...which was great unless you were a slave, or a woman.

File: 36 KB, 502x334, le unbiased history man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 09:31:49 2015 No.6141253 [Reply] [Original]

...which was great unless you were a slave, or a woman.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 09:34:25 2015 No.6141264 so what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 09:39:33 2015 No.6141286 He supposedly said some shit about Aristotle, anybody got a link?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 09:44:40 2015 No.6141298 >>6141253 And I'm looking foward when in 20 years these people start claiming "The 00's were great unless you were a farm's pig, an auraucaria or a panda."

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:00:43 2015 No.6141352
File: 455 KB, 400x218, tumblr_inline_n91mkepA6s1sdyors.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6141253
Imposing the single reductive term 'woman' to a human being therefore full of complexity pertaining to a large spectrum of behavior leads me to qualify john green as irresponsible. john green should inquire about people's feeling before plastering so many radical prejudgments onto other people's lives.
I hope that john green will learn that people are not reducible to little boxes that this historian created only to simplify a personal view on life. Perhaps, one day, john green will grasp the diversity of the human nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:03:51 2015 No.6141358 >>6141298 that's stupid. is it the best you can do

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:04:02 2015 No.6141359 >>6141298 >tfw posthumans will call everything between the agricultural revolution and posthumanity the dark ages

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:15:30 2015 No.6141408 >>6141298 Is the sub-text of this that women have the relevence of animals in the march of history? If so, you're a dumb reactionary, if not, you're just dumb for using nonsensical analogies.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:20:56 2015 No.6141425

>>6141253
Green is a hack author and he often oversimplifies complex aspects of history, but it's not really at all debatable that "such-and-such period of history was bad if you were enslaved". I mean, that's blatantly obvious. Being a slave is an awful position to be in regardless of era.

And as much as the current political counterculture on 4chan pretends that women have always had it well off, that's also not true - any cursory reading of world history shows that women have tended to have more limited possibilities and freedoms in life compared to men. Hell, they STILL do in most parts of the world.

If you're going to start a thread to insult Green, at least do so with a real point of insult. Like how the dialogue in The Fault in our Stars is the ultimate realization of the style that can only be described as "old people trying to sound like teenagers and doing cringe-worthily bad at it"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:23:17 2015 No.6141432 I haven't looked into this. Doess John Green actually have some credentials in history, or does he just have this youtube show? I don't recall ever hearing about a history book he's written.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:23:35 2015 No.6141433 >THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS XDDDDD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:24:22 2015 No.6141437 >>6141425 His youtube videos are made with one goal: collect the youtube shekel. He probably collects/buys data to find out what his tween viewers like and write his script based on that.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:25:20 2015 No.6141441

>>6141425
people criticise john green for his selective use of stuff like treatment of women and slaves, not the fact that he uses it at all

find me an episode of cch where he discusses a non western nation and discusses treatment of women or slaves in a negative way

also 4chan doesn't pretend women have always had it well off, just that they aren't/weren't as oppressed as people like john green would have you believe

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:25:41 2015 No.6141442 >>6141432 He's a historian per youtube.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:27:07 2015 No.6141447 >>6141432 The show's written by his history teacher. They say so after every fucking episode.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:41:27 2015 No.6141493 >>6141441 >also 4chan doesn't pretend women have always had it well off, just that they aren't/weren't as oppressed as people like john green would have you believe That's fucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:46:12 2015 No.6141505 >>6141493 your fucking stupid

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 10:58:04 2015 No.6141551 >>6141441 The Atlantic slave trade. He talks about how Africans and Muslims were equally culpable in slave trade.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:00:10 2015 No.6141562 >le Aristotle was wrong about everything face

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:03:04 2015 No.6141577

>>6141425
But maybe there are good reasons for the historical rigidity of gender roles...

and maybe, even though according to you and others men have historically had "more freedoms," it didn't suck any less to be a man than it did to be a woman...

and to claim otherwise would be to pooh-pooh the sufferings of an entire sex (men), which is just the kind of close-mindedness and indifference that feminists criticize the patriarchy for...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:06:32 2015 No.6141589 >>6141425 I would trade my life now to be Cicero's slave back before/during the fall of the Republic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:09:59 2015 No.6141599 John green is a literal cuck

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:10:33 2015 No.6141601 >>6141599 really?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:11:19 2015 No.6141604 >The videos, which have the jump-cut aesthetic and speedy delivery of the Vlogbrothers posts, are the pedagogical equivalent of Red Bull shots, and if you watched them all you’d know a lot, but you’d also think you knew more than you did. Yep.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:18:59 2015 No.6141632 >>6141604 >the [pedagogical] equivalent of Red Bull shots To be fair, this isn't just them. It applies to nearly all internet content, tweets, vines and image hosting being the main culprits.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:30:07 2015 No.6141666

>>6141425
>any cursory reading of world history shows that women have tended to have more limited possibilities and freedoms in life compared to men.

That's true, but it doesn't say much, because for most of history most men have been unfree and serf-like anyway, so it's not like women had anything valuable to aspire to.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:44:46 2015 No.6141715

>>6141604
>you’d also think you knew more than you did.
This is a big problem. People see fictional movies, youtube videos, read historical novels, and from all that they find the midpoint to it all and assume they've got a clear view of the period. But its bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:46:20 2015 No.6141721 File: 104 KB, 500x332, h7gSK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6141352 >woman had it bad people are not reducible to little boxes that this historian created only to simplify a personal view of life...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:51:10 2015 No.6141732 >>6141715 Everyone should take a historiography course before they take a history course

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 11:56:59 2015 No.6141758 Its silly to lump all women to a single societal bin when the women of these civilizations are just as stratified by class as the males.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 12:14:28 2015 No.6141795 >>6141253 This was basically everyday in APUSH back in highschool fucking sucked

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 12:37:38 2015 No.6141852

it's a YA guy explaining history in simple terms. he's not an academic. calm your tits

i watched one of his vids about the history of china, wasn't bad at all. he's good at summing things up ... which isn't surprising considering he probably has a dozen or more people working on those videos with him

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 12:42:30 2015 No.6141859 >mfw I actually heard a feminist trying to frame the Battle of Actium as an instance of patriarchal oppression

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:01:58 2015 No.6141906
File: 45 KB, 565x318, dawson_crying.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6141859

Hah. Cleopatra was a cunt.

That said, Octavian/Augustus was probably the best possible emperor Rome could ask for once it had done away with the Republic, so her running the fuck away might not have been the worst thing. I recognize that that is essentially trying to find the best in a bad situation, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:03:32 2015 No.6141912 >>6141577 >But maybe there are good reasons for the historical rigidity of gender roles... Historically, but nowadays the homos can have babies and it does not make sens to distinguish women from men

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:09:41 2015 No.6141921 File: 114 KB, 485x555, suicide rates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Modern Social-Democratic welfare states are great, unless you are rich, or a man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:10:05 2015 No.6141923 every man who sticks up for women's rights looks and sounds like the most pussywhipped beta male possible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:11:22 2015 No.6141928 >>6141923 I've never met a woman who was turned on by male feminism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:13:55 2015 No.6141933 >>6141912 >nowadays the homos can have babies

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:15:57 2015 No.6141937 >>6141933 Do not joke, soon, with one of her a skin cell, a woman can have a spermatozoid to fecundate one of her sex partners.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:22:06 2015 No.6141947 "My political agenda and biases are defined by my unfulfilled sexual impulses" -Anonymous, 2015

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:34:51 2015 No.6141982 >>6141947 >get laid, fags stay normalfag

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:37:28 2015 No.6141990 >>6141286 he repeatedly says "Aristotle, who was wrong about everything" throughout the series

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:42:24 2015 No.6142010 >>6141253 >thinking history is ever unbiased or that bias detracts from how good a historian is

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:44:23 2015 No.6142020 >>6141253 Or Irish, poor, Indian, a soldier, Mexican, Jewish, white Southerne , Palestinian, Balkan, Russian

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:48:39 2015 No.6142039
File: 41 KB, 400x279, 1411815426275.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6141425
Women have always been willingly 'oppressed'. 50% of the population can't oppress the other 50% without systematic collusion. Some of the most vocal opponents of female suffrage for example were ordinary women. And the notion that women are bound by societal expectations upheld by men is also rubbish - women are often their most vocal defenders

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:50:08 2015 No.6142043 >>6141982 I never encouraged anyone to re-configurate their sexual life, just their own attitude towards it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:54:58 2015 No.6142069 >>6142039 >50% of the population can't oppress the other 50% without systematic collusion. Of course they can.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 13:57:42 2015 No.6142082 >>6141253 He's racist in the way that affirmative action is racist.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 15:46:55 2015 No.6142531
File: 169 KB, 1536x1686, o-LOUIS-CK-SNL-HISTORY-facebook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Only one out of every three episodes he stops talking about women and black people and actually talks history
>Skims through it so he can spend the second half talking about black people and women during the event
He's already out-done his brother in dullness, now he's just showboating.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:05:46 2015 No.6142875

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7CanyzhZg

>muh Eurocentrism of European history
>muh dark ages
>says the middle ages didn't have any great poetry
>briefly explains feudalism
>name drops Aquinas
>spends the majority of the video talking about the middle east

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:10:34 2015 No.6142902

this would be less irritating if he actually knew anything about women/women in history or however you want to phrase it instead of just saying uhuuhuh sux to be a woman with no nuance and act like every single woman until 1970 was chained to a stove and contributed nothing to society
>>6141758
yea

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:13:14 2015 No.6142917 I wish i could rape john green into oblivion

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:15:39 2015 No.6142925

>>6142039
of course there have been women opposed to feminism and women gaining any rights etc, to be broad about, see phyllis schlafly but how does that change that most men have it in their interest and have had it in their interest to have women considered less than them-that doesn't make women who act against the interest of other women more culpable than men, though they are dispicable

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:16:32 2015 No.6142931 File: 203 KB, 900x752, brothers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6142917 Which one is bottom?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:21:54 2015 No.6142952 >>6141253 i know it's overused, but he is Literally Reddit: The Person His sense of humor IS reddit. His political view IS reddit. His teaching IS reddit.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:25:57 2015 No.6142968

>>6141666
>because for most of history most men have been unfree and serf-like anyway, so it's not like women had anything valuable to aspire to.
Even men of the same class had more rights/freedom than women such as the right to own property, to inheritance, and to participate in local decision making.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:26:32 2015 No.6142971 I am Irish. My ancestors were slaves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:27:10 2015 No.6142973 >>6142971 Slavs had it worse than any other group in history, yet they're ignored

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:33:17 2015 No.6143002 >>6142875 that guy is in bad need of a beating

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:35:27 2015 No.6143011 >>6142973 Having it worse means being worse which justifies ignoring them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:41:45 2015 No.6143046 >>6142875 >CE jezzuz you'd think someone with a gripe against eurocentrism wouldn't go for a term that dates the birth of jesus christ as the beginning of the COMMON era

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:41:46 2015 No.6143047 File: 128 KB, 236x223, retardface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6142875 >That one guy who makes the Roman Empire look bad so the Medieval World can seem much better than it was

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 17:45:17 2015 No.6143065 File: 10 KB, 150x220, G_K_Chesterton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6143047 Fug DD: Wanted to post a pic of Chesterton :DDD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:05:16 2015 No.6143130 >>6142069 Not if both are equal :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:16:33 2015 No.6143178 Shits unwatchable Pure ideology Just read a book

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:32:19 2015 No.6143239 >>6141253 Hate his dismissive attitude to everything "white & European"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:32:56 2015 No.6143243 >>6141912 Except for anywhere physical ability is concerned.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:35:30 2015 No.6143257

>>6142973
The millions of white people enslaved by the Moors and Turks get ignored as well.

And the fact the Arabs were taking slaves from Africa for decades after Europeans stopped doing it.

Plenty of shit gets ignored to justify blaming white people for everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:49:06 2015 No.6143333 File: 51 KB, 307x475, 637714[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6143257 It's not 'ignored,' there are just more books about African slaves because of the number of sources and the extent of the trade.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:50:35 2015 No.6143340 >>6142875 >spends the majority of the video talking about the middle east Not that I'm defending this particular video, but regions like the Middle East and China were more advanced and more important than Western Europe during the Middle Ages.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:51:18 2015 No.6143343 >>6143340 What do you mean by important exactly?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:53:09 2015 No.6143350 >>6141253 Slavery and the oppression of woman was necessary for the development of western society. It was for the greater good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:56:36 2015 No.6143361 >>6143340 "The Middle Ages" was a period of European history.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 18:59:24 2015 No.6143378 >>6143343 Important from the perspective of the rest of the hemisphere. Western Europe was a peripheral area commercially, politically, and intellectually until the later Middle Ages/early Renaissance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:00:29 2015 No.6143382 >>6143361 ...yes, and Western Europe wasn't particularly important during that period of its history.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:00:34 2015 No.6143383

>>6143340
'advanced' is meaningless because history isn't teleological, but you can be more specific and point out bigger cities, better hygiene, more efficient industry, etc.
Middle East and China were definitely more important to the world economy than Western Europe, which was a periphery region throughout the medieval period.
On an academic level Western Europe slowly absorbed Greek and Roman knowledge through the Carolingian Renaissance and the translations from Arabic in the 12th century, which saw the rise of scholasticism, where Latin scholars were finally on a level playing field with Arabic philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:01:07 2015 No.6143385 File: 92 KB, 625x626, 796.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6143378 >Western Europe was a peripheral area commercially, politically, and intellectually until the later Middle Ages/early Renaissance.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:01:25 2015 No.6143389

>>6143378
You're thinking backwards. The Middle Ages don't refer to a universal set of years, but was derived from developments happening specifically in Europe. It makes no sense talking about China during the Middle Ages. They had no connection with Europe at all!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:01:57 2015 No.6143392 >>6143383 >'advanced' is meaningless because history isn't teleological, Judging by the rest of your post, you knew what I meant. >rest of your post Seems consistent with what I said here: >>6143378

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:03:11 2015 No.6143394

>>6141352
>Imposing the single reductive term 'woman' to a human being therefore full of complexity pertaining to a large spectrum of behavior
Which is great (very progressive of you, course), if you buy into the superman theory that everyone is an extraordinary individual, and not just a collection of memes, cultural attributes, and circumstances of which women have historically been given, literally, crummy lot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:03:25 2015 No.6143396 >>6141928 Orbiter detected.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:04:35 2015 No.6143398 File: 141 KB, 480x700, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6143382 >le Islam face Fuck off. They contributed nothing with their basic knowledge of the Greeks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:04:49 2015 No.6143399 >>6143389 see >>6143382 Never meant to imply that it was a "universal set of years."

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:05:48 2015 No.6143402 >>6141912 There is at least a 50% chance you're one of these guys that soul say the same about the American negro population, claiming, they're not oppressed in any way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:07:04 2015 No.6143410 >>6141947 "My political agenda and biases are defined by my fear of being politically incorrect and alienated from society" -You, 2015

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:07:25 2015 No.6143413

>>6143340
If you take the Middle Ages as around 800 AD, sure. By 1200, not so much. We are dealing with a literary culture here, one that left us with a lot of evidence. Without the Middle Ages there is no Renaissance. It is fundamentally disrespectful and intellectually insincere to treat the Middle Ages as some sort of evil.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:07:50 2015 No.6143418 >>6143398 >I let my butthurt determine my understanding of history

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:08:18 2015 No.6143421 >>6142039 Stockholm Syndrome. That is all it is. And fear of the unknown, of course.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:08:54 2015 No.6143424 >>6143399 It's just a weird way of looking at it. The Roman civilisation collapsed in the west and it took the successors several hundred years to rebuild. That's what happens in dark ages.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:08:56 2015 No.6143425 >>6143398 Their commentaries on Greek works were influential enough that Aquinas refers to Averroes as simply 'the Commentator,' not to mention the new developments in astronomy and medicine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:10:05 2015 No.6143432 >>6143418 >I let my anti-racism define my view of history Do you think Africans also contributed to the modern world?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:11:05 2015 No.6143436 >>6143421 Stockholm syndrome was only present in the women.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:13:44 2015 No.6143448

>>6142968
Men also had to choose between working 18 hours daily under extreme conditions or starving to death, were forced into fighting all the battles throughout history, all the while being told that it's their duty as a man. Gender roles are bad for both sides

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:13:45 2015 No.6143449 >>6142039 It was women after all, who worked heavily to shut down the feminist backed Equal Rights Amendment, because it would mean women would have to register for the draft.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:15:15 2015 No.6143459

>>6143413

By 1200, Song China and the Islamic world are still more central, but Catholic Europe is certainly becoming a sophisticated civilization of its own. This is what I meant in a previous post when I said that Western Europe caught up with other 'core' areas during its late Middle Ages/early Renaissance.

> It is fundamentally disrespectful and intellectually insincere to treat the Middle Ages as some sort of evil.

When did I ever imply that they were 'evil'?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:16:23 2015 No.6143466 >>6143432 judging whether 'Africans contributed to the modern world' just means criticizing them for not being Europeans

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:17:00 2015 No.6143471 >>6143459 >By 1200, Song China and the Islamic world are still more central, How do you define 'central'?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:17:53 2015 No.6143477 >>6143011 tell that to black people

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:18:17 2015 No.6143479 >>6143436 What are you, so poorly, trying to imply?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:18:19 2015 No.6143480 >>6143432 Of course. Who do you think built the Capitol ?

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:20:10 2015 No.6143493

>>6143448
>Gender roles
Are innate. Men have tended to get things done, protected their communities, fought for change, created art and furthered scientific thought.

Women prefer to sit around bemoaning how difficult their lives are.
>>6143449
With rights comes responsibility, except if you have a vagina.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:20:17 2015 No.6143495

>>6142039
And some psychosexual things going on involving the penis, penetration, and submission, the latter of which, ..... well, anyone can make up their own minds about this but to conclude that everyone would be content to live in a submissive position for their entire lives is absurd, and MORE THAN MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, leads to madness, straight up looney tunes. The idea that there is no patriarchy, now or then, is wholly ridiculous. Unfortunately it seems like in today's society the frontlines of this situation are being fought at university, for which I can only say, the male juvenile spirit can ultimately only be an affront to any intelligent person.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:23:12 2015 No.6143502

>>6143479
It's not an implication and despite your probably delliberate misuse of language I have faith you aren't actually this retarded, which makes you malevolently manipulative for the purposes of perpetuating your overtly evidently stupid worldview. At least your bourgeoise, priviledged professors are proud of you.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:23:43 2015 No.6143507

>>6143432

I let my reading about history determine my view of history.

>anti-racism

Pointing out that Western Europe was a peripheral region for most of the history of civilization isn't 'anti-racism'; it's anti-bad history. It isn't a jibe at Europe. Thinking otherwise suggests that you've never taken a serious look at world history or, probably, the history of any region other than Europe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:24:15 2015 No.6143511 >>6143495 You're a fat dyke.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:24:17 2015 No.6143513

>>6143448
>Men also had to choose between working 18 hours daily under extreme conditions or starving to death
Even many hunter gather groups worked less than that.

> were forced into fighting all the battles throughout history
Many men banned/limited other men from fighting to protect their privileges that came with being warriors. War was also one of the few opportunities for social advancement in the ancient world which allowed even slaves like the janissaries to eventually hold the empire by the balls, let the praetorian guard later choose who the Emperor would be, and allowed things like a Aztec man to join the upper ranks if he killed or captured four men and received a share of the tribute.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:24:49 2015 No.6143520 >>6143507 >jibe *jab

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:25:49 2015 No.6143524 >>6143502 >look mom, big words make me sound smart

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:26:16 2015 No.6143527 >>6143511 But I'm not wrong, faggot. Deal with it.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:26:34 2015 No.6143530

>>6143448
>working 18 hours daily
Source?

> forced into fighting all the battles throughout history
They weren't actually "forced" through most of history, and in many cases they weren't even allowed to unless they were a high enough class. It should also be noted that *men* started all battles throughout history.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:28:12 2015 No.6143537 >>6143513 So if men are so barbaric and outdated what's up with you folks' retarded hard-on for American niggers? It's almost like your only cohesive stance is "white men are emmanuelle goldstein".

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:28:53 2015 No.6143541 >>6143527 Yes you are. Patriarchy is just a term people like you use to denote organization. All your problems are biologically innate, "social structure" is not responsible for your lack of success, it cannot change your traits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:28:54 2015 No.6143542 >>6143530 >It should also be noted that men started all battles throughout history. wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:29:19 2015 No.6143543 >>6143502 >delliberate >overtly evidently stupid >priviledged very writing

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:29:41 2015 No.6143547 >>6143527 You're also not relevant outside of academia or the internet or ever going to effect anything meaningful. You'll always garner looks of derision, because you're a fat annoying dyke.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:30:07 2015 No.6143550 >>6143542 They certainly finished them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:30:43 2015 No.6143553 >>6141441 >also 4chan doesn't pretend women have always had it well off, just that they aren't/weren't as oppressed as people like john green would have you believe But that's wrong, you retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:31:11 2015 No.6143557 >>6143471 Central to the growing complex of commercial and cultural interrelations that connected the civilized parts of the old world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:35:52 2015 No.6143573 File: 20 KB, 409x409, 201.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6141253 This guy is a Great seller, but I don't envy him, I would feel lousy to be as good. It's better be a comfy no one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:35:59 2015 No.6143574 >>6143537 SJW want the BBC

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:36:43 2015 No.6143581 >>6143537 >you folks I'm not who you seem to think I am nor do I hold the "all white men are evil" theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:36:57 2015 No.6143584 >>6141286 http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com/post/49703748602/john-green-hating-on-aristotle-x-we-justified

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:39:13 2015 No.6143591 >>6141433 I don't get it

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:39:32 2015 No.6143592 >>6143581 Yes we know no one actually ever thinks or says the things that people on "the left", which has never 'truly' demonstrably existed in history, you ignorant shitlord, has been shown to believe and act on. Of course. How could I forget.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:41:38 2015 No.6143603

>>6143557
Europe by 1200 and even 1100 already qualifies, then, at least to the same degree as the Islamic and Chinese worlds, and surpasses them by 1200 or the 13th century at the latest.

The commenda was already in use by the 10th century, even, and all the familiar commercial innovations were in place by the 11th-13th centuries, including the recovery of regular and high quality currency, banking and international finance, specialised/regional industry (e.g. Italian and Flemish cloth, East-West raw vs. worked trade) worked by dedicated trade consortia with concerted policies of colonialism and economic imperialism (the Hansa, Italian merchant republics, others). Islam and Byzantium were godawful at international trade and essentially surrendered it to Europeans by the 12th. Song's proto-capitalist/proto-industrial stuff is interesting but definitely doesn't justify listing them as 'central' to Eurasian economics.

You'd have to split billions of hairs and get into a retarded argument spanning decades to prove that Islam or East Asia were 'culturally central' to Eurasian cultural output (presumably?). Europe was no backwater in the High Middle Ages.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:43:03 2015 No.6143610 >>6143603 RAAAAAAAACCCCCIIIIIIIIIISSSSSST

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:43:07 2015 No.6143611 >>6143584 The idea that people needed Aristotle to justify slavery is pretty bad history, as is the idea that Aristotle was talking about a dichotomy of 'black' and 'white' people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:43:11 2015 No.6143612 >>6143541 Meh, so you're stupid. You don't understand ideas. That's cool. Some people are better at analyzing and thinking, in general.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:44:09 2015 No.6143621

>>6143592
>Yes we know no one actually ever thinks or says the things that people on "the left
It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with me making a comment about how men had it better in many societies and you seeing this as saying men are "men are so barbaric and outdated" equating me with the SJW/left on the most tenuous terms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:44:25 2015 No.6143623 File: 11 KB, 536x467, 1385677620140.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6143612 >Meh, so you're stupid. You don't understand ideas. That's cool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:45:13 2015 No.6143630 I reported this thread hours ago and it's still up

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:45:26 2015 No.6143633 >>6143547 I'm effective around the people around me and most of the times that is enough. That is what we call the beginnings of grass roots organization. I'm sure you knew this already though, since you're the smart one and all, lol.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:45:54 2015 No.6143640 >>6142875 >if you like cities and great poetry the dark ages were pretty dark in europe what the fuck

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:46:11 2015 No.6143641 >>6143612 You have just conceded your argument to him. Good job.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:47:21 2015 No.6143648 >>6143633 Nobody cares about your directionless pot-smoker friends or equally fat and dykey professors. Stay impotently fuming, I know you will.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:48:44 2015 No.6143658

>>6143612
>Analytic thought
What do you think led me to conclude that feminism was an irrational ideology?
>Some people are better at analyzing and thinking, in general
Funny how they tend to be male.

Protip: If you are going to disagree, don't call people names and insult them, address the content of their arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:48:56 2015 No.6143661 >>6143623 Still not wrong, shitlord. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:49:15 2015 No.6143663 >>6143257 >Arabs were taking slaves from Africa for decades The Arab slave trade didn't end until 1950. _1950_. That's over a thousand years, not decades.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:49:25 2015 No.6143665 >>6143584 I have never heard a single defender of Aristotle mention that he discovered dolphins >le funneh strawman I don't really expect a shitty YA author and "youtuber" to know much about philosophy but come on

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:50:32 2015 No.6143673 >>6143661 >Hurrr durrr a bloo bloo What a hysterical moron. Outside of your insular cliques this sarcastic, literally pointless behavior of yours is regarded as the infantile bitching that it is.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:51:32 2015 No.6143676

>JG: The language is so fresh and alive and vividly observed that I never found it a chore. As young readers we're much more comfortable with not knowing what the hell is going on. It was hugely important to me, and there were times when I felt like I was almost reading scripture, prophecy, not just great fiction but something tremendously relevant to my life on a minute-by-minute basis. It's still deeply relevant, not just to how I think about fiction but how I approach the world every morning.

>His idea that the central obligation of the human being is to be observant, to respond to what to you see empathically and compassionately, which is at the center of all of his work really, that idea is a guiding principle in my life.

John Green on Infinite Jest

>tfw he's literally living a meme life

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:53:10 2015 No.6143681

>>6143641
If you can't get someone to agree on the definition of something, patriarchy in this case, it just really isn't worth trying to hash out an argument with them because ultimately its just a refusal of one party to understand another, so yeah, whatever. And all of this because I stated that no one can live in a submissive state indefinitely which should be obviously true for man or woman and should not even be up for debate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:53:50 2015 No.6143685 File: 1.43 MB, 2926x3677, woody guthrie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6141433 >>6143591 He put it on his MacBook. He put it on his fucking MacBook.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:53:51 2015 No.6143686 >>6143663 >>6143663 Mauritania still had slaves in the 80´s. Legally

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:54:14 2015 No.6143687

>>6143495
>to conclude that everyone would be content to live in a submissive position for their entire lives is absurd
have you ever met other women?

>The idea that there is no patriarchy, now or then, is wholly ridiculous
a patriarchy that for thousands of years has manged to 'oppress' a full half of society would only succeed if it was dealing with incredibly pliable subjects. obviously women can be as motivated, confident and assertive as men but for the majority this is simply not the case

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:54:59 2015 No.6143691 >>6143685 Is it a reference or something? What does it mean?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:56:19 2015 No.6143695 >>6143691 A famous quote from protest singer Woody Guthrie, a marxist.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:57:11 2015 No.6143702

>>6143681
>And all of this because I stated that no one can live in a submissive state indefinitely which should be obviously true

Lmao. That's the sort if language you idiots laugh yourselves silly over. It "should be obviously true" that niggers are worthless and have been for eternity, women are naive and petty, and jews are insular tribalists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:58:55 2015 No.6143706 >>6143623 >>6143648 >>6143673 >>6143658 >>6143547 >>6143511 >>6143502 Lol, wut? Look again, faggot. You all are the ones screaming shit at me, I'm a dyke, etc. I'm just like, dude, things and stuff; the way things seem; my thoughts, etc.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:59:04 2015 No.6143708

>>6142875
>says the Middle Ages didn't have any great poetry
I wouldn't say they didn't have any great poetry, but the amount of significant literacy works from Petronius to Dante is very limited compare to the preceding and succeeding time periods. There wasn't much notable poems of the Middle Ages other than Beowulf, Parzival, Poetic Edda, and Nibelungenlied, which most of those aren't that significant or influential.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 19:59:36 2015 No.6143712

>>6143681
I understand what you meant by patriarchy, it just has no grounding in fact. Any efficient system will require individuals with the best traits to rise to the top, if these are usually men then we can't blame some social conspiracy against women.
In the west women have all the chance in the world to fulfil their potential, just like men. The rest is up to individuals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:01:18 2015 No.6143722 >>6143706 Your public thoughts and opinions are not protected from criticism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:02:21 2015 No.6143724 >>6143708 Nigga whooh stop right there You´re skipping the whole Arthurian Legend scene, The Charlemagne scene and some Alexander The Great stuff.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:03:43 2015 No.6143733

>>6143687
I mean, yes and no. Examples of both exist. For those that feel oppressed because of the system, it sucks. It sucks harder that it is culturally thrusted upon them and if there's one thing that is almost impossible to live outside of, it's culture. That's why it's so pernicious to those adversely affected by it. And yes, I have met those women; they are mad, straight up looney tunes. They're everything.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:06:55 2015 No.6143749

>>6143603
>and surpasses them by 1200 or the 13th century at the latest.

I don't see how this is true at all. The Mongol conquests affected these regions more directly than they affected Europe, but they didn't alter the balance of power so severely. The roots of European world-dominance lie in the 16th century, but the Islamic world at this time (Ottomans, Safavids, Mughals) was very powerful and certainly had not been eclipsed. Same with Ming China. Only over the following centuries did European dominance become so pronounced that it broke the pattern of rough parity that had characterized previous ages.

>international trade and essentially surrendered it to Europeans by the 12th

Is this a joke? Are we going to pretend that the Indian Ocean trade didn't exist? kek.

>Europe was no backwater in the High Middle Ages.

Nor did I imply that it was one during the High Middle Ages.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:08:01 2015 No.6143754

>>6143722
No, of course not, but dont say I'm hysterical if I'm not yelling anything from the top of my lungs like the aforementioned (by me) idiots. Or do, whatever, I dont care. Your, their opinions dont matter to me regardless. Ultimately I know how right I am and how wrong they are. I know I may be misunderstood when I talk and I know that the world I everything and cannot be reduced to a single dynamic. Oooohhhh, big whoop.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:10:37 2015 No.6143766 >>6143754 >I am not hysterical >Oooohhhh, big whoop

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:13:26 2015 No.6143775 >>6143766 Grasping for straws, huh?

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:14:15 2015 No.6143780

>>6143495

Women have always had a degree of power though, I would argue it was equal to men all in all, though usually it was just informal power. But if we go and look back at the historical conditions of the Middle Ages we even find many women with formal power, acting as governers, Queens who determine Crusades even against their husbands wishes, running their husbands castles for 75% of the time while they were out warring, a woman even had a monopoly on the beer industry in Medieval England. In the 13th century Christine De Pizzane was France's foremost author and wrote books in defense of womankind ( which does not show that the middle ages were anti-women but rather the opposite, because this sort of literature was popular). The women of the Christian European nobility always had all the educational opportunities they wanted and owed little more for it than to produce the children of a decent suitor, and could use their more highly developed empathy to manipulate men emotionally- without ever having to take the fall when they caused problems, because they had no formal power over those men, even though they had emotional power. Allong with that they still dominated the 95% of the men in their kingdoms who were not clergy or nobility.

Peasant communities were also always highly egalitarian and honored women because of their ability to bring forth life, after all at that point children were a blessing- because they were extra farm hands- and people still loved life back then. Hard labor equalizes people.

Really the rise of female oppression comes with Repiblicanism that demanded that all power be formal and impersonal, that it would go through bodies of representation- the more personal and arbitrary reign of aristocrats and royalty was far more conductive to female power than Republicanism and Democracy was, and the rise of the bored housewife who did not have the duties and thus nor the privileges of the aristocratic woman is the root of the Feminist narrative of western Patriarchy.

It is mostly divorced from actual history though, and is really a debate within modern plebeian democracies and vegetative humanism, and not something a woman of a healthy society would ever consider.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:23:15 2015 No.6143819

>>6143780
>Women have always had a degree of power though, I would argue it was equal to men all in all
Without legal power, however, this statement does not hold water, because women, as such, were beholden to men. Any power women had had to be wrested from men either through their graces or their cunning but they could never be independent of men, were wholly dependent on them and without the ability to disengage from this governmental structure, they were in reality powerless, and could be subject to the whims of either their father or husband.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 20:25:52 2015 No.6143829 >>6143257 It didn't get ignored, it's just that is isn't remembered by many people in contemporary society. There were a bunch of references of the Moorish slave trade in literature like Don Quixote.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 21:02:57 2015 No.6143979

>>6143819

We can find so many cases were Women trough interpersonal power overrode the system, because the political and familial divide was so narrow in feudalistic arrangements that female personal power could easily overcome political power in actuality and often did. Male power was also derived from the family and who ever the male heir was, male power was also derivative unless they were a particular male, and even his power was derived from the family estate and history in general- it was not his power by any means. The familial power happened to be centered in a male head, but the familial power itself always had precedence over any other kind.

What was not transferred over when women exercised their power subtly was responsibility though, while women's interpersonal power bled over and dominated men, responsibility for their actions would often fall on men, even in cases where the woman acted by herself- the husband or father would still be seen as responsible for the woman's crimes, and to this day women still receive far less jail time than men do for committing the same crime, female gender roles have always shielded them and given off the idea that they are innocent, easily victimized and slightly less responsible for their actions than men are, and this inequality- the beneficial kind that women receive by their gender is an aspect of patriarchy that they do their best to ignore.

In theory women were/are powerless , in actuality they always had quite a bit of power and opportunity, and they had it without the responsibility that men has to endure in order to exercise their own.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 21:06:49 2015 No.6143994

>>6143749
>I don't see how this is true at all.

Maybe you should actually learn about the topic, instead of just talking about it, then?

>The Mongol conquests affected these regions more directly than they affected Europe,

Mongol trade does not imply nascent capitalism. Why don't you go take a look at how many books in European languages discuss the genesis of 'capitalism' in the institutions of the High Middle Ages?

>Nor did I imply that it was one during the High Middle Ages.

You said it 'caught up' to the other areas by the 'Later Middle Ages and Renaissance'. Late comes after High.

>The roots of European world-dominance lie in the 16th century

Do you understand what the word 'roots' means? Yes, there are economic and industrial revolutions beginning in the sixteenth century. These had their 'roots' in earlier periods. The Dutch don't materialise out of thin air as some sort merchant race, bro. There has been a lot of work done on 12th and 13th century Italian merchant republics as effective colonial corporations, and the trading powers of the Early Modern period inherit mature pan-European networks hundreds of years old, underlaid by financial networks and techniques like banking that made later innovations possible. The Rankean states of the 16th century which you seem to fetishize inherited a banking and commercial world that was older than our distance from the states themselves now.

>Are we going to pretend that the Indian Ocean trade didn't exist? kek.

Compare Omani commerce to 13th c. English.

>but the Islamic world at this time (Ottomans, Safavids, Mughals) was very powerful and certainly had not been eclipsed.
>Same with Ming China. Only over the following centuries did European dominance become so pronounced

You didn't say 'powerful'. You said 'commercial and cultural interrelations'. The Byzantines, the commercial policies of whom the Ottomans largely inherited and only slowly changed, had completely surrendered the commercial life of the Eastern Mediterranean to Italian hegemonies shortly after the crusades. These relationships persisted right into the Ottoman period and the Ottomans relied on Italian shipping for centuries.

Safavids, Imperial Chinese, and Mughals can all profit from booming trade, but the Europeans were the ones laying the foundation of world economic imperialism. They had by far the most sophisticated techniques and forms of organisation since the High Middle Ages (as I said).

But the real point here is that you seem to be switching the goalposts from the idea that regions were 'culturally and economically' dominant (in some vague sense) in Eurasia, to their relative prosperity or even political power in Eurasia, which is not only meaningless but irrelevant to your original point. All of which points to the fact that you just wanted to make a vague half-educated statement about Europe being relatively backward in the Middle Ages, which is a cliche repeated by dilettante faggots like John Green.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 21:12:13 2015 No.6144022 >>6143780 >>6143979 >rationalizing misogyny this hard

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 21:37:33 2015 No.6144132 >>6144022 >implying he is

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 21:51:11 2015 No.6144164 >>6144132 Lol, is akin to "slaves had better lives as slaves" argument. Implying a debating the matter is not seen as plebian.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 21:58:19 2015 No.6144183 >>6141906 >Octavian was a coward >WAAAAAAAAAH IM SICK I CANT GO INTO BATTLE

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:06:12 2015 No.6144211 >>6141253 what a cuck

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:15:27 2015 No.6144234

>>6144164
It's not like we whip them or anything, women that is, and most arguments
about them being oppressed just sort of fall apart, I'm not saying there aren't
problems, but most who debate this don't hate women, they just don't see them
as oppressed as much as some make it out to be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:17:33 2015 No.6144238 >>6142020 >Russian lol no

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:19:36 2015 No.6144244

What? Women had more rights in ancient greece/rome than pretty much any other cultures at the time, and every race has done slavery at some point. Talk about grasping at straws to try and criticize the greats.
No fucking duh they might look sexist compared to today, but compare them to other shit from 2k+ years ago and they start looking pretty damn progressive.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:19:38 2015 No.6144245

>>6144022
>>6144164

No because slaves actually had no autonomy or power, and I've just made a case for why women in western society had lives very unsimilar to slaves and have always had much more power than Patriarchy theory is willing to admit. It's fine to disagree with me, I'm quite willing to take serious rebuttals into consideration, but calling someone a racist/misogynist/ageist/ect when they explain to you why they disagree with your ideology is quite lazy, and worst of all, if they are really wrong, it deprives them of knowledge to not actually engage with them and resort to ad hominem attacks instead.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:25:28 2015 No.6144259

>>6144234
Dude, seriously, have you not read the journals, court cases, etc of women from the 18th and 19th centuries? The men behaved very badly towards them (as you would expect would happen when one party has complete dominion over another; happens all the time, even today) and they had no social, legal or economic recourses to extricate themselves from their abusers. And yes, not every man treated every women badly. You antifeminist, revisionist types seem to have a problem with this idea, the fact that all varying degrees if abuse and non abuse existed, i.e. the fact that one exists does not mean the other one didn't. Anywho, like i said above somewhere, any woman being abused, and there were many and in a lot more forms than you would be willing to believe, had absolutely no way to escape abuse and as such women were reduced supplicating servility a priori any other type of relationship with men.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:29:10 2015 No.6144269

>>6144244

I would argue that if the root of Feminism is the dignity and potential virtue of women ( aka that they are more than just livestock, which is an alien notion to many people) then Western Civilization is a Feminist one and has had that seed within it since it's inception. Modern feminism ought to shed off it's resentment and false anti-social narratives and return to it's core and support the virtue of individual women, as opposed to trying to turn society into some matriarchal kumbaya circle of equality at the lowest common denominator, barring expressions of masculinity and making out femininity to be some sort of imposed false consciousness instead of a natural and virtuous quality that women excel in.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:32:20 2015 No.6144279

>>6144245
Any power women had or did not have was based solely on their own wiles and on the attitudes of their male (essentially) owners. Women had no power outside of their relationship with men. It was incumbent on the men to grant power to women, yes, sometimes unbeknownst to them, but women had no power of themselves. They could not ask for a divorce, for example. They could not ask for a wage. And though the institution did not whip them, a man could definitely get away with it, not in all places, maybe!, but in a lot they could. Rapes and beatings were not uncommon. And what could a wife do? Absolutely nothing. So how could you say they had power when they didn't have even the first element for power, the power to protect themselves?

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:37:34 2015 No.6144288

>>6144259
First, I'm not an Anti-Feminist, I just want to see which ones right, and I'm still deciding, but yes like I
have said bad things do happen a lot, and women have found themselves in bad situations a lot, but I
don't think they are oppressed just because people do illegal things a lot, it's illegal for a reason. Plus
women have been getting up and tons of men are trying to be fair now, I just don't see any big patriarchal
thing going on, just a lot of illegal things are happening like there has always been. Or am I reading what
you wrote wrong?

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:40:16 2015 No.6144299

>>6144269
The problem here is that you, in particular, are not the problem. But you would have me believe that because it is not a part of your cultural experience, patriarchal oppression does not exist; that there are no such things as stratifying gender roles; that other American subcultures support any variety of asinine archetypes for women; that the main archetypes for women in general are not subservient roles. But these things, even though you, personally, anon, do not subscribe to them, do happen. How do you not see that, this world mired in its idiotic muck? It's laughable really, except its also humongously tragic for all the people who cannot escape their debilitating cultures.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:42:02 2015 No.6144304

>>6144269
>I would argue that if the root of Feminism is the dignity and potential virtue of women ( aka that they are more than just livestock, which is an alien notion to many people) then Western Civilization is a Feminist one
Pretty much. I've seen plenty of quotes from ancient western men that extol the virtue of women and say they're just as smart as men, and like I said they had plenty of rights
That men were in all leadership positions was just because 1. no pregnancy/childbirth, and 2. high test is pretty damn important in a leader when violent conflict is common.
Didn't necessarily have anything to do with them "oppressing" women or thinking they were livestock, it was just the obvious result of human physiology

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:42:53 2015 No.6144305

>>6143994
>Maybe you should actually learn about the topic, instead of just talking about it, then?

Stick to making arguments, not potshots, and I may learn from you yet.

>Mongol trade does not imply nascent capitalism.

Not really where I was going with that at all. Forget about it.

>Compare Omani commerce to 13th c. English.

You said that "international trade" had been "surrendered" to Europe by the 12th century. By the -12th- century. Please think about that for a second, because I don't think that you actually believe it. Mediterranean trade isn't "international trade."

Muslims dominated a larger seaborne trade and overland commerce across Asia and the Sahara. Most of what was "international" in Europe's trade got to Europe in the first place through them. This shouldn't really come as a surprise. Among other things, it's a matter of obvious geographical advantages.

>You said it 'caught up' to the other areas by the 'Later Middle Ages and Renaissance'. Late comes after High.
>Do you understand what the word 'roots' means?
>but the Europeans were the ones laying the foundation of world economic imperialism.
>All of which points to the fact that you just wanted to make a vague half-educated statement about Europe being relatively backward in the Middle Ages

Let's try to keep our perspective hemisphere-wide. I'm not arguing that European internal developments during the Middle Ages weren't sophisticated or important for later history. I'm arguing that Western Europe and its developments, however sophisticated, remained marginal to the ecumene -as a whole- until W. Europe actually became powerful enough to impress itself on the other developed regions. Please don't try to turn this into 'fuggin SJWs think muh yurop werent gud.'

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:45:37 2015 No.6144311

>>6144288
You just don't see the scope of the minutiae affecting people's psychology and how this eventually leads to diseased, unhappy and confused minds. Everything we see and hear affects us, and peoples lives are made like this so its very important to perceive what we actually saying and doing when we so glibly say and think things. It shapes people. That's the thing about feminism its about cultural change, I'm sure you've heard, but its for social progress, a better society.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:51:24 2015 No.6144321

>>6144259

All they had to do is poison them or run off to a nunnery.

But sure maybe 2-3 % of men treated their women horribly and the women couldn't get away. Even today, due to the nature of many women they still don't leave when they are abused, even when they could. But that is not an issue of all women like Feminists make it out to be, that is an issue of a small subset of women.

Feminism creates higher degrees of misogyny because it teaches women that regardless of their actual situation that they are being oppressed, so we get massive divorce rates by women who have experienced minor slights, they destroy the family and create resentment in their sons against women due to their own poor behavior against their ex husbands and their sons.

This only gets furthered by the sexual liberation of women because women chose to reduce themselves to sex objects because it is easier than developing genuine personality or working hard to gain power like men have to. So they enforce media values of females being only defined by their sexual activity ( something alien to Aristocratic Christian society which demanded quality of character in women).

Young boys are drugged on ridilin for being too rowdy by single mothers who wish they act in a relatable way like their daughters do, and are called sociopaths when they draw a gun in class or play fight by their female teachers, these women cannot handle masculinity as they've been taught to think of it as a mere front for domination and abuse. The pressure of overly feminized child rearing by single mothers and females teachers, who divorce masculinity from positive pursuits and can only see it negatively eventually creates negative expressions of masculine revolt that often results in more physical abuse of women by men.

So if the excuse of feminism was that small subset of abuse and misogyny that has existed in western society, it has exasperated the situation and failed. Ultimately I would reckon there is more misogyny and female abuse than 50-60 years ago, with pick up artists teaching young men to literally treat women like cattle, misogynistic rap music raising boys while their mothers work all day ( another function of feminism, doubling the workforce meant cutting down wages and forcing everyone to work more, leaving no one time to be with their children and letting the TV raise them), broken homes which create the conditions for misogynistic serial killers, ect

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:51:25 2015 No.6144322 >>6143611 yeah lmao aristotle defended the proper treatment of "non-greeks" and said that non-greeks could give birth to greeks he's probably never opened a single volume of Aristotle

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:53:29 2015 No.6144330

>>6144288
You know, but you don't decide what side is right and what side is wrong. You try to understand what is going on in a society and culture. You try to perceive things. Dont think in terms of sweeping ideologies, think in terms of the psychological effects of culture on individuals. Idk, that's one of the best ways I can describe my personal world view; not a list of pros and cons, but a real analysis of culture.
But yeah, no a vast majority of beatings have stopped and women can go to school, vote, own a business, etc, but I'd ask you to gauge men's attitudes towards women and ask yourself what you're cool with and what you're not cool with. That's the only way I view feminism: Are you being cool with chicks or not? It's a simple thing but the amount of fuckheads that aren't cool is astounding, especially of those in real power.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 22:57:59 2015 No.6144342

>>6144321
>All they had to do is poison them or run off to a nunnery. But sure maybe 2-3 % of men treated their women horribly and the
I'll just stop right there. You and your fake statistics are idiotic. Dont be an idiot. I know this is fourchan, but still, try not to sound like a high school freshman if you are going to be an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:00:32 2015 No.6144347 >>6144342 >youre wrong because youre an idiot nice not him either as if "feminist" statistics are anything other than fabrication

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:07:44 2015 No.6144360 >>6144321 >ridilin

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:11:05 2015 No.6144370 Why the fuck is anyone taking a dude who writes YA fiction seriously as a historian or moral authority? This is classic intellectual claptrap.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:14:16 2015 No.6144380

>>6144279

What power did men have outside of their relationship with their families though?, other than raw physical force ? As I mentioned very few men had actual autonomous powers, everyone has to answer to someone, especially in older feudalistic societies. Women had the benefit of it being their husbands or fathers that they answered to instead of a political official who did not love them. Women had the advantage of having their power derived from someone who was quite willing to make them happy most of the time. For a long time you couldn't even imprison or punish women legally, they were always the charge of the man and he would be punished on her behalf- if men did not have some power over them then a situation like that would be catastrophic and unfair for the men- the way it was done balanced responsibility with right in a very fair way.

I think physical power is the primitive answer to this question though, women did not have physical power, so they had to be tied to men who could protect them- the fact that western men were willing to protect women and be responsible for them while giving them so many privileges shows how immense women's interpersonal power was , or maybe it was just male love and decency.

Men generally weren't allowed to divorce either mind you, and really the women could always poison the man or run off to a nunnery or ask for protection from male relatives, ect . Things got worse when large family structures were broken into atomic units, still having parents, other female relatives ect still involved helped minimize cases of abuses greatly.

>>6144299

There is nothing wrong with women being in subservient roles, we have good reason to believe that women naturally gravitate to those roles for the most part- and so as long as their dignity is respected and they are not being abused I have no issue with women being subservient or at least in a more supportive role. I think that woman's current position is worse than it was during pre-democratic times,as I've mentioned before, we can find far more powerfull and influential females from the 13th-17th century than we can from 18th-20th centuries, and most of the influential females today are pushing such anti-intellectual trash ( third wave feminism being one great example) that they are proving the real misogynists right and giving them fuel.

I've been listening to St.Hildegard's hymns all night. I want women to be excellent and actualize their real potentials and natures, I despise misogyny and feminism equally because they are a dialectical process within modern society that work together to suppress female virtue.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:17:00 2015 No.6144392

>>6144347
Ok, are his first two points not idiotic and childish? The third fake statistic is the straw that blah, blah. Dont fault me for not wanting to read on. I dont come up with weird hypothetical that exist outside normal behavior as if these women were supposed to be characters in lame ass unrealistic books. I shouldn't have to suffer fools. You want to suffer them, hey, that's cool, but not me, nah. You go ahead though. I'll just take my intellect somewhere else. Btw, what fake feminist statistic are you talking about? I know I haven't mentioned any so wtf are you talking about? It seems like people just talk and talk and have no idea what they're actually saying. You know, its funny that he mentions running off to the nunnery or whatever its called because there was a case (I'm sure there were many) where a girl was forced to go into a nunnery. Denis Diderot turned it into a novel, The Nun, but it was based on true events. There's a nice piece of lit about .... Forget it, I doubt you'd even believe me or even figure it out for yourselves. It is funny though. You should read it.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:18:47 2015 No.6144399

>>6144342

I will gladly modify the sentence to ' Sure maybe a degree of men treated their women poorly, we don't actually have any reliable data to know how much it was, but I have a generally positive view of human beings and think that it was a small amount given my studies of western civilization"

>>6144360
You got me there, it looked funny to me when I typed it but my spell check accepted it. Meh.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:23:23 2015 No.6144408

>>6144380
Why are you even trying so hard? You can't even stay on topic. I, not once, talked about the nature of man's power. What a little person man would be if he let his inadequacies affect his relationship with woman. Why you bring this up is beyond me, because I was talking about the lack of power of women, and you start a tirade about the nature of man's power. Truly, you are a befuddling individual, nauseatingly befuddling, though. Way to ruin a perfectly good discourse with your vile ridden, hate mongering arguments. You truly deserve those blinders you willing put on yourself. How could you ever believe I could even read you when you don't even stay on point? Not cool, man; not cool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:25:32 2015 No.6144416 >>6144392 all i read was your comment about how the 2-3% number was stupid. first off i dont think that percentage is as off as youre suggesting. women in the west have been relatively well off ever since roman times.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:34:45 2015 No.6144442

>>6144399
I disagree we have plenty of data in records and anecdotes, works of arts, etc. Have you not read The Jungle. Sinclair unabashedly states that beatings were the norms and not the other way around. This is specific to America during industrialization, but there's no reason to believe that the English were any better or that previous to the revolution things were any better. D.H. Lawrence writes about the same thing in England in Sons and Lovers. In France, E. Zola writes about the same thing a generation before the industrial revolution. Thomas Hardy is writing of the same thing at the same time Zola is, and they write about it not as an isolated case the way G. Eliot or Mark Twain did as a colorful personage but as a phenomena that was culturally tolerated and despised by the women, by the men as a right or as a matter of course. I dont read much lit prior to the 19th century but I know Mary Wollstonecraft has a lot to say on the subject, so if you don't think there's a lot of evidence, read her. Other than the authors I've mentioned there are plenty of journals and court documents compiled on this subject and these are real life people undergoing brutal lives at the hands of their male relatives. And its not only the frequency of these events that mattered but the zero protection a woman in this circumstance had.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:38:49 2015 No.6144452 >>6144442 >that beatings were the norms norms for lower class women perhaps. i dont think beatings were exclusive to women either

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:38:57 2015 No.6144453

>>6144408

That isn't off topic though, it's very relevant. If you are going to say that women lacked sufficient power- you will need to give an example of how men had power that the women lacked. I was pointing out that both male and female power are generally derived powers with the exception of physical force that males get autonomously. Women lacking the power of physical force meant that women needed men to protect them with their physical force- and that given this dynamic, allong with the dynamic that men would be punished for women's crimes- made the fact that men allowed women to flourish to such a high degree in western society while only demanding a limited amount of very mutable obedience is quite fair and even generous to women.

>What a little person man would be if he let his inadequacies affect his relationship with woman.

That was never mentioned in that comment at all.

Why bother wasting space in a comment with ad hominems ? And why not actually respond to my points ? I think I am presenting civil discussion here, and you are simply being dismissive and rather rude for no good reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:39:44 2015 No.6144456 >>6144416 A. You can't say women in the west and clump in the Romans through Charlemagne, the tudors, America, etc. Those were all wildly different societies. And I think 2-3% is way off. 10-50% would be more like it depending on the place and time

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:41:26 2015 No.6144461 >>6144452 Of course, but most people were lower class, thus most women belong to a class where beatings were not uncommon

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Sat Feb 14 23:41:35 2015 No.6144463 >>6141253 This guy is the epitome of ideological reading of history, and judging it according to contemporary mores. Literally trash.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:46:06 2015 No.6144475

>>6144456
>You can't say women in the west and clump in the Romans through Charlemagne, the tudors, America, etc. Those were all wildly different societies.
Yes, but they are classified as 'the west' by most people. Not even that guy, but that's a very poor choice of where to make a stand, argument-wise. Even at a university level, 'western civilization' encompasses all those societies you listed and more. Obviously they were very different, and also very similar in certain regards, but they are the 'west' none-the-less. By saying 'women in the west' the person you're replying to is not wrong.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:47:25 2015 No.6144479

>>6144456
>10-50%
that is an absolutely ludicrous number. 50% of the aristocratic females were beaten daily? fucking please.
>You can't say women in the west and clump in the Romans through Charlemagne, the tudors, America, etc. Those were all wildly different societies.
and yet each and every one of them was better than living in the east for a woman. foot binding, harems, ect. how can you possibly say otherwise?

perhaps in japan women were as well in the west. but yes it is a generalization. but generally the west was a far more egalitarian society.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:48:36 2015 No.6144482

>>6144453
>That was never mentioned in that comment at all.
I thought it was implied. I honestly didn't read much of what he said because it was absolute drivel. Even now, in memory, it looks like doggerel.

I had given examples of powers men had that were not available to women, btw, in the post previous to that one; namely, legal power, which in the marriage contract gives all power to men, specifically over women. Women could not own a business so forget about economic independence. Furthermore, women had no inheritable assets, and as such an all female progeny was seen as more of a curse than anything else. But what really bothers me us how in the holy fuckall do you all not know this already? Do you even read? This should be common knowledge to anyone who's gone through the classics.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:50:16 2015 No.6144485

>>6144463
my fucking history club watches him every meeting. considering not going
>>6144461
>f course, but most people were lower class, thus most women belong to a class where beatings were not uncommon
ok so whats your point then? women had it bad, yes but so did everyone. did some women have it slightly worse? possibly

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:51:24 2015 No.6144489

>>6144442

I've been wanting to look into her works so I will check Wollstonecraft out. Still an authors writing a story where that being the case doesn't convince me and I would want to see the actual percentage of people in those cases you mentioned vs the general population of the countries they lived in. It is true that if a situation like that arised ( no extended family to stop the situation, no chance to escape somewhere else, no enough courage to kill the man, ect) that It would most definitely be a horrible situation. I'm not convinced that it was the norm, I'll be sure to read up on it more though.

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:52:15 2015 No.6144492

>>6144453
Furthermore, that whole argument about it being natural that men hold more power because they have strength is completely absurd as life is not in fact dependent wholly on strength. Claims that it is ignore the fact that there are children, or math, or any number of things that dont require brute strength, of which women weren't excluded from in the first place, try mashing some cassava or wheat flour, for example. It's no joke.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Sat Feb 14 23:54:51 2015 No.6144498 Plenty of slaves in ancient Athens probably lead better lives than some of the faggots who post here. They got laid and had friends, for starters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:55:50 2015 No.6144502 >>6144492 >that whole argument about it being natural that men hold more power because they have strength is completely absurd as life is not in fact dependent wholly on strength right, thats why people built castles

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:56:20 2015 No.6144505 >>6144479 50% of the industrial era American women were (the labor classes). Are you deliberately misquoting me? I haven't compared east and west so I dont know why you're upset about that? That's not my bone to pick at all?

Anonymous Sat Feb 14 23:59:19 2015 No.6144512

>>6144482

> I did'nt bother reading what you said, but....

That explains allot.

I never denied that men had opportunities and powers that women did not, what I said that it balanced out due to lack of female responsibility that men had to take up, the interpersonal power that females exercised, and the fact that men had no obligation to give women any of the privileges they did given that they needed men's protection.

I also mentioned that the advantages men had were exaggerated, because they were rarely autonomous themselves, and that because of the interpersonal factor the powers they did have over women were quite mutable or at least negotiable.

I do know all that already of course, it is simply not enough to make the feminist point that women were treated unfairly in western civilization though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 00:00:16 2015 No.6144518 >>6143584 There's nothing worse that tumblr .gifs except for John Green

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 00:01:27 2015 No.6144522

>>6144505
>50% of the industrial era American women were (the labor classes).
thats not what you said
>>6144456
>10-50% would be more like it depending on the place and time
its not my fault you failed to specify to what you were referring to
>>6144505
>50% of the industrial era American women were (the labor classes). Are you deliberately misquoting me?
so that whats that supposed to mean, that 100% of low labor class women were beaten?
>>6144505
>I haven't compared east and west so I dont know why you're upset about that? That's not my bone to pick at all?
i was just reponding to your argument that you cant lump western societies, when comparatively you can.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 00:03:44 2015 No.6144525

>>6144485
>>6144485
That was my point!!! Because someone up there was saying the absolute opposite!!! Such is the stupidity of the internet!!! I had to refuse reading his posts but son homo white knight had to defend him and so....all of that.

>>6144489

There's a lot of cases like that with actual documentation one way or the other and the scenarios aren't otherworldly so you know there's a lot more unreported cases.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 00:07:47 2015 No.6144536

>>6144492

Strength gives the power to compel others to do what you what, at the end of the day everyone chooses subservience to those who have sufficient strength to protect them from really nasty people who also have strength- we just try to find the ones who have a good balance of kindness and strength. My government could easily kill me if they wanted hence I am subservient to them and follow their laws, I appreciate that they are unlikely to actually do it and give me so much leg room to protest- I'm in the same situation that a large amount of women have been in western history. Really Feminism only exists because of the kindness and generosity of western patriarchy.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 00:12:51 2015 No.6144549

>>6144512
>balanced out due to lack of female responsibility that men had to take up,
Hypothetical and assumptions, man. You shouldn't base your thoughts on these things. Also, women did not live with no obligations. But none of these things matter. No one is autonomous from the state or from the economy, but men weren't beaten on the whims of an angry or alcoholic partner. Men did have the law to protect them from slights, big and small, and that's a huge advantage over someone who has no rights.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 00:23:23 2015 No.6144576

>>6144522
I never specified who the 50% were. That was all conjecture on you alls part. I did later say that according to Sinclair the number of industrial, industrial era women being beaten was at least 50%. Where you got 100% I dont know. Maybe you're not good at math or maybe you're deluding yourself about the power or coherence of your argument, I dont know, I dont even know which one of you ass-hats I'm talking to or what, but purposely distorting an argument to the point of absurdity is a sign if weakness.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 00:29:18 2015 No.6144592

>>6144522
>i was just reponding to your argument that you cant lump western societies, when comparatively you can.
I mean, sure, you could clump them together or not clump them together as per the varying degrees you want to compare and contrast for sure. I'm not well versed in Easter culture enough to intelligently comment on it so I'll take your word that it was worse. But to say that Roman women and the wife of an Irish American had comperable lifestyles is not accurate

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 00:46:10 2015 No.6144629

>>6144549

No, for a long time, In the Middles Ages specifically- men would be punished for their wives crimes. That's only "hypothetical" if you take women committing crimes to be some anomalous situation. It also isn't hypothetical that women would override the distinction with interpersonal power or at least be able to. As you guys are claiming, because men had the capacity to abuse their power over women a fair amount some would, if women had the power to override the legal structure with interpersonal power then some would.

In the case of aristocratic women they had to create some children by a decent man and perhaps had some other social duties in order to stop them from getting bored.

If a woman assaulted her husband the authorities wouldn't do anything either- in fact chances are if you were a man and your woman beat you up everyone would just laugh at you- that's how it still is today, it is also a situation that most men do not admit to though obviously it is not as common as the other way around is. But male slaves/children/workers got beaten plenty as well, and if you were a man and simply got beaten up on the street by another man the authorities would not step in either. If you were a woman and anyone but your husband touched you chances are the populace would get involved and defend you- and generally when you traveled you did so with protection if you were upper class. So women would each have one potential abuser who they could potentially kill if their life was really in danger but generally could not get away from, but was protected from everyone else, where the man had a higher chance of getting away from a potential abuser but would not have protection against any of the many abusers unless he could afford protection himself- other than by killing them of course.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 00:54:23 2015 No.6144646 I have a question for the feminist in this thread. I haven't been able to get through all the posts, maybe half of them, but just really wanted to ask. Do you think women should be included in the draft?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 01:57:34 2015 No.6144852 >>6143537 >>6143537 >So if men are so barbaric and outdated what's up with you folks' retarded hard-on for American niggers? It's almost like your only cohesive stance is "white men are emmanuelle goldstein". BBC MASTER RACE

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 02:02:29 2015 No.6144865 Why does this thread have 200 posts I fucking hate you people

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 02:28:09 2015 No.6144926 >>6144629 this should be in a sticky on reddit and tumblr

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 02:31:04 2015 No.6144934 >>6144926 Perhaps with some actual citations attached.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 02:53:20 2015 No.6145004

>>6141990
This is exactly what they teach in American high school. That philosophy was a prehistoric forerunner of science that was basically a joke. This is why there are fedora tipping stemfags everywhere. They truely believe that philosophy is like reading animal entrails instead of using modern meteorology

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 16:45:40 2015 No.6146446 >>6141253 Is Green the YA response to Zizek?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 16:48:41 2015 No.6146459 >>6144646 I think like most juvenile thoughts this question is irrelevant. If it were to come to that, a ww3 situation, putting women on the frontlines would hurt more than help, so no. Dont be an idiot, please. Common sense is still a thing

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 17:03:53 2015 No.6146509 >>6146459 >putting women on the frontlines would hurt more than help Why?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 17:10:28 2015 No.6146524 >>6141437 Well his career is kinda dependent on viewers enjoying his content. I pretty sure he's aware of the demographic that watches his videos so I don't think it's underhanded of him to do a bit of research on said demographic.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 17:18:32 2015 No.6146541

>>6146509

Less pussy to go around mang! A baby is 51% likely to be male and 49% likely to be female. Since people won't stop fucking like rabbits or selecting more females there will always be more males than females. Evolutionarily speaking this makes sense since males are more likely to die because of their nature. War is simply a tool used to thin out the breeding male population. If you put women on the front lines you completely defeat the purpose.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 17:20:34 2015 No.6146542 >>6146509 because women are weaker and less aggressive than men

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 17:53:41 2015 No.6146707 >>6143065 >Wanted to post a pic of Chesterton :DDD It appears you have succeeded, good sir. Well done!

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 17:54:12 2015 No.6146709

>>6146509
Imagine a tribe of 5 men and 5 women. They all go hunting, but do to an accident 4 of the women and 3 of the men die.

Two men and one woman won't do a very good job of repopulating the tribe, only one can impregnate her at a time, and she might die during childbirth, game over.

Now imagine another tribe, only this time 4 men and 3 women die instead, leaving one man with two women.
This tribe will produce lots of offspring and within one or two generations will have completely repopulated itself with children to spare.

Men are disposable because you only need one man to impregnate many women. Lose a man, and the remaining men have less competition, lose a women and you hurt the tribe's reproductive success. Thus, a tribe which prevents it's women from partaking in risky activities will be more likely to survive. Even moreso if it indoctrinates it's men to protect women like valuable property.

I don't think we should live our modern lives by this logic, but this is how MUH PATRIARCHY got started. It has nothing to do with men or women being weaker or stronger. If anything women are weaker because of sexual selection. Men find women who are less likely to get themselves killed more attractive.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:07:00 2015 No.6146779 >>6141990 Well he did say some pretty fucking dumb shit. But compared to the amount of material he generated and managed to thrust into the world of philosophy, mathematics, and science downplaying the enormous importance of him is fucking dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:08:20 2015 No.6146789 >>6146459 >this question is irrelevant >requiring one gender to sign up for military service with hefty fines imposed if they do not is perfectly fine >how dare you not pay for my birth control :^)

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:10:14 2015 No.6146797 >>6146709 So you're saying the patriarchy, at its core, is good and beneficial to women?

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:18:00 2015 No.6146851

>>6146797
It was back in the paleolithic. But at this point it's probably doing more "harm" to both men and women by expecting them to live like cavemen.

Western people reproduce slowly, and dangerous work is done by specialists who are less likely to be killed, and have insurance to take care of their offspring just in case. There is no reason anybody should be prevented from doing any kind of work, other than an outdated cultural bias which can and ought to be done away with.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:23:16 2015 No.6146868 >>6146851 So then enforcing equality in the draft would be a step to strengthening women, would it not? It incentivizes them to have a higher level of physical ability.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:34:50 2015 No.6146925

>>6146851
Except they are inherently prevented from doing some kinds of work by their physical ability.

Then people like you force them to lower the standards or have a separate standard in the name of 'equality' which puts lives at risk. Someone who cannot carry a 200 pound man to safety while in full gear has no business being a soldier or a firefighter for example.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:37:50 2015 No.6146939 >>6141990 Aristotle is one of the most important figures in Western history. Though he may have been wrong in many things, his theories shaped Christian doctrine for centuries to come

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:38:23 2015 No.6146944

>>6146868
Its nowhere near that simple.

Women are shorter than men, 40% weaker than a man of their own height and build muscle less easily because of lower testosterone. Even at the professional level the best women are nowhere near as strong or fast as the best men. You would need significant genetic engineering or centuries of eugenics to overcome that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:45:46 2015 No.6146988 >>6146944 Maybe you misread what I posted >a step I didn't say or imply it would be the only thing done. Just that it would work towards it. Or do you not want to work towards equality?

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:47:00 2015 No.6146992

>>6146868
Enforcing equality in the draft wouldnt help women at all considering they wouldn't even make basic training. I am not sure if you've heard but very, very few women succeed in the drills required to be a marine. This is just due to basic biology, women are physically weaker than men.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:50:14 2015 No.6147008

>>6146992
JSM writes that it might just be because we actively preclude women from physical activities growing up, preventing them from developing upper body strength. By precluding them from the draft you're contributing to this. Hell even Plato said that we shouldn't bar women from things in the republic. Let them become soldiers, just give them tasks that don't require upper body strength.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:51:02 2015 No.6147016

>>6146988
>Or do you not want to work towards equality?

I don't see forcing women to be physically equal to men as having any justification or point whatsoever. Especially if that would involve forcing these measures through via the law, trying to enforce equal outcomes is extremist lunacy.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:55:11 2015 No.6147035

>>6147008
Except that is false. Human biology does not conform to your political beliefs nor should it.

Female athletes cannot reach the same levels as male athletes. Its why women start marathons first but finish after the men. Its also why female weightlifters never reach the same level as male ones and why a boys high school hockey team managed to beat an Olympic women's team.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that men and women are biologically specialised and are not physically equivalent?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:55:16 2015 No.6147036 >>6147008 Do you know that upper body strength is very important in soldiers mister feminist? You know, to stab people, hold a gun, carry 600 bullets on your back and similar?

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:56:16 2015 No.6147040

>>6147016
Lot of implications.
>forcing women to be physically equal
>forcing these measures via the law
>enforce equal outcomes

1) implies that I'm forcing women to do anything and everything a man can do (which the draft does not). All male US citizens are in the draft, but they do not have to meet some minimum physical standards.

2) It's treating the citizens equally regardless of gender. What is wrong or abhorrent about that?

3) The draft does nothing to enforce outcomes on males, so I don't see what you're talking about here. It's just equal opportunity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:56:22 2015 No.6147043 >>6147008 >just give them tasks that don't require upper body strength These are called desk jobs, and women can already do them in the military.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:57:07 2015 No.6147044 >>6146868 Or we could just not have a draft and have a volunteer military like civilized nations tend to do.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 18:59:15 2015 No.6147056 >>6147035 Because today on a society wide basis in our post-industrial world, this shit doesn't matter outside of sports. Outside of physical labor, literally any job a man can do a woman can do and vice versa

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:00:21 2015 No.6147062 Which would you rather listen/watch a lecture that was completely straight forward and sensible, or something akin to John Green's, which attempts at comedy constantly ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:02:17 2015 No.6147071 >>6147056 That has nothing to do with my post. Actually address the point.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:02:53 2015 No.6147078

>>6147035
>your political beliefs
I'm just a devoted follower of devil's advocate. My political beliefs are not the focus of this discussion, the question of whether women should be included in the draft is.

>Why is it so hard for you to accept that men and women are biologically specialised and are not physically equivalent?
This just means that you think it's okay to treat people differently based off of their gender. That is antithetical toward gender equality.

>>6147036
Not all activities/positions in the armed forces require upper body strength

>>6147043
But they are not forced to enter into the draft. To treat gender equally either both must enter into it or the draft as an institution (with all the penalties for not signing up) should be abolished.

>>6147044
That is an out to this problem, but it is unlikely to gain any traction in the US. Setting aside the Republican majority currently in Congress, I doubt even Democrats would vote to abolish the draft. Not with the fears of a power hungry Russia and still a lack of peace in the Middle East.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:04:42 2015 No.6147091 >>6147078 Why must gender be treated equally when gender itself is not equal?

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:06:57 2015 No.6147096

>>6147078
>This just means that you think it's okay to treat people differently based off of their gender. That is antithetical toward gender equality.

And you are a dangerous anti-intellectual if you think the drive for 'equality' makes it okay to deny scientific fact. Whether the truth is antithetical to equality is not relevant.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:08:52 2015 No.6147104

>>6147091
Because equality is a core part of what America was founded on. Despite how unequal it was at the outset. It's still making strides toward equality.

>>6147096
>makes it okay to deny scientific fact
How is requiring women sign the draft denying scientific fact.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:12:02 2015 No.6147122 >>6147104 >Because equality is a core part of what America was founded on Why should ethics be decided solely on American ideals? >How is requiring women sign the draft denying scientific fact Women are biologically worthless on the battlefield

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:13:23 2015 No.6147127 All of this gender essentialism itt. Absolutely disgusting

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:14:23 2015 No.6147134

>>6147104
Don't evade the point. I am responding to posts claiming men are not inherently stronger than women and that the difference is due to society. And you decided to imply I am a sexist for putting truth before a political ideology.

You cannot enforce 'equality' in areas where people are inherently unequal.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:30:26 2015 No.6147219 >>6147078 >I doubt even Democrats would vote to abolish the draft. Not with the fears of a power hungry Russia and still a lack of peace in the Middle East. Do you live in a parallel universe? The US hasn't had a draft for decades bro.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:36:17 2015 No.6147255 >>6147219 >The US hasn't had a draft for decades bro No, but they still have the right to have a drift at any time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:37:29 2015 No.6147259 File: 1.46 MB, 338x300, laffes.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6147255 >the land of the free

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:38:27 2015 No.6147265 >>6147255 And the likelihood of that happening gets less and less with each passing year. The brass doesn't want conscripts. It doesn't mesh with modern military thinking.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 19:43:45 2015 No.6147290

>>6147265

When I was in the army we always used to feel a bit sorry for the Spanish troops because they were mostly conscripts and kids, but we didn't want to get involved with them, or near them in any way because they were a fucking liability.

Conscripted soldiers are worth literally nothing on the modern battlefield. You can't have some unwilling kid who's scared and better suited to shitposting on 4chan go up against fanatically committed jundies and what have you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 20:17:31 2015 No.6147457 >Muslims invented everything >Whites caused every problem the world has ever faced >le mongolian face Does that sum up his videos?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 20:22:01 2015 No.6147476 >>6147457 you forget >the women (aka my target market) were submissive

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 22:10:22 2015 No.6147940 >le overused Voltaire quote

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 22:45:10 2015 No.6148115 >>6146789 "Let me compare these apples & oranges." -You

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 22:47:35 2015 No.6148132 >>6146509 For the same reason men are better at sports, which is not just because of brute strength, btw. Men are also better at macro-dexterity, women at micro. It's why they have better handwriting than men. That's why.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 22:49:46 2015 No.6148142 >>6146868 You asinine ass-hat. You know that's not an issue nor what feminists are asking for.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 22:52:12 2015 No.6148154

>women were on the level of a slave

When will people stop bullshiting about this?

Yeah, they got less options in life but society looked out for them. Women were sheltered and protected, they worked, they owned property and ran businesses.

Yeah, it wasn't the best but it was lot better than what we're expected to sympathise with.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:00:51 2015 No.6148189 >>6146789 >People still get drafted in first world countries. >Unwanted pregnancies aren't a public health issue and shouldn't be dealt with using public money. You guys really were born in the wrong decade. Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:10:49 2015 No.6148241 File: 864 KB, 1024x1009, Last_Crusader.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6148189 >decade >tfw i will never slaughter the saracen menace

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:10:59 2015 No.6148244 >>6141732 only if they don't plan on majoring in history. Historiography should be taken mid study. If you are post grad and doing courses for shits and gigs I would agree however

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:16:09 2015 No.6148284 >>6143402 >50% chance There's a 50% chance you're a faggot >I'd bet on that coin toss

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:17:12 2015 No.6148288 >>6148241 An army that bears the holy cross of Jesus Christ cannot be beaten. There must be war; God wills it!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:21:28 2015 No.6148315 >>6148284 There's also a 50% chance I stuck my dick in your mother's mouth last night

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:23:58 2015 No.6148336 >>6148241 >>6148288 >Fighting in the name of a Galilean heretic. >Not worshiping the true gods of your ancestors. If you are gonna be neo-reactonary, do it right. This progress thing you so hate, is just the secular application of protestant ideals.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:26:54 2015 No.6148360 >>6148336 That's why Protestantism is a disease that must be stamped out. When Nicea 3 happens, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches reunite, Luther's heresy will finally face a united opposition.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:32:09 2015 No.6148405 >>6147062 the first obviously

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:33:46 2015 No.6148418 >>6147127 nice meme :^)

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:34:40 2015 No.6148426

>>6148360
The thing is though, Protestantism is a more pure reflection of the abrhamic faith. Catholicism is the least bad version of abrahamism because it's crypto ancestor worship. But it's still worshiping a corrupted version of some levantine war god.

You should just cut the chase and worship Asherah or Baal instead, or better yet, whoever your real ancestors worshiped before roman missionaries tortured them into worshiping their un-god.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:35:14 2015 No.6148429 >>6148142 obviously dumb ass. thats why they are full of shit

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:36:26 2015 No.6148440 >>6148426 >Protestantism is a more pure reflection >implying Baptists aren't correct Baptist Successionism muddafuqqa

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:36:50 2015 No.6148444 >>6148189 >citizens should pay for some whore's mistake

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:38:13 2015 No.6148451

>>6148440
It's a matter of who closer adheres to a corrupted version of a sand nigger religion about destroying everything of value because god wants everything to suck.

>>6148444
>Implying birth control isn't the most cost effective way to deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:38:56 2015 No.6148457 >>6142931 Hank. He's the submissive younger one

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:42:50 2015 No.6148473 >>6148315 dad?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:47:42 2015 No.6148501 >>6148429 I feel like you should be eating shit right now. I bet there's a 50% chance you lil the taste of shit.

Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:52:25 2015 No.6148513

>>6143448
nobody worked 18 hours a day in agrarian societies, and certainly not in 'extreme conditions.' what crops do you know of that grow in "extreme conditions?'

monty python isn't real, serfs didn't live in mud under constant threat of beheading by the lord's men-at-arms

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 15 23:59:52 2015 No.6148536 >>6148451 does insurance cover condoms? i don't hear any feminists discussing that issue

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:04:49 2015 No.6148555 >>6148501 i was just pointing out the fact that the "equality" feminists fight for is not equal at all, and you yourself acknowledged it without realizing it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:05:41 2015 No.6148558 >>6148536 They give out condoms for free.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:15:49 2015 No.6148601 >>6148558 Condoms don't alter your hormones and are ridiculously easy to make compared to birth control pills.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:18:12 2015 No.6148614 >>6143398 Well for one thing they didn't butchered the Greeks to make them look more like them as the Christians

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:18:49 2015 No.6148618 >>6148601 Lots of GUYS don't like to wear them though. And using both (with abortions available in the off chance both fail) is the most reliable way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:21:46 2015 No.6148640 >>6148618 >lots [citation needed] girls don't always remember to take their pill though

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:22:03 2015 No.6148641 >>6141933 >>nowadays the homos can have babies Nowadays, the filiation goes through the education, not the genes. The state forces people to see homo families as regular families.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:23:35 2015 No.6148648 >>6148618 >>Lots of GUYS don't like to wear them though. It takes a lot of trials to find the one. Also, under equality, they should be free if the female contraceptives are so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:23:59 2015 No.6148654 >>6148640 Yes, clearly counting on one gender to prevent babies from happening is a bad idea, and we should both provide and encourage the use of as many birth control methods as possible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:27:18 2015 No.6148679 >>6141253 >...which was great unless you were a slave, or a woman. wait the guy has nearly 1million views per week, so at the typical rate of 1USD/1ooo views, he clears a grand a weak ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:27:58 2015 No.6148684 >>6148679 Nice work if you can get it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:34:18 2015 No.6148722 File: 677 KB, 1620x2426, lit in a nutshell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:35:01 2015 No.6148728 You would have loved his youtube channel if you were a teen, admit it

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:38:25 2015 No.6148748 >>6148618 >the most reliable way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. actually that would be celibacy

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:40:30 2015 No.6148767 >>6148748 >take a look at this faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:43:37 2015 No.6148789 >>6148748 >demanding from women not to spread their legs We tried, it did not work well

Anonymous Mon Feb 16 00:48:41 2015 No.6148806

>>6143513
>War was also one of the few opportunities for social advancement in the ancient world which allowed even slaves
this was the case with the nobility, while the main bourgeoisie did everything it could to avoid to go to the war field by paying the proles to fight for them. Once you remove honor in going from the nobility, you are lest with the bourgeois merit which is better reached in finances than wars.

Anonymous Mon Feb 16 01:33:32 2015 No.6148971

>>6144549
>men weren't beaten on the whims of an angry or alcoholic partner.
Yes, and what caused the alcoholism and agressivity ? Do you think that men are intrissically angry at women ?

As stated, the lower class had a shitty life, but to impose to every one your laws based on the life of one class, be it the biggest, is just doind politics from statistics and polls.

Anonymous Mon Feb 16 02:36:19 2015 No.6149173

>>6141359
>tfw McLuhan was right, and we are just the sex organs of machines
>tfw one day they will finally remove us like a bloated appendix
>tfw they will think of everything prior to the Industrial Revolution as too primitive to even understand
>tfw even the word post-human will seem like a joke to them
>tfw I am still just a weak monkey who serves as a powerful vector for memes

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 16 12:06:27 2015 No.6150532 >>6141632 Especially PBS Idea Channel and TED talks. People come away knowing bits of bar trivia but absolutely nothing about the subject itself.

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 ]

/lit/ - Literature