/lit/ - Literature

>due to his lack of success with them
why do women always assume that's why they are hated? is it because it makes them feel better about themselves?

>>8912891

They assume by default they're just as intelligent as men but never provide an argument for it.

>>8912861
Probably influenced by an all male political homosexual power cult.

>>8912861
>say that women are different from men and explain exactly how
>LOL U A MISOGYNIST WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN????
every fucking time

>>8912912
it's like mary wollstonecraft or jean's cucker didn't exist or something

>>8912861
The misogyny = lonely men thing is pretty fucking misleading. You could be openly misogynistic in the 19th century and have a wife, no contradictions really.

Also his perspective on women is often better than his contemporaries, even if they're shitty and wrong alot of the time.

>>8912946

Trash.

>>8912968
Provide a rebuttal then.

>>8912917

Your not real

>>8912964
>implying having a wife who is oppressed, unhappy and unfulfilled by 19th century society makes a man less lonely
>implying that "there were worse cases of blatant misogyny" is a valid argument

/lit9k/ shows its true face again

It's probably due to his/their lack of success with women

>>8912988
the problem with dismissing anti-women arguments with ad-homs on the authors lack of pussy-gettin' is that it doesn't work against gays or guys who fucked a lot of chicks...peter theil is a woman hater with a philosophy degree from Stanford and he's billionaire who chills with Trump...saying he's "just mad cuz he can't get laid" doesn't work

>people who are shunned reciprocate the feelings
shocker

>>8912861

>later became a misogynist due to his lack of success with them

That didn't happen, though.

Nietzsche was far from a misogynist - but the compliments he pays to women are so veiled, so back-handed, that idiots always assume otherwise.

He notes at one point, for example, that whatever a women might suffer - she can at least console herself with the thought that she is able to enslave a man.

He didn't like feminism PRECISELY because it sought to put women on an equal footing with men - which to Nietzsche would have been a demotion of sorts. That women have a certain mystique, their own way of seeing the world and one that is wholly alien to that of men - this is what he admires.

He arguably does not see women as inferior, superior or even equal - but something different, and any attempt to erase that difference is but a folly.

>>8912990
oh for ppl who don't follow silicon valley gossip: theil is gay

>>8912980
>implying 19th century were unfulfilled because they couldn't be blue haired dyke trannies getting abortions every week
>implying that historical context is irrelevant and we should view everything from the lens of modernity isn't a retarded argument
Nice try.

>>8913004

Funnily enough, we're a long way off from the degeneracy that existed in the Weimar Republic.

I'm talking kids-giving-BJs-for-a-Deutschmark-tier degeneracy.

The Right are getting it easy when all they have to worry about is trannies using bathrooms.

>>8912980
>>8912980
>implying 19th century women were unfulfilled just because they couldn't be blue haired dyke trannies getting abortions every week
>implying that historical context is irrelevant and we should view everything from the lens of modernity isn't a retarded argument
Nice try.

>>8912975

To what?

>>8912980
>oppressed, unhappy and unfulfilled by 19th century society
Do you have any evidence to support this extraordinary claim that women were unfulfilled and unhappy in the 19th century? Studies show a reversed correlation between self-reported happiness of women and social "progress" for women.

See: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

It's almost as if having lots of children to take care of makes women feel fulfilled and happy, whereas putting off having children so they can get useless degrees and proceed to be wage slaves during their prime reproductive years does the opposite.

>>8913123
correlation is not causation anon

also you can't apply trends of the last 35 years to the fucking 19th century

>>8913166
>correlation is not causation
why do leftists parrot this?

correlation does not necessitate causation, but it can indicate it

>>8913166
>correlation is not causation anon
No, but it is suggestive.

>>8913166
>also you can't apply trends of the last 35 years to the fucking 19th century
The trends of the last 35 years fly in the face of millions of years of evolution, so. Women evolved to be gratified by child rearing, it's a fucking fact.

>>8913123
This exactly

Feminism was a big shit-test and we all failed

>>8913170
>>8913174
>implying I'm a leftist

sure it can indicate it, but you can't make normative claims without extra research backing it up

>>8912994

>Tfw the only correct post ITT is a fucking frogpost

2017 is off to a shit start.

>>8913182
The anon asserting that women were unhappy and unfulfilled in the 19th century due to "oppression" is the one who bears the burden of proof. I merely presented some evidence that suggests the contrary.

>>8912980
Oppression doesn't work that way. People can be oppressed and still feel happy and contented. Time to grow up a little and read more feminist texts instead of just 1984.

>>8912861
>>8912891
>>8912980
>>8912994
>>8913123
>>8913174
>>8913205
Please don't reproduce
I met many retarded people in my years on this site but you easily made it into the top 10 with this

You actually don't understand shit, so please let me give you this one advice, and please take it:
You are horribly stupid and it hurts, don't ever try to spread the shit you believe to know about anything ever again.

Now please try to think about the shit you're telling us here for at least 5 minutes and maybe you find the giant flaws in your logic all by yourself.
No one is here to give you private lessons. Maybe google "what makes linux distros different?".
If you still don't get it then, just kill yourself.

>>8913229

>>8913226
so who gets to decide who's oppressed? privileged white males are going to tell 19th century women, muslim women, north korean farmers, etc. if they are "truly happy" or not? isn't that a kind of oppression? to have some overeducated rich dickhead tell you that you aren't smart enough to know you aren't happy? bro, check ur p

>>8913236
>>8913229
Shit! Forgot to replace the last part.
Can you pretend we are talking about GNU/Linux?

>>8913245
epic troll dude, you really will catch some fish with this hot bait

>>8912980
>call nietzsche's views on women shitty and wrong
>get called a robot

okay then

what does 'success' with women mean?

>>8912994
From anecdotal experience, I agree with Nietzsche's viewpoint.

>>8913248
nice way to dodge the question, scrub

>>8913257
it means u fuck them all the time and they suck ur dick whenever you want, basically if you don't use women like sextoys on the reg then you are a misogynist don't you know?

>>8913229
>Please don't reproduce
Too late for that friend. Maybe if your understanding wasn't so fundamentally limited to the realm of the virgin, you'd better understand that the posts you linked are far better informed than your own.

>>8913262
Try reading some feminist texts, or any sophisticated texts on oppression really.

>>8913294

>Try reading some feminist texts, or any sophisticated texts on oppression really.

Why would anyone put themselves through that?

>>8913294
>Try reading some feminist texts
Now that would be real oppression. LOL.

>>8913294
all that says is that people who are willing and able to write and publish books feel that other people living different lifestyles from their own choices are "oppressed"

>>8913338
>>8913352
>>8913353
opinion disregarded

>NEECHE IS A MISOGYNIST
>not understanding his writings within the time and place in which they were produced
>not reading on the use and abuse of history which directly tells you that the dumbest fucking thing you can do is project your values onto the actions of past people

>>8913294
>go read some books and figure out for yourself why i'm right

every fucking time

>>8913365
> the dumbest fucking thing you can do is project your values onto the actions of past people
> thinking all morals are relative
Look, anon, I understand where you're coming from in this particular case, but this is the same sort of relativist mindset that allows liberals to overlook many of the horrors of the modern day Islamic world.

>>8913377
>implying a right-wing twat's bait question deserves sincerity

lel he's lucky i even responded seriously

>>8912861

I'm sick and tired of this dumbass "educated" mass of millennials coming to the amazing and insightful conclusion that people 100+ years ago had different values than us.
We need 5000 more blogposts of this in case we aren't aware yet.

>>8913378
>the le islam is evil meme
conservatives are even worse than liberals

>>8913294
But there are no sophisticated feminist texts. Your entire point is that the well educated are someone less able to understand something, this is contradictory non sense.

>>8912964

>You could be openly misogynistic in the 19th century and have a wife

This is still the case in the 21st century.
Tons of dudes getting laid like crazy with zero respect for women.

PC culture has killed any form of debate. Just use cheap ad hominem to not address the situation or scream that the other party is a horrible person for not being current year enough.

>>8913398
>Your entire point is that the well educated are someone less able to understand something, this is contradictory non sense.
what the actual fuck are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>>8913388
>any opinion that isn't mine is bait and le troll

every fucking time

>>8913397
Female castration? Institutionalized rape harems? The total lack of rights for women? COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT. We need a third bathroom type in McDonalds, anything less is EVILLLLLLLLLLL.

fucking idiot

>>8913397
wait i'm confused is islam oppressive to women, or an alternative lifestyle like bsdm relationships that should be respected?

>>8913403
Not really, you can't be nearly as open about it, but yes there's still plenty of misogyny, even some pretty overt today. Just listen to the lyrics of rap music.

>>8913397

Islam and free and safe societies don't go well together if you paid any attention.
So yeah, I think I'll be a prejudiced bigot in that case. Seems like colleges nowadays their main job is to undo young people's ability for pattern recognition.

>>8913405
Try reading the Wiki you linked, dumbass, there's no strawman here. Or will being actually informed on the matter discredit your thoughts on it, as your prior post indicates..
>>8913245

>>8913407
>>8913412
Of course that happens, and it happens in the Islamic areas of the world. Maybe you should read more and think about what before spewing your retarded shit. I mean that, really think, don't just kneejerk like all conservatives do.

>>8913403
>Tons of dudes getting laid like crazy with zero respect for women.

the biggest women haters are the ones who get the most pussy, either because they are secretly fags trying to look straight by fucking everything with a vag, or they are just so desensitized from fucking sluts that women seem retarded to them

>>8913416
Islamic areas of the world have undergone countless wars and oppression as a result of white niggers fucking up their countries. Some of those areas were pretty nice 60 years ago before white Christians fucked everything up.

>>8913422
Conservatives have the right idea of Islam. Leftists want to let them keep on undermining and destroying society everywhere, and invite them to destroy our own, while focusing on petty identity politics back home and pretending they are oppressed. If you had one iota of critical thinking you'd understand this, but sure, disregard it like any other opinion that doesn't fit into your ideological microcosm.

>>8913418
>hur hur i won't explain how i got z from x and y

opinion disregarded, go troll reddit with this low-tier bait.

>>8913425
if you actually lived in the actual world and not /r9k/, you would see this is untrue.

>>8913430
Good post, you really convinced me with those well-reasoned points and factual information.

Oh wait, conservatives don't have that, they only have hysterical ranting about concepts they don't even grasp.

>>8913432
the irony is staggering

>>8913432
>if you actually lived in the actual world and not /r9k/, you would see this is untrue.

dudes who actually like women end up in monogamous relationships eventually, if you're fucking a new chick every week then you probably like pussy but not women

>>8913436
right but russians just hacked our election, it's not fair it was HER turn and then putin stole the election and gave it to trump! liberals looks increasingly retarded these days.

>>8913438
>>8913439
>if i continue to yell and stamp my feet i can forever maintain my retarded belief systems

kek, you realize nobody is really reading your posts, or cares what you think and feel, yeah?

conservatives are children

>>8913429

They weren't nice 60 years ago. Stop producing fantasies you like to believe are true, but weren't.
Minority groups in the Islamic world have been literally stigmatized on medieval tier levels up until today without interruption.
You have your religion on your ID card in Lebanon for example.

>>8913436
I'm not trying to convince you, you can't be convinced, all of the facts and explanations have already been laid out before, in this very thread even. You want to be a victim, so you are. You want the right to be evil, so they are. Well have fun with that, all you're doing by being such a dumb petulant cunt is enabling the alt-right, Trump assuming office in a few weeks is the ultimate proof.

>>8913441
>noises

>>8913441
>mfw Hillary LITERALLY wanted to do the same thing she accuses Trump of doing in Palestine
>http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

lmao at democucks, their hypocrisy literally knows no bounds they're so desperate to be the victims they totally ignore reality

>>8913451
>>>/r/the_donald

I though people with a 4th-grade reading level like Trump weren't allowed on /lit/

>>8913397
Yeah it's not like the man who founded the religion raped children and enslaved women or anything lmao it's just a stupid meme lmao xD Islam isn't the problem!

>>8913446
LITERALLY A WHITE FUCKING WHALE

>>8913436

Hysterical conservatives hu? Unlike leftists who literally throw themselves into traffic shreeking about their loss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZeJLm-xnw

When will you guys admit your faction is the irrational one?
Your journalists constantly start articles with headlines "what Trump says here is scary!" or "we should be afraid of [insert white male thing]!" and then refer to the other group as fear-mongerers.

>>8913444
>>8913446
>noises

temper tantrums are funny

>>8913451
>>mfw Hillary LITERALLY wanted to do the same thing she accuses Trump of doing in Palestine
It's ok when we do it to brown people, since they aren't people. It's the same reason feminists don't care about actual feminist causes in the Islamic world, it doesn't fit the fucking narrative, what does fit the narrative is how poor and victimized the same people who fund terrorism and cut up the genitals of little girls are, we need to respect their religion after all, they are oppressed by George Bush.

>>8913458
>i can find one example of a retarded person ergo you are that person

the "logic" of you conservatives is fucking hilarious

>>8913451
To be fair, Hillary probably meant they should assassinate the opposing leader. Putin stands accused of hosting a bored basement dweller in his country who hacked Clinton's Yahoo.

I don't think the two are very comparable.

>>8913455
/r/the_donald called, reddit misses your witty posts and clever insights; you're actually not wanted here.

>>8913446
>I'm not trying to convince you, you can't be convinced, all of the facts and explanations have already been laid out before, in this very thread even. You want to be a victim, so you are. You want the right to be evil, so they are.
This is basically all it comes down. The entire leftist stance summed up in so many words.

Better luck next year guys. Oh wait, I mean in the next 4 years.

>81 replies
>22 (you)s
>for so little effort

conservacucks are so easy, you're the sluts of the rage-debate world.

>>8913473
>stop making fun of the religion of peace!

>>8913481
>he has pornographic bestiality images saved on his computer

kek, get a girlfriend

>>8913470
>Putin stands accused of hosting a bored basement dweller

Snowden made a 170k and had a stripper gf, but nice try at shutin/virgin shaming lol

>>8913452
>>8913473
Wow, are Clinton shills still out in force? I guess this is what blowing 1.2 billion on a losing campaign buys you.

>http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html

Oh well, at least you aren't doing it for free....right?

>>8913477
>mfw trump supporters complain about media bias
>mfw trump supporters complain about anti-white hate
>mfw trump supporters complain about misandry
>mfw trump supporters complain about islamification
>mfw trump supporters complain about globalization

literally the entire conservative platform is victimhood, for literally everything you accuse leftists of, you have at least 5 hypocrisies pointing right back at you

>>8913485
Snowden hacked Clinton's emails? TIL. Thanks Reddit!

>>8913488
>mfw i trigger a trump supporter and he starts spamming about clinton

you're so easy, you don't even get what's going on. it's like when you start vacuuming so the dog freaks out, you're operating on such a low level you don't even comprehend the conversation

>heterosexual men who claim to have their shit together support a cringe public speaker of a grandmom for president

I will never understand why. Just stay home.

>>8913479
>spend the entire thread samefagging your leftist bait
>LMAO REPBLIKEKS SO EZ
Sad.

>>8913492
the only "hacker" putin is hosting is Snowden unless you got some classified shit we don't know

>>8913484
Surely all those who hate child rape and sex enslavement are simply girlfriendless virgin losers!! Am I right fellow feminists and liberals?

>>8913498
it is sad, that you're such a loser you freak out like this on 4chan. get a life

>https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Trolls_Trolling_Trolls

>>8913505
yeah but you don't have a girlfriend, so kek

>>8913506
>respond to every single post desperate to get the last post in samefagging all the way
>accuse others of being pathetic
ok anon

>>8913514
now THIS is irony :-)

>>8913513
Of course not. No one who disagrees with your political views could possibly have a girlfriend.

>>8913522
you keep changing the subject, i'm not talking about conservatives, i'm talking about YOU. don't deflect.

>>8913513
>>8913484
>>8913527
Spot the female poster

>you need a gf in life otherwise you're a loser

I can tell you guys are not 25 yet.

>>8913532
yeah the balance of power starts to shift after college, by 30 the ball is in the man's court

>>8913514
>>8913519
>samefag

>>8913513
and you don't have a husband, enjoy raising 50 feminist cats

>>8913513
>Can't win an argument because you're literally a stupid person
>Ignore their argument and "accuse" them of being a virgin/having no girlfriend
Wow, are liberals still using this self-defeating tactic?

[spoilers]tits or gtfo[/spoiler]

>>8912861
Men don't have the tenth of emotional insight/depth that women do

>>8913513
>Can't win an argument because you're literally a stupid person
>Ignore their argument and "accuse" them of being a virgin/having no girlfriend
Wow, are liberals still using this self-defeating tactic?

tits or gtfo

>>8913553
Seriously, women are on a higher plane emotionally, spiritually, and in general than men are.

>>8913558

>Seriously, women are on a higher plane emotionally, spiritually, and in general than men are.

No, not in general.

Spiritually and emotionally, yes.

Intellectually and physically, no.

Herein lies their dreadful irreconcilability.

>>8913558
They are also more intelligent and talented than men

look it up boys

>>8913558

Most women I've met and talk about mysticism will never go sperg and engineer tier in their response.
They always consider it or turn into full-on mediums without any prior engagement.

>>8913553
>>8913558
>women
>emotional depth
lol?

Women are highly emotional, but those emotions are usually extremely shallow and fleeting. I used to buy into the idea that women were the "empathetic" sex until I actually started dating women. It took me a good 5 years to realize that I wasn't just getting unlucky, but that most women simply stopped developing both emotionally and intellectually in their mid to late teens.

>>8913567
>>8913568
>>8913571
>>8913575
You guys realize how fucking ezpz this is, right?

Why are frustrated virgins so easy to trigger? Lol oops, answered my own question :-)

>tfw the great troll war of 2016 rages yet on
>tfw all these redditcucks linking back to thedonald
>tfw he assumes office this month
what a time to be alive

so many tears to sample

>>8913580
tits or gtfo

>>8913558
A propensity for spirituality is a fault, not a strength. There is no spirit.

They only experience certain emotions more extremely, and none them desirable.

Women are objectively inferior. History is the proof of it. You cannot argue with evolution.

>>8913581
Not crying, just bracing for a future where all of the people in red states have no healthcare or money, while us California are living cushy lives :-)

>>8913581
The true tears will be you conservacucks when you realize cutting all benefits and taxes makes you poorer than Muslims

>mfw you elected the one man who's going to fuck you hardest

jej, trolled yourself

>>8913589
who cares about ppl in red states, they wanted trump, they got trump, i'm not gonna cry about it, my city has a trump tower and new construction by his son-in-law going up this year, so he gonna keep the federal spigot on for us, even if we "sanctuary city"

>>8913595
>yfw liberals are so dumb they don't even know that the richest country in the world is a Muslim country

>>8913600
Trump doesn't control spending retard, congress does, and they're red in both places, so your funding will be cut.

>>8913614
actually my state, like all coastal states, sends more money to the federal government than it receives back, so if the red states suck a little less at the big govt teet that's fine by me

It's called the beta mentality.

True alpha philosophers recognise this and don't write about women.

>>8913588
>You cannot argue with evolution.

Modern day STEMtards everyone.

>>8913708

>>8913612
Yeah but like half the population is Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who slave away as construction workers and maids.

Also, Qatar and Saudi Arabia fund most of the Islamic terrorist groups that make the rest of the Islamic world shit, all with the U.S.'s money and support.

The US and the Gulf States fund terrorism to fight off Russian influence in the rest of the Islamic world. Russia could potentially invade the Persian Gulf and take all the oil if they built enough bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria.

>>8912946
>Mary wollstonecraft
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>8913229
t. roastie

>>8912994
This is exactly right. Read his aphorisms on women from Part II of the gay science. He sees women as different, more sensitive people, but not infection per se. And he clearly sympathizes with them.

>>8913436
You seem really insecure

Men need women as much as women need men. They compliment each other. I don't hate women for not being as intelligent or strong as men any more than I hate men for not being able to give birth.

Didn't Nietzsche descend into madness and became insane in 1888? Why would anyone listen to a philosopher who lost his mind? Genuine question

>>8913918
Wrong.

>>8913939
yes, that is a question. a pretty dumb one. but it is a question, that's true

>>8914083
Yes it is, what you're saying is true, about the question being a question.

>>8913918
Yes, this is the right attitude. Few man want a female with phenotypicaly strong expressed male features and those who do really seek other man, not females. I want a female to be able to speak about literature with me; by this i mean classical works only; but i do understand the discussion is nearly never objectivly about a book. I want to understand the interaction of a female with it and see a specifically female perspective. I don't believe Nietzsche hates females, he was a man only dedicated to his work and his work is mostly objective about females, but cruel by being so open and without noticing the spiritual dimension. What i mean by this, who they are males and females are cosmicaly in harmony. All the archetyps deep in out biology point to this, the princess who can't be princess who is rescued, protected and cherished by her man. And there is the male, who can't be the hero and king without a princess and so on.

>>8913175
>shit-test

Stop using this term

>>8912861

the problem is that there are too few attractive women for all the men that need that to be happy and comfortable with themselves.

I've always ask the same question but now I can clearly understand that our friend Nietzsche as many man had a disappointment of love
That fear make hate

>>8912912
There're no IQ differences between genders, only between races.

Stop being stupid, stupid. There're other reasons as to why men tend to be in the spotlight more than women, and it's not IQ

>>8912861
Frustration and blameshifting

>>8913918
They are as intelligent as men, not as strong on average.

>>8914587
Why do women write in such a cringeworthy, self-important way?

>>8914587
There are more geniuses among men.

>>8914587
>>8914602
There's no credible evidence of this, really. Any study showing men to be more intelligent is quickly shot down by liberal academics. A better metric would be accomplishment. Men have more innate drive to do things and get things done, and women don't, they just want to have a family and a man. So even high-IQ women have no need to USE their "intelligence", which is really the same as not having it.

All of the great scientists and artists were men.

>>8914602
Why would they be? It makes no sense from either an evolutionary or historical perspective. If women are/were just as intelligent as men, why were they subjugated? Please -- do explain this, it's damning evidence.

>>8914607
Reference a study that proves differences on IQ based on gender and not race.

Hint: You can't because it's not true. Get over it already.

>>8914526
5HEAD

>>8914615
yeah, that's what always nags me about women crying about their lower position in history, it's like "well if you were really equal then you wouldn't have ended up in that position"

>>8914616
There's one 2 posts above your own.

>>8912861
he became a better philosopher over time and that's why he realized how awful they are

>>8914610
>>8914612
IQ is a genetic trait, do you understand what that means?

There're other reasons for men achieving more things, such as risk taking, focusing on one thing at a time instead of multitasking like women, a less liking for human interaction -and I'm not saying that men don't like to socialize-, etc

>>8914631
You call a picture a study?
Holy fuck, that's gold.

>>8912861
Why do people get outraged when someone doesn't say something super nice about women?

>>8914616
Why didn't you answer my question?

>>8914659
>To discover who rules over you...

>>8914644
It's a summation of one, in an easily digestible pictorial form. What's so golden about that?

>>8914664
It's a loaded, completely subjective and useless question.

"If that statement bothers you so much, you should check your insecurities."
Now, this ^ other sentence on the other hand should be able get 'under your skin' at least a little bit.

>>8914693
>because it was too hard bbbbaaawww

Kys

>>8912861
It does not happen because of that, you cuck.

>>8914674
No, it's not. There's no study attached to it, it is literally a picture that anyone can make in their own computer, laptop or whatever device you are using.
It's used to spread misinformation that certain people with a specific agenda have.
To give a feel of superiority or self-importance to people who deep inside are insecure.

It's a retarded picture used to reinforce an echochamber.

If you really can't see or understand the difference between a study -and I'm not even saying legit, non-biased, intellectually honest study, just a study- and a picture you're on the 2 digit IQ sample. And you have yet not provided such a study, because, again, it doesn't exist because the premise you're working with is not true.

This is already beating a dead horse and I'm not going to waste more of my time with this point or you.

>>8914721
Are you aware of how stupid you sound/are?
No, of course you don't.

I was curious to see if you were going to be quiet about it or if you were going to cry because reason and logic are too harsh for that little bubble you live in. Of course you had to act in the only way you could, by playing retard.

I'm also not going to waste or use more of time with you, Ralph.

>>8914749
Literally 5 seconds of googling brings up scientific studies and a wiki article backing up the general idea of that unsourced graph.

You calling it misinformation is misinformation

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE CTR

>>8913252
Yeah she was being very emotional. Just ignore her. Or maybe she replied to the wrong person, idk. The best slaves are the ones who think themselves free. This applied to women in the past too. It's crazy how that flew over her head so hard.

>>8914615
....Because they are not as strong as men, which he just said. Men had the "might to make right." Women were physically weak and had no choice but to submit to whatever rules were laid down. "Might made right" Not objectively of course but just at the time before equality in law.

>>8913294
>>8912980
>>8913245
Hey the hell is up with you? Are you just trolling for real little girl? You weren't even reading half of the posts you replied to with insults because some of them were generally agreeing with you thar Nietzsche was a mysoginist douche. They just gave valid reasons on how lack if success with women isn't a valuable bench mark to definitively mark a misogynist, especially in the past paternalistic societies when it was common for men to think of women as he did. You just decided to go full retard and start insulting everyone on /lit/. You owe some people like >>8912964 an apology.
And I don't think you're an educated feminist because if you were, you would know anon was correct: read feminine mystique and actually pay attention to the definition lol. You sound like those insufferable teenage cunts that get all their feminist "theory" from tumblr lol. Actually take your own advice and read more books. Damn, what a shit thread. People are arguing about the recent election now too.

>>8914857
Your explanation makes no sense. Historically it was overwhelmingly the case that physically weak men were leaders who dictated the fates and doings of groups, of stronger others whose role it was to enforce social law.

I look forward to your next prevarication.

>>8914923
That was a little later after law and civilization took over though. I was talking about the very beginning, even before classical antiquity.
Men with the most resources, no matter how they obtained it became more and more common. However, by that time, women were still under the rule of laws made by men(strong or weak-weaker men are still stronger than many women). It wouldn't be til later when equality for all people(regardless of status or gender) became slowly implemented into the law that women had more of a chance. That and admittedly gradually increasing standards of living.

>>8913229
This is paste gentlemen, you've been bamboozled by a masterful b8.

>>8913245
see
>>8913248
b/c that is the answer you deserve.

you seem to want harder stuff. ok

KNOW, O checker of privileges, that that gravy boat you're on is not built to last. so unless you are a transgendered eskimo walrus covered in third degree burns know nobody's going to be reminding anyone to check their privilege at all pretty soon. you're going to be checking the grease traps at the Wendy's all you poststructuralist retards are going to have to suck nonbinary dicks to work at because the only jobs left in the universities will be maintaining the smoking crater-like vagina dentata where the libraries used to be because this is now the ultimate form of expression for he oppressed: performance-art dirty bombs (they feel so real! you can really feel the ironic subversion of the male gaze!) set off by hysterical ninth-wave feminist diversitroids outraged to the point of sheer orgasm by the sight of an uncucked white male. and not the one who owns that Wendy's, either. you will not see him. ever. you will report to a blockchain-based algorithm even though, of course, you're only doing this for the summer. but you will drag that blockchain forever. forever. because someday you think when the cis-het shitlords who are so deserving of a priv-check are gone, then the world will be free again for casual sex and selfies at the Nando's by the Great Mosque...but this day will never come. the time for that had passed. Barron Trump sees no one now, although he is said to have a wonderful golf swing, and life is pleasant in the clouds, and also in Davos and those parts of Shanghai where the other million billion parahuman trans-fuckbots like you now must roam, in search of part-time adjunct work, or teaching English, maybe...because the harvest now is in, but you were not saved. life, the old good life, is exiled now beyond your reach, in deep-sea luxury hotels, or on the moon: and the privilege there is so enormous that to check it would be ridiculous. and in those places they say, once again, let them eat cake. cake, someone on the crowded bus beside you says. I *identify* as a cake. that's cakism. it's a nanoaggression. and this talking cake begins her screed perhaps you feel, in this moment, a feeling of familiarity...yes, it's true. some things never do change.

>>8914960
So what you're saying is women have subjugated by men since the dawn of human history, and this is proof that they're the intellectual equals of men. Interesting theory.

>>8914960
>>8914960
So what you're saying is women have been subjugated by men since the dawn of human history, and this is proof that they're the intellectual equals of men. Interesting theory.

>>8912917
He's like 12 y/o in this picture, you think they let little tots like that become masons?

>>8915056
I'm not sure how well this debate can keep going if you just keeping putting words in my mouth and (imo purposely)fail at reading comprehension. I'll try to outline it again.
1. Earliest dawn of civilization(~20000-4000 B.C.) : Mostly strong men rule; Even weaker men get pushed around. Women are physically weak and "might makes right." Keep in mind 90% of men still stronger than most women, even the "weaker ones."

2. Later in history(~3000 b.c.-500s A.D): in most places resources, no matter how obtained(through intellect or strength) become most important means of power. Law and civilization already established but mostly biased against women. "Might still makes right."

4.(500s-1500s A.D) Men in most places have a monopoly on access to knowledge,violence, and thus power already. did i mention it still helps they are still physically stronger?
3. Law and civilization(~1600->1900s) move gradually towards equality, women finally have chance at access towards knowledge and thus power. Intelligence is becomes increasingly most important. It also helps that standards of living and technology increased gradually more and more. Fast forward to now.

>>8915406
Wrong. Man don't rule, because they are physicaly stronger. Man rule, because they are the gender with the stronger variation of outcome. You will in a natural society, in order words a functioning one, you will always find man at the top and at the bottem of society. The female biology isn't evolved to ensure they are capable to rule and to fight wars. A society, which artefically elevates females into leadership positions is bound to fail. It wasn't law and civilization, but mainly dyamics of time like ideology, which started to artifically put females into positions of power. Your view of history is a very female one, especially the linear view in combination with the subjective value judgements. Strengh wasn't the thing, ten weak man were always stronger, then the strongest one. Theory of the machiavellian origin of intellegence, sounds familiar?

>>8914766
*upvotes*

>>8915406
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that physically stronger men ruled until c. 4000? And what changed around that time?

If you actually look at "primitive" tribes today that isn't what you see. It's the people most adept at building coalitions that rise to the top. The same is true in chimpanzee bands, the chimps who build strong alliances always overcome physically large but socially inept chimps.

>>8915952
>natural society, in order words a functioning one
>female biology isn't evolved to ensure they are capable to rule
>view of history is a very female one

>>8916046
Three concepts you could objectivly parameterize and measure, nothing wrong with that. In fact there already is data to support it. While the post i replayed to, claimed for example there was only a rule of law, since approximatily 1600, which is a completly subjective value judgment.

>>8912994

Thread should have ended here tbqh

So many people in this thread implying OP actually believe that person becomes misogynist due lack of success.

so blind, mein sides

>>8916152
>So many women in this thread
ftfy

>>8913226
very true: the best slaves are the ones who believe themselves to be free.

>>8916016
Obviously I don't. I was breaking it down as simply as I could since you fail at reading comprehension and assumed I thought only the strongest men always ruled, even if it meant gross approximations. It's more complicated than that obviously, more of a progression. That is true that being social and working in a team is most important but you use that as an excuse to over simplify how the established social structures(since beginning) pretty much put women at a disadvantage of gaining power as a group. Men as a group had a monopoly on violence, knowledge, and resources which they decided how it would be distributed. I will continue to say "men as a group" from here on out to specify my meaning. Obviously it's retarded to view it from an individual point of view.
>>8915952
This is where I include this anon. Again you make the similar error as the anon above. You have no proof other then pure conjecture that there is just "something" about men that makes them better. You never look at the simple fact that you know...men and women KIND OF NEEDED EACH OTHER TO SURVIVE! It's not like different races or tribes where discord and fucking each other up can be tolerated.That's why it's dumb for anyone(even some feminists) to compare it to any other kind of "ism." Contrary to popular belief men and women needed each other equally as much if they were going to ensure they successfully propagate themselves and easily survive. I can elaborate on that in another post if you need me to.

Were gender roles helpful towards that progression at some point? Yeah. Was it necessary for men as a group to assume and create structures that served to confine women to those roles? Nope. Does that necessitate that women are less intelligent( which is part of that assumption)? Absolutely not! lol Quite the opposite really, considering now that monopolies over violence in modern periods was no longer most feasible way for men to hold power. Resources and education became the most important. The expectation that noble women SHOULD learn to read and be educated definitely helped(see time period 4). It really wasn't always like that. High standards of living and technology as I admitted also helped(the dynamic of time and ideology you mentioned).
POINT:You have no proof other then pure conjecture that there is just "something about men" that makes them better or smarter considering all these variables.

>>8917698
To further illustrate my point of the effect men being stronger as a group and monopoly of violence consider the following scenario:
> Roman noble women decide they want suffrage,the option to have the same education and ability to serve as generals(after all you had to serve in the military to be allowed to vote), and independence that their male counterparts received. To meet this end, they decide to get together and protest. Part of the protest involves a boycott by refusing to sleep with their husbands until senate gives into their demands.
How do you think that would have ended?

For the record, there was a point in history where Roman women protested(with different means of course) the Oppian law that banded them from wearing jewelry and expensive stuff. It was successful since they made a decent case and you know, it's was just jewelry.

>>8916152
the correlation is quite strong though.