/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2487069]

Why is patriarchy a bad thing? It's necessary to have a dominant and a passive.

Men are naturally dominant and woman are naturally passive. Why are feminists hellbent on going against reality?

[Anonymous No.2487075]

cuz all that shit was invented by kikes who want to destroy our society

[Anonymous No.2487077]

It's not a bad thing, you're being brainwashed by bulldykes.

[Anonymous No.2487079]

appeal to nature fallacy

implying women existing who don't want to be passive/submissive doesn't instantly repudiate your claims

[Anonymous No.2487081]

>>2487079
Excuse me?

Last time I checked democracy was a majority rule, so we should make laws that coincide with the majority. And the majority are women are naturally passive.

[Anonymous No.2487082]

>>2487079

Aberrations inevitably arise. Bank upon it, men are inherently superior.

[Anonymous No.2487084]

Reality is malleable. Culturally we are very different than our ancestors, people subscribe to different roles, often with relative ease. Seeing this, it would be reasonable for people to alter society in such a way that it produces their ideal people. This could be female dominated or egalitarian, it could be a whole bunch of Bodhisattva's or it could be all Übermenschlich.

Too each his own, let the games begin.

[Anonymous No.2487086]

There are more women than men at my once-illustrious university, what a joke! Nothing but pandering to feminism, 'dare and the world yields' (as Thackeray said); the bulldykes are daring and the institutions are just 'taking' the figurative strap-on.

[Anonymous No.2487088]

>>2487084
>ideal
>female dominated

[Anonymous No.2487091]

>>2487088
Would be a viable option for women to prefer, I would think. An ideal isn't necessarily my ideal.

[Anonymous No.2487126]

>>2487069

two reasons for feminists acting this way, imo:

1. they feel like they are undesirable to men and can't compete for a mate on their own merits, so they try to seek female solidarity against men as a way to control sexual access.

2. they are genetic outliers of the dominant "passive" females you describe, and are seeking to justify a lifestyle that better fits their biological characteristics.

3. There is nothing right or wrong about patriarchy, but consider this. Would you want to be a male living under matriarchy?

[Anonymous No.2487128]

>>2487081
ah but America isn't a pure democracy. it's a representative democracy. so who gets in office can dictate social policy.

furthermore, there is freedom of conscious in America. So arguably no government can regulate sexual mores.

[Anonymous No.2487133]

social science studies show that men have the highest over all IQ. but most women have an higher average IQ than most men.

is a perfectly egalitarian society I suppose one would expect to see this genetic reality reflected in the work world. Most CEOs and executives would be the Alpha males with the highest IQs. They also get bonuses for not having to bleed every month or be incapacitated during pregnancy.

Below them would be the second tier smart men and women. This tier might have more women in it since women are, on average, smarter than most men. With the feminist movement in a position of power, women may shut the second tier men out of this division by political dominance and social manipulation.

The third tier would be mostly men who wern't smart enough, and a few women of equal intelligence. They would get the shittest jobs, or be unemployeed, and most suspectible to exploitation due to their lower intelligence and low level of political influence.

The blue print of a perfectly egalitarian society starts to look like a meritocratic oligarchy at this point. any takers?

[Anonymous No.2487137]

>>2487133
The alternative. Is that the beta men could try to out manuver their smarter female opponents by directly allying with the alpha males. Seeking comradery in 'maleness' would pressure the alphas males (the undisputed smartest of all people according to IQ) to patronize loyal men with the jobs that the smarter second tier women are keeping from them.

Beta men have the advantage over women of not having to bleed every month and not having to carry babies. They could try to tip this advantage to their favor by dominating physically intensive or long term commitment based jobs. Also, they could focus on jobs that require high amounts of aggression, as they are genetically more aggressive than most women.

It is possible that this second system is a large part of what contemporary patriarchy is. "All the Kings men" are those who pledge loyalty to a top male they believe to be the smartest, in the hopes of gaining the wealth an influence they might not be able to gain on their own in a level playing field.

[Anonymous No.2487138]

>Madoka

Opinion invalidated. Do you just not have any images that aren't /a/-related?

[Anonymous No.2487139]

>>2487137
a third alternative is that, as mentioned in >>2487084
the feminist movement is successful in changing the cultural and even genetic make up of society.

Those outlier females that are perhaps more aggressive than some males could gain positions of power and prestige. Through controlling their reproduction and patronizing friendly women they could increase the population of women who are not biologically "feminine" in the traditional understanding of the term.

If society is stable enough to take the threat of violent death out of the equation, then genetic selection would be dictated by other forces, such as the ability to do well socially, or having a high IQ.

A society of pacifistic laws would rob men of their physically advantage over women.

This may be one of the reasons that conservatives tend to be both more male and more supportive of corporal punishment. This position plays to males strength and ensures their dominance in the areas of work, sex relations and politics.

But the possibility of a rise of 'amazonian' women who breed themselves to be physically the equal of males is not as far fetched as one may imagine. Sexual dimorphism favors females in many species, for example spiders. Who can forget that the black widow is called so because the female will eat the male she is mating with? the male in this case is much smaller than the female and stands no chance against her in a physical fight.

Males trying to stop the arising of such a race would probably have to eliminate women who appeared sufficently 'empowered' to undertake such a project.

Hence the historical legacy of burning 'witches' at the stake. Any woman who threatened the patriarchal system was marked for elimination by whatever means necessary.

[Anonymous No.2487145]

>>2487139
Sure is 1800s in here.

[Anonymous No.2487146]

>>2487139
>>2487137

Again I would like to emphasize that a society dominated by a few alpha males surrounded by intruiging females is not at all far fetched.

This is often what is recorded as happening in imperial harems and households of ancent empires. If the smartest man is sucessful in becoming emporer, then women will be naturally attracted to his preemience, and seek access to his court.

This phenomena of an alpha male having a large group of women that he dominats is very common in the primate world. A single male, out of a whole troupe, will get access to mate with ALL the females. The other males in the group are low status, and females generally do no seek them out for sex.

A perfectly level and competitive society, without any arbitrary rules like marriage, would have nothing to hold these mammalian instincts in check. We would expect to see in an egalitarian society the smartest men accumilating a 'harem' of women who are attracted to his intelligence, fitness and control over resources. What archtype is more indicative of this in American society than the CEOs and rich hiphop stars? The reason that bill gates and tupac are talked about is because women want them (or the prestige and wealth that comes with being with them) and men would like to be them.

So there you have it. By getting rid of patriarchy and leaving behind marriage in favor of sexual freedom a huge swath of men are threatened with sexual, professional, and social disenfranchisement. I'm not saying that we shouldn't strive for an egalitarian society, but in light of the picture I've just painted, can you blame those men that are opposed to it?

[Anonymous No.2487164]

>>2487126
> Would you want to be a male living under matriarchy?
Absolutely not.
Exactly why the patriarchy must be sustained.
As a man that can be the only option I can choose.

I'm an unapologetic conservative in the most particular British sense and not the awful American sense.
Bitches and whores.

[♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.2487172]

>>2487164
in the most particular brutish sense you mean.

[Anonymous No.2487173]

im male and im not assertive or dominant in the slightest. im not even camp. fuck your false theories op. typical teen saying something edgy thinking he has it all figured out

[Anonymous No.2487177]

>>2487164

both senses of the word are awful hth

[Anonymous No.2487178]

>>2487173

I suppose you're gay, though.

[Anonymous No.2487184]

>>2487178
nope. just admit you dont actually have it all figured out. wh is that so hard

[Anonymous No.2487189]

>>2487069
>Men are naturally dominant
>implying a man who posts like OP could be any level higher than an epsilon-minus semi-moron

[Anonymous No.2487191]

Since women have such a great desire to have the most attractive men, they pay a lot of attention to these men, and assume that following the actions of these men would make them attractive to men, in the same way that the men's actions make them attractive to women.

That's why feminists are trying to become closer to men, it's called projection.

[Richard Feynman No.2487193]

>>2487191
since women have such a great desire to be equal to men that means they are not very passive. sick it op.


REJECT MISOGYNY

[Anonymous No.2487195]

>>2487191

I can personally attest this is true. There was is dyke at my college who was interested in having an orgy with me. I declined.

Later on she started dressing like a dude. Cut her hair short, got a lether jacket, hipster clothes, everything. After gender roles are rejected as valid ways to claim ones identity what do people have left? To copy the person who looks most successful in their lives.

In this dyke's success looked like a middle class college hipster. so she projected.

[Anonymous No.2487196]

>>People still think gender differences have any important biological reasons

[Anonymous No.2487198]

>>2487193

If you have been paying attention to this thread, you would realize that it just as easily be men who are marginalized by society than as women. Nothing is set in stone, and if radical feminists succeed you can bet many men will be on the recieving end of people's revenge fantasies and retribution for historical wrongs.

What's need is not just a rejection of mysogyny, but a rejection of sexism competely. Further, people have to respect each other as people, not according to what gender group they fall under. That way, smart or dumb, aggressive or passive, people will trust each other enough to not abuse the power they have over each other.

[Anonymous No.2487201]

>>2487193

Not just reject misogyny. Reject all sexism!

If you have been paying attention to the alternative scenarios proposed in this thread, you would realize that it could just as easily be men who are marginalized by society than as women. Nothing is set in stone, and if radical feminists succeed you can bet many men will be on the recieving end of people's revenge fantasies and retribution for historical wrongs.

What's needed is not just a rejection of mysogyny, but a rejection of sexism competely. Further, people have to respect each other as people, not according to what gender group they fall under. That way, smart or dumb, aggressive or passive, people will trust each other enough to not abuse the power they have over each other.

[Anonymous No.2487205]

one of the rare /lit/ threads that doesn't make me feel like i wasted my time
>>2487137 is particularly good
good show brahs

[Richard Feynman No.2487206]

>>2487201
fighting to protect men is an unnecessary battle. its like fighting to protect white people. youre only claiming to be threatened with victimisation to maintain an unequal relationship. feminism doesnt endanger men. political correctness and diversity doesnt endanger whites.

[Anonymous No.2487209]

>>2487201
Of course, the ideal would be to absolutely reject gender roles, but that could potentially never happen, or centuries ahead. That way of thinking is very rare, even in very liberal minds.

[Anonymous No.2487216]

>>2487209
You sure breh?

[Anonymous No.2487217]

>>2487206

not sure if troll or just unimaginative.

a wise man doesn't makes plans based on the way things have been, but on the way things are going.

Demographically and politically white males have lost more power than any other group in western society. I don't dispute that they still hold an unfair amount of power, I am only trying to illustrate what the world would be like if radicals trying to destroy patriarchy were successful. If we replace one form of sexism with another form then we are lost.

Similarly if we reject racism against blacks in favor of racism against white; then we have completely failed to reject racism.

[Anonymous No.2487219]

reality must be criticized, in every way

can't handle it?

[Richard Feynman No.2487222]

>>2487217
equating feminism with a form of sexism is where you made your mistake. tr harder next time

[Anonymous No.2487234]

>>2487222

[Richard Feynman No.2487236]

>>2487217
defending black people is not opposing white people
defending women is not opposing men.
you only draw these false equations to implicitly maintain the status quo. you are not questioning anything.

[Anonymous No.2487242]

>opening post blatantly begs the question
>people reply anyway

Come on /lit/, brush up on your logic. You're supposed to be good at this kind of stuff.

[Anonymous No.2487245]

Sex is a biological fact. Gender is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.2487254]

>>2487236

a perfect example of a 'straw man' argument.

this is a discussion about patriarchy and its merits. If you're interested in racism just start a new thread. perhaps in /pol/

[Anonymous No.2487256]

>>2487206
>fighting to protect men is an unnecessary battle. its like fighting to protect white people. youre only claiming to be threatened with victimisation to maintain an unequal relationship. feminism doesnt endanger men. political correctness and diversity doesnt endanger whites.
And this is my biggest problem with feminism. It simultaneously claims to want to overthrow gender roles, but then pulls out chivalrous bullshit like this when it's convenient (or more explicitly: when it doesn't help women).

Men in contemporary western society have a number of very real, very measurable disadvantages to women. Men are given heavier sentences when they commit the same crime as a woman. Men work in the most dangerous jobs and make up over 90% of workplace deaths. Men's genital are routinely mutilated at birth in western countries, resulting in the permanent loss of more nerve endings than is in the average female clitoris, while women's genitals are held sacrosanct. Men make up the vast majority of victims of violent crime. Men who are physically abused by women are completely disenfranchised and ignored by society, while women who are physically abused by men are given all kinds of attention and sympathy. Men who are victims of rape are ignored by society as well, institutional, violent rape in prison (the population of which is very predominantly made up of men) is routinely ignored, and up until very recently, wasn't even included in rape statistics.

[Anonymous No.2487263]

>>2487256

In terms of male victims of domestic abuse being disenfranchised, this is a classic function of patriarchy that blames the male for showing weakness through which typical gender roles have been reversed. He is cast out because he is abject and a threat to the status quo.

[Anonymous No.2487268]

>>2487256

>Men are given heavier sentences when they commit the same crime as a woman.

Which is a result of social gender roles.

>Men work in the most dangerous jobs and make up over 90% of workplace deaths.

Again, gender roles.

>Men's genital are routinely mutilated at birth in western countries, resulting in the permanent loss of more nerve endings than is in the average female clitoris, while women's genitals are held sacrosanct.

Sure is overblowing circumcision. The foreskin does not have more nerve endings than a clitoris, jesus.

>Men make up the vast majority of victims of violent crime.

And most of the perpetrators too.

>Men who are physically abused by women are completely disenfranchised and ignored by society

Mostly because they fail to report it. And again, gender roles.

>Men who are victims of rape are ignored by society as well, institutional, violent rape in prison (the population of which is very predominantly made up of men) is routinely ignored, and up until very recently, wasn't even included in rape statistics.

Again, mostly because they fail to report it. And, say it with my ladies and gentlemen, gender roles!

[Anonymous No.2487269]

>>2487206

>>>fighting to protect men is an unnecessary battle.

after rereading this, I think it's probably the stupidest comment in the whole thread. Everyone deserves protection. Regardless of their gender.

For you to say that men don't deserve protection means you are essentially discriminatory against men, or think that men are some how invincible to harm. Can you explain more carefully what you are trying to say?

[Anonymous No.2487271]

>>2487256

Also, the way you write implies a pretty hilarious conclusion: women should count their blessings because in the developed world they don't get their genitals mutilated?

Would it perhaps please your sense of masculine injustice if they did?

[Anonymous No.2487272]

>>2487269

>after rereading this, I think it's probably the stupidest comment in the whole thread. Everyone deserves protection. Regardless of their gender.

He's not saying men don't deserve protection. He's saying men already have it.

[Anonymous No.2487275]

>>2487263
>In terms of male victims of domestic abuse being disenfranchised, this is a classic function of patriarchy that blames the male for showing weakness through which typical gender roles have been reversed. He is cast out because he is abject and a threat to the status quo.
And this is another insidious aspect of feminism - implicit victim blaming. As if because he is a man he is somehow less a victim of discrimination because of "the patriarchy".

I'm not saying you're doing that, but I often see it done in discussions like these. I have no problem with the powers that be being referred to as "the patriarchy", as long as we understand that just because the people in power are predominantly men that that does not mean that men are predominantly in power.

[Anonymous No.2487279]

>>2487275

>As if because he is a man he is somehow less a victim of discrimination because of "the patriarchy".

That's really not what he said at all.

>I'm not saying you're doing that

Oh, you know that. What the fuck are you doing? Who are you talking to? You just like standing on a little soap box or something?

[Anonymous No.2487277]

>>2487256
>Men in contemporary western society have a number of very real, very measurable disadvantages to women.
And women have measurable disadvantages to men too.

>Men are given heavier sentences when they commit the same crime as a woman.
Take a poll of women if they think that's right, they don't, its just predominantly male judges with latent sympathy. They didn't ask for it.

>Men work in the most dangerous jobs and make up over 90% of workplace deaths.
Sure, so what's your point? no one forces the men to work the most dangerous jobs.

>Men's genital are routinely mutilated at birth in western countries, resulting in the permanent loss of more nerve endings than is in the average female clitoris while women's genitals are held sacrosanct.
Don't start this shit again, I'm not interested in debating your own genital insecurity.

>Men make up the vast majority of victims of violent crime.
And the vast majority of violent criminals.

>Men who are physically abused by women are completely disenfranchised and ignored by society, while women who are physically abused by men are given all kinds of attention and sympathy.
Because it is comparably much rarer, does it happen yes, is that bad, yes, but in terms of precedence its not even in the same ballpark as man on woman abuse

>Men who are victims of rape are ignored by society as well, institutional, violent rape in prison (the population of which is very predominantly made up of men) is routinely ignored
First you've let TV delude you to the prevalence of institutional rape, second again, male rape is much much rarer, and is almost always at the hands of other men, and the biggest reason its ignored is because men don't want to report it.

>and up until very recently, wasn't even included in rape statistics.
It wasn't included in *A* rape statistic, not all rape statistics.

[Anonymous No.2487280]

>>2487272

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you explain in the context of this conversation what you're trying to say?

[Anonymous No.2487283]

>>2487280

Making an effort to protect an established, dominant power is unnecessary. They're already protected by the system.

It's like forming a militia to protect the U.S. Marines.

[Anonymous No.2487284]

>>2487268
>OMG GENDER ROLES!
So? That makes the discrimination against men I pointed out any less real to the victims of it how? Who claimed it was due to anything biologically innate?

As as for the foreskin bit - yes, it does. If you were to fully unfold an adult male foreskin it would compromise approximately 15 square inches of flesh. Have you ever seen an adult erect circumcised penis? You can see the mark where the skin is removed, and it's nearly halfway up the penis.

[Anonymous No.2487286]

>>2487279

actually, i think >>2487275 makes a good point.

just because men oppress women doesn't mean it's impossible for women to oppress men.

[Anonymous No.2487289]

>>2487283

I think you're making a value judgement here without recognizing it. If something is capable of being harmed, and it is worth while to preserve it, then it should be protected.

It doesn't matter if the subject is dominant and established, if it can be harmed, and is something that we think should continue to exist, then we have a duty to protect it.

Do you think males are capable of being harmed? If so, do you think males are worthy of being protected by society?

[Anonymous No.2487290]

>>2487284

>So? That makes the discrimination against men I pointed out any less real to the victims of it how?

That's not what I said at all.

What I'm saying is, by pointing out these injustices that are the result of societal gender roles and trying to reverse them you're a feminist too .

>If you were to fully unfold an adult male foreskin it would compromise approximately 15 square inches of flesh.

Hm? Are you trying to say that the amount of nerve endings is equal to the amount of flesh? Because that's not true at all.

[Anonymous No.2487291]

>>2487289

>Do you think males are capable of being harmed?

Yes.

>If so, do you think males are worthy of being protected by society?

I think they already are.

Please listen. I don't like repeating myself.

[Anonymous No.2487294]

>>2487291

ah, but i'm asking for your personal opinion, now. I don't want to know if males are currently protected by society. I want to know if you believe males should be protected by society. It's a purely hypothetical question.

See the distinction?

[Anonymous No.2487299]

>>2487294

I think they should be given equal protection under the law, yes.

[Anonymous No.2487300]

Women are given greater protection as a matter of law and policy then men, because men have greater standing socially, you don't have battered men's shelters because society doesn't expect men to be subservient.

You can't change society with a decree you can only change the law. Gender roles as social constructs simply are a part of having a society, they change and evolve with time, but congress cannot pass a law to alter what is "masculine" in the eyes of the people. So women are afforded greater protection because they cannot be afforded greater status.

[Anonymous No.2487301]

>>2487299

then we are all in agreement then!

[Anonymous No.2487305]

>>2487301
To an extent. It seems you believe that women currently need less standing under the law to bring about equality. As I see it they need more.

[Anonymous No.2487306]

Feminism is a construct created by the upper-classes to promote dysfunction and discord amongst the lower classes.

Feminism, time and time again, paints broad irrational strokes in its epistemology, and illogically justifies, glorifies, or downplays the faults of womankind.

It's true.

[Anonymous No.2487307]

>>2487306
So? I hate the lower classes.

[Anonymous No.2487309]

>>2487277
>And women have measurable disadvantages to men too.
OMG WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE WOMENZ!!!
Pointing out discrimination against men is not saying women don't suffer from it either.

>Take a poll of women if they think that's right, they don't, its just predominantly male judges with latent sympathy. They didn't ask for it.
OMG, IT'S NOT EQUIVALENT DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE PATRIARCHY!!!

>Sure, so what's your point? no one forces the men to work the most dangerous jobs.
Men need to eat too. I don't see women taking those slots up. Are working class men just supposed to starve on the street rather than work in mines or construction?

>Don't start this shit again, I'm not interested in debating your own genital insecurity.
It's not a matter of insecurity, most men are fine with having their genitals mutilated, as are most women when it happens to them.

"The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm; the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

I know, advancing the right of male children to not be mutilated at birth is such an affront to feminism, right?

(to be continued)

[Anonymous No.2487310]

>>2487309
>And the vast majority of violent criminals.
And black men commit the highest proportion of violent crimes of anybody! But I guess you wouldn't victim blame in that instance, would you?

>Because it is comparably much rarer, does it happen yes, is that bad, yes, but in terms of precedence its not even in the same ballpark as man on woman abuse
The police and society in general don't take domestic abuse against men seriously, which leads to a culture of underreporting it.

>First you've let TV delude you to the prevalence of institutional rape, second again, male rape is much much rarer, and is almost always at the hands of other men, and the biggest reason its ignored is because men don't want to report it.
Rape is always "at the hands of other men" because it is defined as unconsentual penetration, not unconsentual intercourse. Also - yes, rape in prison is very, very common. Serial rapes are common as well. When we talk about violence against women we're usually talking about a single instance of abuse, in prison we're talking about crimes that not only happen routinely, but go completely unreported (due to the horrible stigma that would be associated with someone for being a rat) and when it is reported, very often nothing is done about it.

[Anonymous No.2487311]

>>2487306

Wow you're some sort of crazy double Marxist.

[Anonymous No.2487314]

Gender won't be around for long anyway.

[Anonymous No.2487315]

>>2487275

Yes, you're right to say I'm not doing that, so I do have to question why the first part of your post implies that I do.

I don't think one is any more or less of a victim because of their sex. I'm just saying that the way the apparatus of patriarchy functions is to marginalise men that are at danger of subverting normative gender roles.

I believe all the problems quoted above, violent crime, nonsensical sentencing, unbalanced job opportunities, are a product of skewed societies dominated by inequality that seeks to polarise rather than integrate. To cherry pick from a list of ills produced by a society run according to patriarchal capitalist ideology and claim that it shows that women have nothing to complain about is a perverse piece of logic, since a rethinking of the root cause of those ills would be the remedy and that is, at least speaking for myself, what I believe in when I say that I'm a feminist.

[Anonymous No.2487321]

>>2487290
>What I'm saying is, by pointing out these injustices that are the result of societal gender roles and trying to reverse them you're a feminist too .
Oh, don't feed me that fucking line. Look, I have no beef with feminism fighting to advance the rights of women, that's what they do. They do not, however, fight for the rights of men. You can see in this thread that people are claiming that society "protects men" and thus they don't need anybody fighting to advance their rights. I will not consider myself a feminist as long as the movement houses people like that.

>Hm? Are you trying to say that the amount of nerve endings is equal to the amount of flesh? Because that's not true at all.
The foreskin has the highest concentration of nerve endings anywhere in the male penis. You do know that it and the clitoris are actually the same area in a fetus, right? The clitoris stays inside the body cavity of a woman and the penis on a boy grows out.

[Anonymous No.2487322]

>>2487305
I'm not sure passing laws alone can bring about equity. There has to be a social consensus on what defines 'equity' before we can effectively seek to bring the said equity about.

So what's the end goal of equity for women and men?

I'd argue that we should have a gender neutral society in most public matters. Sexual roles should be for individuals to decide with their chosen partners. women and men should just be treated as people, and any thing they do should be judged from a universialist moral perspective, without any contextualizing in regard to past injustices done to either gender.

[Anonymous No.2487323]

>>2487310
>I guess you wouldn't victim blame in that instance, would you?
What?

>rape is always "at the hands of other men" because it is defined as unconsentual penetration, not unconsentual intercourse
first of all the definition of rape varies state to state, second its not "nonconsentual penetration with a penis" any penetration whether it be manual or with a foreign object a tongue all can count.

>The police and society in general don't take domestic abuse against men seriously, which leads to a culture of underreporting it.
Notice how I didn't disagree with you in my post, I simply stated it has lower precedence because of its relative rareness.

[Anonymous No.2487326]

>>2487315
Bless you anon. Every other post in this thread makes me want to hit the bottle hard.

[Anonymous No.2487327]

>>2487322
We don't need an end to address an injustice, it is simply sufficient to recognize one. I don't like any of this utopia planning.

[Anonymous No.2487329]

>more women should do "male jobs"
>down with patriarchy
>never worked in a male job

typical feminist

[Anonymous No.2487332]

Oh look. Another pants-on-head retardedly pointless argument full of pretentious cunts who think they know what they're talking about.

Sage your shit thread. Cunt.

[Anonymous No.2487335]

>>2487332
>implying my woefully uninformed opinion isn't correct

[Anonymous No.2487336]

>>2487327

so you're happy to identify what is unjust, but you won't venture to say what justice is?

That's a rather negative outlook, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.2487337]

>>2487315
>To cherry pick from a list of ills produced by a society run according to patriarchal capitalist ideology and claim that it shows that women have nothing to complain about is a perverse piece of logic, since a rethinking of the root cause of those ills would be the remedy and that is, at least speaking for myself, what I believe in when I say that I'm a feminist.
Who said women have nothing to complain about? I was responding to a poster who explicitly said that fighting for the rights of men was equivalent to white nationalism. Feminists are more than welcome to advance the rights of women, but when they want to claim that men have no right to complain because LOL PATRIARCHY, I just feel the need to point out how full of shit they are. And you'll notice, by the way, that I claimed nothing about the root cause of that discrimination one way or the other, merely pointed it out.

Ideologies worth their weight in shit derive from observations of the world around them anyways. You can't claim that observations of discrimination against men are irrelevant because your ideology says that men have all the power unless you want to be taken about as seriously as religion.

[Anonymous No.2487341]

>>2487336
Negative? i don't see that. I just believe that humans are fundamentally irrational creatures and that issues like defining 'the good' and 'the just' are pointless. The language of right and wrong is not language of mathematics to be codified and derived. It is simply part of the social marketplace, we participate in it and we shape it as it shapes us. So we address things that we recognize as 'unjust' and protect those we recognize as 'just' and that is enough for me.

[Anonymous No.2487342]

>>2487336
>Why don't you just smile more, dear?
ok, time to make this happen

[sage No.2487343]

nature is a concept, not a state of things. of course it only works in we think of it as being the latter

/thread

[Anonymous No.2487346]

>>2487326

Haha, yes I think discussing gender politics on 4chan is always going to make one utterly despondent.

Just as an aside, coming from the UK, this argument around male circumcision is very bizarre. It seems to have embedded in American society very firmly, but on what grounds I do not know.

[Anonymous No.2487351]

>>2487346
>Just as an aside, coming from the UK, this argument around male circumcision is very bizarre. It seems to have embedded in American society very firmly, but on what grounds I do not know.
Hospitals make a lot of profit off of the foreskins of circumcised boys, I know that much.

[Anonymous No.2487353]

>>2487341

Interesting. while I agree that people rely on fuzzy metaphors to describe what is ethical. I think we should use the lessons of history and the social sciences as empirical evidence of if our judgements are rational or not.

Point in case: There is plenty of scientific and historical evidence to support that a 'gender blind' society may not function perfectly. It is an impossible 'utpoia' as you say.

But if you are saying you would simply live in the context of the moment, and adopt the opinion of the majority as the sole criteria for what is ethical, then I must disagree with you.

Accepting the status-quo never caused humanity to progress. Re-imagining, and re-analyzing our assumptions is what will allow us to improve our society.

[Anonymous No.2487354]

>>2487346
19th century temperance movements, then there were some health and or hygiene arguments made, then it just became the standard and it was weird if you didn't circumcise, and it was just 'normal'.

Ultimately though it doesn't really matter, because sexual pleasure is entirely processed in the brain so its not like the sensitivity or number of nerve endings actually makes it more or less pleasurable (assuming it was done at an early age obviously if were circumsised late in life the difference would be noticeable).

[Anonymous No.2487358]

>>2487346
I have no clue. May have originated in puritan strategies to get kids to masturbate less (lol) but the common excuses (if it's not an aspect of your religion) is that "it's cleaner" or "it looks better," first of which strikes me as kind of silly and, in the second case, why don't we wait until the kid's old enough to decide how he wants his penis to look if that's the argument?

I think cutting a part off a kid that has no say in the matter that isn't somehow infected or dangerous to the rest of their body or well being is kind of awful, regardless of gender, so yeah, it does kind of bother me that it's still the default choice in the US, but the sanitation and safety of it, as an operation, is well beyond that of typical female circumcision.

[Anonymous No.2487359]

>>2487354
>The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm; the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

The same is true for women, so would you say that female circumcision "doesn't really matter"? Genital mutilation is genital mutilation is genital mutilation, and has no business being legal for anybody.

[Anonymous No.2487360]

>>2487353
>But if you are saying you would simply live in the context of the moment, and adopt the opinion of the majority as the sole criteria for what is ethical, then I must disagree with you.

Of course I'm not saying that, I said we shape society as it shapes us. We cannot step outside of society, we were raised in it, it forms the kernel at the center of our whole 'moral being'.

Moreover, we do not poll society to find out what is morally right or wrong, it is simply something we believe, in no small part due to how we were raised. And when we bring our ideas and opinions out in the social marketplace we exert some force on it and on the others who like us are shaped by the social interaction.

So we do not defer to the majority, neither do we claim to have a magic formula to derive right and wrong. We are simply wacky old humans a social animal.

[Anonymous No.2487361]

>>2487337

Again, I'm not saying anything about the irrelevancies of men's suffering. Only the irrelevancies of gender. I understand that you're infuriated because someone else on here is advancing a pretty basic understanding of second-wave feminism. I know how alienating the militant rhetoric can be. Feel free to defend your right to self-representation if you identify yourself with a broad demographic and are happy that way. For me, I believe that value attached to sex as a social construct, i.e. gender, is what we need to eliminate - that makes me entirely against false dichotomies of masculinity and femininity, and all the roles they interpellate, and entirely for an existence in which men and women are free to do as they choose without discrimination within the bounds of democratic law.

[Anonymous No.2487366]

>>2487358
>>2487354

Okay thanks, quite a cultural difference. Shows how unfounded ideas can become normalised by just being repeated enough. These arguments are rarely heard over here - circumcision is generally only for medical or religious reasons.

[Anonymous No.2487388]

>>2487360

I agree with you that our morals shape and are shaped by society.

But I do not totally agree with this metaphor of the social market place. Morals can not be bought and sold according to how much they are 'worth.'

Morals are mankind's reflection of what is just. The more man knows about the world, the better able he is able to determine what is just, and what society's morals should be.

We can, and must, poll people on what is right and wrong. We must formalize our continuing understanding morality. Our ability to judge is just as essential as our ability to accept things as they are.

[Anonymous No.2487393]

>>2487366
You've got to remember that in the last century the world completely shrank. Normalcy is no longer a local concept but a global (well not quite global) one. First with air travel then mass media and the internet. Moreover there is a definite social role for things like this, pointless little affectations that mark us as common members of a community to speak, the enduring bonds of history beyond simply geographical proximity have been forged on a common sacrifice of the members (haha pun), tithing, uncomfortable religious clothing, ritual scarification in tribes, they all serve to strengthen the common bond of community, which is ultimately the reason that circumcision has been adopted by judaism in the first place (from a sociological standpoint, they have their own justifications).

[Anonymous No.2487396]

>>2487388
my metaphor was not meant to imply they could be bought or sold, I merely refer to the marketplace as a traditional social forum and locus of interaction.

>We can, and must, poll people on what is right and wrong. We must formalize our continuing understanding morality.
Then all we shall have is a 'moral dictionary'. It is worthless.

[Anonymous No.2487421]

>>2487396

You are the Max Eisenhardt to my Charles Xavier.

[Anonymous No.2487443]

>>2487421
except we both have much lamer special abilities

[Anonymous No.2487445]

>>2487443

:( indeeed....

[Anonymous No.2487451]

>Why is patriarchy a bad thing?
Because it treats the woman as secondary or even not important at all in some societies.

>It's necessary to have a dominant and a passive.
[citation needed]

>Men are naturally dominant and woman are naturally passive. Why are feminists hellbent on going against reality?
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.2487470]

My face when statements like this still attract replies.

[Anonymous No.2487513]

>>2487451

>>Men are naturally dominant and woman are naturally passive. Why are feminists hellbent on going against reality?

>[citation needed]

all of human history, every civilization since our inception
even in modern times with women freedom and emancipation the are still outperformed in every activity

if it's not causation, it's definitely a strong as possible correlation

[Anonymous No.2487523]

>>2487470
Why don't you understand that we can enjoy talking about shit, we can enjoy a spirited discussion. Doesn't matter if its a troll or stupid or whatever, we're not here because anybody is making us. I'll never understand how people can come into a thread and say "STOP HAVING A CIVILIZED DISCUSSION OP IS A TROLL". who cares?

[Anonymous No.2487579]

>>2487451
>Because it treats the woman as secondary or even not important at all in some societies.

da fuq?
No it doesn't.
Women are the most important role, that of producing children, hence they must be controlled/protected/coddled.
Simple biology about how a woman thinks/acts/behaves, they are weaker both physically and mentally.

Patriarchy was the natural evolution, this leftist attack on it is obviously about destruction, not about "progress"

[Anonymous No.2487583]

>>2487579
dude, are you basing your whole world view on what's natural and evolved based on how societies adapted to a sedentary agrarian lifestyle? Cause it seems like you are.

[Anonymous No.2487584]

>>2487513
>all of human history, every civilization since our inception

Except no. Some societies afforded women more rights than others. Some societies were matriarchal altogether.

>even in modern times with women freedom and emancipation the are still outperformed in every activity

Being outperformed doesn't mean you're passive. Would me being outperformed at work mean I am passive even though I'm working hard and ergo not being passive?

>if it's not causation, it's definitely a strong as possible correlation

Since your previous two propositions have been demolished, ya got nothin' buddy.

[Anonymous No.2487585]

>>2487583
Instead lets base things on wishful thinking? I'm sure that won't have any negative consequences!

[Anonymous No.2487587]

>>2487579

Da fuq? Most versions of patriachy do.

>Patriarchy was the natural evolution, this leftist attack on it is obviously about destruction, not about "progress"

I think you should read the Counter Revolution of Science by Friedrich Hayek. All this misappropriating biology for social beliefs hurts humanity.

[Anonymous No.2487589]

>>2487585
What? your argument is "its the archetype for agrarian societies therefore its the best ever for all societies" and you have the gall to claim i'm being irrational? Sorry, bro, shit ain't gonna fly.

[Anonymous No.2487597]

The more I read about the atrophying of men to boys, the more I sort of give a little credence that idea.


http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the_sorry_lives_and_confusing_times_of_today_s_young_men/

[autistic No.2487613]

>>2487587
was Hayek autistic?

[Anonymous No.2487625]

>>2487613
i think they way 4chan abuses this word is fucking with me
every time anybody does anything slightly awkward the first things that comes to my mind now is autism
like i was watching barack obama talking on tv and started to wonder if he was secretly autistic

[Anonymous No.2487627]

>>2487625
i accuse people irl of being autistic now.

[Anonymous No.2487636]

>>2487625
i know a guy with mild autism who has better social skills than me :(

[MoB No.2487648]

Feminists simply fight for equal rights, not for outdoing men.

[Anonymous No.2487649]

you're all the absolute worst fix yourselves a sampler platter with whatever's in the medicine cabinet

rip /lit/

[Anonymous No.2487657]

I'm a submissive male and I'm attracted to dominant women

[Anonymous No.2489098]

>>2487657

Same here, being submissive is obscenely unattractive to women, heck I may as well have a hunchback. Not to mention it would appear unless I change the best i could end up is with a control freak.