/lit/ - Literature

[Capo !!+oBZCRJXQOy No.6329832]

Why have we allowed women to become such low quality human beings in the last few decades?

Do you guys realise that letting women have their cake and eat it too (being the prizes of society but also being 'strong' and 'independent') is nothing more than a beta male inclination to judge oneself as a man by how much he can provide for a woman?

Not saying men shouldn't provide for women, but there is obviously a sane end to that where afterwards insanity begins.

When you 'stick up' for a woman and say, 'that's okay sweetie, you can be a lady at home but have a career and go to the office in business attire, oh btw sorry for calling you sweetie LOL' don't you understand that you're only hurting them, and by default then yourself?

This has caused a sick state of society where women are made to feel entitled to everything, and men are made to feel like they deserve nothing. This is backwards and the first sign of decay in a society.

This was posted in /lit/ because it involves feminism and feminism is a primarily literary (meaning it has a literature) movement.

[Anonymous No.6329838]

You're fucking stupid, do you know that?

[Capo !!+oBZCRJXQOy No.6329841]

>>6329838
Anger which comes from cognitive dissonance of realising one's error.

You're talking directly to yourself my friend.

[Anonymous No.6329843]

reported for off topic

[Anonymous No.6329851]

>>6329843

[Anonymous No.6329855]

>>6329851
So we will both get banned

I'm ok with that

It was worth the sacrifice

[Anonymous No.6329863]

>actually giving a shit about women
stay cucked

[Anonymous No.6329866]

What are you guys reading today? I'm thinking about rereading War and Peace. I just finished some short stories of Fitzgerald which weren't half bad

[Anonymous No.6329880]

Agree with your overall sentiment but who cares. Yes there will be your demographic of emasculated men that worship women as their pathetic method of trying to get laid but for the most part men have been and always will be the greater members of society. The traits and abilities that define a strong, independent woman are the same as those which men are simply born with. They have to strive to become what it is we are blessed with. They are the lesser and weaker species, projecting their insecurity for being born so into feminist circle jerk bullshit that makes them feel less like the inferior beings they are. Don't get too worked up about it OP women r just plebs

[Anonymous No.6329888]

>mfw casual pussy is more easily acquired than ever these days
>mfw the other things a spouse might be useful for can easily be done by oneself acquired as a service
>mfw getting together with a worthwhile qt you actually like and care for is no longer dependant on dated social and economic boundaries and demands and requires nothing more than the mutual desire to be in each other's presence to be made possible

What's the problem again?

[Anonymous No.6329889]

>>6329832
Don't listen to the plebs OP

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6329922]

Women are not, nor were they ever, treated as "the prizes of society" except in cultural ritual. The only people who treated them as such were those too autistic to realize poetry and social shibboleth are superficial...either that, or young men who are confused due to hormones.

[Anonymous No.6329930]

>relying on the pop psych (not even that - it's just a fabrication, and nobody outside of here seems to profess it!) alpha/beta dichotomy
No, OP, it is you who are the low-quality human being. I enjoy being pleasant with women, and I enjoy it when they are pleasant with me. This does not mean I have become the lesser party in a wolf pack or some nonsense - it means I like interacting with people the way I do, and you will just have to cope with that! Now leave the thinking to the grown-ups and go back to [r9k], ah? I hear they're having a fire sale on "rare Pepes"!

[Anonymous No.6329931]

>>6329832
You need to read pic related to acquire the right attitude.

I've never had a relationship with a female that didn't leave me with a net profit.

[Anonymous No.6329941]

Women's period of storm and stress. In the three or four civilized European countries, one can in a few centuries educate women to be anything one wants, even men--not in the sexual sense, of course, but certainly in every other sense. At some point, under such an influence, they will have taken on all male virtues and strengths, and of course they will also have to take male weaknesses and vices into the bargain. This much, as I said, one can bring about by force. But how will we endure the intermediate stage it brings with it, which itself can last a few centuries, during which female follies and injustices, their ancient birthright, still claim predominance over everything they will have learned or achieved? This will be the time when anger will constitute the real male emotion, anger over the fact that all the arts and sciences will be overrun and clogged up by shocking dilettantism; bewildering chatter will talk philosophy to death; politics will be more fantastic and partisan than ever; society will be in complete dissolution because women, the preservers of the old custom, will have become ludicrous in their own eyes, and will be intent on standing outside custom in every way. For if women had their greatest power in custom, where will they not have to reach to achieve a similar abundance of power again, after they have given up custom?

[Anonymous No.6329954]

>>6329832

Women are over-determined, that's the problem. They get mixed and contradictory messages from culture. The result is that they become alienated and potentially covert nihilists if they're not strong enough to over-throw imposed values or to organize and adhere to them. Both the previous generations and the current one are at fault for telling and expecting them to be multiple things.

Men have also determined, but as of late they're under-determined by society. The only thing they ARE getting told to do now is to not be, instead of to be. If they were just strong and empowered they would be great people.

There's also this grand myth of historical male freedom, when historically men have been soilders, providers, etc.

The war, existentialism and subsequent feminisms are mostly at fault. The feminisms, like all political ideologies, invented a utopia to strive for: the patriarchal position, the position of an un-encumbered, socially supported will.

[Anonymous No.6329965]

>>6329941
how does freddy call it every time?

[Anonymous No.6330725]

>government / normies want me to spend my time (i.e. life) to work and then I'm taxed and the money goes to other people (including single mothers)
>people think this is fine

>yet all these people think that the sexual marketplace should be 100 % free market (or possibly disconnected from money with a ban on prostitution)

When did you realise that taxation is theft?

[Anonymous No.6330742]

I like women.

[Anonymous No.6330752]

>>6329832
>Do you guys realise that letting women have their cake and eat it too (being the prizes of society but also being 'strong' and 'independent') is nothing more than a beta male inclination to judge oneself as a man by how much he can provide for a woman?

most men are more or less betas, do not even know that they are so and worse are not capable to evolve, if by miracle they know the scale of their betaness.

So no, I do not see how we can improve the state of affair as it is biologically constructed and our laws prevent this to be modified.

[Anonymous No.6330767]

>>6330742
I like w/o men.

[Anonymous No.6330769]

>>6330767
Are you slammed?

[Anonymous No.6330773]

>>6329832
I do not know one single woman who is being provided for. Actually, my female aquaintances are on average more successful than their male counterparts, the more so the younger they are. You are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.6330774]

>Why have we allowed women

stopped reading

fuck off

[Anonymous No.6330781]

>This was posted in /lit/ because it involves feminism and feminism is a primarily literary (meaning it has a literature) movement.

hahahah yeah right get the fuck out nigger

[Anonymous No.6330800]

Internalizing this meme of stratification is, I think, a sign of deep insecurity

What is your unit of measurement for alpha, beta, etc? Suitability? Power? Prestige? These things are empty of meaning.

Also, what's up with the misogynistic delusions?

[Anonymous No.6330836]

>>6329888
>>mfw casual pussy is more easily acquired than ever these days
these trips confirm

women are now in harmony with what they are, but men still have many expectations from women who are not able to satisfy by their nature.

[Anonymous No.6330838]

>>6329888#
>>mfw casual pussy is more easily acquired than ever these days
these trips confirm

women are now in harmony with what they are, but men still have many expectations towards women who are not able to satisfy by their nature.

[Anonymous No.6330847]

>>6330773
I know a woman who keeps being knocked up by wealthy men, who do not want children but oddly enough she forgets to ask them about this, and she keeps the child and ask for alimonies.

She is at 3 children now, and sadly, she is to old to get another pregnancy. Hopefully, she has no need to work thanks to her monthly 6 000 euros.

[Anonymous No.6330855]

>>6330847
I never denied that such people exist, thy just seem to be exceptions, and also looked down upon by society, feminists included.

[Anonymous No.6330863]

>>6330855
lel. feminists don't look down on women who exploit men. that's "subverting the patriarchy"

[Anonymous No.6330865]

>>6329843
>>6329855

i hate you fucking censors

[Anonymous No.6330871]

>>6330863
You don't talk to real people.

[Anonymous No.6330880]

>>6330863
Anectodotal evidece coming through: my gf used to work for a feminist professor who hated stay-at-home moms and even talked condescendingly of women who took maternity leave.

[Anonymous No.6330881]

>>6330725
>market
>no money involved
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.6330883]

>>6330871
both alimony and child support are outdated concepts that feminists have refused to abolish because they protect women's interests.

[Anonymous No.6330884]

>>6330883
>Child support is an outdated concept

Why are people so stupid, gang? How do people spout garbage like this and think they're correct?

[Anonymous No.6330889]

>>6329866
red and the black, and thinking about reading about Samson's story in the Bible.
Gonna sound pleb, but I read a little of the Bible and skipped Samson's story. Then I was watching a youtube video called Game Theory about the game "the Binding of Isaac" and it talked about Samson's story.
Long hair as a source of power intrigues me for two reasons:
-the Franks had a similar custom, but they weren't originally christian
-I have long hair, and everyone wants me to cut it
tl;dr I'm thinking about backing up my hair choice with biblical quotes.

[Anonymous No.6330890]

>>6330883
>both alimony and child support are outdated concepts
They really aren't, child support exists for the benefit of the child and alimony laws have been reformed towards gender equality.

[Anonymous No.6330906]

>>6330884
why should one be being forced to pay money for a decision that ultimately the women has complete control over?

>>6330890
they don't need to be reformed, they need to be abolished. they were created in a time when women couldn't work.

[Anonymous No.6330910]

>>6330906
>why should one be being forced to pay money for a decision that ultimately the women has complete control over?

Why do you think you should be able to have a kid and then abandon them, you goddamn deadbeat?

[Anonymous No.6330911]

>>6330774
Imagine if there was only men and reproduction was made through anal sex but everyone was straight

[Anonymous No.6330917]

>>6330906
>they need to be abolished. they were created in a time when women couldn't work.
That, however, is not the point why they exist, as evidenced by that fact that husbands can get alimony from their divorced wives. The point is that a marriage will create a specific state of affairs were one side may become dependend on the other, and this needs to be taken into account when the marriage is dissolved.

[Anonymous No.6330931]

>>6330910
because it is the women who is the sole decision maker in having a child or not. if you want to conscript a partner into sharing financial responsibility of a child then that needs to be formally recognized and not assumed.
feminists like to harp over having autonomous bodies and choice but they don't like to be share the responsibilities and consequences of those independent choices. it's annoying that feminists enjoy infantilizing women more than men.

[Anonymous No.6330942]

>>6330931
You're a babbling fool. When you fuck someone and get them pregnant, you should be held responsible for that. It's as much your choice as it is there. No one forced you to sleep with them. Your choice to be a deadbeat father though, if you want.

[Anonymous No.6330944]

>>6330942
*theirs

[Anonymous No.6330954]

>>6330942
the decision of having sex and the decision of having a child are two different things you ingrate. if you abide by that logic then abortion is immoral because you chose to have sex. leave your daddy issues at the door pleb

[Anonymous No.6330969]

>>6330954
Different anon here
>the decision of having sex and the decision of having a child are two different things you ingrate
that's like saying, the decision to shoot someone is different from the decision to kill them, and therefore shooters aren't responsible for deaths.
>if you abide by that logic then abortion is immoral because you chose to have sex
That absolutely doesn't follow. Abortion wouldn't even be immoral if you deliberately got pregnant.

[Anonymous No.6330972]

>>6330954
Having sex leads to pregnancies.

[Anonymous No.6330987]

>>6330954
Conception is a matter of chance, not choice. Sex between those capable of conception always carries with it the possibility of conception, whether or not they will it to happen or not isn't their decision

[Anonymous No.6331023]

>>6330969
Abortion is wrong because it's the abrogation of life. I wouldn't say the termination of the development of a zygote, blastocyst, etc is equivalent to murder precisely because until prenatal cognition emerges the developing life is not capable of suffering or awareness. Although this line of reasoning itself is problematic because it permits that the intentional destruction or violence done to people who are afflicted with neurodegenerative diseases or congenital disorders whom possess a depressed capacity for self awareness or suffering is less immoral than doing the same to someone whom is fully developed and capable. We recoil from that naturally because it's sadistic. Truly, the same reason why MRDD or people suffering from neurodegenerative diseases are still valued and protected is the same reason why it is wrong to abort - because it's a life, and it's wrong to abrogate life.

This isn't the same as the potentiality argument. A cancer cell is life, is it wrongto destroy cancer cells? No? Then how should it be wrong to destroy cancer cells and not destroy a zygote?

Malignant cancer represents an imminent threat to the life of the host. Similarly, the only occasion in which it's permissible to abort is when the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman.

But what if the life of the woman is threatened because she must care for a baby after it's born? What if the mother and child will assuredly suffer because of the terrible conditions which the mother lives in? Ah ha! This is precisely the primary motivation of most women who get an abortion - they fear destitution and raising a child in an environment which would suffer! This, however, isn't the fault of the woman - this is the fault of all of us who fail to abolish such conditions which make a pregnancy something to fear rather than something to rejoice over. So the culpability of the mother in the abortion in such circumstances is reduced, and others who have the means to abolish these conditions yet do not act to do so take up culpability.

Abolish capitalism, and we make abortion absurd

[Anonymous No.6331025]

>>6330969
>>6330972
>>6330987
are you all trolling or are you just playing retarded?

that you can get pregnant from having sex doesn't necessitate having the child. you must decide to have the child i.e. not abort it.
because women have autonomous control over their bodies, this decision lies solely with the woman. a man has no say over the this decision so shouldn't have to deal with the consequences.

[Anonymous No.6331031]

>>6331025
>Men shouldn't have to deal with consequences.

An all too familiar attitude of those who hate women.

[Anonymous No.6331037]

>>6331031
quoting out of context, what a good feminist you are.

[Anonymous No.6331040]

>>6331023
>Abolish capitalism, and we make abortion absurd
This is the only valid point you raise. Yes, under different conditions, children wouldn't be a liablity. Still, I think you're pretty misguided if you believe that life itself, just the mere brute fact of organic acivity, has any value.

[Anonymous No.6331044]

>is against abortion
Let me guess, you think life is a benefit as well?

[Anonymous No.6331046]

>>6331037
Have you ever heard of capitalization, bozo?

[Anonymous No.6331057]

>>6331025
A man has no control over the woman's body, yet the woman is subject to moral law. Whether or not she obeys it isn't the purview of any man. Whether or not the acts of the other are ethically permissible isn't under the control of the subject. What is under the influence of the subject is whether the other has the capacity to make free decisions. For example, holding a gun to someone's head to force them to do some objectively immoral act is not a free decision on behalf of the person coerced. The determined will is incapable of an act with moral content. So the immoral act is actually the responsibility of the person who is coercing the other. However, this is hardly ever an absolute. In the real world, the will of a woman may be determined in degree, but not absolutely. She may greatly fear destitution, yet she may also objectively may not be subject to absolute impoverishment that threatens her life if she brings the pregnancy to term. So her will is determined in degree, and so she bears culpability for the immoral act of abortion in degree, but not absolutely. This shifting of who is responsible doesn't change that the act itself is wrong, as it doesn't change whatever immoral act the person with the gun to their head is forced to do is actually immoral.

[Anonymous No.6331064]

>>6331040
It's ontological, yes. Yet it's the only one with any consistency (in regards to other kinds of life; animals, MRDD, neurodegenerative diseases, cancer cells)

There is no other consistently ethical position to take. People are afraid to embrace the position because it's consistent with Christian ethics and they fear it also oppresses women. Yet if morality oppresses women then it oppresses men equally, because what is moral doesn't depend on sex, but on the capacity for moral agency

[Anonymous No.6331067]

>>6331057
>moral law
don't have time for christian bullshit. i'm too busy hating women by treating them like adults.

>>6331046
capitalist exploitation of my labor power pressing that shift key

[Anonymous No.6331106]

>>6329832
Go back to /b/ or Reddit, fag

[Anonymous No.6331111]

>>6331106
faggot detected

[Anonymous No.6331113]

OP talks like he believes there are no women on this board kek

[Anonymous No.6331122]

>>6329832
Why do you type like a school shooter?

[Anonymous No.6331135]

>>6329866
I'll be starting The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Kundera. Any thoughts?

Haven't read War and Peace and prolly never will. I'm more into short stories and short novels.

[Anonymous No.6331141]

If a woman doesnt want their child, they can abort it.
If a father doesnt want his child, he gets child support and possibly prison.

And before you even fucking say it would you really even dare to attempt to talk your gf into getting an abortion? It would be taboo