/lit/ - Literature

I don't think there would be any significant differences except for McCarthy becoming the first noted author to include an mpreg scene in his work.

>In "The Road" all males are now pansexual ftms, all females are now asexual mtfs

ich spreche kein deutsch
mam rad kde domov muj idk
i haven't read the road but the way women are dealt with in most post-apocalyptic fiction is really boring, there would probably be a subplot where someone's gender isn't revealed until much later in the book or something

>express your thoughts in French, German and Czech

你他媽的

>>4424597
>the way women are dealt with in most post-apocalyptic fiction is really boring

elaborate

>>4424603
我喜歡你的風格

>>4424608
a lot of them are written as self-consciously "strong" and "independent" or amazonian in a crummy stereotypical way. y: the last man does this a little bit. you can have a woman be empowered or have agency etc but it's a little silly to have anyone feeling "empowered" by the end of the world.

Bump

in a cut-throat post-apocalyptic environment women would lose every bit of social status they have gained in the past couple millennia and become fuck toys again. there is no other realistic scenario.

>>4424642
>you can have a woman be empowered or have agency etc but it's a little silly to have anyone feeling "empowered" by the end of the world.

Any honest post-apocalyptic world is one that's essentially inhospitable to the modern feminist. She can attempt to "play Amazon" -- but she shouldn't be surprised when she's captured, gang raped over the course of several weeks, and broken into submission by the pack of men who claim ownership over her.

If you think this is unthinkable, read up on primitive societies across the world. Women are almost universally treated like chattel.

>>4424570
Mother hate their daughters, so yes the story would collapse two pages in when the mother eats her daughter and then complains of the taste.

>>4424894

god damn i love this thread so much

>inb4 this thread is deleted because it hurts the fee-fees of /lit/'s vocal feminist contingent

>>4424894
This, or the daughter kills the mother after two pages because the mother still says she looks fat even though they haven't eaten in days

>>4424969
>mfw there are people that think it wouldn't change at all and that implying it would change is sexist

>>4424889
get out of here fagget i wasn't talking to you, you shouldn't be surprised when no one regrets your death

a large portion of men were treated like chattel too, losers like yourself included, but you don't want to fantasize about that

Qu'est-ce qu'on s'en fout qu'un personnage soit une fille ou un mec? Je veux dire, si toute la personnalité du personnage se résume au fait qu'il ait un pénis (ou pas), il n'a aucune personnalité.

>feel free to express your thoughts in French, German and Czech

pls czech your western european privilege

>>4425078
>baiting this hard
you blew it

>>4424889
>implying women can't blackmail men into treating them like queens because only they can ensure the survival of the race

>>4425083
> se résume au fait qu'il ait un pénis (ou pas), il n'a aucune personnalité.

That's the whole point, the differences between men and women go much deeper than genitalia--which is why of course the story would change drastically if the genders of all the characters were switched.

>>4425216
>the differences between men and women go much deeper than genitalia
Men and women are not as different as you think. There is more difference within each gender than between them.

>>4425226
Dat universalist feminism...

>pleb theory

>>4425226
Well, but they differ within each gender in vastly different ways, which is a major part of the reason why the book would change if the genders were switched.

>>4425226
I hate liberals so much.

>>4425216
>the differences between men and women go much deeper than genitalia
Are they? Are you arguing for cultural (influenced) differences or biological (innate) differences? If you stand for the former, I agree.

>>4425245
Both. Both are present and significant. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply a creationist-tier science denier.

>>4425244
>>4425241
Why do you useless morons have to bring ideology on the table. I'm talking about biology.

>>4425242
Give examples.

>>4425249
Because your idea of biology and sociology is rooted more on ideology than actual facts, dumbo.

>>4425248
I'm going to need some real examples because I fail to see how significant behavioral changes that are not part of culture-driven stereotypical gender roles can and would be accurately described if genders were switched.

>>4425157
>implying that would work for them

>>4425255
Actually I'm more of a biology student, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. But the fact that you reacted extremely defensively at me with /pol/-tier drivel (>libruls) says a lot about your own ideology bias.

>>4425249
Well obviously this discussion will go nowhere if you simply discount all gender theory because it's "ideology." I was simply saying that your statements invoke universalist theory which has been demonstrated to be less robust than difference theory, especially in the last 20 or so years.

>>4425260
>culture-driven stereotypical gender roles

>>4425252
OK, take social hierarchies. Men establish hierarchy through physical strength and dominance, whereas women do so through unphysical 'psychological warfare', if you will--things such as rumor-mongering, teasing, shunning. This is in the aggregate, you understand.

Men are different from other men in a very different way than women are different from other women.

>>4425260
David Reimer

Google it you shit

>>4425260
Here's a whole documentary showing how full of bullshit the "cultural conditioning 100%, biology 0%" crowd is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrsF7wyUxs8

The Norwegian government shut down a respected, state-funded social policy institute because of this documentary, so please don't reply with some variant of "muh conspiracy theorists."

>>4425263
Are you aware that men can't get pregnant and they need women, right?
That sick and abused women give shitty children, right?
That if men want the species to survive they need to at least make sure women feel happy and are relatively healthy, right?

It's because of retards like you that the post-apocalyptic genre was born dead.

>>4425267
>Actually I'm more of a biology student
And I'm a magical girl that fights shadow people by shit-posting here.

>>4425226
regardless of all the other more contentious shit, the simple fact that women are less capable of physically defending themselves than men would be a significant factor in a post-apocalyptic scenario

>>4425270
What do you mean by "physical strength" and "dominance"? This is almost 2014, you know.
> rumor-mongering, teasing, shunning
Are you implying men are not able to establish hierarchy through these things?

>>4425269
There are many, many different cultures in which men and women have very, very different roles in each. So yeah, our stereotypical gender roles are culture-driven. Of course men and women's biology have a root in said cultures but I'd tend to argue behavioral variations do not take directly root in our biology.

>>4424889

In a "true" post-apocalyptic world as depicted in The Road, there would be some women who are treated as chattel and some who are not. It depends on the size of the group and what they're doing. As in pre-agrarian society, it would be all hands on deck for most groups -- they would need women to do more than just serve as sperm dumps. That generally means you have women with some kind of social status. In The Road we even see this, the small band of cannibals who keep people chained up in the cellar includes women who are obviously part of the planning, hunting, etc. and who share the spoils.

Of course there would also be a lot of rape and murder, but hey, that's the apocalypse for you.

In a less extreme scenario -- where it's clear that humanity and all other macroscopic life is not headed on a straight vector for extinction -- remnants of our social conditioning would remain as humanity recoups and rebuilds. I sincerely doubt humanity would totally regress in that case -- ie again you would still see women wielding some level of social status and privileges in the new society that arises.

Your analysis is pretty childish overall and smacks of a jerkoff fantasy.

>>4425283
>That if men want the species to survive they need to at least make sure women feel happy and are relatively healthy, right?
In a post-apocalyptic setting, we'd need them healthy, end of story.

>>4425287
Yeah okay there's that.

>>4425281
>"cultural conditioning 100%, biology 0%"
Strawman, read >>4425288

>>4425260
>implying culture-driven stereotypical gender roles are just arbitrary and not the product of innate biological differences

>>4425288
>This is almost 2014, you know.

Wow, I really hate when people respond with this non-sequitur and think they've made some kind of point, but I think I know what you're trying to get at. First of all, we are talking about a post-apocalyptic scenario, right? Presumably civilization and civilized behaviour has crumbled. Second, even "in 2014" physicality is still the primary medium by which men establish social hierarchy.

>Are you implying men are not able to establish hierarchy through these things?

Like I said, "in the aggregate."

>>4425270
>>4425293
Okay I get your point.

>>4425296
True, but the point is that many such roles can be derived from our biological differences. There are matriarchal and patriarchal societies all over the world, in which women and men have radically different, almost inverted places from one to the other. So you can't justify man doing "manly things" because "it's in our biology", however I agree there is such a thing as manly and womanly cultures, even if they may be all different.

>>4425288
>implying the era in which we live affects gender roles
Okay, we are not lynching faggots like we should, but they are still faggots.
Nothing has changed.
Faggot.

>>4425316

We shouldn't be lynching faggots, we should be lynching pedophiles.

>>4425321
we should be lynching cis scum

>>4425303
>Wow, I really hate when people respond with this non-sequitur and think they've made some kind of point, but I think I know what you're trying to get at.
Yeah sorry, I was being too defensive but I couldn't clarify my point in English and I preferred to hope you'd get it, which you did.

>Second, even "in 2014" physicality is still the primary medium by which men establish social hierarchy.
What do you mean by "physicality" and "social hierarchy"?

>>4425295
>Strawman, read >>4425288

> I'd tend to argue behavioral variations do not take directly root in our biology.

I and the documentary are telling you that this is not the case. Behavioural variation is partly rooted in biology.

>>4425321
But then who will invent things for us?

>>4425309
Wasn't there a tribe on Africa where women did literally all the work while men just chilled out all day every day?
Don't the men there just apply their strength to being lazy shit?

>>4425321

We shouldn't be lynching... anybody!

What a revelation. I know.

>>4425330
>But then who will invent things for us?

People who aren't pedophiles.

>>4425335
You silly, only pedophiles invent things.

>>4425338

I'm not a pedophile and I invented 10 ways to make ur mum orgasm last nite

>>4425328
>partly
>indirectly
i'm watching it as I type this but aren't we agreeing?

>>4425333
We should be lynching Starbucks' customers.

>>4425345
You fucker.
I invented it, I'm patenting it first.

>>4425330
I remember reading about a society that was extremely patriarchal because the tribe's mythology said that the world originated from sperm and the ovary was just one of the creator's defects or something.

Is this what unemployed people do all day?

"Oh, man. What if, like, Stalin was a hermaphrodite. How fucking deep. How history would be different. How history would be diiiiiiifffffeeerrrreeeeeennnnnnttttttttttt ttt ttttttt."

I guess it beats working, and if you have someone to pay your bills more power to you. Just don't delude yourself into thinking you're somehow more profound or intellectually stimulating than the dumbest of the dumb.

>Oh man, what if all the adults in Catcher in the Rye were children and all the children were adults....omfg!!!!!

Haha, kids.

>>4425346
Well, I'm arguing that part of behavioural variation is directly rooted in biology and part is not. If you are arguing that no behavioural variation is directly rooted in biology then I would say that we are in disagreement.

>>4425330
>lazy africans

wow what a novelty

>>4425365
People who aren't Americans and who thus aren't corporate wage-slaves are currently on holiday break.

>>4425358
That sounds like a symptom of gender roles rather than a cause. Why do you think they chose to worship a phallic symbol rather than a feminine one in the first place?

>>4425373
Depends on what you mean by "directly"
The way I see it
biological differences -> cultural differences -> stereotypical gender roles
the point being that any variation between stereotypical gender roles can be found in some other culture
now if you're arguing that there are some biological variations that are universal (i.e. behavior that literally all males or all females respond to) we are in disagreement and I'll watch more of your documentary

>>4425325
>"physicality"

Things to do with the physical, as opposed to things to do with the psychological in the case of women.

>"social hierarchy"

Well... The hierarchy of a social group. Who is considered the 'leader' of the group, who is treated with the most respect, who is deferred to, who is generally maligned, etc.

>>4425389
But there are societies that worship feminine symbols; either way there must be something that influences gender roles at a fundamental level, and mythology could be part of it since it's part of one's culture.

>>4425401
So you're arguing that "in 2014" social hierarchy among males is primarily determined by the physically strongest?

>>4425365
>implying stalin-chan's delicious thighs wouldn't have changed history
You know there are people that get paid for doing that, right?

We call them academics.

>>4425410
Not him but, yes.

>>4425410
"The physical" is not simply about actual physical strength. In Africa, the strongest men with the biggest sticks are the ones around whom social hierarchies are established, and to a lesser extent this is also true about lower-class or more impoverished segments of Western society. Whereas women establish hierarchies around psychological victories--a clique centred around a matron-figure which keeps its members in line and in place through the threat of group shunning and group rumour-mongering and distinguishes itself from the external by variations of the same.

In the more upper-class, educated segments of Western society, physicality still plays the primary role in defining social hierarchies, but actual physical strength plays a lesser role and is replaced by status in the form of one's success with women or one's physical beauty. 'Loser' groups, like the population of 4chan, are defined in large part by their failure to achieve physical 'dominance' or women to the same degree as the 'winner' groups.

>>4425461
*dominance over women

>>4425461
>women's success is determined solely by their beauty

>>4425435

Pinochet > Stalin

>>4425487
I think Pinochet is a cool guy, so my boner is happy.

>>4425487
>those cow udders hanging from her chest

Ew.

>>4425487

Noriega > *

>>4425500
u jelly, pettanko?

>>4425519
Sorry, but Hitora is unquestionably the cutest and most moe of the moe-moe dictators.

>>4425534

>most moe-moe
>not Niyazov

Bitch, she is objectively the moe-est. OBJECTIVELY.

Let's review:

>Built a six-lane highway leading directly to his hometown of 100 people
>Built a giant spinning golden statue of himself in the central square of the capital
>Built a petting zoo in the middle of the desert
>Named a new species of melon after himself
>During an outbreak of bubonic plague, combated the disease by banning people from saying the word "plague" and outlawed infectious disease
>Made a book of his quotations an official textbook for schoolchildren
>Made lip syncing at concerts illegal
>Declared August 2nd official Melon Day

>>4425534
>not wanting to have your balls going homerun because of ficchan
If she is so moe, why does her paintings suck?

Haile Mariam is mai waifu

Fierce yet cute.

>>4425461
>In Africa, the strongest men with the biggest sticks are the ones around whom social hierarchies are established, and to a lesser extent this is also true about lower-class or more impoverished segments of Western society.
Where did you read this? There are plenty of ways to organize social hierarchies and the kind of dominance you're thinking of isn't universal, nor is it "primitive."

>>4425553
>why does her paintings suck

Messing up cutely is moe.

>>4425560
>cute

If you call sluttily pleasuring yourself by rubbing your dripping cave of a vagina against the barrel of a tank "cute," then yes.

>>4425577
>If you call sluttily pleasuring yourself by rubbing your dripping cave of a vagina against the barrel of a tank "cute," then yes.

Bitch please. She's the vanguard of the revolution. She doesn't have time for pants. She's got reactionaries to slaughter.

>you will never be lovingly subjugated by a MILFy dictator

hold me, /lit/

>>4425611
Damn, that is so cute. I've never seen that one before.

>>4425123
>Czech Republic
>Western European

maybe Prague

Please take this awful gender discussion to /lgbt/ or /pol/. This has nothing to do with literature. Or try to spout this pseudo-science bullshit on /sci/ and get laughed at.

>on /tg/ a while back
>someone says they are playing a realistic post-apoc survival rpg
>the whole party is captured by psychotic unpleasant murderous people
>it includes two super hot girls of course
>OP asks for advice on how to cover the subject
>tell him they would almost certainly be raped in real life so you have to find a way to sidestep that without damaging the sense of realism too much, because obviously you can't narrate a character's rape to some chick at the table
>OP gets angry that I mentioned rape exists
>find out OP is a chick

I would be worried if a woman wrote The Road.

>>4425283
>That if men want the species to survive they need to at least make sure women feel happy and are relatively healthy, right?

Healthy? Sure.

Happy? HAHAHAHA, WOW.

>>4425743

The delusion that modern women have re their capacity to fight is truly astonishing. Especially when you look at the astronomically high rates of rape in crime-ridden nations like South Africa. Or the Red Army rape train that cut through Germany near the end of WWII.

"B-but muh Catpiss Neverclean! Muh archery skillz! Muh gymnastics!"

Yeah, no. If you're a woman and you find yourself in a bombed out wasteland, expect to get vaginally assaulted. Repeatedly.

>>4425157
>men struggling to survive care about the survival of the race

>>4425805
agreed. the other thing i've noticed is that a lot of women tend to dismiss the prevalence of rape fantasies as a kind of vestigial impulse passed down from tens of thousands of years of prehistoric conditioning, where rape and female captivity was the norm. but then, on the other hand, they'll spend hours arguing that they're essentially equal to men and could fight just as well as men.

unless the sexes have evolved significantly over the past few thousand years, i'm not sure how that works.

>>4425809
>humans struggling to survive
>don't care about the survival of humanity
Props to you for being able to put words together.

>>4425843
>struggling to survive
>"we need children so we can continue the abstract concept of 'race'! this will make my life better! having a child is going to make everything better because hurr durr race. hurry up, we must fuck."

>>4425157
>implying women aren't kept both for their capacity to produce children and as menial workers

Everybody needs to put aside their books on feminist theory and simply READ ABOUT THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN TRIBAL SOCIETIES. Jesus Christ. It wasn't until relatively recently that women were treated as anything more than property.

The notion that women could somehow "blackmail" men into pampering them is one that only exists in the context of a late, civilized culture.

>>4425828
>i'm not sure how that works.

It works because their feelings say it works.

>>4425805
Most women don't fight back or fight back retardedly, which means that they can be easily overpowered.
Stuff like self defence is most of the time based on avoiding using your own strenght, and exploiting the adversary rather than trying to best them in a strenght match.
Women can be trained to achieve such results, which are important in actual fights, which is why I didn't ever buy the "weaker sex" bullshit (which, by the way, they exploit all the time).

>>4425947
it'd be easier if you gave us some books to read
it doesn't really make sense to keep women as "property" in the sense you're implying when they can be put to work in the same way anyone else can. I hope you don't think that tribal societies spend all their time hunting woolly mammoths.

>>4425283
>post-apocalypse
>survival of the species

You realize some cannibals roast a fucking baby over a fire in this book, right?

>>4425805
>muh history
You need to read your history book a little bit more assiduously, friend. The Soviets had quite a few women's divisions, many of which were highly regarded.

>>4426206
That's effectively propaganda, though. They're showing that the whole people is mobilized in support of the cause. Also, they didn't mix them with the men, or give them bog-standard frontline duty, tending to give them specialised (read: easier) roles and special support. And the whole reason this is even possible is because a centralized command structure decided to take it on as a pet project.

Of course they still worked hard and fought. But let's not pretend that anything similar would have happened in the German forests in 100BC, when even the most advanced military organisation in the world was still premised on a bunch of hard-ass motherfuckers willing to follow a REALLY hard-ass motherfucker to the end of the earth, and captured men were tortured to death for Odin.

>>4426206

>cite a rule
>jackass cites an exception
>implies it invalidates the rule

Every fucking time. We're not practicing hard science here, friend. Are there some women who can bench 300 lbs? Sure. That doesn't make all women stronger than men.

>>4426288
You do realize that 100 BC was when the Roman Republic was growing right? The most advanced military organization in the world, if you could call Rome at that time that, was "premised" on a complex system of citizen fighters. This wasn't some sort of D&D army where the king was super powered. My point is that your historical example is bad and you should feel bad.
More to the argument, you're right in suggesting that female fighters have been uncommon throughout history, though they have certainly existed. Past human warfare used weapons reliant on brute strength. We, however, live in a time of fire arms, where even children can wield a weapon effectively, let alone adult women and men. Your notion that women would simply be caught and raped says more about you than any potential post apocalyptia.

>>4426344
100BC was just post-Marian, in fact the reason for the Marian reforms was to supply enough troops to fight the Germans. That's when they started recruiting the capite censi, the landless rabble, rather than land-holding voters, who were beleaguered by centuries of warfare. This was the end of the Republic, not its growth. The Roman Revolution that led to the Empire basically spans from 133 (when T. Gracchus attempted to ameliorate exactly the beleaguerment just mentioned) to 30~ BC, and one of the major components, if not THE major component, was that the Marian reforms turned the capite censi into private armies for men like Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, Sulla, Marius, etc. The Marian legion is THE Roman legion, the first real professional army of Rome, and it inaugurated the death of the Republic, not its growth.

>Past human warfare used weapons reliant on brute strength.
They didn't. Romans were 5'2-5'4" on average and Germans and Celts were much larger. Romans frequently noted how terrifying they were for exactly this attribute. Romans sliced and diced them like butter, because they were organised, drilled, professional soldiers, who could march 40 miles a day, build a camp by night, and fight a battle by morning. This is the kind of "strength" that typifies the real soldier, and like the brute strength of the warrior, women don't have it either.

>We, however, live in a time of fire arms, where even children can wield a weapon effectively
Women, aside from the fact that they cause fraternisation and damage morale when mixed with male troops, have proved themselves incapable, every single time it has been tried, of functioning on par with male soldiers. Protip: Firing a gun is 0.01% of your existence as a soldier. Most of what you do is heavy lifting, long marching, extreme tests of endurance, willingness to tolerate harsh conditions, poor diet and sleep, constant danger, and various other psychological trauma, etc.

Veterans, decorated generals, and female soldiers themselves have gone on record time and time again to categorically state that women cannot hack this kind of work. Every time even intermediate military training is opened to them, they fail it miserably and usually end up needing therapy afterwards. Not only that, they actively drag down the men by needing constant help, because comrades will tend to slow down to lug the weakest link in the chain.

Captured men in major wars are routinely tortured. Sometimes even raped. If you think enlisted men, in trenches, necessarily brutalised and blunted as part of their training and job, who haven't seen a sexually available woman four years, who have been jerking off to faded pictures of women on syrup bottles, would not have a raised chance of raping captured women - especially in countries that don't have the SJW decorum you're used to in the West, where rape is often actively and openly used for psychological warfare (e.g. Soviets, Japanese) - you're fucking delusional.

>>4426344
>Your notion that women would simply be caught and raped says more about you than any potential post apocalyptia.
Furthermore, it says a lot about your sheltered worldview that you try to mold reality to suit it, when you've probably never even seen a real slum.

There is no objective standard of warfare, other than that it is necessarily wise to conduct it with the strongest, biggest, most imposing, most aggressive, most vicious, hardiest creatures you have available in adequate numbers, and especially those which can cooperate and subsume their individual wills for purposes of organisation. Unfortunately for your feminist ideals, that means we use men, and concurrently it means women, who are weaker (through no fault of their own) in every single one of these categories, and actively hamper several of them when enlisted alongside men, are generally not invited to play.

There are a lot of people like you right now and you're going to get people killed.

>>4424570

It would certainly change the book for me, reading it as a boy who (obviously) has had a father. And it would change critical analysis of the book - even if gender was the only thing changed in the text, the reader would associate it with different things and draw attention to different details and change the generally accepted meaning of the text through their collective interpretation.

Would also likely be considered a feminist work, with female protagonists struggling against a brutal masculine world. That perception would be inevitable and, in my opinion, say more about subconscious gender associations in our society than it would be a legitimate interpretation of the book

>>4424570
The only thing that would change would be the father walks out instead of the mother. That might actually be better, but everything else changes.

>>4426407
>[specious, under-read bullshit]

PLAF forces in the liberated areas of the NFL and later PRG.

>>4425270
obligatory post calling you a shut-in fuck up nerd because you can discern women from men

men and women are the same, you dreamt up a difference because you never talk to women irl m8

>>4426447
>under-read

says the person who thinks the spqr was growing c. 100 bce and who can't actually respond to or make points (aside from anecdotes)

embarrassing

>>4426568
Did your other interlocutor ever mention Vietnamese divisions? No.

Vietnamese women demonstrated the inverse of your position. Your position, as it rested on an absolute claim, is demolished by one differing data point. I supplied such a data point.

Enjoy. There are more than two people on /lit/ btw.

>>4426580
we're talking about norms you absolute retard. you replied to "there is a norm that women can't hack frontline combat like men" with "yeah but some women did sometimes", which was already responded to by TWO people in detail, including the one you are replying to.

and you're wrong anyway, ffs. vietnamese women did not take on the same combat roles, they were auxiliaries, as was also already covered.

again, embarassing.

>>4426617
>they were auxiliaries

As I said: under-read.

>>4426629
what is more damning, that i am potentially under-read regarding one anecdotal case (ps: i'm not, they served in a limited and supporting capacity relative to the men, proving the point), or that you are under-read in the thread you are replying to, which explicitly refuted the use of anecdotal evidence to prove a rule?

but please continue not citing sources. since you cannot read, i wouldn't want to tax you.

>>4426644
>they served in a limited and supporting capacity relative to the men

I'm sorry, but your claims are absolute. And they're bullshit.

You don't seem to know what an "anecdote" is by the way.

>>4426649
Anecdotal evidence:
>Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.

Claims are absolute:
>>4426300 (not me)

Read the thread, dude.

Daily reminder that there is no way to win an argument with a staunch feminist.

They'll argue that men and women are biologically identical, that all differences are socially constructed, and that men are no physically stronger than women.

Your first instinct will be to laugh. Then you'll point around the room to men and women, and ask them whether they honestly think the women are physically stronger than the men.

The feminist will point the strongest woman, then the weakest man. She'll use this to prove that women can be stronger than men.

At this point you'll want to scream. But you remain calm, tell her that you never meant that ALL INDIVIDUAL MEN are stronger than EVERY INDIVIDUAL WOMAN. Instead, you'll tell her that men are generally stronger than women.

She'll proceed to dismiss this claim by citing an insufficient sample size.

You'll counter with a study that clearly shows that men, in general, are stronger than women.

She'll tell you that the scientific community is inherently gender-biased, and thus the findings must be dismissed. She'll ask you for an identical study done by women researchers, which you won't be able to produce.

But wait -- you DID find a study proving your point. And it's written by women.

Sorry. No good. She'll explain that it doesn't take into account several well-documented cases where women, in positions of danger, or to save a child under a car, suddenly gain super strength, and are able to lift massive weight via feminine biological mega-exertion.

You'll ask her why all women don't use this to fend off assaults and rapes.

She'll flip this around to make it seem as if you're implying that women secretly WANT to be raped because they don't use their biological super powers. She'll ask you why you're defending rapists.

At this point, your best option is to leave and never return.

>>4426791

PS. I've had this exact discussion.

>>4426791
>>4426801

Leftism has ruined America.

>>4426801
>>4426791
>>4426817

nerds got thoroughly schooled by rational argument at a party and need to vent their buttfrustration on the animuwebsite. nice.

>>4426817
It's a slightly overzealous argument. Are you implying men have never been unreasonable or just illogical in arguments?
Implying this is a political ideal/policy.

Or is that you imply that women need to go back to the kitchen and be quiet when men argue?

>Implying this is /pol/

>>4426849
AND NOW THE FUN TRULY BEGINS

>>4426817
>Leftism
>in America

Please go shit yourself in your corner, Ron.

>>4425680
considering a large portion of the Czech Republic used to belong to Germany, and a large of portion of the population have german roots/are german, id say its not that far-fetched

>>4426858
>implying Ron Paul is not the candle in the dark for an America gone mad
>implying leftism isn't alive and ferocious in modern-day America
>implying the only reason you think leftism doesn't have power in America isn't that they made a devil's bargain with the corporate establishment and give up economic and political power in exchange for support for anti-racism, cultural marxism and the general advancement of leftist social ideals

>>4426801
If you've been talking with people who think the best argument for feminism is that women gain super strength in times of stress, that probably says more about the company you keep than it says about feminism.

>>4426894

Oh, oh -- I can play this game, too!

If you don't expose yourself to diverse types of feminists, including those whose beliefs might seem more radical than yours, that probably says more about your narrow-mindedness than it says about Anon's reported discussion.

Wow, that was fun. Thanks.

>>4426876
girls try to be cute and that's so ridiculous to me. She's literally sitting on a bucket of bacteria in her cunt and gut, but she's trying to look cute.

that's the difference between women and men. men are willing to be disgusting and able to honest about who and what they are. women are living out a delusion that they're ascended biology

>>4426876
I-is is that... mozzarella?

>>4426918
ever see a picture of a girl who looks really beautiful and cute and innocent and sweet, and your immediate reaction is like "wow, she's really sweet, i'd love to date such a qt", and then you realise, she consciously posed her stupid face like that, and probably took 27 pictures to get the perfect one to post on facebook for no reason, itself an ostentatious, self-absorbed thing to do

>>4426910
There's no branch of feminism that uses super strength as an argument for anything under any circumstances, no matter how radical. Sorry.

Why are we even arguing over anecdotes if they don't say anything meaningful?

>>4426933
while this doesn't come up too much, i have heard it mentioned before. the point that's more often used is women's capacity to endure pain. ie. women can take more than men can inflict, therefore women are stronger.

not agreeing or disagreeing with this argument, just reporting.

>>4426920
kill yourself you simpering cunt

sorry for the harsh tone, i'm trying to get myself banned. pls end the misery

>>4426943
There are much easier ways to get yourself banned. Here, I've gotten global bans for posting this picture before, just spam it on multiple boards and eventually your troubles will be over.

>>4426950
cheers m8o

>>4426943
i was so excited op it said i was baned from all boards indefinitely but the ban disappeard for some reason

>>4426977
lol

>>4426411
My criticism of your post was coming from the fact that you assume a simplistic and universal experience for all women predicated on what is, quite frankly, bad history. While the Roman legions did succeed due to superior troop drilling management etc. they still swung swords, threw javelins, charged and bashed the enemy with their shields. To deny that this is anything other than work that requires brute strength on top of training is folly.
Additionally, aside from what is admittedly a good break down of the collapse of the Roman Republic, you offer no evidence aside from the smug "you've probably never seen a real slum" before to support your arguments. Can we really argue that the warfare of Germanic tribes in represents some eidos of war? War does change, has changed, will changed. The aim of those who would exclude women from the military is to exclude women from public society in general. I get it, you want to make me believe that the metrics by which women were previously judged were objective, but I find it hard to believe that a group of men, many of whom feel they are invested in maintaining the military as a boys club, would allow for women to have an easy time entering and working in the military.
Let me offer one last thought. If you really want to make someone believe what you believe, to change their opinion so that more people think like you, talk like you, etc, it would probably be beneficial for you to argue without the pitiful moralizing.

>>4427010
>The aim of those who would exclude women from the military is to exclude women from public society in general. I get it, you want to make me believe that the metrics by which women were previously judged were objective, but I find it hard to believe that a group of men, many of whom feel they are invested in maintaining the military as a boys club, would allow for women to have an easy time entering and working in the military.

This is a persection complex taken to an unbelievable degree. The military is not part of "public society," it is a terrible, demanding necessity for the existence of a nation, and women do not make the cut. Your idiotic victim complex is literally going to result in men (and women, if you have your way) dying unnecessarily. You are a fucking moron, and demanding that people not be made to die so that some bourgeois prick can feel good about herself is not "pitiful moralizing."

>>4427010
>The aim of those who would exclude women from the military is to exclude women from public society in general. I get it, you want to make me believe that the metrics by which women were previously judged were objective, but I find it hard to believe that a group of men, many of whom feel they are invested in maintaining the military as a boys club

Every morning I wake up, kiss my draft card, and thank God that I'm part of an exclusive boys club where death and dismemberment is a statistical possibility.

Pic related. What a bunch of lucky bastards.

>While the Roman legions did succeed due to superior troop drilling management etc. they still swung swords, threw javelins, charged and bashed the enemy with their shields. To deny that this is anything other than work that requires brute strength on top of training is folly.

This isn't "brute" strength. The average soldier's pack now weighs the same or fucking more as it did back then. It's just strength. YOU NEED TO CARRY KILLING IMPLEMENTS AND SURVIVAL ACCOUTREMENTS TO BE A SOLDIER.

Even if you're some kind of super specialised sniper or recky, you're still going to be lugging a hell of a pack because you need to survive, you need to camouflage, you need to communicate and coordinate, and you need to lug the shit your buddies can't. And you need to lug your buddies, sometimes, too.

War is fought by the killiest animal that can follow orders, not because we want to exclude the less killy animals to be dicks, but because:
1) WE WANT TO WIN, and
2) THE ENEMY IS GOING TO BE USING HIS OWN KILLIEST ANIMALS, effectively forcing us to meet or exceed his killing capacity.

It's not bad history. Women would have been fucking destroyed in any front line battle ever fought in history. They have made significant contributions and you can integrate them all you want in a supporting role, but frankly the problems which they demonstrate in training environments are more psychological than physical most of the time. Even when we start piloting badass robot laser suits around women will still probably be 32% more prone to crying in them, like they are now. They break down.

>>4424570
This thread is way off fucking topic.

>Would the essence of the book be changed?
What is the essence of The Road, first off? I'm genuinely interested. Secondly, it would depend how it was done. If you just changed the names of the characters from the boy and the man to the girl and the woman, I guess the average reader would feel a greater sense of jeopardy for the two, given longstanding prejudices about women being the more vulnerable sex.

>Would the relationship between daughter and mother be significant different to the relationship between father and son?
Again, would depend on how it was done. If you just swapped the names, you'd have to ask in what ways to the average reader, does the relationship between fathers/sons differ from that of mothers/daughters in a survival situation. What do you think about this one /lit/?

>Caravan of Cannibals
I guess you'd be less likely to assume that the parent and child would be raped before being eaten, as women are less likely to do the raping. Then again, didn't the caravan have a woman or two in it, or back at base? Because of genderswap, those would be far more likely to rape our protagonists, before eating them.

>>4425293
I prefer your analysis because women raping others is hotter.

>>4425245
Biology can only be understood in an environment. That includes culture. Trying to separate the two doesn't make sense.

>>4427010
The Romans marched into battle swinging their swords upwards at the same time they stepped. Breaking formation for heroics is the dumbest thing you could do. In fact, the most effective way of defeating your enemies, and safest for individuals, is to go as slow as the slowest soldier in your group, meaning unless you were the least fit in your group you shouldn't be exerting yourself greatly.

Since biology varies greatly among genders, it would be possible for women to be fit enough to serve in most ancient armies, because they would only have to be as mentally and physically tough as the weakest man in the army. That's not why that's a bad idea.

Women are more important than men. They pass on more genes to offspring, while prenatal effects and mothering styles have huge effects on brain, body development, gene activation and the immune system. Using fertile women for anything dangerous is just not optimal for reproductive success. It's no wonder successful societies have never done it.

This also means any form of power that is at risk of violence shouldn't be allowed to women. Since medieval and older states were formed to wage and protect against war, or manage power that required violence, it wouldn't make sense to give women power unless you could be assured of their safety, or they simply weren't important biologically.

It's very telling Queen Elizabeth I never had children.

>>4427210
>mothering styles have huge effects on brain, body development, gene activation and the immune system.
Interesting. Source?

>>4424889

>read up on primitive societies across the world. Women are almost universally treated like chattel.

Like what? I've never heard of a hunter-gatherer society that treats women poorly.

>>4424889
>If you think this is unthinkable, read up on primitive societies across the world. Women are almost universally treated like chattel.

According to who?
Women in pre-agricultural societies are generally treated exactly the same as men.

This is why tribal societies generally fall under the social label of being "proto-Communist" due the lack of class presence.

"What is it, Mama?"
"People on the road. Keep your face down. Dont look."
No smoke from the dead fire. Nothing to be seen of the cart. She wallowed into the ground and lay watching across her forearm. An army in tennis shoes, tramping. Carrying three-foot lengths of pipe with leather wrappings. Lanyards at the wrist. Some of the pipes were threaded through with lengths of chain fitted at their ends with every manner of bludgeon. The women clanked past, marching with a swaying gait like windup toys. Withered faces, their breath smoking through their masks. Shh, she said. Shh. The phalanx following carried spears or lances tasseled with ribbons, the long blades hammered out of trucksprings in some crude forge upcountry. The girl lay with her face in her arms, terrified.

They passed two hundred feet away, the ground shuddering lightly. Tramping. Behind them came wagons drawn by slaves in harness and piled with goods of war and after that the men, perhaps a dozen in number and lastly a supplementary consort of pregnant maidslaves, illclothed against the cold and fitted in dogcollars and yoked each to each. All passed on. They lay listening.

"Are they gone, Mama?"
"Yes, they’re gone."
"Did you see them?"
"Yes."
"Were they the bad girls?"
"Yes, they were the bad guys."
"There’s a lot of them, those bad girls."
"Yes there are. But they’re gone."
They stood and brushed themselves off, listening to the silence in the distance.
"Where are they going, Mama?"
"I dont know. They’re on the move. It’s not a good sign."
"Why isnt it a good sign?"
"It just isnt. We need to get the map and take a look."

>>4425947
except that's total bullshit, you illiterate uneducated faggot.

>>4428934
>mfw this is breddy gud

now, did we need a "debate" to arrive at the conclusion you come to when I read this? Or was this a "let's rant about women like we always do, with exactly the same arguments as always" thread and I didn't notice?

>>4429106
>you come to

that should be "I came", tho

>>4427129
>thinking all men are the same and all women are the same

This is why i need feminism. I want to be judges by my merit not by my 'manlyness' how killi i ought to be or what a "man" should do with his life.

>>4425283
and you are aware that women cannot get pregnant without men, right you cunt?

>>4429188
so you want the army to stop lowering PRT standards for women and go back to "equal opportunity" like it was at the outset of feminism, before affirmative action and social levelling kicked in?

you realize no women passed those tests, right? lol

>>4429446
The tests women couldn't pass were pull-up tests biased toward the body structure of men, not overall strength. Women's bodies have weight distributed lower than men, so there isn't a point where the pull-up becomes easier as it does for men. It's not a particularly useful test anyway, since a soldier in actual combat is going to be too weighed down to climb anything without a foothold or assistance.

>>4429468
how about the test whereby if you're under a certain height you don't get in at all? you know, as was the norm for most professional militaries ever? what's the average height of women vis-a-vis men again?

you can't argue from particulars here. men are stronger and hardier in a thousand different little ways. sure, you could account for each one, and do a lot of balancing tricks to make everything as feminist-y as possible, but why bother? especially with all the other problems mentioned. army women are notorious whores.

>>4429542
>implying this notoriety isn't a societal mechanism to shame them so other women won't join armies

do you even propaganda

>>4429549
The number of women who are active duty service members or veterans of the U.S. military is increasing. Studies among young, unmarried, active duty servicewomen who are sexually active indicate a high prevalence of risky sexual behaviors, including inconsistent condom use, multiple sexual partners, and binge drinking, that lead to unintended and unsafe sex. These high-risk sexual practices likely contribute to chlamydia infection rates that are higher than the rates in the U.S. general population. Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical dysplasia may also be higher among young, active duty servicewomen. Little is known about the sexual practices and rates of sexually transmitted infections among older servicewomen and women veterans; however, women veterans with a history of sexual assault may be at high risk for HPV infection and cervical dysplasia. To address the reproductive health needs of military women, investigations into the prevalence of unsafe sexual behaviors and consequent infection among older servicewomen and women veterans are needed. Direct comparison of military and civilian women is needed to determine if servicewomen are a truly high-risk group. Additionally, subgroups of military women at greatest risk for these adverse reproductive health outcomes need to be identified.

>>4429553
Try to read the whole study plebe. Are you afraid of female biology? Do you find it nasty?

No
No
No

That's easy

Seriously though, it is the society that decides gender stereotypes, not the characters of a novel
However, as long as the characters are not actively challenging the gender notion, it doesn't matter that much

When the hypothetical character decides to do certain things because "it should be a girl to do this" then the difference will start to show

Look, women are just as strong as men. Look at military service in the USA now that they can be in combat. Oh, wait. Literally none of them could pass the training and it's a fucking farce. They will eventually lower the bar so that women feel super special and lots of soldiers will die because of it.

>>4429687
>lots of soldiers will die because of it.

Good.

>>4429687
Lots of soldiers are already dying because the military uses 20th century tactics in 21st century conflicts. It's nice that you care so much about soldiers' lives and aren't merely using them to validate your talking points in a discussion that has nothing to do with them.

>>4429712
Why is it that the West is full of so many people who reflexively hate themselves, their people, and their ancestors simply for winning? Rhetorical question. It's because this is a classic symptom of terminal cultural decline.

>>4429723
You're on 4chan.org, not West.org man.

Edgy teens are a subset of the population.

>>4429722
>the fact that men are stronger than women is just a "talking point" which has nothing to do with a discussion about the incorporation of institution that demands extreme physical exertion and endurance from its members

>>4429723
A symptom isn't the cause of anything and even if it were, you should say "It's due to..."
Why are you a Nazi when you can't even be a grammar Nazi hmmmm?

>>4429751
lol

>>4429723

If you're truly worried about "terminal cultural decline" why are you on an anime-centric imageboard and posting macros from Japanese cartoons for pedophiles

The world may never know!

>>4424570
Ich konnt𝖊 bis d𝖆to 𝖊s d𝖊n Kl𝖊insl𝖆w𝖊n nicht 𝖊inm𝖆l zu tr𝖆u𝖊n, ihr𝖊 𝖊ig𝖊n𝖊n, 𝖊rfund𝖊n𝖊n, Ps𝖊udospr𝖆ch𝖊n zu 𝖊rl𝖊rn𝖊n und nun r𝖊d𝖊t hi𝖊r 𝖊in𝖊r s𝖊lbst d𝖆s Englisch𝖊 und d𝖆s Fr𝖆nzösisch𝖊. D𝖆 wirst du mir für d𝖊in𝖊 g𝖊s𝖆mt𝖊 N𝖆tion Antwort st𝖊h𝖊n müss𝖊n, Bohm𝖆k𝖊! W𝖆rum li𝖊st ihr K𝖊ro𝖆k? Ist d𝖆s modisch? Woh𝖊r kommt di𝖊 Mod𝖊 für d𝖊n F𝖊minismus? H𝖆b ihr d𝖊n in 𝖊ur𝖊r 𝖊ig𝖊n𝖊n Lit𝖊r𝖆tur d𝖊nn nicht schon b𝖊ss𝖊r 𝖆bg𝖊h𝖆nd𝖊lt? K𝖊nnst du d𝖊n Pr𝖆g𝖊r Unt𝖊rgrund? K𝖊nnst du Bohumil Hr𝖆b𝖆l? Mir k𝖆m 𝖊s vor d𝖆ss b𝖊i 𝖊uch d𝖆s W𝖊ibsvolk d𝖊utlich 𝖊m𝖆nzipi𝖊rt𝖊r ist 𝖆ls irg𝖊ndwo im wild𝖊n Am𝖊rik𝖆n𝖆. W𝖆s ist d𝖊in𝖊 M𝖊inung zu d𝖊n W𝖊ib𝖊rn Pr𝖆𝖆gs? V𝖊rh𝖆lt𝖊n sich di𝖊 Sl𝖆w𝖊n zu d𝖊n D𝖊utsch𝖊n nicht wi𝖊 d𝖊r N𝖊g𝖊r zu 𝖊in𝖊m w𝖊iß𝖊n Am𝖊rik𝖆n𝖊r? W𝖆s ist d𝖊in𝖊 M𝖊inung zu d𝖊m Typ𝖊n d𝖊r di𝖊 Richly Pr𝖆hy m𝖆cht? Pr𝖊isfr𝖆g𝖊: W𝖆nn wird Eg𝖊r wi𝖊d𝖊r d𝖊utsch?

>>4429837
>20% Fraktur

nein, so lasse ich nicht mit mir reden

>>4429845

>>4429864
Bin weder OP noch Bem, und hier in Wien liest man die Mutter Kuharsch nicht mehr

>>4429877
Im Trutz Simplex werden ganz am Anfang die Tschechen derklärt, von da kommt die Frage. Und warum schläft ein Wiener nicht? Ist es bei euch nicht nacht?

>>4429581
Yes, I'm gay. That doesn't really have much of an impact on whether or not military women have 7 times the STD rate of civilian women, which they do.

>>4429924
doch. Werde eh gleich brav Heia machen. /lit/ ist nachts einfach qualitativ hochwertiger

>>4429927
But that's just because ravishment is an unalienable part of a soldier's habitus.

Asking what would happen if male characters were replaced by male ones is not feminist theory, it's shit stirring but I guess it worked.

Also, /lit/, you didn't get friendzoned because of the evil feminist agenda. Let it go man.

>>4424570
oi alter, was geht denn hier los

>>4431188
Why does every goddamn thing have to have "you're not good enough for pussy lel" appended to it? I guess this one could be a troll or parody, but it's every single fucking pro-feminist post on 4chan ever.

I mean it's circumstantial ad hominem, but who even cares about that, that's part of the fun of 4chan. It's just repetitive.

>>4425947
>READ ABOUT THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN TRIBAL SOCIETIES
Yeah there was only one type of tribal society ever
fucking Americans

>>4431271
Fact: 4chan is filled with men who don't think much of women.
Fact: 4chan is filled with people who have trouble getting laid.
I'm not saying the conclusion is obvious but it's hard not to make an intellectual jump.

>>4429837
Nana, habe ich Ihnen das Du bereits angeboten? Meine Nation ist die Deutsche und ich befinde mich im Begriff das Tschechische zu erlernen. Ziel ist es Großmutters alte Heimat zu besichtigen. Bohumil Hrabal kenne ich nicht, wird aber notiert. Um Eger wird sich Merkel kümmern, hintenrum, über Europa.

>>4431291
Fact: I fucked ur mum
Fact: She loved it

>>4431792
Fact: I'm adopted
Also a fact: I have 2 dads
#REKT

>>4424872
true

>>4425226
>There is more difference within each gender than between them.

What does this even mean? If man A has 10 gender difference units relative to Man B but Man B has only 2 gender difference units more than Woman A then Man A is going to be 12 difference units apart from Woman A. and the more gender difference units Women B, C, D, etc are from Man A the wider that gap is going to be. Even if say there is a greater disparity of gender difference units from the most gender neutral man to the most sexually dimorphic man than there are between the most gender neutral man and gender neutral woman every man that's any more sexually dimorphic than "most gender neutral" is going to be the base difference between men and women plus whatever more maleness he has than the base difference.

>>4431960
You're assuming that there's an absolute limit between men and women, which isn't really the case if we're talking about gender. There are plenty of women who are more "manly" than you are, just as there are plenty of men more effeminate than most women.

>>4431997

Having worked alongside women in amanual labor job, no, there really aren't. Women can't into being men.

>>4431997
just not when you scan their brains, check nervous responses, or do a full bloodcount, and generally not when social mores are tested. thank goodness empiricism is bunk or we'd never have class against class, and where would we be then besides communism?

I really feel that people should remember something really important
>despite the fact that "Bedechel Test" sounds really official
>it's all from a comic strip about man hating lesbians
>think about that for a second before you start forming opinions about things.
>A lesbian comic strip.

>>4432373
oh cool, an ad hominem, never heard that before

>>4432377
You might have read about it in the calvin & hobbes test they instituted in most liberal colleges.

>>4432018
>>4432022
>gender
There are men who don't do manual labor. Male nurses and househusbands are seen as more effeminate than women by most people, this shouldn't even be an argument unless you just want to argue

>>4431919

Fact: ur dad (the gayer one) dressed up as a woman
Fact: I was drunk
Fact: I loved it
Fact: I'm very confused right now
Fact: I'm going to go fag bashing tonight to assuage my incipient feelings of homosexual desire, shame, and emasculation
Fact: balls didn't touch
Fact: no homo

>>4432373
Then remember this comment was posted by an anonymous internet user on a website populated by otaku and celebrity foot fetishists

>>4432393
>not assuaging your incipient feelings of homosexual desire, shame, and emasculation by engaging in homoerotic hazing rituals w/ your bros
bro do u even bro

>>4432396
>Not recognizing the irony of your own statement
I think you need to put your post against the Jim Davis Test to really see how dumb you sound.
>Is it Monday?
>Lasagne?
>Does Jon appear in more than on panel?

Otherwise I don't think you have a good argument friend.

>>4432386
>implying I'm in murica
>implying there are "librul" colleges
>implying you're not full of shit

>>4425947
Post-apocalyptic refers to the context of a post-contemporary civilization, meaning that the people in it would have, for the most part, contemporary values.
Women could work the politics of that scenario in their favor.

You people hoard so much knowledge that it almost seems like you forget how to think.

>>4432516
>not being post-ironic
smh

>>4433045
>Implying colleges don't swing horrendously left

0/10 bait

>>4426190
Yes, and McCarthy is a fucking edgy retard for that.

>>4433795
i think that comic gave me cancer

>>4433837
i think that comment gave me le epic meme xD

>>4433842
>I know! I'll fight buzzwords with buzzwords!

>>4433845
>greentext

>>4433845
>>4433879
>misusing the quoting function

>>4426927
>(she) probably took 27 pictures to get the perfect one to post on facebook for no reason, itself an ostentatious, self-absorbed thing to do

>(when you look at it) your immediate reaction is like "wow, she's really sweet, i'd love to date such a qt".

Gee, I wonder why. You guys need to get over >tfw no gf and actually forgive women for their flaws.

>>4425157
>implying the survival of the race in any way requires the consent of the women involved.

>>4433941
But I'm perfect in every way so it's only natural for me to have such scruples.

See the peak of human evolution is a fat unemployed 20something slob loser who never fuckin does anything. It's just a shame no one else realizes that.

>>4424889
The only woman I know who would actually thrive in a post-apocalyptic world has been training in mixed martial arts and broadsword fighting since she was seven.

mfw I married her

>>4433990
Did they train her how to unrape herself?

>>4425287
Actually, physical strength only comes into play in some close combat when a man can surprise a women. In karate, and other forms of hand to hand, the opponents very size is used against them. Women are just as good with knives, guns, bows, etc. and a poison is a women's friend as well.

>>4433990
>implying a woman that knows how to fight can actually overpower a man that knows how to throw a punch
My sides reached escape velocity.

>>4433996
You try to rape her and tell me what happens.

>In before some fantasy scenario where she's somehow instantaneously surrounded by a rape squad of marine corps vets who served 300 tours in iraq.

>>4433997
> In karate, and other forms of hand to hand, the opponents very size is used against them.

What? Physical strength is still a huge factor in every form of unarmed combat. A man has a massive advantage over a woman in any unarmed combat sport simply by virtue of being a man--and this includes BJJ, which is probably what you have in mind when say that "the opponent's size is used against them." Yes, to a certain degree one does focus on learning how to negate or make use of one's opponent's strength, but it doesn't change the fact that the stronger and larger they are, the bigger the advantage they have over you. It is NOT easier to fight a larger opponent. I fear you have been seriously misinformed.

>>4424611
is Go really a cool game?

>>4431948
Really? And people didn't start with a matriarchal society? Men don't build cities to please women? Tell me what YOU think drives civilization?

>>4434039
Building cities = civilization. If there is still city-building civilization in the post-apocalypse then it wasn't the bloody apocalypse. I think the key word here is APOCALYPSE. You want a more realistic picture of how women will be treated? Contemporary South Africa or post-Revolutionary Egypt--and both of those are only scratching the surface.

>>4434016
about as good as a perfect-information board game gets.

>>4434006
The majority of people do not know how to fight, and those that do have only rudimentary skill. On top of this, most attacks on women (and fights in general) do not start with the assailants in high adrenaline rage, but begin instead with an intimidation round where an assailant is more vulnerable and not expecting a fight. Most sneak attacks by sexual predators are crude grapples by people who don't know their grips can be countered, and have no clue there are counters to the counters.

A woman with skill and training is still at the advantage in anything that's not a full on beastmode fight with a man. And even a woman with a little training has a better chance of enduring the initial attack and getting away.

People like >>4433997 have no practical experience and are just focusing on the one factoid they know.

>in before I got in a fight in a bar once my brother and I used to wrassle I know all about it tough guy