/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2070435]

Feminist readers look for "Equality" and "Male oppression" in the wrong places.

In reality, women have had as much power as men through all history. If /lit/ asks questions instead of instantly banning me I'll let you see the light. Meanwhile this.

A hint.

[VeiL !!LpJFJwZq2Js No.2070441]

I wear a cloak and walk the nights.

Some have seen me in their peripheral scope as
Nothing more than a glint. A figment.

I am there. No doubt about it.
I am shelter, I am truth.

[Anonymous No.2070452]

You already have a thread on the front page lil homie

I know they shut down /r9k/, but there have to be about 30 subreddits where you'd feel at home

[Anonymous No.2070471]

>>2070452
The difference is, I'm not an r9k virgin, not a /b/ misogynist, not a white nationalist and much less a Nazi.

I actually have an argument.

[Anonymous No.2070483]

>>2070471
If you can't see how the the Barbarian/German women progressively started losing her status/role throughout history then you are ignorant. She was reduced from the Herrin status to a mere derp.
But this is the 21st century now and things are back as they should be, it's fixed and there is no point in feminism.

[Anonymous No.2070493]

I actually agree with you that modern notions of tolerance and multiculturalism are deeply problematic and contradictory. But I don't think the impulse behind it is bad; in fact, it's laudable. A tolerant spirit is a good thing. And feminism seeks to redress issues of real importance. Are there feminists who say things that I disagree with? no shit there are. But feminism in general is a Good Thing, and I have a real hard time taking complaints about 'attacks on masculinity' seriously because the whole thing relies on strawmen and reasoning that's dubious at best.

So I agree with the first part of your post, and I agree that there are a lot of economic issues and a lot of issues about gender roles to be addressed, but I don't think that FUCK FEMINISM is the answer. I don't think that "women need to stay at home and raise babies because that's what they're better at" is the answer. Fuck that noise.

[Anonymous No.2070578]

>>2070493
Multiculturalism is a word that can make me throw up ever since I heard Barbara Spectre pronounce it with her disgusting northeast american accent and it's also the easiest to debunk.

Feminism is the most complex issue on the list and the current Marxist notions like >>2070483 hers are product of a wrong approach to contemporary problems back in the 1960's.

I'll make an experiment: What do you see in this picture?

[Anonymous No.2070605]

OP you are a huge faggot. Just because you can't get pussy doesn't mean pussy is bad.

[Anonymous No.2070622]

>>2070578

That's a funny picture. Men aren't that weak that they can't handle a few problems at home, God forbid their pillow shouldn't be arranged. People aren't that weak. If men are strong enough to handle a "world of strain and pressure", then surely whatever happens in the home is child's play. I mean, what, can men not handle other people?

tl;dr what i see in that picture is a guide making men out to be a bunch of pussies

[Anonymous No.2070645]

>>2070578
I see extreme ideas of what it is meant to be a patriarch. In a sense though, giving men this complete control over there wives, don't you think they must also "know there place"? They have to be the leader, the asshole, the decision maker, and the pampered king.
A man (given the context of that picture) is expected to be cold and calculating, watching his wife's every move and probably hitting her when she does something he doesn't like. I guess what I'm getting at is, can you see how suffocating it must be for a women to be with a man like that?

[sandwiches No.2070661]

stop making these /r9k/ feminist shitstorm threads you do it all the fucking time

[Anonymous No.2070720]

>>2070645
that's horribly wrong and I believe your prejudices are destroying your judgement. You're seeing patterns of hate/patronizing that simply don't exist.

"A good wife always knows her place"

A good husband always knows his fucking place too

A good child always knows his fucking place

A good citizen always knows his fucking place

Also, let me tell you something:

Family is the basic unit of society and WOMEN CONTROL IT in that culture. They were mothers, they were housewives, but they were nurses, they weren't accountants, they weren't engineers but they were writers and teachers.

What has feminism done?
Women have lost their power.
When they aspired to get 'more power' they were instead misled to give it up and right now all the power they have left is looks and manipulation. The previous generation women knew this but the cultural terrorists targeted the young, inexperienced and uneducated ones. I'll leave you this picture - a paradox as the file name says - to reflect what has really happened in this society.

[Anonymous No.2070728]

I am an [ovary wielding organism] and I kind of believe OP.

[Anonymous No.2070730]

[Anonymous No.2070732]

Hate this feminist undertone that often implies all men are in some scheming brotherhood out to get them. You just can't genaralise like that and expect to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.2070746]

>>2070732
he says, while posting on a board / website that often rants about how women are all whores and feminism is a conspiracy to disempower and destroy men. seriously, man, check yourself + get some perspective here. yeah, that undertone is wrong-headed, but come on.

[Anonymous No.2070752]

>>2070728
[ovary wielding organism]

lol

I would like to know what is your personal reflexion about this post >>2070720
please :)

>>2070732
are you referring to me generalising they all believe we're all out to get them or them believing I'm out/we're out to get them.

[Anonymous No.2070757]

>>2070746
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.2070759]

>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661
>>2070661

[Anonymous No.2070772]

>>2070759
Please read the thread before posting.
Whenever I come late to a thread I read ALL the fucking previous posts. This is the only way one actually contributes.

[Anonymous No.2070773]

Stop trying to get the right to vote, you're giving up all your power!

[Sciontist !t73JkdmVlQ No.2070783]

The problem I have with most critiques of feminism is that most of them are couched in highly idealized realities, or focused on problems that don't really exist. The other issue is that most critics of feminism fail to define what they consider to be "masculinity" in a meaningful way, and then insist that there is a "war" against it.

[Anonymous No.2071066]

>>2070773

[Anonymous No.2071077]

>>2070783
Don't mistake OP's image for a 'critique of feminism'. It's more of a ridiculous trolling screed. Here's the short version:

>oh noes, women are destroying America!

[Anonymous No.2071078]

It seems kind of ridiculous to compare education on how to safely enjoy natural bodily functions with both the continued separation of church and state and the legal availability of abortions in your opening paragraph and to then ask me to take your views seriously when you use this view of 'liberalism' as a launchpad for an anti-feminist rant with little clear purpose.

[Anonymous No.2071080]

>>2070435
>statistics are untrustworthy
>my argument is predicated on stats

also

>ect.

I die a little inside whenever I see that.

[Anonymous No.2071092]

>>2071080
>>2071078

I didn't write that page, it's there for us to gain perspective. Also, earlier today this thread was treated better. I guess I now know when the brainwashed scum connects.

I'll respond when you have an argument.

[Anonymous No.2071095]

>>2071080
uncited stats, even.

[Anonymous No.2071101]

>>2071092
oh, so it's

>feminism sucks
>here's a screed I am tacitly endorsing by posting
>um wait no I don't endorse it therefore 'feminism sucks is the whole of my argument'

Here's my argument.

>You're a cunt.

[Anonymous No.2071103]

>>2071092
>posts a shittily argued screed
>people point out that it's shitty
>apparently the people who noticed are the brainwashed ones

[Anonymous No.2071125]

>>2071101
>>2071103
get your shit together faggots stop posting straw men

and I thought a literature board was suposed to have intelligent people.

[Anonymous No.2071131]

>>2071125
>4chan
>intelligence

[Anonymous No.2071140]

>>2071125
There comes a point when everyone gets sick of this shit.

I don't want to have to tell you why you're a moron. I want you to talk about books or gtfo.

[Anonymous No.2071176]

>>2071125
You'll need to say why that was a straw man and not exactly what you did, smart guy.

But if you want to have a debate...

>women have had as much power as men through all history
Imperial China: a concubine system, foot-binding, girls forced to stay indoors and obey their fathers until they're married, at which point they stay indoors and obey their husbands until their husbands die, at which point they stay indoors and obey their sons. So... I'm looking forward to your case for them having 'as much power as men'.

[Anonymous No.2071186]

>>2071125
/lit/ is supposed to have /lit/. I know that may be difficult for you to process, and it may take a while, but that's ok. We'll still be here when you figure it out.

[Anonymous No.2071217]

>>2070435

>All in all feminism is a failure.
>All in all

[Anonymous No.2071233]

>>2071176
China is not part of our history.

Egypt, Greece, Rome

and even then men had just as little rights.

it was all an oppressive culture but a consequence of oppressive regimes.

anyway, your post redirects >>2070720

>Family is the basic unit of society and WOMEN CONTROL IT in that culture. They were mothers, they were housewives, but they were nurses, they weren't accountants, they weren't engineers but they were writers and teachers.

[Anonymous No.2071237]

>>2071233
Admit, China was an oppressive culture even from your own point of view.

Now, western and ARAB 'oppression' must seriously be reevaluated.

[Anonymous No.2071247]

>>2071237
Indeed, despite women's natural privilege their power was taken away from them anyway by the Chinese obsession of "Honour" and pride over more important things. Overall there are too many things that take away the natural balance in favor of men, but in my opinion neither of them had enough power to be considered fully oppressed by men. It was more of a state thing.

Also, I am worried the western propaganda and factual inaccuracies might have distorted the facts.

[Anonymous No.2071310]

>>2071233
>China is not part of our history.
You said 'all history'.
>Family is the basic unit of society and WOMEN CONTROL IT in that culture. They were mothers, they were housewives, but they were nurses, they weren't accountants, they weren't engineers but they were writers and teachers
Nope. The teachers and writers were all men. So were the doctors (don't think nurses existed). And you'll need a source on women controlling the family. Bear in mind that a wealthy household would have primary, secondary and lower wives/concubines.
>the Chinese obsession of "Honour"
Huh? Which term do you mean? 义气? That's not really a huge deal, y'know.
>neither of them had enough power to be considered fully oppressed by men
It's possible to find a middle ground between 'fully oppressed' (whatever that means...) and 'as much power as men', you know.

[Anonymous No.2071318]

>>2070578

Holy fuck I am going to print out that picture and pin it to the front door of my apartment.

[Anonymous No.2071321]

>>2071310
Just cos there's even more exciting stuff here...
>and even then men had just as little rights
Talking about 'rights' is anachronistic. But to give an obvious example that contradicts this point: no man had his feet crushed in childhood so that he was unable to walk properly throughout his life.

[Anonymous No.2071367]

>Nope. The teachers and writers were all men. So were the doctors (don't think nurses existed). And you'll need a source on women controlling the family. Bear in mind that a wealthy household would have primary, secondary and lower wives/concubines.

>>2071310

For God's sake nobody could teach or write anything but what was explicitly told them to.

Women, on the other hand handled their children, their houses and overall managed their lives. If there was something the high classes wanted to introduce they would first need to overcome the values of women, and when some ideology has women against them the odds for a revolution rise exponentially considering in the end all men wanted was pussy.

This is why Cultural Marxists first had to destroy the belief system of contemporary women and strip the of their power since otherwise they would have crashed into a wall consisting of women simply not supporting their destructive new values. Women revealing against these issues with all the power they had would inevitably start a revolution. In ancient China as I said this would have been harder but yet possible and the cause for it being harder lies in the totalitarian nature of their state.

**Marxists surely have the knowledge about how society works, and they're determined to control the world with it**

[Anonymous No.2071370]

>>2071321
>Just cos there's even more exciting stuff here...

I lost a friend to war

[Anonymous No.2071380]

>>2071367
>If there was something the high classes wanted to introduce they would first need to overcome the values of women, and when some ideology has women against them the odds for a revolution rise exponentially considering in the end all men wanted was pussy
One more time for the rightwinger: footbinding. I guess women hated being able to walk?

>For God's sake nobody could teach or write anything but what was explicitly told them to.

Do you know anything at all about history? Are you aware that that level of totalitarian control is impossible right now, let alone hundreds of years ago?

[Anonymous No.2071404]

>>2071380

>Are you aware that that level of totalitarian control is impossible right now, let alone hundreds of years ago?

That's the stupidest thing I've herd this week.

>One more time for the rightwinger: footbinding. I guess women hated being able to walk?

1. FIRST STOP USING YOUR BULLSHIT LABELS RIGHT WING/LEFT WING ON ME BECAUSE THAT'S A BULLSHIT CLASSIFICATION AND I DON'T FIT IT, IT ONLY WORKS TO LABEL PEOPLE AND EXPLOIT PREJUDICES AS IN THE PICTURE.

SECOND I DID THE MANDATORY MILITARY SERVICE.

MY FATHER DID IT TOO, MY GRANDFATHER TOO.

DO YOU THINK IT'S FUCKING EASY TO BE STUCK IN A TANK LOADING WARHEADS AND BEING FRIED IN IT?

DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW TRAUMATIZING IT IS TO BE STUCK IN A TRENCH WITH NO WAY OUT? I didn't get to the trenches but my grandfather did and he doesn't look too relaxed when talking about this.

Oh, yeah their feet. Symbol of feminine beauty, as women have always done, exploiting their sexual value. I wonder how many Chinese men were lost in wars, stabbed or crippled and unable to find a wife.

You know what?
You're eating the whole propaganda.

[Anonymous No.2071414]

We should look past the body.

[Anonymous No.2071427]

>>2071367
yep, blame the marxists.

Hardly communists, blame the libertarians.

[Anonymous No.2071430]

>>2071427
>Blame the Libertarians
nigga you just went full retard.jpg

[Anonymous No.2071431]

>>2071430
explain.

[Anonymous No.2071436]

>>2071431
You're blaming Libertarians, almost the exact opposite of Marxists for the latter's policies.

"Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory of cultural
hegemony as the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to
be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts
of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a long march
through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military,
the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian
soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals."

This infiltration of society's institutions and education/culture was aimed at destroying the current order of society in order to create a cultural classless and moral relativist society with no concept of right or wrong in order to create this new communist man. By communist man, of course he means one that accepts no hierarchy on anything and for Cultural Marxists it didn't stop at money but also included culture.

[Anonymous No.2071447]

>>2071404
>That's the stupidest thing I've herd this week.
Explain why, s'il vous plait.

>I didn't get to the trenches but my grandfather did and he doesn't look too relaxed when talking about this.
So does your grandfather go on to explain why this means that women have had equal power to men? Or was that your own invention? Because so far it's not making any sense.

[Anonymous No.2071448]

>>2071436
This is implying that the cultural hegemony has been destroyed, and is not simply changed.

A change towards each individual gaining liberty is conpletely against the idea of a hegemony, leaning eventually towards cultural anarchy.

[Anonymous No.2071454]

>>2071436
>in order to create a cultural classless and moral relativist society with no concept of right or wrong in order to create this new communist man
Oh shit, and there was me thinking that the goal of Marxism is to create social revolution through the spread of class consciousness and awareness of injustice. Silly me.

[Anonymous No.2071457]

>You have to wait a while before reporting another post.
fucking

[Anonymous No.2071471]

>>2071367
this is fascinating because every academic source I have seen says the exact opposite. Women were an oppressed class in pre-communist China, and the Communist promise of gender equality is one of the reasons that women supported the movement en masse. The extreme, -revolutionary- ideals of the Chinese Communist party also resulted in women holding positions of authority in their ranks.

China does have a history in which there are blips of female independence. Woman empresses, and what have you. There's a region famous to ethnologists for the independence of the women there (says something if that's considered an outlier, huh?), but the broad cultural experience of China is one in which women are not valued as highly as men. They are killed, sold into slavery, and disappoint parents who were hoping for a boy. When a girl is married she is considered lost to the family that she was born into and placed under the power of a family that she is often not familiar with, which is typical of most family structures around the world from one degree to another.

But I babble. I think any tertiary research into the control women had over anything more than when to change the baby's diaper will likely provide material counter to your claim. There are certainly exceptions, particularly now, and particularly in lower class society where social mores are looser across the board, but if we are speaking in generalities I have to say that you are most likely full of shit.

[Anonymous No.2071491]

What a joke this all is. You faggots should know better than to leave your room and interact with vile humanity.

[Anonymous No.2071504]

>>2071491
oh noe

[Anonymous No.2071538]

Oh come on.

I have no problem with women, they're cute.

In the real world, when you treat someone like an equal (regardless of the gender) they generally treat you like an equal as well. And if they don't show you respect and bitch out at you, you're under no obligation to show them respect in return or hold your tongue when they say or do something stupid.

Jesus. I don't get hassled by outspoken feminists going about my daily routine, and if i ever did I would be quick to tell them to fuck off. There is no shame in being a man (or a woman).

Stop perpetuating this pointless 'war'. Why can't you people just ignore the bullshit statistics and wild claims being flung back and forth by either side and live your lives? How you do at school is up to you. What job you want is up to you. Whether you go to college or not is up to you. I don't like being painted as disadvantaged just because i have a fucking penis.

Life has never been fair to either gender. All you're doing at the moment is sounding just as annoying as the 'empowered' woman you profess to despise so much.

[Anonymous No.2071565]

why does /lit/ have misogyny threads

[Anonymous No.2071567]

>>2071565
To raise the obvious hypothesis: too many guys on the internet cannot into women.

[Anonymous No.2071569]

>>2071567
I'd bet a lot more of them have than you'd think

[Anonymous No.2071571]

>>2071569
Who knows? It would explan a lot, though. And if those losers are in fact currently in relationships, I feel terrible for the poor girls who have to put up with that shit.

[Anonymous No.2071573]

>>2071571
...the obvious exception would be gay misogynists, who at least practice what they preach.

[Anonymous No.2071583]

>>2071571
Doesn't make sense to me. Why would they end up hating women if they never actually put much effort into trying to get them? I suspect most of them have simply been in bad relationships, or perhaps were abused by women when they were children. Your calling them losers certainly isn't helping thing

[Anonymous No.2071584]

>>2071583
Not all social criticism has to stem from personal cases of sour grapes.

[Anonymous No.2071587]

>>2071583
Or they embrace the victim mentality they claim to detest. They're too lazy to make their own way in life, so they must be oppressed.

[Anonymous No.2071589]

>I suspect most of them have simply been in bad relationships, or perhaps were abused by women when they were children

Been in bad relationships or abused therefore they decide that half of the world's population must hae been to blame? I wonder if the (much higher) number of people abused by men when they were children decided that all men were to blame?

If the above's true then I'll make it 'stupid losers'. But the 'losers' is non-negotiable. The idea that anyone wasting their time posting misogynist crap on the internet is successful- whether in romance, financial terms, or general happiness and wellbeing- that's an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary evidence.

[Anonymous No.2071591]

Yeah cannot do woman must be cognitive dissonance go /b/ woo

[Anonymous No.2071609]

the damned problem is that we have intellect coupled with self awareness and a perception of time.

all other species just respond to instinct and chemical signals and leave it at that.

we, on the other hand, have to make life hell for each other just so we can feel good about ourselves.

feelsbadman.

[Anonymous No.2071631]

I don't usually care about feminists or their antics most of the time. They can go on spouting whatever thing they believe or want. What bother's me, though, is that often times they claim "Wives(families) of soldiers suffer too." Yeah, boo hoo, you were *ghasp* devastated by the -news- that someone you love lost their leg, arm, face, or life, and now you have financial/emotional problems.
Do you want a "HolyshitIfeelsobadforyou" comment or something? Fuck you, the soldiers are the ones that are really suffering. Any aid to families of soldiers should be in honor of the soldiers themselves only because they care about their family.

Oh, and both of my older brothers were in the US military and served in the middle east.

/rage

[Anonymous No.2071637]

>>2071631
It's representative of the western female's mindset in general. The world revolves around her. Even in such an extreme case, she is the victim; the man may be dead, he may have done all the work of training and fighting, but at the end of the day, the woman is adversely affected, and that takes preemince. The woman is upset. Stop the presses.

[Anonymous No.2071653]

>>2071631
'Suffering too' is a legitimate claim, though. Something like the Clinton quote below is too much, but the idea that people suffer from losing their loved ones... that's hardly controversial. If one of your brothers hadn't made it back, would you want anyone saying "fuck you, it's the soldiers who are really suffering" to your grieving family?
>>2071637
>The woman is upset. Stop the presses.
You think that's a product of 'the western female's mindset?' I'd say it's much more to do with how war has always been portrayed- weeping women are a good image of the horrors of war. A similar example is how often invasion is depicted as rape- women's bodies are used to represent the 'motherland'. But the people who produce those images, stories etc have generally been men.

[Anonymous No.2071655]

>>2071653
Oh, and on aid to the families... if the man (or woman) who was killed was providing an income for their family, then purely on that basis the government should compensate them, right?

[Anonymous No.2071687]

>>2071631
Ah yes, the good old zero sum game. I don't get what this has to do with feminism at all. Is this another one of those female = feminist arguments?

[Anonymous No.2071696]

>>2071687
More like dead soldiers' families=feminists, apparently

[Anonymous No.2071699]

>>2071696
No. See >>2071637 image

[Anonymous No.2071701]

>>2071699
that's one dumb fucking quote. I could see radfems saying something that stupid. Most of us just think it's a dumb fucking quote.

[Anonymous No.2071705]

>>2071699
We were talking about>>2071631, which is far more offensive than that quote.

[Anonymous No.2071711]

>>2071705
I already commented on the idiocy of that comment. No monopoly on suffering, no monopoly on stupidity.

[Anonymous No.2071713]

>>2071705
...in that it's explicitly directed at families of dead soldiers.

[Anonymous No.2071715]

>>2071711
Huh? Lost track of who you are then. Are you >>2071687?

[Anonymous No.2071721]

>>2071715
Yup, that's me.

[Anonymous No.2071724]

>>2071721
>>2071705

No wait, god damnit. The misunderstanding was my bad. I'm

>>2071687
>>2071701
>>2071711

Thought you had replied to me when you didn't.

[Anonymous No.2071726]

>>2071721
Ah, then I was just saying that >>2071631 starts by criticising 'feminists' and then suddenly aims at bereaved families. It's a funny switcheroo.

Clinton gets a wtf, but a quick google doesn't find anyone actually agreeing with her...

[Anonymous No.2071868]

>>2071471
>this is fascinating because every academic source I have seen says the exact opposite.

Be careful when you try to agree with your contemporary "Experts" telling you a version of the story, then changing it according to their political movements but yeah, of course, it creates the social validity of agreeing with people perceived to be high rank thus, you are seen as cultured by the mainstream. All of which is mediocrity. Logic does not appeal to authority.

>Women were an oppressed class in pre-communist China

Everyone was oppressed in China is that hard to understand? Communism oppresses people even more but in China it might have transferred some of men's power into women sinking them even lower in the power scale.

Still, the power of women was underestimated.

>They are killed
yes and the propagandists must take the model of the most oppressive of all civilizations in order to represent "Women struggle".
Since when did they kill only men?

> Sold into slavery
Whenever Chinese people had too many sons or daughters, they would sell some to slavery.


>And disappoint parents who were hoping for a boy.

Ahh this is blatant propaganda in spite of this being true to some degree(In China) people accepted whatever they got. The true blessing was to have a son as first born to help the father do the work and one or more females who would help around the house.

Still you need to understand that the Chinese society has been a huge exception and it's emotionless culture has the blame. They are more inhuman than all the other cultures.

[Anonymous No.2071869]

>But I babble. I think any tertiary research into the control women had over anything more than when to change the baby's diaper will likely provide material counter to your claim.

>the control women had over anything more than when to change the baby's diaper

For God's sake I can't believe you have been led to think despite all of women's intelligence and ability they were fucking robots in these "Non-progressive" societies. Think again, women are not soulless robots, have never been and will certainly be after the Marxists complete their agenda. People buying this crap when there are accounts from even the most "Unequal" societies of women clearly running certain aspects of society and exceptional women changing some without being seen as "disappointing".

>if we are speaking in generalities I have to say that you are most likely full of shit.

No and stop a minute to think and ditch the whole authority appeals. The reason why you don't see this in the news is because Cultural Marxists are using the intelligence and power of women to mislead society and blatantly enslave all of it. The key to induce fear for the Marxists is: "The only alternatives to our proposal are the extremes, left and right." And they have successfully scared women into believing they would be slaves just as a 12 year old girl in the 1960 might have seen it thanks to propaganda but especially to her immaturity.

[Anonymous No.2071882]

Also, for the other discussion I have to say my views on feminism have little to do with my personal interest and more about the collective interest of both women and men as these cover my own too.

I will focus in what we all want:

-A power balance
-Liberty for women to chose their careers
-Strong family unions
-Enforced values of right and wrong
-Understanding of true equality based on social duties.

and finally:

We all want women to be happy.

[Anonymous No.2071911]

>>2071868
>Logic does not appeal to authority.
Sadly, you can't apply mathematical logic to history or sociology. You need to actually learn what you're talking about, and prepare for people to disagree. You always have the choice of learning from experts or from amateurs, of course.
>Everyone was oppressed in China is that hard to understand?
Why should 'everyone was oppressed'='everyone was oppressed equally'?
>Still you need to understand that the Chinese society has been a huge exception and it's emotionless culture has the blame. They are more inhuman than all the other cultures.
I seriously doubt you have any knowledge of Chinese culture. And as for the idea that it's an 'exception' in world history to prefer a son to a daughter... citation very much needed.
>from even the most "Unequal" societies of women clearly running certain aspects of society and exceptional women changing some without being seen as "disappointing"
And what would make those women exceptional? The fact that women generally couldn't do as much as men, because, yes, those societies were unequal. Why do you insist on the idea that some women were able to exert some power meaning that they were equal?

[Anonymous No.2071937]

>>2071911
>Sadly, you can't apply mathematical logic to history or sociology.

Sorry, logic is universal and you're failing to use it.

Logic has its roots in the statement "An absolute concept as declared by a statement cannot be true and false at the same time". This when absolute is understood as the opposite of relative as we need to select a meaning in order to advance towards a conclusion. Logic is universal and we all use it. It's simple: A light cannot be on and off at the same time.

>Why should 'everyone was oppressed'='everyone was oppressed equally'?
Not really, everyone was oppressed differently, in China, women were oppressed in a different way than men however, in this particular society they were more oppressed when you make the full "Power balance" analysis. My point? it's still exaggerated for political gain.

>You always have the choice of learning from experts or from amateurs, of course.
Experts are the leaders of the bandwagon, deal with it. Expertise is a social construct especially when we're talking about abstract things like History and not concrete things like engineering in which one could see the immediate results.

For a true Freethinker (Look it up) one cannot appeal to authority rather logic will be authority.

[Anonymous No.2071938]

>Why do you insist on the idea that some women were able to exert some power meaning that they were equal?

Some women no, ALL women. The thing is, most people die and leave their surrounding environment unchanged men or women. These women were not made exceptional because they "Couldn't do the same things as men" like Mulan and the Propagandists have said but because PEOPLE IN GENERAL DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THEIR SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT.
>I seriously doubt you have any knowledge of Chinese culture. And as for the idea that it's an 'exception' in world history to prefer a son to a daughter... citation very much needed.

Disregarding the first statement, when I classified it as "exception" I wasn't referring to that one issue but rather all the other atrocities they have done. Also, the preference for sons over daughters is highly overrated. In reality, they needed both.


Why do Marxist prefer this kind of society to compare the status of women?
Why not use the Norsemen or the Egyptians instead?

[Anonymous No.2071939]

A good read on differences between the sexes is:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

[Anonymous No.2071944]

Wow /lit/, this guy makes an excellent point and you all stick to dead ideals from the 1970s? What the fuck is wrong with people today. Yes, equality is good. No, what we have today isn't equality. No, women are not treated as lesser men or any other kind of nonsense in Western culture. C'mon people, this isn't 1970, this is 2011. Stop assuming that the schooling that preps you for a world that ended 40 YEARS AGO is correct. Think a bit.

[Anonymous No.2071947]

>>2071944
OK, so... what is 'this guy' actually proposing? You seem to agree with him a lot, so... what does it amount to? Other than the ridiculous claim that across all of history (with the mysterious exception of China, apparently) women have had equal power to men, that is?

[Anonymous No.2071952]

Why do you even bother having this conversation?

[Anonymous No.2071961]

>>2071947
As far as to claim "Equality" no, just exposing feminism for addressing the wrong issue and destroying western culture as a result.

[Anonymous No.2071973]

>>2071961
What's the wrong issue?

[Anonymous No.2071975]

>>2071973
it's stated in my previous posts:

They believe equality is doing the same things as men when in fact equality consists of a power balance.

See >>2070720
In relation of contemporary culture vs 1950's

[Anonymous No.2071988]

>>2071937
>Sorry, logic is universal and you're failing to use it.
Yeah, but we're talking about history. See how far you can get making only 'absolute statements' about 15th century France.
>in this particular society they were more oppressed
Glad you agree. So you can at least remove 'across all history' from your starting assertion. The next step would be considering that, if the 'gender power balance' isn't EXACTLY 50-50 across history in one place, why should it be in any others? I mean, that is a deeply strange claim.
>Experts are the leaders of the bandwagon, deal with it.
You think academics generally work to reinforce existing social orthodoxies? Then how did feminism or Marxism happen at all?
>Why do Marxist prefer this kind of society to compare the status of women?
Marxists prefer Europe. Marx didn't really know much about anywhere else.
>These women were not made exceptional because they "Couldn't do the same things as men" like Mulan and the Propagandists have said
You've already admitted that the balance was not equal. Now you're trying to claim that Chinese women could do the same things as men. I thought you were the master of logic...

[Anonymous No.2071991]

>>2071952
'cos it's fun!

[Anonymous No.2072003]

>>2071975
You could have an interesting argument about how far feminism has been self-defeating over the last half-century or so. In fact, feminists have been discussing that issue- e.g. the split between pro- and anti-porn feminists. But your whole thing about women always having been equal would mean that winning voting rights, for example, was unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.2072007]

>>2072003
...and as for bringing down western civilisation... I'll believe that when I see it.

[Anonymous No.2072071]

>>2070720
>women
>control
cancer killing society.

[Anonymous No.2072080]

>>2072007
Western civilization is dying, this is fucking obvious... america won't even exist in another 100 years.

America has never had a nationalist or patriotic movement.
Europe at least has nationalists who understand blood and honor.

[Anonymous No.2072094]

>>2072080
Um... The American Revolution? That was pretty much the original nationalist movement. It's what nationalist movements are all about. It even impressed the French. Much of western Europe, on the other hand, finds nationalism kind of... dirty, on account of a combination of an imperialist hangover and Nazis. German and English people in particular really find American-style flagwaving patriotism hugely uncomfortable.

You can trust me, I spell 'honour' right.

[Anonymous No.2072096]

>>2071988
Not trying to offend or throw ad-hominems, but you don't have a clue on how Cultural Marxists are working.

No, it's not about Marx. It's about his legacy, the Frankfurt School of Social Research and others.

They work through the media and every aspect of education/culture.

>You think academics generally work to reinforce existing social orthodoxies? Then how did feminism or Marxism happen at all?

Not exactly like this, the MARXISTS that infiltrated academics take advantage of the bandwagon effect by ridiculing and censoring any opposing ideas and especially using the left/right terror.

>Sorry, logic is universal and you're failing to use it.
>Yeah, but we're talking about history. See how far you can get making only 'absolute statements' about 15th century France.

History is written but it certainly adheres to some degree of interpretation. Logic can validate/discard those and Cultural Marxists have been introducing radically derailed interpretations to advance their political movements. That's why we must be critical at our reading.


>The next step would be considering that, if the 'gender power balance' isn't EXACTLY 50-50 across history in one place, why should it be in any others? I mean, that is a deeply strange claim.

I believe the subject needs to be studied more, but it certainly was pretty close to 50-50 in certain societies and I personally believe (From what I've learned) the viking society achieved the best power balance or equality, not sure if exactly 50-50.

[Anonymous No.2072099]

Anyway, if this is not the case then this should be our goal instead of the misled Marxist movements in which "Everyone is oppressed."

>You've already admitted that the balance was not equal. Now you're trying to claim that Chinese women could do the same things as men. I thought you were the master of logic...

you misinterpreted my argument.

these women weren't labeled as exceptional for doing things traditionally men do. That's what I meant, save some exceptions that are grossly exaggerated by feminist propaganda like the movie of "Mulan".

>>2072007
Just look at Sweden, Germany, U.S. and Spain populations. The only country with "Sustainable levels" is the U.S. and that's because of their immigration. And I didn't imply I was against women's suffrage or that it was unnecessary, just saying they influenced it in more subtle ways than the Marxists like to admit.

[Anonymous No.2072106]

>Oh no I think I might be wrong
>MARXISTS MARXISTS MARXISTS MARXISTS
>Ah, there we go.

[Anonymous No.2072112]

>>2072106

[Anonymous No.2072114]

>>2072106
That's a shameless ridiculing of this thread and it's arguments. Why would you do that?

[Anonymous No.2072120]

>>2072094
There have been plenty of revolutions in the past, but the american revolution pales in significance compared to the french; the legacy of which is felt as modern western society.

[Anonymous No.2072134]

>>2072120
agree

[Anonymous No.2072139]

>>2072094
What the founding fathers fought for in the revolution is 100% different from modern american society.

America was a nation of british, nations are formed by homogenous groups.

There is no homogeneity left in america. Even the right wing sorts embrace niggers/mexicans/and play the "i'm not a racist" game which they will always lose.

[Anonymous No.2072360]

the first two paragraphs were good, the rest was just yellow journalism. I'm not interested in your opinion, only your arguments.

Women are discriminated against. Its a fact, not subject to debate, backed by indisputable physical evidence and statistical data.

[Anonymous No.2072557]

>>2071944
You need to read the OP again.

>>In reality, women have had as much power as men through all history.

It's quite relevant to bring up the 1970s when OP is trying to claim that everything was honky dory in the 1970s, and at every other period in time.

[Anonymous No.2072608]

>>2072360

Show us the facts, what do you mean by discrimination, what demographics of women, how is anything not subject to debate, why is everything you say disagreeable?!

[Anonymous No.2072619]

>>2072360
when and how does a social phenomenon create "indisputable physical evidence"?

[Anonymous No.2072635]

Rorschach test. Is this an example of misogyny or an example of woman's explicit power over men?

My answer: Oh, we're barred from professional achievement and political power? Well at least I can get my man to buy me a toaster.

Also, http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

If we are talking about women in power, perhaps we should define what we think is 'power.' Would having a direct influence in the running of a country be power? And would that power be equitable to raising the next generation as a housewife? Perhaps we should be telling our senators that they would be doing just as much for their country if they just went home and took care of their kids.

[sage No.2072638]

>112 posts and 11 image replies omitted.

WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP ENGAGING THESE /R9K/ DIASPORA POP-UP SHOPS

SAGE

SAGE GOES IN EVERY FIELD

SAAAAAAAAAAGE

ALSO REPORTED

[Anonymous No.2072644]

>>2072619
They're called primary sources and records. Have you ever taken a history class?

[Anonymous No.2072657]

>>2072644
That's wrong though.

[Anonymous No.2072660]

>>2072644
any kind of information, wether written on paper, set in stone, or saved on a hard drive can never legitimately be called indisputable physical evidence, or physical evidence at all of anything other than its own existence. everything further is interpretation.

[Anonymous No.2072663]

>>2072657
hmm, well indisputable is certainly incorrect. It is physical evidence though.

[Anonymous No.2072697]

Dumping anti-femanzi pics.

[Anonymous No.2072700]

[Anonymous No.2072701]

>>2072660

Granted. Further, we can never be sure anything exists at all. But if we go that route, we might as well claim that the Great Space Goat comes and shits in my armpits every night, forcing me to apply deodorant in the mornings. It's an equally fruitful position to take.

>>2072644

What we actually rely upon is a convergence of evidence pointing towards certain conclusions. This phrase is useful because it circumvents the need to address the Great Space Goat.

>>2072635

Of course, if the woman in the poster's crying fails to get her husband to buy the toaster, she's out of options. I can simply buy the damn toaster.

You're about to say that the woman doesn't have to work. Truth was, the woman couldn't work if she wanted to. The situation presented means that the woman was quite helpless to forge her own destiny.

Of course, this particular situation applied largely to middle class women and up - lower class women have been in a certain segment of the work force for economic reasons for sometime.

[Anonymous No.2072708]

[Anonymous No.2072711]

[Anonymous No.2072712]

>>2072700
Would somebody like to guess the number of times that this has actually happened on 4chan? I would say about zero.

[Anonymous No.2072719]

>>2072697
I always assumed this image was mostly crap that was equally true for girls since I never read the whole thing properly. But now that I have and realize attractiveness isn't actually on there then it's probably true that guys have a harder time with all those things.

[Anonymous No.2072749]

>>2072360
oh that's just blatant propaganda I actually LOL'd

he's trolling

[Anonymous No.2072757]

>>2072749
he/she/whatever should read the thread before posting

amirite.jpg

[Anonymous No.2072768]

>>2072701
the correct and justifiable notion that any content of language or rather its physical representation is never by itself a piece of evidence for anything beyond itself is in no way equal or even similar to the unfounded, unreasonable, and rather absurd supposition of some chimerical entity such as you describe. it is also not an unfruitful insight, and even if it was, that would be quite irrelevant because it is a true and justifiable insight. of what value is the most fruitful thought, or how could a thought be called fruitful if it is not or can not be shown to be true.

[Anonymous No.2072807]

>>2072768

Look, I'll grant you that when I see an apple, it's only evidence that there's an apple. Doesn't mean there's any such thing as an apple tree, or a seed. We can take this further. The seeds inside of the apple are only evidence of their own existence. When I plant them and, years later, a tree grows from which apples fall does not necessarily demonstrate that the tree results from the seeds being thus planted, even though similar trees do not appear to be springing up in areas where I have planted no seeds.

But the farmer who plants these seeds will, eventually, end up with quite a few apples. The one who refuses to make any link between the two observations will end up with nothing.

I will even grant you that my senses may render imperfect examples of reality. There may be no tree at all. I may be talking to no one but a manifestation of my own mind at this moment. I can't swear to anything but my own existence and I'm sure some philosopher would debate that matter with me. I'm sure someone has.

That being said, our imperfect observations and links between events are pretty much the only ways humans have to understand our world. Now you can choose not to make these connections. You can look at that apple and see only the apple and nothing beyond the apple. But you're never going to be able to grow more apples if you do that.

Which is why I come back to the Great Space Goat. You CAN take this position and I can never debate the point with you. It's impossible to argue with and people take this position all the time, particularly regarding historic matters (and evolution). Point is, it'll never grow you any apples.

[Anonymous No.2072829]

>>2072807
it appears you are too generous in your concessions. you grant me things i never implied or even agree with.
my argument was neither meant nor fit to express or imply any kind of philosophical skepticism. the criticism i expressed was aimed specifically at the quite naive notion of historical sources and records being "physical evidence" of whatever they appear or claim to document.

[Anonymous No.2073036]

>>2072360
>Women are discriminated against.
zoop zoop look at me i'm a womyn hear me ROAWR!

[Anonymous No.2073041]

Listen, women are biologically inferior to men, physically and mentally.

The stats don't lie, get over it.

[Anonymous No.2073048]

>>2073036
>>2073041
nice 2-hour bump op
/lit/ needs some real mods, this has nothing to do with books in any way, shape or form

[Anonymous No.2073050]

>>2073048
I'm not OP

[Anonymous No.2073072]

>>2073048
This has nothing to do with literature, probably because literature is nothing in the fields of education and culture that are host to the feminist movement.

Or at least that's how I interpret your argument.

>>2073041

I disagree this has too much to do with the personal beliefs of what's superior and what's inferior, what's important and what's not. By supporting this point you would be jumping in the feminist bandwagon that this post is exactly aimed at destroying.

[Anonymous No.2073079]

>>2073072
>with the personal beliefs of what's superior and what's inferior
no, these are objective realities.
Men are more intelligent, more rational, and certainly stronger in every way.

In the nuclear family it is the man that makes the decisions, that is the way it must be.

Feminism is the destruction of society and our race.
They go "i want to be a man" and then they ruin everything that makes them worthwhile and valuable by fucking 100 different men and refusing to have children.

[Anonymous No.2073106]

>>2073072
Literature is nothing waaaaaat.

Aside from that... what's your plan? Apart from this post destroying 'the feminist movement', which is... unlikely. Your main concern seems to be demographic decline, but as on the whole the planet's population is crazy high, immigration seems to solve that problem quite neatly, especially for the USA. But if you don't like that solution, what do you actually propose to get more babies?

[Anonymous No.2073118]

>>2073106
>immigration seems to solve that problem quite neatly,
hurrrr
I skipped the rest of your post cuz you are obviously a typical filthy leftist, i think reddit would be better off for you.

[Anonymous No.2073135]

>>2073118
Nah man, the world is the place for me. You keep living on the internet, it's the safest place for you guys.

[Anonymous No.2073143]

>>2073135
"you guys" ?
Are you like that woman who asked the negro not to rape her because she was a malcolm x scholar?

The worlds population is high... so we should endlessly feed third worlders and suicide the white race?
Doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.2073146]

>>2073079
I'm white, but I'm not all too bothered by race mixing.
Inbreeding is definitely not a way to go.

Might is right.

[Anonymous No.2073155]

>>2073146
>population of hundreds of millions
>inbreeding
You aren't too smart are you?

[Anonymous No.2073157]

>>2073146
Liger! I want one! Check his crazy snub-nose!

Also, being white and not too bothered by race-mixing is not really a point worth stating. It's just saying 'I'm white and not a racist'. That isn't really anything remarkable.

[Anonymous No.2073162]

Also: All you have to do is look at south america and see the results of race mixing and immigration.
It produces a third world shithole.

Since this is a feminism thread i can only imagine a lot of responses are by women.
In this degenerate age i would not expect women to understand concepts like blood and honor.

Further they are tricked into applying their natural maternal instincts not to their own children, but to the non-whites who are mentally children.

[Anonymous No.2073163]

>>2073155
>Thinks that just because a population maybe in the hundred millions, there is little chance of inbreeding.

Go back to school bydlo.

[Anonymous No.2073165]

>>2073162

[Anonymous No.2073168]

>>2073163
If you are genetically healthy then there is no problem from "inbreeding"

Funny how the leftist tells us mix with the demonstratively inferior races because marrying someone of your own race is "inbreeding"
And yet they ignore other concepts such as outbreeding depression.
It's almost as if they are trying to push a political point through pseudo-science!

[Anonymous No.2073173]

>>2073162
>In this degenerate age i would not expect women to understand concepts like blood and honor.

it just seems... right, somehow

[Anonymous No.2073178]

>>2073168
Whites average more eye problems, allergies, asthma, aspergers, autism, mental retardation, etc more than other races

Whites also age faster.

Eat it.
I rest my case trolollo

[Anonymous No.2073186]

>>2073168
>demonstratively inferior races
Good luck with that, uneducated white boy.

[Sciontist !t73JkdmVlQ No.2073190]

>>2073168
>concepts like blood and honor
you mean concepts that have no basis in a rational modern society? yeah, I would have a hard time understanding why someone would still think that feudalism was a great idea

[Anonymous No.2073225]

>>2073178
Even for a high quality discussion, I have to say you're pulling shit out of your ass.

>>2073079
I think you may need to read the thread first because your points have already been covered and if this were true then I would be in the front lines fighting for feminism.

Now

>Feminism is the destruction of society and our race.
They go "i want to be a man" and then they ruin everything that makes them worthwhile and valuable by fucking 100 different men and refusing to have children.

This is completely true, however. Why? read the thread and you'll find out.

>>2073106
>Literature is nothing waaaaaat.
that was what HE was implying.

Demographic decline is only part of my concern, and no, it isn't solved by immigration.

>>2073168
Discarding the racist stuff,
>trying to push a political point through pseudo-science!

is happening in a large scale

[Anonymous No.2073241]

>>2070720
>housewives, mothers, nurses

Oh no I've lost my power to not get paid as much as an accountant/at all. Thanks for showing me I need to reclaim being dependent on a male breadwinner to pay for and/or direct all the things my prescribed chores require! I don't know what I'd do if I wasn't under a (male) doctor's jurisdiction or at home raising the kids and cooking dinner!

[Anonymous No.2073266]

>>2073241
herp derp READ THE WHOLE DAMN THREAD!

[Anonymous No.2073314]

>>2073266
Thread doesn't answer that. What's OP's actual proposal? How does it operate without denying women self-determination?
>>2073225
>Demographic decline is only part of my concern, and no, it isn't solved by immigration.
What else, then? If it's about the objectification of women as you implied earlier, there's plenty of feminists who are right there with you. And why doesn't immigration work? The USA has been Top Country for the last century or so, and it's entirely a product of historically recent immigration.

[Anonymous No.2073344]

>>2073266
All I see is more gender essentialism. Blah blah blah, nothing new. Drop blanket terms like "all women are" or "all men are" followed by some conveniently vague observed quality of "personality" (HA HA HA) and you might have something "new" here.

Again, sources would be nice, context would be nice, (Of course women are making disproportionate consumer purchases, they'll be making nigh on 100% if they go back to being exclusively homemakers, so I don't see the point in citing that.) acknowledging non-western-1st-world situations would be nice, also something new. Avoiding conspiracy theories (lol, marriage strike, really?) makes you seem less... totally-freaked-out-and-gullible.

Are you really so uncertain of what to do with your life that you have to cling to gender structures to prescribe a path for you? Honestly feminism at its core is about respecting people by not throwing them into a "male presumptions" or "female presumptions" box before you even get to know them, which is what people spouting assumptions and generalized, context-free statistics thrive on, regardless of gender.

[Anonymous No.2073365]

>>2073344
>acknowledging non-western-1st-world situations would be nice
THIS. Any argument that women have achieved enough power already needs to take a good look at, for example, Afghanistan.
And to OP: really the whole problem is that claim about 'as power as men through all history'. You've even said that you don't oppose giving women the vote, which >implies that you recognise a lack of equality in the past. Note that the interesting 'Is there anything good about men?' speech you (or someone else) posted earlier doesn't try to argue this:
>Gender inequality seems to have increased with early civilization
>The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality.
His claims are highly debatable, but he's certainly not trying to claim the equality that you insist on. And with very good reason.

[Anonymous No.2073377]

>>2072697
? I don't actually believe any of the stupidity on this chart. I just apparently have nothing better to do with my life than fuck around with hyperbole.

[Anonymous No.2073384]

>>2073377
>compotence
competence
No I don't assume you have any.

[Anonymous No.2073397]

I misspell that word every single fucking time.
I'm pretty much still hooked on phonics and my vowel recognition is terrible.

It must be my vagina.

[Anonymous No.2073855]

>>2073397
femanon enters the fray!

[Anonymous No.2073867]

Anyone read Norah Vincent's book about living as a man?

[Anonymous No.2074054]

>>2073365
>>2073344
>>2073314
None of you got the point

[Anonymous No.2074102]

>>2074054
No, the point was
>women have had as much power as men through all history
...it's right there in the OP. And it was a wrong point.