/lit/ - Literature

File: 215 KB, 600x871, 2634125.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 08:10:18 2014 No.5181296 [DELETED]

Based Byron on women.

"Thought of the state of women under the ancient Greeks-convenient enough. Present state, a remnant of the barbarism of the chivalric and feudal ages-artificial and unnatural. They ought to mind home-and be well fed and clothed-but not mixed in society. Well educated, too, in religion-but to read neither poetry nor politics-nothing but books of piety and cookery. Music-drawing-dancing-also a little gardening and ploughing now and then. I have seen them mending the roads in Epirus with good success. Why not, as well as hay-making and milking?"

I think he hit the nail on the head, but what do you think?

How can we make a healthy application of such visions for the sexes a reality? I myself joined the Social Democratic party and am active in it's socially conservative wing, and our first priority is to remove the women from serving as public officials. Remember what Schopenhauer said, the corruption of the French court may as well be thanks to women and the freedom they were granted to reign and wreak havoc upon it at the time of Ludwig XIII.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 08:22:33 2014 No.5181321

We can't. Out culture is based on selling time, with higher prices for pre-packaged prep time (education.)

Anyone can sell time and all time is equal. The only remnant of the qualitative attitude to these human gears is the preference of one certificate over another.

Not all of us are on "the grid," but that is now the basis of our culture. Gender roles do not make sense for the millions of desk jockey and bean counting positions out there.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 08:33:27 2014 No.5181353

>>5181321
I believe that when the current trends of neoliberalism crumble, and we see a return to keynesianism or mayhaps even a softer form of socialism, such roles would be more feaseble to attain as the previously mentioned modes of production favor giving out handouts to the working male.

Thus if a women choose or rather was made to stay at home and raise the children she could likely do so thanks to added money to the worker via stronger social programs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 08:47:45 2014 No.5181384 getting women out of power and out of the workplace would improve society immensely

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 08:54:03 2014 No.5181398
File: 44 KB, 939x1130, rousseau-jj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5181384
Obviously, women are meant for the domestic sphere of society. Not to mention that that + polygamy would ensure better genetics for the human species and a more equal distribution of material wealth, since a male with wealth who could afford multiple wives and multiple children would then divide his wealth equally among them, thus making slow progressive equalization of material wealth possible.

Least we forget Rousseau on this matter.
>unless women were domesticated and constrained by modesty and shame, he feared[33] "men would be tyrannized by women... For, given the ease with which women arouse men's senses... men would finally be their victims...."[34]

We only had to listen...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 08:57:34 2014 No.5181402 Alright edgies Back to /r9k/. Baiting tripfags is really low.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:01:31 2014 No.5181412 >>5181402 There is literally nothing edgy posted in this thread, in fact it's one of the threads most ripe for a serious discussion going on at the moment.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:03:55 2014 No.5181417 This is one of the most viscerally unpleasant threads I've ever had the misfortune to set foot in.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:09:22 2014 No.5181422 >>5181417 You think these ideas are immoral? Impractical? Inhumane? Can you explain why?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:12:08 2014 No.5181428 >>5181412 >...but it can't be edgy if it's SUPPOSED to be bait.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:12:39 2014 No.5181430 >>5181417 >viscerally Is that a synonym for womanly :^)?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:12:52 2014 No.5181431 >>5181422 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:13:22 2014 No.5181432 Women should be allowed to do what they want. In practice though we're all brainwashed to do more or less what the elites want us to and neither women or men 'do what they want'. I doubt most women really want to work in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:36:48 2014 No.5181491 >>5181430 >This is one of the most womanly unpleasant threads...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:38:09 2014 No.5181496 >>5181432 Women don't know what they want. They can only be lead.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:41:33 2014 No.5181502 >>5181496 as can men, by the hand, by pappamummy

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:42:38 2014 No.5181505

not having to work, but still having the same freedoms as now. great, if that was assured, i would sign up for this new woman role, as many others surely would, but confining them to their homes, and restricting their reading to works of religion and spirituality, i can't even take that notion seriously. i managed to have a laugh, but your ways are dated and unsuitable for modernity. it isn't a patch for the female condition you should be seeking to apply onto the world, but something to remedy your own thinking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:46:02 2014 No.5181514 >>5181496 Maybe you should lead them in how to iron gettit

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:46:10 2014 No.5181515 >>5181496 not true, mine is tungsten

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:47:23 2014 No.5181523 >>5181432 You realize what you're saying right? >anyone should be able to do what they want. Which is of course extremely stupid at face value. Predefined roles help society run smoothly. >>5181417 This. Issue a trigger warning next time OP.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:48:58 2014 No.5181527 >>5181417 Yeah, we have /pol/ and /r9k/ spillovers quite frequently but that was frankly a new low.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:49:59 2014 No.5181533 >>5181523 I think he means there should be equal opportunity for men and women to do what they want. Obviously we have law to prevent what is not beneficial for society as a whole. this thread is edgy

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:55:59 2014 No.5181546

>>5181533
>I think he means there should be equal opportunity for men and women to do what they want.
What if everyone wanted to be a home maker?

People need to shed the stupid notion that they are entitled to do whatever they want without criticism.

We don't need 2 types of men. Right now, no one is fulfilling the female role in society. It's disparaged by feminists and misogynists alike, and some women have to be both men(workers) and women(homemakers).

The massive cultural campaign to get women working was disastrous on home and family life. It was pushed by the capitalist elites to increase productivity. It has had no benefits other than helping us make more shit and consume more still.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:58:30 2014 No.5181551

Reversing the notion that women should have careers or education is actually not that difficult.

Great progress was achieved in the 15 years following WWII in the US where trends for women to seek higher education and challenging employment even after marriage were reversed after years of increase in the interwar period.

Unfortunately many of these women who did the right thing and accepted their natural role as wives and mothers quickly became dissatisfied and rebellious. The problem was that their proper education in subjects like cooking, motherhood and being visually appealing to men was only really starting at around the age if 14/15. So they already had 10 years of formal education where they were taught the same as boys. That sort of education which inculcates desirable traits in boys like ambition and competitiveness is not merely wasted on girls, its actually harmful.

The solution is simple, girls need to be taught their role as obedient wives and mothers right from the beginning. The seed of ambition, the desire for a career or independence from men must be strangled in its cradle if we are to raise a generation of women who will obey men.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 09:59:34 2014 No.5181554

I have to say I really, really respect the nerve of the average woman for listening to shit like that - probably on a daily basis - and still having the guts of showing up in regular society

If people like OP decided to target me and they were as numerous as men I'd probably waste all my money on guns, move to the hills and start a militia movement

Strangers would be shot on sight

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:02:51 2014 No.5181565 >>5181554 Nobody cares you massive virgin faggot, women are idiots and destroying society. You aren't getting laid over your virtuous 4chan posts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:06:09 2014 No.5181572 >>5181565 >You aren't getting laid You can say that again

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:06:48 2014 No.5181574 >>5181565 I think it's much more likely that the irrational, emotion-driven sexists in this thread are virgins than the people who recognise women as human beings.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:07:38 2014 No.5181579 File: 41 KB, 350x463, fedora-cape.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5181554 I am impressed good sir, you show such good characteristics of chivalry and character. We are not worthy of your presence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:12:01 2014 No.5181591 >>5181574 What are we saying that's irrational or emotion-driven? If anything, your outrage is driven by emotion. Our side has made some level-headed arguments that have yet to be addressed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:13:40 2014 No.5181597 >>5181574 The people in this thread may be virgins but it has nothing to do with being 'irrational, emotion-driven sexists', theres no correlation there. The correlation is the fact that they're on 4chan and pining for the 18th century woman

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:13:48 2014 No.5181598 >>5181574 Overkek. Enjoy growing old with your vapid whores. Society in ~12 years will be pretty interesting when they all turn 30 and realize how badly they fucked up.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:14:31 2014 No.5181604

>>5181574
The famous literally figures mentioned in this past all got decent amounts of pussy through their lives. Byron was super alpha, Schoppy was relatively alpha and Rousseau was a beta but they all got to experience the fruitful pleasures of sexual activity likely to a much larger extend that you or I ever will.

I myself am on my third relationship (well first two were more of experimentation I might add) but I am still young (21) so I have time to develop myself sexually.

Rest assured that these topics and opinions do not come from resentment but from reflections upon modern society and our discontents with it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:14:38 2014 No.5181605 Some great posts in favour of the notion so far, but all posts against are nothing more than emotional rejections with no reasoning whatsoever.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:15:16 2014 No.5181606 >>5181591 It's the hatred oozing underneath your assertions to which I refer. Pure emotion. Perhaps it's your time of the month?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:15:57 2014 No.5181607

>>5181598
That's not something to rejoice over. It's sad. They've been lied to. They were told they'd find happiness by behaving like and competing with men.

No one told them that hedonistic materialist pursuits leave you feeling empty and unfulfilled later in life. This is true for men too, but I think it comes much later since our reproductive window is open longer.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:17:11 2014 No.5181610

>>5181597
>pining for the 18th century woman

You must be mad! The proposals ITT and the ones Byron and Schopenhauer made were the ones harshly attacking the 18th/19th century lady figure.

If anything we are pinning for the 4th century B.C Athenian woman.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:17:49 2014 No.5181612 File: 83 KB, 614x411, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5181607 No it's not, but they're too busy being sarcastic retards to care so all we have is the hilarity on the future when we get to say " i tolda so"

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:18:50 2014 No.5181616 >>5181606 refer to: >>5181605 There are plenty of sincere arguments being made, and even if we were all as spiteful as you claim, you haven't responded properly yet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:23:40 2014 No.5181631 M'Lady is a parody of the gentleman, with none of the responsibilities or duties >aspire to be Woman >what qualities

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:24:36 2014 No.5181634

So much resentment /lit/. This reminds me of /r9k/. If any of you guys end up being successful, your views on women will change. I'm a lawyer and work with just as many women as men. Their's no performance difference in the professional world as far as I can tell. That could easily be different in a different kind of occupation, I'll admit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:26:23 2014 No.5181645 >Young women around the world have been posting selfies in protest against feminist ideas. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28446617

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:26:51 2014 No.5181647 >>5181634 Show me the resentment please. All the posts in favor for traditional rigid gender roles and occupations seem nicely written and forged with a decent amount of reason. The only resentful posts are the ones attacking those views.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:27:26 2014 No.5181651 >>5181634 So, another post basically saying the idea is mean and anyone who entertains it is basically deficient in some way? Great job.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:29:14 2014 No.5181656 >>5181647 >in favor for[sic] traditional rigid gender roles and occupations Nice try.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:31:19 2014 No.5181666 >>5181656 Oh no, I made an error in typing using my third language, you sure showed me.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:31:42 2014 No.5181668

>>5181612
Someone posted an image the other day, I couldn't find it so I had to re-make it myself. Look at this woman's reaction to a normal photo of a "homemaker". This is a result of her internal desires conflicting with her conditioned desires. She knows she longs for the motherly homemaker role and seeing this image arouses feelings in her that society has tried its hardest to repress and mock. I legitimately feel bad. My sister is in a similar position, but she's honest with her feelings. She quit her job to be a mom, but it's hard on them financially.
>>5181634
That's not the only argument here though. My argument isn't that women are incompetent or incapable of performing the same tasks as men(which all of you seem to be reacting against violently, having internalized "I can do anything you can do better!")

The point I've been making is that there is an essential role that is missing from society now that women are essentially performing the same role as men. And what did women entering the work force accomplish? Broken families, women unhappier than ever, lower birth rates. But hey, we're more productive! Yay capitalism!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:31:57 2014 No.5181669 >>5181634 Women, feminists, and atheists are /lit/s "jews". The evil people that we must hate and soapbox preach about. Everyone needs a person or group to hate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:32:44 2014 No.5181672 File: 361 KB, 890x1162, baking-food-art-christine-mcconnell-9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5181668 Whoops, here's the image with her comment on the bottom

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:33:15 2014 No.5181674

Which sex, thanks to a stronger nurturing component, makes for better nurses and caretakers?
Which sex, thanks to a superior analytical faculty, makes for better engineers and programmers?
Which sex, thanks to its predisposition for accumulating power and resources, makes for better nation builders, state leaders, and executives?
Which sex, thanks to a more innate ability at nesting and maintaining the hearth, makes for better home caretakers?
Which sex, due to its greater desensitization to fear, is better suited to take large risks?
Which sex, due to having a minuscule fluid contribution to the breeding process, is better suited at having a larger number of sexual partners?
Which sex, due to having to risk its life through a 9-month gestation period, is better suited to monogamy?

Equality beliefs have not proved that it is any way superior for humans, and if plummeting birth rates among Western nations are any indication, it may be a principal contributor to the relative cultural decline of the West behind those nations—particularly in the Middle East—who retain their traditional sex roles and out-breed those who don’t. In other words, feminists on Tumblr will have a decreasing audience for their social justice rantings while women in the Middle East are busy filling their home with children that propagate their own culture and way of life.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:33:34 2014 No.5181675 >>5181579 these attempts of "reversing" the fedora thing are particularly sad because it shows how important being on the right side of internet memes is to people like you

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:35:03 2014 No.5181681

>>5181669
I've only seen a handful of hateful posts from our side. 100% of your side's post have been assuming the worst of us. You're more than hateful, you're incapable of empathizing with our side or even entertaining our ideas.

Are you guys incapable of responding like decent human beings? Is the feminist indoctrination that deeply ingrained that you malfunction when it's questioned?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:36:06 2014 No.5181685 >>5181681 nah

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:36:14 2014 No.5181686 It's not going to happen. To the capitalists women are a huge market, to the socialists it's a question of basic freedom and undermining the liberal order, and conservatives conceded a long time ago.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:36:50 2014 No.5181687 >>5181674 One step at a time friend. They first need to acknowledge that the role of the woman as a homemaker and housewife was both valuable and desirable. Don't unleash it all at once.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:38:22 2014 No.5181691 women have been conned, and we all suffer for it http://freenortherner.com/2014/02/07/why-traditional-sex-roles-benefit-women/

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:38:33 2014 No.5181694

>>5181668
well even though I don't particularly agree with you, (I haven't even though much of the matter at hands mind you) I find really strange how everyone responding to you acts like the ideas you're entertaining are really obscene, and discussing them would be nonsense, but nobody attacks the ideas you're posing they just spout ad hominem in every reply. Guy and girls, if the man is so fucking wrong, why not just correct him?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:39:20 2014 No.5181695
File: 171 KB, 548x618, euphoric.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5181675
Fedora has always referred to internet atheists. Feminists adopted it to disparage MRAs, the same way they adopted NAWALT in the form of "not all men".

The fedora is more in line with the "le classy gentleman shaving kit fisticuffs" Something Awful group.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:41:19 2014 No.5181703 >>5181695 let's not get into the history and etiquette of memes, really who gives a fuck.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:42:00 2014 No.5181705

>>5181694
I'm actually surprised too. I made a full on "/pol/" thread a few months back and it got decent discussion and debate going before it was deleted. Usually /lit/ is more open and it's the mods/janitors who have to shut me up.

Maybe sex/gender related discussion triggers them now because they think it'll summon Feminister.

>no dad, no!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:42:09 2014 No.5181707 >>5181574 >implying it isn't easier for misogynists and assholes to get laid lel. how's middle school son?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:43:12 2014 No.5181710 >>5181604 Men like you are every bit as degenerate as the feminists. Your pursuit of intercourse for pleasure rather than conception is just as responsible for the breakdown of proper gender roles as female education and employment.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:43:52 2014 No.5181713

>>5181703
It undermines the whole premise of your post though. I actually felt the same way you did when feminists co-opted the fedora meme, because there's nothing "fedora" about MRAs. It displayed a lack of understanding of the joke.

Just an annoyance I wanted aired, m'lady.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:45:30 2014 No.5181721

>>5181694
Because to respond seriously is to legitimise them. These ideas are facile and appealing to the worst elements of men in society, and engaging with them is dangerous. Far better to identify the propagators as the pathetic, juvenile, egotistical, pseudo-intellectual, smug, reprehensible fools that they are.

Now, there's a worthy debate to be had about whether racists, sexists, homophobes etc should be debated or ignored, and both sides have salient points. My personal position is that people at large are, sadly, too willing to subscribe to awful ideas if they become part of legitimate political dialogue, and so MRAs have to be treated with disdain and disgust precisely because their idiotic ideas have such appeal to the baser elements of society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:46:02 2014 No.5181723 >>5181713 Whoever you think you're responding to, you're wrong. You've aired yourself out now, anyway, so it's done.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:46:12 2014 No.5181725

>>5181710
Yep. Something these PUA types don't realize is that, although their methods work, and women like them for it, they are devaluing women and contributing to the same casual sex culture they disparage as civilization-ruining.

You can't, as a good person, say you'll never marry a slut, while fucking as many women as you can, and then lament about the end of marriage and sluttiness of women. Male promiscuity is bad too.

They think that because women are the sexual bottleneck that they have no responsibility to refrain themselves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:49:15 2014 No.5181730 >>5181523 Society doesn't run smoothly if the majority of it's citizens are unhappy. It's not about forcing people to do things they don't want, it's about guiding people to want the right things.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:51:09 2014 No.5181734

>>5181721

Funny, because I bet people were saying that exact same thing when there was talk of women in the workplace and blacks integrating into white society. It's a shame you won't or can't offer any arguments due to the worry of your own position's fragility, but unfortunately without a reasoned argument on your side, you're at a total loss when the people you oppose are willing and able to give such arguments.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:51:54 2014 No.5181738 >>5181734 >blacks integrating into white society. Worst decision society has ever made.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:52:12 2014 No.5181739

>>5181721
>small "tough guy" gets pushed out of the way by a tall muscular jock
>doesn't say anything, but salvages his ego by telling his friends "I could have knocked his ass out, but I didn't want to make a scene in front of everyone"

That's the position you find yourself in. Maybe you could knock him out. But you're not convincing anyone. You should know that you're only responding because your ego won't allow you to let it go, even though you're "totally sure" you could easily rebut all of this.
>>5181723
Did you get a nice big whiff of my balls?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:53:48 2014 No.5181745

>>5181681
I'm pretty neutral. I actually think it's quite funny.

I browse /lit/ and can read post after post about the evil 13yo feminazi's from tumblr that are enforcing martial law and castrating males in the modern equivalent of Auschwitz, occasionally the spillover from /pol/ about the evil Jews that own every western country and maintain capitalism to print golden torah's, or the evil fedora reddit atheists who want to brainwash people with sceintism and make everyone believe atomic theory; then I turn from my screen and look out of the window; there is a child riding a pink bicycle towards her father, it's sunny, a few leaves blow from the grassy verge into the road, a couple of songbirds are singing.

/lit/, and the majority of the internet, is essentially hyper-realism, where every aspect of culture is magnified. The rage that greets the conclusions is equally magnified, and the resulting 17-25yo western males who devote their evenings to screaming about the global threat of atheists and feminists is, quite honestly, hilarious.

Of course, there are some issues that have a real impact. The current situation in Israel or Ukraine, for example, or the dominant political party in Abkhazia, but it's the stark contrast of a young male sitting in a peaceful affluent country getting so worked up on the internet over 'tumblr feminists' and 'reddit atheists' that has a particularly rich comedy to it.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:54:43 2014 No.5181749

>>5181734
Literally nobody has made an argument in this thread, let alone a reasoned one. There have been ASSERTIONS. Broad, thoughtless, often baseless assertions. I could just as easily assert (with very good anecdotal evidence, in fact) that women are generally more intelligent, more reasonable, more logical, and more artistically talented than men, because most of the best human beings I know are women. This is now, by default, the best argument in the thread, because it's supported by ANY kind of evidence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:57:14 2014 No.5181760 >>5181749 >that women are generally more intelligent, more reasonable, more logical, and more artistically talented than men, because most of the best human beings I know are women. topkek

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:57:45 2014 No.5181763

>>5181730
Valid. But what makes you think "doing whatever you want" makes people happy? You are aware that people find happiness in their duties and accomplishments right?

There is evidence that women these days are less happy.

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

Interestingly, this is true for stay at home moms too. So maybe it's related to the attack on traditional femininity.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:58:52 2014 No.5181767

>>5181739
I don't think we can 'knock out' the 'jock'. That was precisely my point. The ideas are awful, but they WILL appeal to people because people are awful. Your ideas are analogous to Twilight: terrible and frankly rather dangerous, but tuned perfectly to find an enormous audience of people who don't know any better.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 10:58:59 2014 No.5181768 >>5181749 >more artistically talented than men LOL

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:00:34 2014 No.5181771 Can y'all stop talking it's getting embarrassing

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:02:04 2014 No.5181776

>>5181760
>>5181768
I'm sorry, are you disputing my evidence-based argument because you doubt my anecdotal evidence? But I thought you MRA types were the ones whose brave, reasoned arguments were greeted with ad hominems and dismissal rather than engagement! Oh, what a to-do!

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:02:52 2014 No.5181779

>>5181721
i'm sorry but I don't buy that, who are you to say what topics of discussion should be taboo?what gives you that authority? entertaining pure hatred with discussion It's rather unproductive I'll give you that, but if the man is making a case and backing it up with ideas you can and you should make use of critical thinking and logic to contradict them if you disagree, that's the only way you can falsify them, saying "I won't even discuss him" will make you look like you just don't have the arguments to disagree. Besides it's really sad, that for all the elitism in this board, people end up using the fedora meme as a response, like seriously that is just immature and sad, if you don't want to engage in meaningful discussion for whatever moral dilemma you created for yourself just shut up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:03:39 2014 No.5181783 >>5181776 >MRA types m8 pls, i dont give a shit about feminism or 'mens rights'. I just scrolled past this thread and saw your comment, you cant seriously believe that about artistic talent?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:05:44 2014 No.5181788

>>5181668
>>5181672
>Look at this woman's reaction to a normal photo of a "homemaker".
This 'normal homemaker' creates HR Geiger cakes. They're very much intentionally creepy.

>The point I've been making is that there is an essential role that is missing from society now that women are essentially performing the same role as men. And what did women entering the work force accomplish? Broken families, women unhappier than ever, lower birth rates. But hey, we're more productive! Yay capitalism!
Why does that role need to be filled by women specifically? Why can't it simply be filled by people who desire to fill it, the same as every other role in society?
We need lawyers and doctors, but we don't create arbitrary rules that all blondes should be lawyers and all redheads should be doctors, we let people follow their own paths (or the paths their parents choose for them).
Being a skilled homemaker could very easily be seen as akin to any other profession, and something anyone could choose to strive for without shame. And many of the required skills are very valuable in many fallback professions if it doesn't work out. There's simply no need to force it on an entire arbitrary half of the population.

And yes, even setting aside current culture and history, it's highly likely that women would be more inclined to fill such a role due to innate biology. But that only further supports the lack of any need to manipulate or force women into such roles. Right now, women are drifting from it as a principle, because it's currently seen as a degrading role, but that's a problem with current society, which is a reaction to societal problems in recent history. But human history is more than the last century, and human future is limitless. There's no need to resort to clumsy, artificial role allocation simply because that's one idea from our recent history. There's a reason that history has been left in the dust, and attempting to resurrect it is only asking for a cycle.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:05:54 2014 No.5181790

>>5181691
No one ever reads links so I'l copy paste some.

Before I begin, know this: women nowadays are profoundly unhappy. Their happiness has been steadily declining for the last 4 decades. A quarter of all women use some sort mental health medication, and a quarter of women age 45 or older uses antidepressants. Women use antidepressents 2.5 times more than men and antidepressant use is rising rapidly. Nearly a quarter of women will get a depressive illness in their lifetime.

Women, particularly older women, are literally drugging themselves to escape the horrors of their life.

If you’re young, the choices you make now will determine if you’re part of that 1 in 4 women who needs drugs in middle age simply to get through the day.

If you find a job, you will be unhappy, maybe not now but eventually. 70% of people are disengaged from their jobs, 40% of people actively dislike their jobs. 67% of mothers wish they didn’t have to work full-time; among married mothers this increases to 77%. The profile of an unhappy worker is a single, 42-year-old professional woman.

Anecdotal accounts of women leaving the workplace to spend time with your children, or wishing they could and being unable to, are legion. 43% of women leave their jobs when they have children. Leaving your child at child care is often painful for many women. Feeling guilty or missing your children while at work is common (don’t worry you’ll adjust, it won’t always be that bad). 2/3′s of parents regret spending too much time at work instead of with their children. Most working women have difficulties with work-life balance.

To many women working is a hindrance to happiness and family life, but surely the extra money is good for the children?

But there is little extra money.

Taxes will take a good 30% of your income. If you’re married, daycare will take about 10% of your household income, which means it will take up about 20% of what you earn (assuming you and your husband earn the same; if he earns more, it will take up a larger share of your earnings). If you’re a single mother it will take up 30-40% of your income.

So half of what you will earn is accounted before you even earn it.

If you’re like most people (which you are), you’ll spend part of that income on a larger home. In fact, 30% of your “extra” income will go to a bigger house (which you’ll barely see, working full-time).

So, for busting your hump, about 20% (probably less) of what you earn will actually go to disposable income or improving your quality of life. That’s not the extra expenses of working: transportation, work clothes, lunches, coffee, etc. That $20 you earn will is more like $4 in the end.

But maybe missing your children and having only $4/hour in disposable income will be worth it because you will be doing exciting things at work?

>>	fuckboss !!ArfwX2Zd2yp Thu Jul 24 11:06:30 2014 No.5181792 >>5181783 >you cant seriously believe that about artistic talent? or the part about being more intelligent, reasonable, and logical. like come on

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:06:47 2014 No.5181793

>>5181745
So you think our society is perfect and requires no maintenance or upkeep because we're doing well economically?

Statistically, only 2/3 of children are like that girl, and the other 1/3 have no father to teach them to ride a bike. There are millions of illegal immigrants in our country and they keep pouring in, gaining a permanent place by giving birth here. Lower marriage rates, birth rates, high divorce rates.

Are you familiar with the concept of "ivory tower syndrome"? You can go ahead and worry about Abkhazia and make yourself feel important for involving yourself in some international problem, but our society is quickly unraveling and you're too short-sighted to sniff out the symptoms because we have iPhones and Hollywood.

You're a non-valid. Stop responding if you don't want to make an argument. Ridicule isn't a substitute for actual participation you uppity faggot.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:07:05 2014 No.5181794
File: 21 KB, 515x619, 20Lead_mv.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5181790
Don’t count on it. Here’s a chart of the most common jobs women work (pic related)

All these jobs, with the exception of accountants and, possibly, managers (depending on what type of manager), can be divided into 6 categories: secretarial, food services, retail, nursing/personal care, housekeeping, and child-raising.

What do you notice about these six categories? With the exception of retail work, they are all things a housewife would be doing anyway.

So, instead of taking care of your family’s schedule, you will take care of your boss’s. Instead of feeding your family, you will feed other families. Instead of caring for your children and your parents, you’ll care of other people’s parents and children. Instead of cleaning your own house, you’ll clean someone else’s. Instead of raising your own child, you’ll raise someone else’s. Or you may be working in retail, which everyone hates.

It is highly likely that at your job you will be doing exactly what you would have done staying home, except you’ll be serving strangers rather than the husband and children you love.

So, in all likelihood you will be working a job you don’t care about or even actively hate, wishing you could work less. You will be missing your children as they are raised by other people so that you can care for other people’s families, all so that you can make a couple bucks an hour in disposable income to spend on consumerist crap and pills to make the depression go away. In addition, you will go into large amounts of debt for this privilege.

Does that sound like a good deal to you, dear woman?

Does that sound like the good life to you?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:07:22 2014 No.5181796

>>5181783
I don't. I think there's no real difference, and any apparent male superiority in that field is the product of millennia of patriarchal hegemony. However, among the people I personally know, the most artistically talented are women. I deliberately used this dodgy anecdotal evidence because there was literally no evidence at all being used in the supposed 'reasoned arguments' in favour of oppressing women.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:08:39 2014 No.5181800 >>5181790 Which country are you talking about, the US?

>>	fuckboss !!ArfwX2Zd2yp Thu Jul 24 11:09:44 2014 No.5181804 >>5181296 no. they should obviously be mixed in society. and making them read only religion and nothing else would only further the dumbness howd he write don juan thinking like this

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:09:56 2014 No.5181805

>>5181796

So you say women all go into jobs that harness societal and motherly roles because of the patriarchy? Yes, that sounds very reasonable...

Funny how in places like Scandinavia though, where every effort is made to even the playing field, you see the exact same discrepancies in careers chosen by the different sexes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:10:40 2014 No.5181808 >>5181771 >y'all You're not cute. Talking like that doesn't make you look down to earth. It makes you look like a faggot. Nam sayin?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:11:14 2014 No.5181812

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

>The Nordic Gender Institute was closed down by a decision of the Nordic Council of Ministers, though it is controversial whether Hjernevask had any impact on that decision.

Controversial = sociologists and feminists won't admit anything

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:13:06 2014 No.5181814 File: 212 KB, 577x1177, She's a big girl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5181674 All the male nurses I know are better then 80% of female nurses. Including myself

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:14:24 2014 No.5181821 /lit/ is officially dead.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:14:51 2014 No.5181823 >>5181805 >So you say women all go into jobs that harness societal and motherly roles because of the patriarchy? where did I say that my good man

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:15:30 2014 No.5181828 thread reported for being fucking inane

>>	fuckboss !!ArfwX2Zd2yp Thu Jul 24 11:15:30 2014 No.5181829 >>5181821 so dramatic

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:15:36 2014 No.5181830

>>5181710
How?
Sexual pleasure is a virtue which belongs to the handsome, strong and brave. This was how it was since the times of ancient Greeks where the princely warrior caste ruled and upheld standards for morality.

Orgies and sexual pleasures go hand in hand with traditional gender roles.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:18:09 2014 No.5181839 >>5181808 Not him, but surely you know that a huge chunk of the US uses "y'all" as the standard second-person plural. Why would he be trying to "look down to earth"? Get out of the house sometime.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:20:20 2014 No.5181849

>>5181788
She said it was Stepford Wives creepy, not Alien creepy. As in too perfect, and made her feel "inadequate".

>Why does that role need to be filled by women specifically?
That's another argument. The point is no one is filling it now.

>Why can't it simply be filled by people who desire to fill it, the same as every other role in society?
I'll refer to my previous statement: what if everyone wanted to be a homemaker?

>And yes, even setting aside current culture and history, it's highly likely that women would be more inclined to fill such a role due to innate biology. But that only further supports the lack of any need to manipulate or force women into such roles.
Then you should accept that manipulating and forcing the opposite is dangerous. This is exactly what our society has done the past 40 years and what feminism is actively working to do.

>Right now, women are drifting from it as a principle, because it's currently seen as a degrading role, but that's a problem with current society, which is a reaction to societal problems in recent history.
It's a reaction to propaganda and legislation that basically coaxed women into entering the work force. I'm not proposing we force anything. I'm proposing we stop demonizing traditional femininity, give incentives for married women who WANT to be able to be stay at home moms (which isn't an option now for many, since the deflated wages basically force poorer couples to both be working), and start promoting the benefits of traditional femininity in everyday life.

>There's a reason that history has been left in the dust, and attempting to resurrect it is only asking for a cycle.
Not necessarily. We have the effects of this social experiment recorded in history.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:20:21 2014 No.5181850 >>5181669 >Everyone needs a person or group to hate. And there is nothing bad about this.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:26:50 2014 No.5181874

>>5181839
Because this is a literature board(where people are smarter than average) and he obviously used "y'all" for the aesthetic effect it has. This sort of appropriation is common among culturally deficient SWPLs who want to appear human.

>Look, I'm intelligent, morally superior, AND I'm down to earth. I'm a triple threat, y'all!

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:27:16 2014 No.5181876

>>5181849
>Then you should accept that manipulating and forcing the opposite is dangerous. This is exactly what our society has done the past 40 years and what feminism is actively working to do.

That's the crux of it. Society today is like an insane experiment, forcing people into conditions and situations we aren't made for. It's inhumane to take a bird and put it in a cage, and that's what has been happening for decades now. They our changing our environments, our inner and outer lives, into some perverse new ideological machine, and all of the casualties are being ignored.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:28:20 2014 No.5181880

>>5181763
>You are aware that people find happiness in their duties and accomplishments right?

Absolutely - I'm a different anon from the one you were originally responding to, by the way. So this was exactly what I meant by guiding people to want that which is best for society.
In reality, we could all just fuck off to live in the woods if we really wanted and leave society behind. But we don't, because we're raised within a society that teaches us to want so much more than the simple tasks our bodies are built for.

People don't kill themselves at work all day striving for the intangible concept of 'success' because they're forced to, they do it because they're taught that it's what they want. And that's why they'll keep doing it, for however long society needs them to. If it was a matter of purely external pressure, it'd only be a matter of time before they cracked and left it behind.
And women left homemaking behind, because they didn't desire it. And their new desire to pursue ambition and freedom was more powerful than society's need. So if society needs someone to fill the void that's been left, then society had better start thinking about how to make that role desirable - if not to women specifically, then to anyone who might happily, voluntarily take their place.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:28:30 2014 No.5181881 >>5181850 Healthy even. A group needs to know who is outside the group, or it isn't really a group is it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:28:55 2014 No.5181885 >>5181874 This is very true. Its annoying as hell having people consciously interject slang into sentences they obviously consider intellectual in subject.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:30:09 2014 No.5181889 >>5181296 I've never read Byron, but this comes off as sardonic to me.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:33:46 2014 No.5181898

>>5181880
>So if society needs someone to fill the void that's been left, then society had better start thinking about how to make that role desirable

I don't see why the people in power would try to cut their workforce down by half. More, more, more: that's what society today wants.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:41:36 2014 No.5181922

We simply don't have the money to do it. Just consider what a hooker costs. The only solution is to either kill men in wars, to devalue hookers, or to import foreign women en masse, to devalue hookers. Or perhaps a modern solution would be to turn the men into women.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:46:13 2014 No.5181943 >all the fedora tipping itt

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:46:52 2014 No.5181947

>>5181898
Women already work 2/3 of the hours men do, and on top of that have much lighter tasks (even if they nominally have the same job title as a man) or some government make-work positions or positions where for marketing purposes a pretty face is required (but wouldn't be if they were banned). Banning women from work would have hardly any economic impact. It might in fact boost our economic output in the long term, since a higher proportion of men (the only productive members of society) would receive higher education.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 11:51:06 2014 No.5181961

>>5181849
>I'll refer to my previous statement: what if everyone wanted to be a homemaker?
De-incentivise it, and provide greater incentive for the alternatives. What if everyone wanted to eat nothing but chocolate, to a degree that would drive the cacao bean to pure extinction? Just up the damn price of chocolate, find some new fads to take it's place, and maybe incentivise healthy eating to really drive it home. Supply and demand.
You're talking about this as if every single position in society is only currently filled because people have been personally assigned to them, and the concept of careers built out of desire is a completely new phenomenon. What if everyone wanted to be a police officer? What if everyone wanted to be a poet? The hypothetical of 'what if everyone' blahdiblah is in no way unique or altered in a post-'homemaker/breadwinner' society. It's always a technical possibility, and always a simple workaround.

>It's a reaction to propaganda and legislation that basically coaxed women into entering the work force. I'm not proposing we force anything. I'm proposing we stop demonizing traditional femininity, give incentives for married women who WANT to be able to be stay at home moms (which isn't an option now for many, since the deflated wages basically force poorer couples to both be working), and start promoting the benefits of traditional femininity in everyday life.
But again, you're needlessly focusing on women, who are currently the least likely to respond to this kind of motivation - which would be viewed as propaganda every bit as much as you view the opposite as propaganda.
All this sort of promotion would do would alienate potential male homemakers, further aggravate potential female homemakers, ignore modern logistics (as you said yourself, the modern status quo of couples both working makes the homemaker/breadwinner dynamic next to impossible, no matter how desirable it may be) and generally be an embarrassing attempt to drag society back 60 years instead of finding new opportunities moving forward, based on how we ARE rather than how we WERE.

I certainly agree about the opposite - demonising femininity, etc - being counter-productive. But you're just taking the other side of the extreme.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:03:48 2014 No.5182021

>>5181961
Then maybe I gave a bad analogy. Gender roles aren't comparable to different jobs. There is no hard economic incentive for stay at home mothers. Which is my point. Women are prioritizing economic gain over intangible happiness provided by homemaking(which also has broader societal benefits).

>But again, you're needlessly focusing on women, who are currently the least likely to respond to this kind of motivation - which would be viewed as propaganda every bit as much as you view the opposite as propaganda.
Women have been the focus of this propaganda campaign. I don't deny that what I propose would be propaganda, but it would be relatively neutral propaganda showing the other side that's been hidden for 40 years. We don't need to demonize working women like feminists have demonized homemaking.

>All this sort of promotion would do would alienate potential male homemakers, further aggravate potential female homemakers
How can you even make a claim like that? All I'm proposing is a balance to counteract the manipulation of women into the workplace.

>ignore modern logistics (as you said yourself, the modern status quo of couples both working makes the homemaker/breadwinner dynamic next to impossible, no matter how desirable it may be)
Which is why I proposed economic incentives. Subsidies is probably a better word.
>and generally be an embarrassing attempt to drag society back 60 years instead of finding new opportunities moving forward, based on how we ARE rather than how we WERE.
But if how we are is flawed, we WANT to go back. If the way things were is more in line with our nature, then it makes sense and is feasible to try and go back to that. It doesn't have to be forced, but it shouldn't be suppressed and demonized like it is now.

If there is a 40 year propaganda campaign promoting something that goes against people's natural inclinations, a reverse propaganda campaign isn't "the other side of the extreme", it's a return to equilibrium.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:14:18 2014 No.5182055

>>5181849
>She said it was Stepford Wives creepy, not Alien creepy. As in too perfect, and made her feel "inadequate".
She asked 'are you intentionally trying to PROJECT the whole stepford/pleasantville creepiness?" She wasn't saying it was there, she was asking if it was there at all. It's a general question about the artistic intent behind a large series of bizarre photos.
To me, it reads like a perfectly reasonable question in regards to whether the linkage of uncanny-vally perfection and undeniably grotesque creations was an intentional nod to the common concept of 'what lies beneath the surface of seeming, unsettling perfection'.
The girl posing the question is walking on eggshells in order to not offend, has trouble expressing what it is that she is sensing other than a general 'creepiness', and is taking as vague as possible stabs as to the artist's possible intention to avoid being presumptuous. To use such a muddy display of verbal diarrhoea as evidence of this girl's supposed insecurity about nothing more than an image of a pretty homemaker is being incredibly simplistic. And to then use that alleged individual's insecurity as an illustration of a societal problem is just plain reaching.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:17:04 2014 No.5182071 >>5182055 The girl straight up admits she feels inadequate and depressed lol how is it 'supposed' insecurity

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:17:37 2014 No.5182073

>>5182055
>To use such a muddy display of verbal diarrhoea as evidence of this girl's supposed insecurity about nothing more than an image of a pretty homemaker is being incredibly simplistic.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
>Something about your photos makes me feel strangely depressed/inadequate and I'm alarmed by my own reaction.

>And to then use that alleged individual's insecurity as an illustration of a societal problem is just plain reaching.
It's simply support for my hypothesis, not the basis of my hypothesis.

I presented it to a person who agreed with me, so we could both reflect on it. I didn't present it as a part of my argument with people who disagreed with me.

Why do you care so much about that in particular?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:29:21 2014 No.5182133 File: 28 KB, 258x400, 1406214448443.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:33:28 2014 No.5182153

>>5182021
>Which is my point. Women are prioritizing economic gain over intangible happiness provided by homemaking(which also has broader societal benefits).
It's not about economic gain. They'd have better chance at economic gain if they stuck to the status quo and made themselves extra enticing to bag the riches hubby they could. That lifestyle was sacrificed in the name of freedom, not economic gain. Women getting hired used to be a pipe dream, and women being able to make as much, have as much opportunity, or reach the promotional level of men is still unlikely.
And secondly, who are you to talk about homemaking's 'intangible happiness'? Why do you decide what women would be happiest doing?

>Women have been the focus of this propaganda campaign. I don't deny that what I propose would be propaganda, but it would be relatively neutral propaganda showing the other side that's been hidden for 40 years. We don't need to demonize working women like feminists have demonized homemaking.
It's a counter productive propaganda pissing contest, plain and simple. You're also completely cutting off potential homemakers that have become an actual reality in the past 40 years, completely setting back positive progress towards your own agenda for no other reason than "This used to be womens' work, thus it should be again."

>But if how we are is flawed, we WANT to go back.
YOU want to go back. Society moved away from it for a reason, and will continue moving forward, wherever that leads. There was nothing remotely natural about the idyllic homemaker/breadwinner setup, and to suggest so is beyond laughable. Men were shoehorned, women were shoehorned, and it was a shitty, artificial as fuck time for everybody. Your megalomaniacal desire to manipulate society as a whole to suit your personal affections despite blatant support for the exact opposite is honestly quite sad at this point, and you seem mindbogglingly ignorant of every facet of what you're talking about.

Anyway, I'm going to bed so that's all from me. I have a feeling that anyone so irrationally in love with a 1950s postcard isn't worth debating further, anyway.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:37:18 2014 No.5182166 It's weird that Byront thought that considering his daughter was a brilliant mathematician

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:41:58 2014 No.5182176 but what if I don't want to have babies?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:45:29 2014 No.5182183

>>5182153
>It's not about economic gain. They'd have better chance at economic gain if they stuck to the status quo and made themselves extra enticing to bag the riches hubby they could.
I was speaking about current women. As that other poster said, many women wish they could stay at home with their kids instead of needing to work. It was initially about freedom I'm sure, until women learned that it was no fun needing to work.

>And secondly, who are you to talk about homemaking's 'intangible happiness'? Why do you decide what women would be happiest doing?
I don't. But the possible benefits of homemaking are not inherently economic. It's hard to sell with numbers and facts. Anyone who would benefit from homemaking(they enjoy it) is discouraged by feminist propaganda, and despite their inner feelings telling them to do it, all the facts and data say they shouldn't.

>It's a counter productive propaganda pissing contest, plain and simple. You're also completely cutting off potential homemakers that have become an actual reality in the past 40 years, completely setting back positive progress towards your own agenda for no other reason than "This used to be womens' work, thus it should be again."
That's not my argument and you know it. You're becoming disingenuous as you lose patience. I said we should at least PRESENT the other side that's being promoted. You cannot continually degrade the traditional role of women and then say "well if it was natural, they'd be doing it so we don't need any sort of propaganda supporting traditional femininity". A huge cultural campaign promoting something that goes against their natural leanings merits a corresponding campaign defending the merits of their natural leanings. This does not mean we demonize working women. This does not mean we call men who want to stay at home faggots. We simply present the upside of being a homemaker and show women that it's not a shameful occupation like they've been conditioned to believe.
>YOU want to go back. Society moved away from it for a reason, and will continue moving forward, wherever that leads.
You keep repeating this idea that because society has "progressed" to the point where it is now, that it's inherently bad to ever go back. If we move in a negative direction, culturally, there is no reason not to react against it.

>There was nothing remotely natural about the idyllic homemaker/breadwinner setup, and to suggest so is beyond laughable.
You conceded earlier that there were indeed natural inclinations that led to the different gender roles.

Women have always stayed home to take care of the kids. Whether or not it's "natural", it has a basis in biology and is beneficial to society.

You seem to have a dog in this fight. Are you feeling a tinge of pain that you're not fulfilling your role properly? Why else would this upset you so much?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:47:03 2014 No.5182193

>>5182176
Then you'd have to make sure your husband supported you in that. If you didn't want a husband either for whatever reason, you would have to support yourself by working. There have always been roles for women in society where they can earn a living.

You'd certainly be looked at as strange if you shunned both children and a husband though, and for good reason.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:47:24 2014 No.5182194 >>5182176 That's pretty selfish of you. Society doesn't exist just to serve you. It requires that people participate and contribute, meaning we need to reproduce and provide stable family lives for our children.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:52:15 2014 No.5182214
File: 25 KB, 747x498, C54CACC3472555B6466ECCD9280_h498_w598_m2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5182073

She said the photo makes her feel that, not that she feels it in general. The fact that the reaction caught her off guard and she can't place it suggests that it's alien to her. Art tends to evoke visceral reactions in people, it's often largely the point. The sculpture in pic related fills me with feelings of being lonely, resentful and grotesque, and that hit me like a punch in the gut when I first saw it. But that doesn't mean such feelings are a significant part of my daily identity, they're just one portion of my human experience that are strongly brought to the forefront upon viewing the piece.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:55:15 2014 No.5182219

>>5181830
They absolutely do not. Why do you think feminists support sex positivity, non-monogamy and oppose slut shaming? Because they too want to promote proper gender roles? Please.

Those societies you describe were able to combine sexual pleasure with female virginity because they promoted white slavery and pederasty to satisfy their vices. If you want to reintroduce these things to modern society because you are sexually incontinent then God help you.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 12:59:51 2014 No.5182236

>>5182214
Read the other comments. "You're so awesome" "wow is there anything you can't do?" "wow you're so perfect"

And then this woman chimes in with how the "creepily perfect" photo makes her feel "inadequate".

You're trying to tell us that not only is the photo not creeiply perfect, but merely she was wondering if the author was TRYING for that. And her reaction to this non-creepy non-perfect photo was purely visceral and had nothing to do with the subject matter, or at least the "creepily perfect" part because that doesn't exist.

You seem strangely desperate to invalidate the implications of the image. I'm wondering if you aren't in a position similar to the woman, grappling with feelings that make you uncomfortable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:01:17 2014 No.5182240 >>5181574 Most of the guys I've known who get laid a lot tend to be pretty sexist. They don't whine like the guys on 4chan and reddit, but they do slut shame and view women as dumb and histrionic.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:03:16 2014 No.5182243

>>5182219
>Why do you think feminists support sex positivity, non-monogamy and oppose slut shaming?
That's a new one to me, the feminists I "follow" are full of resentment towards beautiful women thus support things like fat acceptance and saying "no" to a man. Their primary goal is to make female beauty not a universal virtue but a patriarchal evil.

All of their ideas come from resentment, they are ugly, they can not attract an attractive mate --> feminism. And as you may know most feminists are fairly ugly or Jewish.

Thanks to automation modern society has no need for lowly slave labor so no real need to reintroduce slavery.

You can have a stable "monogamous" home (although polygamy would be ideal I agree with Schopenhauer here) and a personal harem or organized sexual festivals both existing at the same time, and the latter is mandatory because our society is currently experience too much of a divide between Apollonian and Dionysian elements as it is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:04:15 2014 No.5182246 >>5182236 That's not to say that the photo isn't disgusting though. A woman should be skilled in her household tasks but she should show humility as well. The picture reeks of ambition and competitiveness which are traits that only men should have.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:04:35 2014 No.5182248 File: 112 KB, 860x826, gianlorenzobernini_theecstasyofsainttherese-detail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw the return of intellectual traditionalism in the modern generation

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:05:29 2014 No.5182251

>>5182236

Please stop trying to psychoanalyse people. I made two posts about a completely bullshit, irrelevant point you dragged out. If that's 'strangely desperate' then I shudder to think what your persistent dedication to this stupid thread qualifies as. Why the desperation for gender roles? Come from a broken home? Can't take the uncertainty of modern life? There must be some irrational motivation I can pull out of my ass to devalue your position instead of defeating it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:05:34 2014 No.5182252 >>5181675 How is he reversing it?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:09:40 2014 No.5182259

>>5182251
>Come from a broken home?
Yes.
>Can't take the uncertainty of modern life?
The opposite. I'm a NEET who is only tolerated because modern society is easier on men who neglect their gender roles. My views are independent of what's best for me as an individual.

The reason I suggest you're desperate is because you're grasping. The association between "perfectionism" and "inadequate" is glaringly obvious, but you did your best to abstract away from it through semantics.
>"well she only asked IF" "and she never said she felt that way BECAUSE OF"
etc.

It wasn't even something I presented as an argument, but has been the thing I've been arguing most consistently about this entire thread. That tells me I struck a nerve. Sorry if I can't ignore my intuition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:14:25 2014 No.5182268 The main issue I see with enforcing gender roles is that it rejects the notion that all human beings deserve equal opportunities in life, which seems to me to be the only rational basis for any modern society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:19:45 2014 No.5182273 >>5181889 >I've never read Byron, but this comes off as sardonic to me. It's not.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:21:18 2014 No.5182276

>>518226
What if said roles prove to be beneficial to society? of course we cannot enforce them. The argument being made here, or at least how i understand it, is that society is trying to enforce it the other way around, not only ignoring tradition (who cares about it) but our own biological impulses

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:21:23 2014 No.5182278 >>5182268 Women would have equal opportunities as the women that are equal to them, just as it is now, just as it has always been. Would they have the same opportunities as a man? No, that's absurd, they are completely different things.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:22:02 2014 No.5182281

>>5182243
Every feminist today supports a woman's "right" to pursue sexual relations outwith the bonds of marriage. This teaches women that they can get married as many times as they want, or not at all, because they are no longer required to spend their lives with one man. The stable family unit collapses and allows women to believe they can pursue education and careers as alternatives or in addition to serving as a wife and mother.

The idea of a harem is a disgusting perversion of God's will. He created for Adam one wife, not a harem, to show us how men and women should live their lives.
>1 Corinthians 7:2
>each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:22:40 2014 No.5182282 >>5182193 >>5182194 I would sooner donate eggs than get pregnant

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:22:50 2014 No.5182283

>>5182259

Not everything is about you and your personal agenda. I don't give the slightest shit if some random chick on the internet is insecure, there are truckloads of them out there and you don't have to grasp at straws to find them. My issue is with you completely sidestepping the concept of art and emotional reactions to such. I know, crazy, an art lover on a board dedicated to expression through words - surely the likelihood is skewed towards me and everyone else in this thread just having weirdly specific issues regarding women in the workforce. It can't possibly be that you're the one who's pathetically blinded by your own agenda. You've been forcing pegs of every shape and size into your round hole this entire thread (slut), because you're so myopic that a round hole is the only thing in fucking existance as far as you seem to be concerned, and every other thing ever must somehow relate to it and somehow needs to fit inside and then everything will be fine. inb4 "but that's what the thread is about," you go above and beyond just being on topic, my friend. 'm telling you, you have issues. You now, those things you quickly and compulsively accuse every opponent and their mother of having to derail their takedown of your nostalgic retardation? I think it's called 'projection,' you might want to look it up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:23:30 2014 No.5182285 >>5182276 ups, this >>5182276 ment to quote this >>5182268

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:24:39 2014 No.5182289 You guys have no idea what it is like to be a woman

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:25:25 2014 No.5182291 >>5182281 When did 4chan become a haven for conservatards? You wouldn't see this kind of ludicrous shit just 3 years ago.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:25:48 2014 No.5182293

>>5182278

Blacks would have equal opportunities as the blacks that are equal to them, just as it is now, just as it has always been. Would they have the same opportunities as a white? No, that's absurd, they are completely different things.

(No shit though, I literally read your post in a Southern slaver drawl in my head, wasn't even trying).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:25:59 2014 No.5182294 >>5182289 That's not true, I was a child once.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:27:19 2014 No.5182297 >>5182293 That's absolutely correct though. The idea that blacks and whites or men and women are equal is ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:29:11 2014 No.5182301 >>5182297 We're all human

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:29:55 2014 No.5182306 >>5182291 You make it sound as if the restoration of Christian morality is a bad thing.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:31:44 2014 No.5182314

>>5182297
They should be equal in rights and opportunities.

It's highly likely that a large portion of the black population could be considered superior to you. Why shouldn't they get a slice of the same cake?

If you truly cared about merit, you'd acknowledge that caste is more accurate (or "fair") than race or gender based determinism. But you don't. You care about race and gender, which makes you a racist and a sexist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:32:15 2014 No.5182316 >>5182301 Yes, we're all human and all created by God. And God created women to serve and obey men, and he created blacks to serve and obey whites.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:32:19 2014 No.5182317 >>5182293 Wow, talk about being willfully detached from reality. Are you a nigger yourself or just trolling?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:32:45 2014 No.5182319 >>5182306 Christianity has run its course. Let it die. Occidental society doesn't need it anymore.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:34:51 2014 No.5182323 >>5182314 Ah yes, here come the buzzwords. I'm sure there are some blacks who are superior to me - superior at farm labour, cleaning dishes or dancing on stage. I have no intention of taking these roles from them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:35:45 2014 No.5182325 >>5182314 Not that poster, but by caste do you meaning socioeconomic position/ employment?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:35:55 2014 No.5182327 >>5182319 tips fedora

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:36:43 2014 No.5182330
File: 229 KB, 489x363, 1398555822656.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5182291
Conservatism is the new counterculture.

Imagine the shock of all those pierced and tattoo'd Seattle liberals.
>b-but I spent all these years growing my dreadlocks! I'm definitely a rebel!

<<< these people also think they're breaking new ground and giving a voice to the "oppressed". They legitimately think they're standing up against the establishment (which they're convinced is conservative, Christian, and WASP). There are still people who think atheism is subversive and shocking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:37:00 2014 No.5182331 >>5182289 I don't think many in this thread would claim to, what we're discussing is what is best for women and society, not what it feels like to be a woman. You can remain as mysteriously feminine as ever, it doesn't change this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:37:20 2014 No.5182332 >>5181296 I don't understand how you could think a passage like that is particularly convincing. It isn't an argument, it's an opinion that you happen to like. Schopenhauer at least presents some arguments, although none of them are good.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:37:20 2014 No.5182333

>>5182323
>I'm sure there are some blacks who are superior to me - superior at farm labour, cleaning dishes or dancing on stage.

I bet anything you live in a gated community or a suburb. The only way anyone can be that ignorant is if they're sheltered as fuck.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:37:45 2014 No.5182334

>>5182281
A woman who is married and serves as a housemaker should indeed stay loyal to the husband at all costs, but prior to that she might serve as a participant in a sexual festival, obviously not for a too long period and also depending on her birth.

I believe Christianity is poisonous for society, much like feminism. We need prostitution because not every men should have a woman, ideally we would transition from the modern mess we have now, to a traditional nuclear family as predicted by Rousseau (which was in turn inspired by the master morality societies) to an ideal polygamous family such as practiced by Mormonism and idealized by Schopenhauer, so that the handsome, strong and healthy male of a noble character would produce more offspring with various women of a more than decent character.

This would in turn give society a healthier gene pool overall without destructive bras forces such as institutionalized eugenics facilities. The women of feeble mind and/or ugly looks would serve as prostitutes to males quite similar to themselves, it's in bad taste to leave inferior males such as found on /r9k/ sexually frustrated as they are human beings as well and deserve our compassion.

This however is practically unachievable but may serve as our ideal guiding point towards a bright future.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:39:56 2014 No.5182339

>>5182333
Quite the opposite. Racists tend to exist where there is more diversity
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/seth-stephens-davidowitz-the-data-of-hate.html

And sheltered liberals like Tim Wise are the strongest proponents of anti-racism and white guilt:
http://www.lsrebellion.bl0gsp0t.com/2012/07/tim-wise-hypocrite.html

I agree that his particular form of racism is distasteful, but the "u just havent experienced enough diversity" trope is tired and over.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:39:57 2014 No.5182340

>>5182293

Well, that's a totally different topic but if you're pulling it up to discredit what I said under the assumption I'd be cowed by accusations of racism then you'll be pretty disappointed because I take a separatist stance on race, and by no means do I think blacks are equal to whites, in fact, the genetic difference between a sub-saharan african and a european caucasian is even greater than the difference between a man and a woman. We'll leave that uncomfortable discussion for another time though, yes? No need to push you all too hard right away.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:40:00 2014 No.5182341 >>5181321 I'm going to have an honorary orgasm to this post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:40:34 2014 No.5182342 >>5182334 And what if a woman would rather not serve as one wife of many or a prostitute

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:40:58 2014 No.5182343

>>5182333
I encounter plenty of black people every day. They wash my car, clean the office, serve me lunch. They are perfectly competent and happy in these roles and I see no reason to go changing that because you mistakenly believe that they are capable of doing a white man's job.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:42:53 2014 No.5182347 >>5182334 >I believe Christianity is poisonous for society tips fedora No wonder you're unable to grasp simple concepts like sexual morality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:45:44 2014 No.5182355 File: 335 KB, 360x240, popcorn.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5182347 Oh shit, they're even fighting each other now!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:46:43 2014 No.5182358 >>5182334 >so that the handsome, strong and healthy male of a noble character would produce more offspring with various women of a more than decent character. >handsome What are you, a woman? What does being handsome have to do with noble character?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:47:59 2014 No.5182361

>>5182347
Why would you want to ruin a healthy discussion with s4s styled memes? This board deserves better.
>No wonder you're unable to grasp simple concepts like sexual morality.
Sexual restraint is a virtue to some extent. Never claimed otherwise. But that does not mean that society should be depraved of various sexual festivities at certain periods of time since it appeals to our Dionysian nature.

>>5182342
She would likely be drawn to one profession or another, and if she is a special case and chooses to rise above the common rabble she may very well do so if she showed great enough talent. Most women would likely be happy to stay with a man and achieve satisfaction doing womanly things or perhaps spending the man's money on various things that satisfy them.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:53:25 2014 No.5182374

>>5181546
>The massive cultural campaign to get women working was disastrous on home and family life. It was pushed by the capitalist elites to increase productivity. It has had no benefits other than helping us make more shit and consume more still.

It's worth noting that, because dilution of the workforce by females has depressed wages such that household income is not much higher than it was before they joined the workforce, but it now requires two earners

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:53:38 2014 No.5182376 >>5182334 >so that the handsome, strong and healthy male of a noble character would produce more offspring with various women of a more than decent character. Jesus Christ, you're fucking insane.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:53:55 2014 No.5182378

>>5182358
Well a lot actually, character has to come across, and good looks make that much more of a potent and pleasant experience.

A character can hardly be perceived as "noble" if not presented in such a way.

If a women was walking down the street in rain and some not-so-handsome fedora wielder would offer her his coat she would likely view him with distrust and suspicion, but if a man of a handsome face and built did the same she would accept it instantly.

Nature's firm will is projected to us in women, there is no escaping this fact of life.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:57:32 2014 No.5182387 I'm pretty socially conservative but this is far too much fedora tipping than I can handle.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 13:58:50 2014 No.5182391

>>5181675

Fedora was always atheist neckbeard basement dwellers, it then expanded to include white knights because so many of those were also basement dwelling neckbeards. Then asshats started trying to reverse it and make it refer to libertarians/Christians/conservatives/"sexists"/anyone that leftish tumblrite SJWs don't like

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:00:41 2014 No.5182396 >>5182374 It certainly is worth noting, and making a big deal about. Used to be a man's wage could support a family, now it can barely sustain the worker alone.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:00:49 2014 No.5182397 >>5182391 >Fedora was always atheist neckbeard basement dwellers Which includes MRA types. There was no reversal, turbonerd.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:01:00 2014 No.5182398 >>5182391 Yep. One of the more rage-worthy appropriations of the leftards.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:01:28 2014 No.5182400 >>5181681 >Is the feminist indoctrination that deeply ingrained that you malfunction when it's questioned? do you even need to ask that at this point?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:01:58 2014 No.5182402

>>5182378
>A character can hardly be perceived as "noble" if not presented in such a way.

What does it matter how a character is "perceived" if the measurement of perception is as thorough as a woman's magazine?

A woman walking down the street? This is your
measurement of nobility? This is your ideal?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:02:39 2014 No.5182406

>>5182361
What's the matter, was I a little too close to the mark? You feel euphoric, don't you?

Apparently what you are unable to grasp is that the men and women attending these sexual festivals you promote will afterwards be incapable of having a stable marriage. Its a simple fact that women who have more sexual partners before marriage have shorter marriages and are more likely to be unfaithful. Their premarital sexual activity changes their biology so that they are unable to achieve sexual satisfaction with one man. Combine this with your encouragement for society to view intercourse as a pleasurable recreation rather than as the functional task of procreation and you will create a society of immoral sluts.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:03:12 2014 No.5182407

>>5182397
>Which includes MRA types
No it doesn't. See:
>>5181695

People have made fun of Something Awful for its tendency to produce these fedoras for years. They tend to be left leaning libertarian atheists. MRAs are sleazy PUA types and bitter /r9k/ virgins.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:03:29 2014 No.5182410

>>5181296
I don't even care anymore. Society is developing against our instinct and nature. I don't want to be a part of it anymore.
Soon I'll buy a trailer and move out into the woods in scandinavia or canada. Might build my own hut as well. We'll see.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:03:30 2014 No.5182411

Wow, just wow. God 4chan you depress the fuck out of me.

How do you people even lead halfway normal, happy lives?

Women are as capable and ambitious as men when given the opportunity and nobody has the fucking right to deprive them of the chance to succeed. Grow the fuck up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:03:56 2014 No.5182413 >>5182396 >now it can barely sustain the worker alone. Are you serious? You can't live comfortably on a worker's wage, let's say 30k?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:05:09 2014 No.5182419

>>5182402
This is my simplification of why looks matter or rather how easier it is to show of a noble character with good looks. Now a male might not be handsome and makes up for this by athleticism, wit, health or other features but in general handsomeness does play into the equation quite nicely.

After all aesthetics are a virtue, good look are a virtue and a desirable element in society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:05:37 2014 No.5182423 File: 813 KB, 2048x1572, fitted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5182323 Yes you are clearly superior to these guys. They lie awake at night dreaming of reaching your level of success.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:06:32 2014 No.5182428

>>5182411
>Women are as capable and ambitious as men
I agree.

>when given the opportunity
However, I think the "opportunity" thing is an excuse. The problem isn't opportunity, the problem is psychology. Opportunities can be taken by force. If a woman is ambitious enough, she shouldn't need all the right conditions in her favor.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:06:48 2014 No.5182429 >>5182413 In Britain many, many people live on the minimum wage, which is about 11 to 13k a year. I'm not going to break down the cost of living for you, but it's not easy.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:06:51 2014 No.5182430

>>5182411
>Wow, just wow.
You forgot
>This is not okay.
>Here's why this is a problem.
>Really? ...REALLY?
>Words have meaning
>did you REALLY just...
>Is that a thing?

>>5182413
In California that would actually be pretty hard. I think the solution is government subsidies for women who want to stay at home with their children. There's no better investment of taxpayer money than to our children and families.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:07:48 2014 No.5182434 >>5182423 Do you really measure superiority in terms of material wealth? I'm sorry for you anon. I hope one day you find God.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:08:36 2014 No.5182437 >>5181398 With a 51/49 male to female birth ratio, roughly, does that mean poorer and lower society women contribute to society by mating with multiple men? Hypergamy at work?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:09:46 2014 No.5182444

>>5181674

If we have more efficient weapons and a more efficient, developed productive capacity, what does it matter? We're still outcompeting them. The middle eastern countries sell themselves out for raw and refined resources, while other developed countries take the same resources and use them to fabricate goods that are more valuable than their parts, and then sell them to these resource economies.

And is it any surprise there are arabs still living in villages?

If we could replace all of our soldiers and our workers with robots and drop the population of the United States to 50 million, while the 3rd world laborers had 4 billion, what would it matter that birth rates are low? I'm not saying that is exactly how it is now, but it is conceivable that birth rates don't matter as long as we find ways to relieve ourselves of the labor required to maintain and grow a civilization.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:09:46 2014 No.5182445 >>5182423 >they are in a photo, they must be really successful Oh, niggers sure have high standards

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:10:09 2014 No.5182446

>>5182428
>However, I think the "opportunity" thing is an excuse. The problem isn't opportunity, the problem is psychology. Opportunities can be taken by force. If a woman is ambitious enough, she shouldn't need all the right conditions in her favor.

So men are handed opportunity, while women have to fight tooth and nail for it to the point that only the top 1% can actually make it - not only due to the sheer massive will it takes, but due to the fact that they're living in a society that isn't set up to function when women succeed en mass. Sounds fair.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:11:06 2014 No.5182450 >>5182444 Arabs don't "still live in villages". They are perfectly modernized. You are thinking of Indians.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:11:19 2014 No.5182451 >>5181776 You didn't dispute any assertion in the thread, you mocked them with argumentum ad absurdum and then unilaterally declared yourself the smartest person in the thread for it

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:11:56 2014 No.5182452
File: 1.40 MB, 360x260, 1403938506337.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5182333
Well I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was trolling.

But if not then he's probably not sheltered just a beta bitch that never asked out his crush so she got fucked by black kid on the football team and now he will carry that resentment with him until he's in the ground.

If I had a dollar for every white guy that threw a life-ling tantrum over a woman he was infatuated with being "ruined by _____" (insert niggers, spics, pakis, Reptilians) then I would be on a tropical beach sippin' Mamosas right now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:12:25 2014 No.5182456 >>5182327 >blanket response All opinions hereby dismissed, forever and with no possibility for redemption

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:12:36 2014 No.5182459

>>5182406
>What's the matter, was I a little too close to the mark? You feel euphoric, don't you?
I see no reason to sully this thread with your hip epic memes. Either type out your thoughts or leave.

>Apparently what you are unable to grasp is that the men and women attending these sexual festivals you promote will afterwards be incapable of having a stable marriage.
The festivals would be attended by girls younger prior they marry.
>Its a simple fact that women who have more sexual partners before marriage have shorter marriages and are more likely to be unfaithful
This is how it is in modern society, mostly because Dionysian festivities are shunned by some kind of weird mainstream outlook which everyone seems to shut down for certain periods of time.
>Combine this with your encouragement for society to view intercourse as a pleasurable recreation rather than as the functional task of procreation and you will create a society of immoral sluts.
Bottom line is either society has neatly organized sexual festivities or you will have tons of urges outside those festivities to destroy traditional marriages and parings.

You want to force society into some weird sterile unnatural state, I want to work with it within nature itself. Sexual promiscuity will always be there, so either we have nicely scheduled festivals for such events or everything will come crumbling down and women will become "sluts" as you said, your choice mate.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:15:15 2014 No.5182471

We know what high consideration the
social matriarchate held in Marxist
historiography; it was regarded as the primordial social constitution and the original
state of justice, which were ended by the institution of private property and by the
political forms associated with it. However, the regression from the masculine to the
feminine is equally visible in the previously mentioned revolutionary ideologies. The
image of the fatherland as
Mother, as Land of which we are all children and before
which we are all equals and brothers, clearly recalls that physical, feminine-maternal
order from which "men" separate themselves
in order to create the virile and luminous
order of the State, while the physical order, pe
r se, has a pre-political character. Moreover,
it is a very significant fact that country and nation have prevalently been allegorized
through feminine figures, even among peoples whose land had a neuter or masculine,
rather than a feminine, name.
9
The sacred character and inviolability of "nation" and of
"people" are merely the transposition of feat
ures attributed to the Great Mother in
ancient plebeian gynecocracies and in soci
eties that ignored the virile and political
principle of the
imperium.
Thus, it has rightfully been suggested by Bachofen and by
Steding that "men" uphold the idea of State, while feminine natures, which are
spiritually matriarchical, side instead with
"father-land," "nation,
" and "people." This
casts a sinister light on the nature of the influences that have been predominant in the
political history of the West, beginning with the French Revolution.
>Implying Evola isn't right about almost everything.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:15:39 2014 No.5182475

>>5181721
>These ideas are facile and appealing to the worst elements of men in society,

Everyone who opposes me is wrong because I say so
> and engaging with them is dangerous.
They will probably win if I debate them, and their victory is "dangerous" because I say so, so I can't debate them

>Far better to identify the propagators as the pathetic, juvenile, egotistical, pseudo-intellectual, smug, reprehensible fools that they are.
Instead I should call them names on the internet

>My personal position is that people at large are, sadly, too willing to subscribe to awful ideas if they become part of legitimate political dialogue
if you debate them they will win, but they're objectively wrong because I say so, so

> MRAs have to be treated with disdain and disgust precisely because their idiotic ideas have such appeal to the baser elements of society.
We should mock them to make sure nobody gets the chance to hear their arguments and be own over by them

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:16:30 2014 No.5182479

>>5182459
I wouldn't expect a fedora tipper like you to understand, but promiscuity is not necessary in society. By replacing the material desire for flesh with the love of God and faith in Jesus any society can limit sexual intercourse to procreation. If you hadn't isolated yourself from the light of the Lord you would understand that. I'll pray for you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:18:14 2014 No.5182488 I feel like I'm watching some sort of obscure historical re-enactment or something.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:20:54 2014 No.5182508

>>5181707

But this is objectively true. You think because he buys you dinner and says your ass doesn't look big in those jeans, that means the alpha respects you and is a fellow feminist? I've never met as staunch a misogynist as an alpha who fucks a new girl every week

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:21:31 2014 No.5182512

>>5182479
>but promiscuity is not necessary in society
Yet it somehow always happens, upper class women of the 17th and 18th centuries fooling around with frivolous passions (mind you this is before the 19th century and the slow death of Christianity), Roman emperors turning young boys into their personal fleshlights, high ranking emperors and generals establishing harems for themselves and their visitors.

Either we schedule such events to neatly fit in our lifestyle our we get chaos, sluts and broken marriages.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:21:37 2014 No.5182513 >>5181402 No.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:21:45 2014 No.5182514 >>5182446 >men are handed opportunity Where are these handouts? Men have to go through the same processes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:22:58 2014 No.5182522 >>5181721 >MRAs >Men's Rights Activists >Men's Rights >have to be treated with disdain and disgust precisely because their idiotic ideas have such appeal to the baser elements of society. I literally hope you die.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:24:25 2014 No.5182528 Oh man, it's so nice to see /lit/ finally coming over to our side. Soon every leftshit thread will be chased out of here with pitchforks and nobody will even notice.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:26:06 2014 No.5182533 >>5182528 The echo room grows bigger, heh?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:26:50 2014 No.5182541 >>5182411 This. This thread stinks of repressed sexuality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:28:09 2014 No.5182547 >>5182541 Not so. More precisely, it displays opinions typical of those who have little to no relations with women or minorities.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:28:11 2014 No.5182548 >>5182528 This is a leftist thread or at least OP seems to be since he mentioned the Social Democrat Party and last I checked social democracy was left of the center.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:28:23 2014 No.5182550 >>5181721 >these people are so dumb that it would be dumb if i had to show you why >they are so dumb that you just have to accept that they are dumb, with no explanation bam, just proved MRA's wrong!! thanks guy

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:28:24 2014 No.5182551

>>5182533
Yes. People think they can win through debate, but they're dead wrong.

What you should do is create echo chambers and slowly pull more people into them while radicalizing the existing members. That's especially effective for unpopular ideologies.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:28:25 2014 No.5182552

>>5182434
Dude in the blue suit does more philanthropic work every year than you could do in 3 generations.

His existence is a net positive for the planet a thousand times beyond yours, if not ten thousand.

But of course he is inferior to you because he has more melanin in his skin.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:29:13 2014 No.5182556

>>5182514

Pardon the lack of clarity, I was speaking largely hypothetically. My point being that a (hypothetical) society that depends on men working wouldn't exactly be trying to systematically keep men out of the workforce. And if that same society depends on women maintaining the home, the opposite applies. Hence it's unfair to expect women to simply make their own opportunities happen when they live in a society that doesn't have room for them.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:29:19 2014 No.5182558

>>5181767

So your an elitist who believes that the majority of people are too stupid to make a judgment when presented with both sides of an argument, and therefore academics and authorities have a duty to shut down debate and silence dissenting opinions to ensure that people only hear the "right" opinions

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:29:50 2014 No.5182560 >>5182541 Bullshit, read through it again. Almost no opinions come from somekind of "hate" for women because they don't want to give them the pussy, in fact most posts in favor seem to claim that his would be better for women.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:29:51 2014 No.5182561 >>5182548 I don't give a shit about economic policy right now. He said he's working to get women the fuck out of the places they don't belong and that's good enough for me. We can kick out the commies later.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:30:10 2014 No.5182563 >>5182551 People can win through debates. The point of a debate is to convince the audience, not the adversary. Echo rooms are unhealthy and hinder one's capacity to think for themselves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:30:18 2014 No.5182564 >>5182528 >implying I think the guy suggesting a "Dionysian festival" is more interesting than any traditionalists in here wanting to revert women to pseudo-property. And a socially validated orgy doesn't sound very "conservative".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:30:53 2014 No.5182565 >>5182541 I think your post stinks of repressed sexuality. Prove me wrong, hotshot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:30:54 2014 No.5182566 >>5182445 >faggot on 4chan >talking shit on pro-athletes who went to college https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlYtUxAortY

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:31:54 2014 No.5182571 >>5182564 Well, maybe not. You win some you lose some. A man can hope though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:32:15 2014 No.5182572 >>5182558 Declining to take part in a discussion, and even electing to actively belittle it, does not equate to forcibly shutting it down and censoring it.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:32:36 2014 No.5182575

>>5182323

dude you are 4chan, get it through your head

being on 4chan makes you inferior to a good 75% of the black race, the normalfags are all infinitely superior to you, you barely beat out degenerate criminals, your degeneration is quarantined on the internet at least

what a fucking faggot

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:32:57 2014 No.5182577

>>5182564
>I think the guy suggesting a "Dionysian festival" is more interesting than any traditionalists in here wanting to revert women to pseudo-property.

Nah, that idea sucks. You think some scheduled orgy will be enough to take care of somebody's sexual appetites? New things will become forbidden and more tempting very quickly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:33:40 2014 No.5182579 >>5182561 Still don't stick all leftists in the same pot, the main and most popular outspoken critic of multiculturalism in Germany is also a Social Democrat which is still more left than right.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:33:58 2014 No.5182582 >>5182560 What the fuck gives you the right to say what's better for half the population of this planet? There is a serious lack of consideration for the free will of the individual - the individual is an individual wheter it has a dick or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:34:16 2014 No.5182585 >>5182565 Can't. This is 4chan after all.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:34:51 2014 No.5182588

>>5182575
>being on 4chan makes you inferior to a good 75% of the black race, the normalfags are all infinitely superior to you, you barely beat out degenerate criminals, your degeneration is quarantined on the internet at least

Prove it. I for one dp have stats that prove blacks are dumber and do have stats that the average IQ is around 100 in most developed countries.

Baselessly declaring random bullshit isn't going to get you shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:35:32 2014 No.5182592 >>5182564 I'm pretty sure returning to Dionysian festivals is traditionalism, it was a practice in aristocratic societies of old which prided themselves on warfare and other masculine things. Traditionalism =/= GOP "kike on a stick" values.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:35:42 2014 No.5182593 >>5182566 Not agreeing with him but athletes in college are set against much lower standards, intellectually. I wouldn't automatically assume that the athlete who did go to college is any smarter than the athlete that didn't.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:35:49 2014 No.5182594 File: 44 KB, 566x425, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5181796 >any apparent male superiority in that field is the product of millennia of patriarchal hegemony.

>>	fuckboss !!ArfwX2Zd2yp Thu Jul 24 14:36:15 2014 No.5182595 whats the latest gist in this thread all these grills just started blowing my phone up at once wooooadjhhxxxdd sexboss

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:37:05 2014 No.5182598 >>5182585 Oh totally. I mean everyone has that famous piece of social research that links 4chan use to repressed sexuality. Oh wait. You're just talking shit to feel superior. How unexpected.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:37:12 2014 No.5182599 >>5181804 You realize, I hope, that every great western author born before 1900 would have agreed with him, right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:38:06 2014 No.5182605 >>5182588 Average IQ means the average black is dumber than the average white. That also means there are fewer black people who are smarter than you than whites or asians, but still a considerable amount nonetheless.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:38:20 2014 No.5182607 >>5182563 No, echo rooms serve to maintain the ideology and pull the members who are doubtful back into it. But I agree that THAT kind of debate works too. People generally can't be reasoned out of their beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:38:48 2014 No.5182608 Are these Christians for real or trolling? I have never seen this on any other board, is it a /lit/ meme? >I'll pray for you Someone actually said this on 4chan, I almost can't accept that it's not trolling

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:39:06 2014 No.5182611

>>5182582
>What the fuck gives you the right to say what's better for half the population of this planet?
I don't know, free speech gives me the right to say what I think?
>There is a serious lack of consideration for the free will of the individual - the individual is an individual wheter it has a dick or not.
Societies is aligned for the common man, and if a woman would be able to rise above the common women all power to her, but most would not. I believe there was only one distinguished female general in ancient Greece.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:39:08 2014 No.5182612 >>5181821 Don't worry, there's still plenty of cultural Marxists like you on here

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:39:09 2014 No.5182613

>>5182560

No one you responded to said anything about hate or resentment for lack of sexual attention ('repressed sexuality' is a very ambiguous phrase, and furthermore doesn't suggest anything on a conscious level), and sexism is not just manifested in things so blatant as MRAs and femnazis screaming at each other with open loathing, and doesn't even necessarily have anything at all to do with hate.
Stay shallow. Holy fuck.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:39:23 2014 No.5182614 >>5182605 That has fuck all to do with what I said.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:39:54 2014 No.5182617 >>5182598 What kind of sexually repressed idiot would take a satirical statement at face value? I already know what you're going to reply. Don't bother.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:40:20 2014 No.5182618 >>5181828 >I don't like this discussion >I'm gonna call the cops and tell them to put a stop to it

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:40:59 2014 No.5182621

>>5182592

Ya, but you get the gist. It seems like most modern "traditionalists" want to go back to Feudalism at the farthest end, and then it just gets closer to the recent past.

I've seen one internet personality that is heavily interested in the classical culture, but most of the "radical traditionalists" seem like monarchists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:40:59 2014 No.5182622 >>5182608 /pol/ is chock full of fundamentalist christian monkeys. It's a containment board for a reason. Sadly it doesn't understand that and leaks on every other board.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:42:19 2014 No.5182627 >>5182617 What kind of sexually repressed idiot would take a satirical reply at face value? I already know what you're going to reply. Don't bother. Hey, bet you didn't expect me to reply with that, eh, fuccboi?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:42:54 2014 No.5182630 >>5182614 Do you need to be spoon fed everything? Statistics do not justify racism. They justify reform. Rights are individual, and no assumptions should be made based on the likelihood of someone scoring fewer points on a standardized test.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:43:12 2014 No.5182631 >>5182622 > it doesn't understand the know that, in fact they do it on porpuse

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:43:24 2014 No.5182632 >>5182611 Sure does. That your ideas are absurdly egoistical is the problem. And ancient Greece is the epitome of success? How did that go?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:43:33 2014 No.5182634

>>5182613
>Blame such views on sexual repression
>All the people whose quotes and ideas have been brought up were sexually repressive

Then why assume that people supporting those views are somehow sexually repressive despite no real reason to believe so other than resentment which is not present.

Let's say society magically reverts back to Athens 400 BC, the males would still have to prove themselves worthy of women or a woman if not a distinguished member of the warrior caste. You don't just get to pick them like fruit on a marketplace under any system.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:44:00 2014 No.5182637 >>5182627 No, but I get say you're in full damage control now. You missed your chance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:45:39 2014 No.5182644 >>5182634 >prove themselves worthy of women or a woman if not a distinguished member of the warrior caste the guys you are talking yo are retards, but you're worst

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:46:24 2014 No.5182648 >>5182634 >>Blame such views on sexual repression I did no such thing. That entire post was filling you in on what people DIDN'T say, and now you're simply responding to what I also DIDN'T say.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:46:24 2014 No.5182649 >>5182621 Well yes, and powerful and wealth aristocrats under monarchies like Lord Byron above fucked more girls in one week than you will in your lifetime.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:47:27 2014 No.5182653

>>5181961
>ignore modern logistics (as you said yourself, the modern status quo of couples both working makes the homemaker/breadwinner dynamic next to impossible, no matter how desirable it may be)

I'm not saying I endorse forcing women back into the home, but from an economic standpoint, if we lost half the workforce, wages for the other half would skyrocket. There might be a labor-shortage, but as someone pointed out itt, most women go into jobs that are basically commercialized homemaking. There wouldn't be enough waitresses, cooks, nannies, or daycare workers, but fewer people would need restaurants, nannies, or daycare centers

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:48:15 2014 No.5182659

>>5182577

Probably, but it just sounded more novel than attempting to make women become Christian housewives again. Besides, having sanctioned orgies or sexual promiscuity is only a stones throw away from where we are now. For the most part we DO have sanctioned promiscuity, but I can tell that your average woman is still a little nervous about being too outrageous because the concept of a single slut exists. They fear other people will think less of them if they have slept with too many people with not enough discrimination of partners.

But sexual promiscuity is sanctioned within reason, so basically having a lite version of the Brave New World sexuality in which people sleep with each other very casually doesn't seem outlandish. And it SEEMS as though it would help diminish the obsession. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm already less interested in sex in my early 20s. Could be that I have an unusually low libido, but I feel as though it is because other things have carried my ambitions away from sex.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:49:04 2014 No.5182660 >>5182653 >wages for the other half would skyrocket What about hours?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:51:02 2014 No.5182671

>>5182630
Again I wasn't implying anything regarding what you just said.

But okay, lets just talk about this because I have shit all to do with my life.
>Statistics do not justify racism.
By racism I suppose you mean racial discrimination.

Say IQ levels are important to me and I only know someone's race. Would picking the Jewish or Asian person be discriminatory? Or will it be logical because they are much more likely to have higher IQ levels?

You know by the way, that East Asian immigrants are much more likely to be poor than blacks, but times less likely to be criminal?

>They justify reform.
Well obviously. Like every reform we've had before. Those were so good that racism levels started growing for the first time in decades according to 2008 data.

>Rights are individual
You have rights? Can you snap a picture and show me? Can you provide empirical evidence that they exist as anything but baseless rhetoric

>no assumptions should be made based on the likelihood of someone scoring fewer points on a standardized test.

What you're effectively saying is: "If someone's more likely to be stupid, you shouldn't assume that they're more likely to be stupid."

Well, excuse me for trying to be rational. I didn't know I was being a nazi terrorist when applying Probability Theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:51:42 2014 No.5182676 >>5182176 Become a nun

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:53:21 2014 No.5182688

>>5182659
Women should by all reason be traditional housewives the thing is that Christian ethics may manage to bamboozle some lower class pleb and that's that.

The upper classes like Schopenhauer or Byron will always swim in pussy and cheat on unless we return to our senses and ritualize our sexual desires. Women fulfilling traditional roles is obviously welcome, nay, it is the highest priority for society but that does not mean that the males should not fuck as their hearts desire.

And to fill that desire either we pretend it's not there and the system breaks or you bring back the orgies Patricians in Rome practiced. Your choice.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:53:51 2014 No.5182690 This thread is all kinds of shitty, but by far the worst thing is the Christianity

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:54:55 2014 No.5182695 >>5182690 How is Christianity inherently inferior to whatever the fuck retard-ass baseless ideology you're following?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:55:57 2014 No.5182700 File: 263 KB, 562x760, tumblr_n79xnaOOfa1tec7r3o1_1280.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Who /völkisch/ here?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:56:45 2014 No.5182707 >>5182700 >tumblr Apparently nobody, you fucking landwhale-enabler.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:57:23 2014 No.5182713
File: 83 KB, 400x600, 1405406299866.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I thought this was one of the more well read, informed boards?

This is /pol/-tier retarded, filled with the rantings of men who clearly do not interact with other humans beings much, least of all females.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:58:15 2014 No.5182718 >>5182695 Because it's a made-up religion. I don't have ideology.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 14:59:35 2014 No.5182725

>>5182713
>I thought this was one of the more well read, informed boards?
Poisoning the well right from the start, just lovely.

>This is /pol/-tier retarded
Ad-homing /pol/.

>filled with the rantings of men who clearly do not interact with other humans beings
Again, ad-homing people with disagree with him/her/it.

Typical leftist everyone, full of logical arguments and unbiased opinions.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:00:20 2014 No.5182728

>>5182695
There was only one Christian and he died on the cross. What remained were bad tidings used to brainwash the plebs and extinguish the desire to improve by trying to extinguish the master morality of the upper classes as well.

However the new aristocrats despite appearing Christian on the outside slowly turned to their old desires slowly making the pleb resentful of them again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:00:37 2014 No.5182730 >>5182718 Good then. Consider being a Right-winger though because trannies are disgusting and it wouldn't be the worst thing if they got gassed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:00:51 2014 No.5182731 >>5182713 Oh, come on, 4chan is full of shitheads on every board, and /lit/ has these kinds of threads daily

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:01:22 2014 No.5182736 >>5182713 Some good written posts here, I don't see any /pol/ aside from one racist and christian guy, which may or may not be a troll.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:01:29 2014 No.5182737 >>5182713 it wasn't always like that, like /int/ who used to be one of the best boards

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:02:30 2014 No.5182741

>>5182671
>Say IQ levels are important to me and I only know someone's race.

In what circumstances would your hypothetical scenario present itself? Are you the team captain in your bridge club?

>You know by the way, that East Asian immigrants are much more likely to be poor than blacks, but times less likely to be criminal?

Still, why would I assume every black person I speak to is a criminal?

>You have rights? Can you snap a picture and show me? Can you provide empirical evidence that they exist as anything but baseless rhetoric

Read your country's charter of rights. Chances are you won't find anything descriptive at all when the people subject to it are mentioned. Basic human rights are not written with demographics in mind and with reason.

It seems you DO need to be spoon fed everything.

>Well, excuse me for trying to be rational. I didn't know I was being a nazi terrorist when applying Probability Theory.

If someone's more likely to be stupid, you shouldn't assume that they are. It's not fucking hard to grasp. Probability is the only basis for your rhetoric and probability does not affect anything. It REFLECTS.

"Well, this person is more likely to be stupid, but I won't know until he's proven it, won't I?"

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:03:04 2014 No.5182743 >>5182736 Are you saying I'm racist AND Christian? Because I'm not a Christian.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:03:07 2014 No.5182744 File: 151 KB, 2048x1531, 1405429175121.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Men who can't get women, complain about them. Need proof? Just read this thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:04:10 2014 No.5182750 >>5182737 you mean live /int/ WHICH used to be one of the better boards you fucking illiterate

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:07:48 2014 No.5182772 >>5182744 see >>5182634 There is zero reason to assume that if Byron's ideal state of traditional gender roles would be achieved that it would help anyone get laid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:09:33 2014 No.5182779 >>5182750 i am sure you know much less of my language than what i know about yours. retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:09:39 2014 No.5182780 >>5181296 gr8 b8 m8

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:10:19 2014 No.5182784

>In what circumstances would your hypothetical scenario present itself? Are you the team captain in your bridge club?
It's a modek. Which might very well come in handy, in, lets say, the hiring process.

>Still, why would I assume every black person I speak to is a criminal?
I never said that or anything that implies that.

>Read your country's charter of rights. Chances are you won't find anything descriptive at all when the people subject to it are mentioned. Basic human rights are not written with demographics in mind and with reason.
I'm not getting anywhere near that thing. Everyone knows rights charters have magical power to punish everyone who violates the magical words written on them. The damn thing will probably spring alive and try to strangle me.

>It seems you DO need to be spoon fed everything.
Oh, totally. In smallest possible detail please.

>If someone's more likely to be stupid, you shouldn't assume that they are
I'm not assuming that they are. I'm comparing the probability of one person being stupid to the same probability in another. It's not like I just go around and think how stupid everyone is. Although we're on /lit/ so I see how you can expect that.

>probability does not affect anything. It REFLECTS.
That doesn't contradict any of my points.

>"Well, this person is more likely to be stupid, but I won't know until he's proven it, won't I?"
"Well, this person is more likely to be a murderer, but I won't know until it's proven, won't I?"

Actually, it's "will I?", but whatever.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:11:09 2014 No.5182786 >>5182744 > You are mad at women because you can't get laid! lel, basic feminist shaming tactics. Keep trying with your ad hominem, but I don't think they're going to work in a place like this

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:11:20 2014 No.5182788 >>5182744 Women suck. Need proof? Just read this thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:12:22 2014 No.5182793 >>5182784 meant for this fine fellow >>5182741

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:17:13 2014 No.5182819

>>5182784
>Which might very well come in handy, in, lets say, the hiring process.

No. The hiring process gives you plenty of time to screen applicants. You are provided credentials and an opportunity to meet and discuss with the person in question.

>Everyone knows rights charters have magical power to punish everyone who violates the magical words written on them.

They are, roughly, the basis behind law. You seem to reject the paper's authority even though it affects you directly.

>"Well, this person is more likely to be a murderer, but I won't know until it's proven, won't I?"

But the likelihood, small or slightly less small, is always present. Why not ignore people in general? This is the same argument men-hating SJWs use when toting rape statistics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:18:36 2014 No.5182824 Where is feminister ? Also can someone link this thread to that feminist whore Luarie Pennie or something and ask her to shed her light on all of this.

>>	fuckboss !!ArfwX2Zd2yp Thu Jul 24 15:19:48 2014 No.5182830 for some reason i now believe that women are somehow the master race, but i don't know why has anyone in history ever been able to qualify this assertion?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:20:54 2014 No.5182831 >>5182824 Please no, I don't even want to fuck her. Like I'd probably rather fuck a man than her. A man's fucking waste chute is probably more hygienic than her rotten whore cunt. She's effectively useless.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:25:53 2014 No.5182856

>>5182819
>No. The hiring process gives you plenty of time to screen applicants. You are provided credentials and an opportunity to meet and discuss with the person in question.

So what? Imagine two candidates have similar credentials, but one is black. Who do you think I'd pick?

>They are, roughly, the basis behind law. You seem to reject the paper's authority even though it affects you directly.
No. Even the law can't stop me from violating every single "right" a fellow hairless monkey might have. It can only prevent me. It's not the paper that's doing it. It's the people who are retarded enough to worship it. And even then, not every right is made into law and not every law is enforced. Not to mention how arbitrary both are.

>But the likelihood, small or slightly less small, is always present. Why not ignore people in general? This is the same argument men-hating SJWs use when toting rape statistics.

Because my time is limited and so I'd rather apply my knowledge in spending time with people of higher quality.

>the same argument men-hating SJWs use when toting rape statistics.

Who cares? I have no allegiances. Plus that's not even an argument. SJWs very likely have some arguments that are correct, I just haven't been presented with them yet.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:49:58 2014 No.5182979
File: 16 KB, 745x442, hbXcP6U.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5182452
>If I had a dollar for every white guy that threw a life-ling tantrum over a woman he was infatuated with being "ruined by _____" (insert niggers, spics, pakis, Reptilians) then I would be on a tropical beach sippin' Mamosas right now.

No, you wouldn't, faggot. Sorry, but your cuckold fantasies aren't reality. In the real world, the only white women who ever date black guys are overweight and trashy. The overwhelming majority of white women want nothing to do with niggers.

You don't need to pathologize everything. Niggers are dumb, entitled, and violent. Anyone who has to deal with them on a regular basis is going to hate them. There is a reason that the least diverse parts of the country are the most liberal, and the most diverse the least liberal.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:53:05 2014 No.5182996 >>5182830 imagine a world where every woman died imagine a world where every man died which world would survive?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:54:15 2014 No.5183010 >>5182996 Neither because it would be impossible to procreate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:57:01 2014 No.5183019 >>5182612 As much as I hate these types, the label 'cultural Marxist' is misleading. I admit I don't know any equivalent. 'Critical theory' is too narrow.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:57:17 2014 No.5183021 >>5183010 He said survive, not procreate. They'd all die, but some would die sooner than others.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:57:43 2014 No.5183023 >>5182996 Probably the male one. We'd probably have the egg synthesized within a decade and implement eugenics to decide who gets the limited supply we were able to produce.

fuckboss !!ArfwX2Zd2yp Thu Jul 24 15:58:49 2014 No.5183033

>>5182996
i'm getting into weird territory today but hear me out

i feel like if that happened women would eventually be able to reproduce by themselves. by making their own female sperm cells and then they would only have baby girls

meanwhile the men would attempt a new society but would become mentally and sexually frustrated pretty much immediately, causing butt rape and murders. and the men wouldn't be able to reproduce like women and would die out faster

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 15:59:52 2014 No.5183040 >>5182713 Being well read and informed necessitates one abstains from interaction with other human beings, especially females.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:01:53 2014 No.5183051 >>5183010 Men would invent artificial methods of reproduction. Women would argue and bicker and eventually nuke each other to extinction.

>>	fuckboss !!ArfwX2Zd2yp Thu Jul 24 16:02:14 2014 No.5183055 >>5183040 no

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:02:55 2014 No.5183057 >>5183055 Yes

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:03:56 2014 No.5183061

>>5182291

4chan was always anti-PC; once the left became militant about political correctness, they pushed anyone who disliked PC rightward.

Also, as acknowledged by feminists ITT, leftism doesn't do well in free-speech environments because it eschews logic and rational thought

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:05:16 2014 No.5183070 >>5182293 I'm okay with that statement

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:06:54 2014 No.5183077 >>5182301 So are children, should they vote too?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:09:15 2014 No.5183088

>>5183061
A shitload of things that the internet culture assimilates comes from 4chan.
A shitload of things that the real world culture absorbs comes from the Internet.

Basically, I think it's gonna be us who beats them in the end. Just like we created the proto-SJW with Chanology.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:09:50 2014 No.5183092 >>5182333 I grew up in inner city Atlanta because my dad is obsessed with high ceilings and refuses to live anywhere but loft spaces

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:10:51 2014 No.5183096

>>5183051
Interestingly, there have been advances in making embryos from two eggs. There have not been such advances in making them from two sperm. I'd put my money on an all female society having greater chances at reproductive success. This is also true in nature, where some animals have eliminated males altogether through natural selection.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:12:57 2014 No.5183104

>>5183061
>leftism doesn't do well in free-speech environments because it eschews logic and rational thought
Only the strawman leftism you're talking about that is obsessed with identity politics and political correctness. I doubt revolutionary Marxists and anarchists have much stake in gay marriage and making sure no one is offended.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:16:19 2014 No.5183125

>>5183104
>Only the strawman leftism you're talking about that is obsessed with identity politics and political correctness. I doubt revolutionary Marxists and anarchists have much stake in gay marriage and making sure no one is offended.

Most revolutionary Marxists and anarchists are SJWs. There are some who aren't, but they're a minority and have little influence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:16:23 2014 No.5183126 >>5182289 This argument could be used against any group in almost all situations. I have an idea what it is like being a woman. That's some fine polylogism you are supporting there. Polylogism never ends well.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:24:26 2014 No.5183165

>>5183104
I read somewhere a conspiracy theory (I use this derogatory term because here it is really a strange theory) saying that the critical theory, thinkers like Adorno or Marcusse, while they really believed in what they wrote, were used by the establishment to destroy the old-school rebels from the inside.

Look at the most vocal issue of the "left" nowadays : homosexual marriage, identity politics, feminism, anti-racism. Few actually care anymore about "workers rights". I seriously think that in today's world, you could spit at workers all you like with no shame but the mere mention of the immorality of faggotry is seen as shocking.

When you think of it, among western nations, the left is usually the one that shame the ancient working class. People seem surprised that the majority of industrial workers are far right if not extreme far right in France, the UK, Germany and other countries. But it is not surprising at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:26:35 2014 No.5183185 >>5182411 >thinks there are happy people on 4chan You haven't been here long, have you

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:27:02 2014 No.5183188 >>5183165 Communists have hated workers almost since the beginning when they realised how reluctant they were to take up their bullshit.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:29:18 2014 No.5183201

>>5183061
4chan, and "internet culture" in general, are mostly contrarian. It was left-leaning under Bush, and shifted rightward now that a Democrat's in office. This is more or less the deal with atheism on the internet, for example; there was an actual religious right, atheism got big on the internet in response, now those atheists are, at a certain level, the "establishment" and we mock them by posting fedora's.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:30:32 2014 No.5183208 >>5183033 nah I totally agree, that's what I was getting at a world of men would kill each other. Who do you think starts wars?

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:31:47 2014 No.5183218

>>5182423

You realize that most athletes who get past their prime end up penniless and crippled by years of injuries right? The same for most rappers. There are entire industries devoted to milking the high-melanin nouveau-riches of every penny and most of them end up broke and forgotten because they have no head for money and spent their last $50k on a down-payment for an escalade.

If I were a Marxist/black nationalist I would say that these "successful blacks" are just empty figureheads to keep the mass of blacks complacent and chasing dreams of sports or entertainment success rather than bettering themselves more realistically

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:33:20 2014 No.5183222 >>5182446 Men have to work for their opportunity, women are handed it by "equal opportunities" legislation

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:33:50 2014 No.5183230 androgynous culture or bust

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:38:29 2014 No.5183263 >>5182551 The left hasn't own it's successes thus far by encouraging discourse and debate, but by stifling opposition and out-shouting everyone who disagrees with them, Turnabout is fair play.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:40:49 2014 No.5183279

>>5182572

Well, you said that you refuse to engage and choose instead to disrupt because if you engage, most people wont agree with you, but you *know* you're right, so you have a duty to prevent people from hearing these arguments and positions that they will inevitably find appealing, to prevent their spread, because they're "dangerous"

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:42:00 2014 No.5183287 >>5182575 >being on 4chan makes you inferior to a good 75% of the black race I'd wager that the average white 4channer has a higher than 85 IQ >inb4 IQ tests are racist

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:51:05 2014 No.5183328

>>5182592

You should learn more about Christianity and Judaism before you buy into the myth of "Judeo-Christianity."

Doctrine: Modern Judaism is directly descended from the Pharisees, who split from the main abrahamic tree at the time of Christ; many Jews converted to Christianity, but the Pharisees, the ones who secured Christ's execution, did not. Further, much of modern Jewish doctrine was developed after Christ, in fact a significant proportion of Jewish doctrine is only around 500 years old. Modern Jews have also rejected and despised Christianity since its inception, and only started buying into this "Judeo-Christian" concept in the late 19th century. Christianity has also been more opposed to Judaism than Islam was for most of the three religions' history. It's only since Israel was created that Muslim antisemitism has arisen in earnest.

Name: "Jew" is a geographical/national title, deriving from the roman province of Judea, the Jews of Christ's time would not have called themselves "Jews"

Ethnicity: most modern Jews have partly Arabic ancestry, because the Arabs conquered Judea in the second half of the first millennium. They were ethnically European before this conquest, and in the time of Christ.

Thus, to call Christ a "Jew" is wrong on so many levels that it displays laughable ignorance of history and theology

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:52:53 2014 No.5183342 >>5182608 We can't all be European progressives who worship our own sense of superiority and euphoria

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:53:59 2014 No.5183346 >>5182611 >I believe there was only one distinguished female general in ancient Greece. That's news to me that there was even one, unless we're counting mythology

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:56:15 2014 No.5183359 >>5182622 Ironic that you leftists enthusiastically support the idea of an internet concentration camp for nazis

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:56:57 2014 No.5183364 >>5182608 Someone is actually shocked that a man may pray for him. How euphoric can one be ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:58:46 2014 No.5183383 >>5182630 >http://rense.com/general77/racedif.htm What exactly are we supposed to reform to improve black IQs? The field of genetic engineering?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 16:59:50 2014 No.5183388 >>5182632 They basically founded western civilization. That's arguably the most important achievement in human history, just going by sheer influence on all of humanity

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 17:01:38 2014 No.5183398 >>5182660 Labor shortages generally mean more hours, if wanted

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 17:05:51 2014 No.5183416 >>5183383 Cut benefits to La'shaquina so she can't support her 6 children using government money. >>5183346 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_I_of_Caria

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 17:11:32 2014 No.5183434

>>5183019

I haven't read Das Kapital so I'll admit I don't know if it's entirely accurate, but I was of the impression that cultural Marxism/Frankfurt school philosophy was applying Marxist ideas to the social, rather than the economic, sphere. Even if most of its adherents don't know that, and don't even know that they *are* cultural Marxists, or that cultural Marxism exists

Note: though I admit a lack of knowledge of the most intricate specifics of Marxism, I know the basics and have read enough about Frankfurt-school thought to realize that it's not inaccurate at all to characterize SJW beliefs as am offshoot of the Frankfurt school, or to observe in my own university how deeply their concepts have infused modern American academia

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 17:17:40 2014 No.5183456

>>5183104

Modern Marxism has been almost completely co-opted by SJW/cultural Marxism. Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe are the only places that still have old-school, economic-left, social right communists, and even those brands of communism had their SJW experiments early on, though they mostly failed and were abandoned. The "Abortion-Culture" in Eastern Europe, for example, is a holdover from these early SJW experiments.

Most western Marxists would be shocked and appalled to learn that, for instance, Che Guevara was a rabid homophobe and racist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 24 17:42:51 2014 No.5183571 File: 132 KB, 1202x603, 1370616789648.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5183456 RIP Che.

Anonymous Thu Jul 24 18:13:40 2014 No.5183710

>>5182566

Most pro-athletes are lazy individuals who are told to choose the easiest major possible (most do) and outright have other people do their academic work for them. The public university system is inherently, systematically corrupt in granting athletes unnecessary amounts of privilege to act essentially as propagandists for the institution while remaining intellectually and academically dishonest and lax. Worse yet are schools that literally allow their athletes to get away with sexual assault, theft and various other illegal or immoral activity with no more than a slap on the wrist, because, again, those athletes are school-sanctioned propagandists.
It is for this reason alone that any sensible individual should have far more respect for private liberal arts colleges that place emphasis on either academics or social networking over public universities that focus on boosting the school's image with sports and allowing athletes to get away with whatever the hell they please.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]