cunts.

>>3033476
the second comment did.

your first sentence in that post is countered in precisely the ame way

and your second sentence is countered by the fact that it is outdated, something you never addressed


last point is countered by the words industrial revolution from that other guys post.

>>3033466
Well shit you've stumped me.

>>3033470
Except I am not racist nor misogynist. To be racist would mean I hated coloured folks. To be a misogynists would mean I hated women. Neither is correct, but I also love how people can just throw around completely unrelated insults at things they don't like or won't consider.

I am not ignoring anything. For every one great female scientist/writer/philosopher/etc, there are five men in her place. The amount of inventions and achievements performed by humans is greatly owed to the male population. What I ask, is why haven't women stepped up all these years?

If no answer is given, then I would have to assume that they are, historically, a weaker sex than men. Which would imply that we are not equal after all, and that gender equality is a fairly flawed concept.

>>3033449
well, well, well, what have we here? another faggot neckbeard (most likely yuro) shitting up the place with his /b/ faggotry. you picked the wrong night to fuck around, asshole. i've just texted the /lit/ mod (we're friends irl) about this thread, so he'll be here shortly to deal with the matter, and most likely hand out some sorely needed bans. i'm also going to report and sage the thread (for safe measure), as well as alert the other moderators in the 4chan irc channel. and just in case you wanna try and pull a fast one, i'm screen shotting *the entire thread for additional proof* and e-mailing moot about the matter personally. i'm tired of you stupid fucking dick sniffers pressing out whatever lolrandom faggot shit you want on the fucking literature board. it's time for you assholes to get a reality check, because this shit won't fly for much longer. prepare your anus, you 500 pound piles of shit. your days are *fucking numbered*.

>for every etc etc


and why do you think that is? you jump onto the idea that its because women are weaker but it is premature and without justification.

a more appropriate answer is the priority given to men in fields of eduation and work.

>>3033488
>the priority given to men in fields of education and work.

AKA The victim card which I've addressed in OP. If you're being victimized and treated as second class citizens why not fight against it? Why not claim your rights and superiority? Why did it take centuries for it to happen on a wide scale, and keep in mind it's only happening in the Western world, the Eastern is still holding women by the nipples when it comes to human rights.

What are they doing?

>>3033470
I love how femnazis can choose to ignore entire arguments by labeling people misogynist.

>>3033484
i leled

>>3033495
Malcom X would love you

>>3033495
because second class citizens by definition have less power


and it did happen. but there you go again. even though there is clear evidence that it did happen, you dismiss it because lol it was really late. that doesnt give you reason to dismiss it. you are just jumping around for any old reason to maintain your stance on women.

>>3033500
I gave way when I said
>I suppose I should support the movement.

In fact, Im willing to swallow my words and be all for gender equality. My question is why did it take so long? Because it's a pretty fucking important question, if you ask me.

>because second class citizens by definition have less power

And how do you think it got that way? How do you think they became first class citizens? Somewhere along the line, women started submitting to men. Why?

>>3033497
except i called him misogynist, and i also responded to everythi he said.

>>3033506

Shit, meant; "How do you think they became second class citizens?"

>>3033500
> He's only attacking woman

Women can hardly be considered a second class citizen, They have outnumbered men even before they had the right to vote and yet they do not use that power. This is a Democratic society and yet the Majority would rather complain and protest than vote in an actual candidate.

Please use logic and actually read.

>>3033509
one part biology and one part cultural circumstances.


but times change, science and technology has changed circumstances of sex, child birth, child rearing, and employment.

yet you think gender roles should remain the same.

Women love to complain. They don't want solutions, they want emotions. Any emotion will do, that's why they even enjoy watching sad movies, that's why many stay with assholes that make them rage. What they do not want is peace and quiet (i.e., boredom). They don't want equal rights, they want to complain about not having them. They are attention whores.

>>3033514
representative democracy isnt majority rule


and in any case, population difference is negligible and its no where near the most important factor

>>3033518
go back to r9k

>>3033410
The problem for the West was Christianity, for the East it's Islam. Women were slowly improving their lot in the ancient world, and were reasonably powerful, until Christianity came down like a tone of bricks on Europe and squashed all of that. Their role in society was reduced to something even more meagre than in traditional Greek culture: not only had they to stay in the house, but every their sexuality was shameful. The "No man to suffer a woman over him" rule hampered gender-relations for a millennia.

It takes a long time of liberal change for the ruling class/group of people to accept that their ascendency over another group is unjust, and far, far longer for them to fully relinquish it. I have no doubt that if it were not for Christianity (or if Christanity had been expressely non-sexist) we would have gotten there a long, long time ago

>>3033521

Looks like you learned your history from pulp fantasy novels.

>>3033519
Wrong, Any-Fucking-Body can run for any position (excluding presidant) and win if they have a majority of votes. People just don't vote.

If woman want a candidate it's as easy as VOTING. While they cannot run for president if you followed the career of Barack Obama you can easily see that the Senate has a large amount of power and can be filled to the brim with progressive women if people just voted.

>>3033530
2/10 Apply Yourself

While I agree mostly with OP. The ruling class(I.e white males in this case) for years actively oppressed women. Logically women should have rebelled but being oppressed so heavily make it scary/dangerous to rebel. People have trouble upsetting the status quo. The longer it remains the harder it gets. Not to accomplish, but to begin the change.

>>3033541
Exactly, Women in the 1940s-1980s could be called communists if they ever disregarded the Nuclear family mindset. And most people would prefer the flock opposed to braving the field alone where the wolves could easily rip you to shreds.

It's this mentality that has stopped the Liberal revolution for such a long time.

I can't believe I read 3 lines of your post before I stopped.

>>3033547
I cant believe you had the energy to shitpost instead of ignoring the thread you didnt like. :)

>>3033460
>hispanic slaves
People used a modern ethnic group that includes individuals of every race as slaves?

What does this have to do with literature?

>>3033593
/lit/ has been used for philosophy and political discussions for months now. How new are you?

>>3033597

You didn't answer my question.

>>3033599
Oh sorry, haven't realized I was talking to a retard.

It has nothing to do with literature.

>>3033603

Then why is it here?

>>3033605
>/lit/ has been used for philosophy and political discussions for months now.

>>3033609

But what do those things have to do with literature?

>>3033611
It has nothing to do with literature.

>>3033613

Then why are they here?

>>3033630
>/lit/ has been used for philosophy and political discussions for months now.

>>3033633

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

>>3033635
How new are you?

>>3033635
you do realize moot is considering changing the boards name to literature & philosophy, right?

similar to how russian 2chan does it.

>>3033640

What does that have to do with literature?

>>3033642

Does philosophy mean /pol/ baiting?

>>3033410
You base your argument on history, but throw ideas around as if they were non-historical. Hunting and gathering were both essential to survival back then. Hunting is, however, active. The idea that men 'do things' while women stay home have its origins in this. As technology and agriculture improved, men started doing more and more. Their zones became wider and more important. Women staid in the house and became part of the house as property. They aren't paid for housework because they don't have a 'real' job, it was seen as either too valuable or or near worthless depending on when you ask. Women's roles became tradition.

In fact, for most of history, women believed that those roles were the best roles for them. Only when freedom, autonomy, and individual rights began to be formulated with the overthrow of kings and the decline of religion did anyone, both men and women, truly have the ability to question the old traditions.

You say rights have to be earned.The problem is that rights haven't always existed.

Modern feminism is still retarded though in its denial of biology, but that's the fault of academics who prefer ideology to truth. I hope a more rational feminism comes into style.

>>3033643
>>3033645
What does this discussion have to do with literature?

Stop posting, or start saging, faggot.

>>3033647

I'm just trying to keep the thread off track. It's better this way. What good will sageing do?

>>3033649
Saging doesn't bump the thread. By you posting in it or trying to keep it "off track" you're just giving OP more views so that people like >>3033646 would start replying seriously again.

Either post, or don't post. Dont do this shit.

>>3033652

I'd rather keep it bumped so the thread becomes as shitty as possible. Maybe then people will start asking for more janitorial attention.

If we just ignore the problem, it'll never go away.

>>3033653
No, that's exactly what will happen. It WILL go away once you stop feeding trolls.

Holy fuck, Im out of here. I hope you're the only idiot doing this.

>>3033657

I don't think you understand how easy it is to spam /lit/ with your own shit. If I wasn't bumping the thread, the OP would do it himself.

We need more dramatic action.

>>3033653
I don't understand the problem with intellectual discussion.

>>3033646
>Modern feminism is still retarded though in its denial of biology

You haven't really read any contemporary feminism. That's fine. But don't act like you know shit about it, it only serves to make you look ridiculous.

That aside, your appeal to biology is amusing. Either this is a reference to some sort of imagined biological imperative that apparently stands above any ethical concerns, or the idea that women are -just worse-, and so should accept it - a claim that has no basis in reality whatsoever. It has long been established that it is only in terms of physical activity that men have any advantage over women.

>>3033661
IT'S NOT LITERATURE FAGGET

STOP DISCUSSING THINGS THAT ARE NOT LITERATURE

THIS BOARD IS LITEARATURE THEREFORE DISCUSS LIATERATURE ONLY

END OF RINE____________ RINE END HERE.

Interesting thread is interesting.

>>3033661

I bet you don't see the problem with Arthur Jensen's publications either.

This is a literature board. Not an intellectual discussion board. Incorporate literature or go back to /pol/ where your misogynist bait will be heartily appreciated.

>>3033667
Books.
That better?

>>3033435
>men
>around 2000 years where they were allowed to become prominent figures in society and culture.
>women
>around 100 years where they were allowed to become prominent figures in society and culture.

>>3033664
Then make it about literature. Involve some of the literary discussion on this issue. Or wave your hands around and scream like a baby, because someone is corrupting your precious board.

>>3033671
>men
>given 5 years to accomplish something
>conquer the universe and play team sports and dig up dinosaur bones
>women
>given 100 years to accomplish something
>postmodern feminism coopted from effeminate frenchmen

>>3033673

>someone makes an off topic thread
>tell people to make it on topic

No fuck off this needs to be deleted and everyone participating needs to be banned.

Now excuse me while I go make a >tfw no qt gf thread and wait for you to badger people into making it about literature.

>>3033677
It is only tangentially off topic. You are right that it was probably troll bait, but it is a thread about philosophy, cultural issues and history, things well within the remit of /lit/. Either engage in the conversation and try and inform it with more literature, or ignore it. Whining solves nothing, all you are doing is keeping this thread bumped at the top of page 0.

>>3033667
OP here. I have not posted since >>3033506

I was playing devils advocate, because I couldn't come up with answers to my questions so the only way to get proper answers here would be to challenge an opposition to demonstrate their own point.

While they didn't answer my question, it ultimately brought me back to my original thought before the creation of this thread. Everyone deserves equal rights regardless of color or sex, and so questions like why it took women that long to revolt remain half-answered, but also quite irrelevant.

At least I learned a thing or two.

However I do have a problem with people throwing the word misogyny around like fucking cupcakes. It is extremely offensive to not only misuse the word but to use it constantly or as a substitute for an argument. Nothing I have personally said in this thread can be labled as misogyny, so I suggest - instead of telling me to go back to /pol/ like a child afraid of defending his views, you apply yourself and maybe offer a counter-point.

>Ever since the white man set foot outside of Africa, it started its long journey towards becoming rulers of earth.

LOL! The 'white man' didn't become the boss of the world until about ~300 years ago, buddy.

>>3033521
>Their role in society was reduced to something even more meagre than in traditional Greek culture
"Greek culture" assuming you mean Athens considered them stupid children fit for little more than breeding.
Sparta and other city states were even worse.

>>3033520
>2012
>not knowing how women's brains work
Cry me a river, bitch.

>>3033736
Sadly true. It'll all be over soon as well.

>>3033738
>sparta
>not having strong independent "I don't need no man" women managing households and estates while the men where of for a 30 year stint in the army

>>3033441

THIS.

>>3033687
One thing to keep in mind is the marxist concept of ideology. It has been a theme running throughout the thread. Ideologies are those ideas that, although they appear to serve some other purpose, should best be understood as prevailant because they support the ascendency of the current ruling class (Marx's most famous example is an idea of universal rights based on property law being exactly the ethical system that allows for rampant capitalism). Throughout history, the ruling class (in this case men), have provided ideologies to keep the women in place, cultural notions of purity, religious ideas of the superiority of men and women "having their place", and so on.

One final note, when people label others as "misogynists", they are often saying that the ideas a person holds though they may not know it themselves, are ideas that serve the purpose of putting women in their place, "hating" the female sex.

>>3033743
Sparta was an autocratic rule whose most lenient history period involved mass-murdering any Helots (the slave class) who had fought for them.

>>3033738
Actually, women in Sparta did alright compared to many other city states (inviting jokes that the men were womanly and the women manly). As bad a lot as women got in Athens, it was even worse in Medieval Europe (though by how much is up for debate!). I was just drawing the hierarchy: Women in Rome > Women in Greece > Women in Christendom

>>3033752
>Women in Christendom
Christ don't be a cunt.
Europe was heavily fractured in it's views even with the Catholic Church having a say in many countries.
Saying Spartan women had it better is about as relevant as saying Noblewomen had it better.

>>3033756
Christendom sounds better than "Medieval Europe". So fuck you.

I didn't bring Sparta into this anyway, but it is true ladies had it better there than some other places at the time.

Too lazy to read the entire thread to see if some said this, but here:

There are usually two reasons why women were on the back burner:

Pregnancy- They were seen as the tied down child bearers, and with most of history they started breeding young. They had no choice really, they were destined be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. That was until recent times and the invention of birth control. Now, women have freedom and they aren't tied down as much. From there they only have to go against thousands of years of being held back.


Religion- What is still keeping the roles of barefoot, prego, and in the kitchen today. It's tradition for the man to be the bread winner and the woman the child bearer with religious backing. The male and female roles transcend religion with the stone age roles, but religion is was pretty much law for the world. Once freedom of religion and freedom of speech started, more women felt brave enough to start doing something, not post-birth control brave usually, but still making strong strides.

>religion is behind women as breeders
Monogamy and restrictive women roles are much older than Christianity.
Many Ancient Middle-Eastern nations had it in law for fucks sake.

Really though, who wouldn't choose obeying one's husband and doing housework over destroying one's body by paving roads or doing some other extremely physical work for 12+ hours a day.

>Why have you waited untold centuries to gain equal rights until recent years?

Because women could only start working in the same capacity as men after 20th century technology changed the paradigm.

>>3033791
See
>>3033747
Religious ideas often play the part of reinforcing the status quo and hampering attempts at change. Quite often the biological necessity of women having to care for the children/be pregnant all the time did this job. Where women got uppity, religious ideas to keep them in their place appeared.

>>3033801
It's more fruitful to look at why female nobles have been constrained for so long. These women certainly weren't stupid, and at various junctures in history we can see them wielding immense power, whenever they can get it.

>>3033791

I'll have to assume you are talking to me:

>>3033779


Read the whole post, not just what you want to select.


Also point out where I said "Christianity" for me.

O wow a lot of people here think that western men before the twentieth century are special snowflakes completely autonomous from women in everything they do. Pro tip guys, everybody had wives.At the very least the men were supported by their domestic labors. This is not to mention at all, all the various informal settings relevant to intellectual work.

Also, the white man is not a good social unit to base your argument on. Encompasses way too much different history, culture and geography.

A lot of what the 'white man' achieved, READ: INDUSTRIALIZATION OF ENGLAND, was due to geographical luck and non-intentional social situations, as well as the use of the working class as chattel.

10/10
Stellar performance
Jesus christ we need lit moderators

>>3033818
Feminist spotted.

>>3033818
>western men before the twentieth century are special snowflakes completely autonomous from women in everything they do

They certainly liked to think they were, and wrote like their were. It is amusing to imagine all the great thinkers and leaders of European history as terrorised by their wives, even as their penned their treatise clearing women the weaker, inferior sex. Maybe there is correlation to be found here?

>>3033818
>industrialization of England
More like all technological and cultural advancement post-12th century as well as the majority of it prior to the fall of Rome.
How anyone can still be an orientalist fetishist in the 21st century is fucking beyond me.

>>3033818
>everyone had a wife

Because that was the social-norm, a norm that was put in place by men, not women.

>>3033818
>geographical luck

Africa is filled to the brim with diamonds and an ocean of natural resources such as oil. Guess what, they haven't used any of it and are still building mud huts.

>>3033828

>a norm that was put in place by men, not women.

Why not both?

>>3033833
It's also full of domesticable animals, plantable soils and more outside of the Sub-Saharan areas.
"Progressive" revisionists are even worse than Far-Right ones when it comes to Blacks.

>>3033836
Because women were always treated like absolute dirt and men would often consider them as a pet that needs to be taught and trained.

>>3033779
>It's tradition for the man to be the bread winner and the woman the child bearer with religious backing.

Untrue. This was only invented in the 1950's in America.

In traditional societies both men _and_ women work like draft animals from sunup to sundown to have enough starchy food to last the winter. (With women, in addition, giving birth every few years.)

>>3033826
It's funny how someone can be so wrong and yet so smug.

>>3033841

Got any evidence on that? It's true wives were considered the property of the husband in a sense but

>treated like absolute dirt

sounds like complete nonsense that only the most deluded feminists believe.

God I hate women so much

>>3033845
Evidence on what? You want me to link a study on how wives were treated centuries ago?

I just use common sense and logic.

If men treated women like disposable property in the American 50's, imagine how they were treated hundreds of years ago.

>>3033852
> If men treated women like disposable property in the American 50's, imagine how they were treated hundreds of years ago.

Bad analogy.

Outside of the Muslim countries, the American 50's is basically the low point of women's rights in the history of mankind.

>>3033857
>citation needed

>>3033857
Hahaha, good one.

Lets ignore how Asians treated them, or how Europeans treated them, or how South Americans treated them.

You canot be this delusional that you think THAT was the lowest point in women's rights.

>>3033826
>How anyone can still be an orientalist fetishist in the 21st century is fucking beyond me.
This so hard.
They pick up words like "Islamic Golden Age" or "Chinese inventions" and never bother to read into them before touting them in their politics.
Retards the lot of them.

>>3033863
I dont get it?

Wasn't Constantinople the intellectual and scientific center of the world during the European Dark Ages?
And haven't the Chinese invented a shitload of extremely useful things like gunpowder?

>>3033852

>disposable property

Then why has there been laws against wife beating since the 18th century, or earlier?

>The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."

>>3033879
Because it was considered unmanly. Counter-macho. What man would hit a defenseless poor woman?

>>3033410
This is faux-academic dribble.

Read more, please

>>3033875
As the centre of the Eastern Roman Empire, yes. And after that, the fusion of Greek and Eastern ideas was very fruitful -not quite so fruitful as the Italian Renaissance, but there you go.

>>3033882

I love the way feminists can turn any piece of information into how it's all the fault of the big bad 'patriarchy'. It's like watching a magician at work.

>>3033885
You do realize Im not a feminist? In fact Im against feminism.

I love how you developed this mentality "if you're against me, you're with them". You poor soul.

>>3033863
And sticking your fingers into your ears and going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" whenever evidence comes up that Europe wasn't always superior technologically, that's better?
Lel
Pic related

>>3033890

>You do realize Im not a feminist? In fact Im against feminism.

You aren't? Good to hear.

>I love how you developed this mentality "if you're against me, you're with them".

It was perfectly reasonable to assume you were a feminist from your earlier post, it's exactly how a feminist would respond to my question.

>Why do women seek the same status as white men in a Western society?

They don't want the same status. They want to be put on a pedestal above white men, where everything they say is correct, where everything bad that happens to them is because of a man's fault, where they receive respect and admiration without work, and where they can continue to be favored over men when it comes to evacuating sinking ships, avoiding military drafts, getting a better education, getting free drinks, not paying for meals on dates, having entire hospitals specifically for their gender...

Read "The Manipulated Man"

>>3033875
>Wasn't Constantinople the intellectual and scientific center of the world during the European Dark Ages?
The Byzantine ones?
Arguable, but they were Greeks in any case.
Baghdad on the other hand was the intellectual center of the Abbasid Empire and it's destruction in 1258 more or less killed most interest there was in Scientific pursuits in the Middle-East. (incidentally around the same time the European monastic schools started growing into full-fledged universities)
The researchers and their achievements weren't that huge in number despite that and many wasted their time jerking off the greek sources. The major innovations were improvements on Math, optics, astronomy and (the primitive medieval) medicine.
Dark Ages is incidentally an outdated term by some 60+ years.
>And haven't the Chinese invented a shitload of extremely useful things like gunpowder?
Yes and no.
They had a select few things (four of which they've singled out as "great inventions"), the issue of which was that they used them for complete shit or had very limited implementations.
Paper wasted on calligraphy, the wooden printing press that was practically useless etc.
The compass and gunpowder were a bit better off.

>>3033899
Take off your tinfoil hat and talk to an actual woman. You are utterly pathetic.

>>3033914
Fucking THIS.

I'm so tired of these losers from /r9k/ who think they're female experts.

>>3033914

>implying that post is far off
>implying it wouldn't be exactly correct if he replaced "women" with "most feminists"

>>3033892
>still believes in Treasure Ships
Engineers have already discredited those on mechanical grounds alone, not to mention the more abnormal sizes claimed (450x180 feet) are only backed by the writings of one of the admirals of one.

>>3033918
I know plenty of feminists, they are bros. I also know a few complete cunts who like to scream "MISOGYNY!" every few seconds, but that doesn't do anything about my view of feminism, just like an angsty teenager with a Che Guevara T-Shirt being retard doesn't discount Marxism. It would be extremely convenient for us men if the shrieking, loud bitches did entirely discredit any movement that tried change the gender status quo though, wouldn't it?

Go choke to death on a dick.