/lit/ - Literature

>>11612084
I don't see him explicitly being anti feminist here. Bit of a piss poor method of dissuading women from entering politics, though. The idea that it's equally as insignificant and pointless as house work, if not more so.

Women have became very masculine in their goals and aspirations in the 21st century. It's not something we think about often, since now we're born into it, but I suppose it's interesting that there was a time where women had no "ideas above her station" because they believed themselves to be incapable. Anyway I don't really see an argument in those quotes, just observations.

>>11612123
I admit I haven't read the book this is from, so maybe in context it's supposed to be just a quip and not a serious argument.

Nonetheless, if taken at face value, the argument is a very shameless equivocation between intellectual "subjugation" (changing someone's mind) and actual subjugation, hidden in beautiful non-fiction prose.
Feminists are actually against equality, you see, because they lowered their heads in humility before men and admitted that they were right about the fact that politics are important. Check and mate.

By the same logic, (persuasive) abolitionists are actually pro-slavery because they "capture" people with their arguments; likewise, pacifists are actually pro-war because they "conquer" hearts and minds and "demolish" people's pro-violence beliefs.

>>11612123
This is a woman hate thread, retard. Please write the kind of response I'm looking for, or fuck off back to plebbit. Women (womemes, we call them) fucking suck

>>11612123
i knew a genuinely feminine girl once, she was docile as fuck, very smiley and nice to everyone, spoke really softly, didnt want to go to school or have a job or whatever, just wanted a husband. The guy she chose completely fucked up her life, it was this violent excon twice her age who had some shit job. I think she's a drug addict now.

i have literally never known another girl who acted that way though, it was almost weird to be around, if pleasant. She put other women on edge like crazy with how she acted though some really liked her in this almost maternal way. I imagine even back in the day most women werent that feminine.

anyway my point here is that i think being like that in this world gets you eaten alive.

>>11612239
>being like that in this world
The world has never not been like this. It's just that now we know.

>>11612239
Sounds awesome. I really am longing for a traditional world (free of nonwhite immigrants, blacks, feminism, fag enabling, etc.) where women know their place, and would just be happy to serve me and our white children. Hopefully it's not quite beyond us just yet

>>11612256
really? i dont want to have to take care of some girl forever. This particular girl was nice to be around but fuck the idea of having to take on that responsibility. Even in the small amount of time i was with her she started expecting all sorts of ridiculous things from me.

>>11612272
Not degenerate modern libcuck women, but traditional conservative women, who know that we superior and they should be subservient to us. This is what female nature craves deep down, i.e. to be dominated by strong men like us

>>11612280
no i get what youre saying but why would you want that? The way it is now is way better, you can have all the benefits of women and not have to give them anything

maybe women do want that deep down, though i have my doubts, but who cares what they want, it isn't a reasonable expectation

>>11612280
Hear hear, fellow kekistani brother. White men must conquer the female like jews ruin marvel comics. Wakanda? Nonsense. Fuck black people and fuck niggers.

>>11612289
>no i get what youre saying but why would you want that?
Because that's what women and men want and want nature wants and dictates. And civilization. See what happened with the world after women got the vote and started deciding their sexual partners. They're fucking apes and savages instead of virtuous men like us

>>11612289
>no i get what youre saying
You're not.
It's actually bait

>>11612318
you have a very simplistic understanding of how people operate. we are driven by sets of impulses which accorded to evolutionary success, civilization fucks with these enormously so it already ruins the 'what nature wants' idea but more to the point- even in nature it's not 'women want to be submissive' it's just equilibriums that came about because they were stable

a person is always a confused and conflicting bundle of dispositions, and if you think rationally about what you want in life you can arrange things for yourself such that you can meet them sort of. It's imperfect, reality is imperfect

lastly you can't just alter the course of civilization like that, it runs its natural life cycle, we are probably heading towards decline, but it is a very fun decline is what im saying

men are savages as well and have to be compelled by force and social mores into 'virtuous' behavior that makes civlization run, but again you can't just praxis your way out of massive historical trends. And fuck being virtuous in the first place, it's a meme

>>11612351
You are brainwashed by postmodernism. Try Culture of Critique and 12 Rules

>>11612361
I've read CoC and it has literally nothing to do with what we're ta;lking about. as for 12 rules i came home last night wasted and cleaned my apartment for 3 hours so it is pretty clean, i dont need to read boomerism mixed with Carl Jung and pretend Christianity, which i take it is his shtick

and im not a postmodernist in the slightest, a postmodernist would not even allow for 'human nature' let alone understand it mostly through an evolutionary lens

>>11612084
>implying he's wrong
>implying women should be allowed in politics
>implying women should be allowed to vote

>>11612361
>"You are brainwashed"
>Suggests an alternative brand of brainwashing instead
lol

>>11612412
Putting the conclusion aside, you don't see anything wrong with the argument itself? See >>11612210

>>11612084
I really hate his smarmy sentimentalist aphorisms, particularly those that are wrong, which are many.

This is what Chesterton the aphorist does: "Well, the trouble about x and y, is that y and x. Oh dear me I'm so fat and clever, darling fetch my cape and muu-muu--"

I'll take "post-christian society", grey-faced bureaucrats and soulless concrete buildings eight days a week over this chucklehead.

>>11612084
>everyone ITT thinking this passage is about feminism when it's primarily a veiled criticism of contemporary British politics

>>11612698
>I'll take "post-christian society", grey-faced bureaucrats and soulless concrete buildings eight days a week over this chucklehead.

>>11612698
>I'll take "post-christian society", grey-faced bureaucrats and soulless concrete buildings eight days a week over this chucklehead

>>11612412
>implying men should be allowed to vote

>>11613052
jesus christ shit never actually changes does it. that is fucking unreal he said that that long ago

>>11613060
Rather, change is constant and follows cycles. But the people who should know better always think they are going to be the ones who cheat eternity, and thus mainstream thought follows that dead end. Maybe what never changes is wishful thinking.

>>11612123
>above her station
You’ve missed the whole point

>>11612698
>I'll take "post-christian society", grey-faced bureaucrats and soulless concrete buildings eight days a week over this chucklehead.

>>11612292
Based and redpilled!!

>>11612210
Someone (Orwell?) once said that the key to every Chesterton argument is this: "Some people say the problem is that there's too much X in Y -- but I say that there's not enough (or too much) Y in X!".

In this case, he's saying "people complain about women being too aggressive towards men (trying to get into politics etc.), but I say the problem is that they're being too submissive towards men - and subsequently trying to take male things, the male attitude seriously - when the proper feminine attitude is to dismiss all this as bunch of silly boyish games".

He's still a fine writer and a very 'clever' man, but he is prone to indulging this cleverness by writing the same argument over and over with different contents. You see the same in Zizek (who, not co-incidentally, admires Chesterton's style).

>>11612084
Can someone give me a rundown on Chesterton's views on eugenics?

>>11614247
Totally dead-set against it. Super super super Catholic, more Catholic than the Pope, and that means "every human soul is precious" and so on.

>>11612272
>>11612289
he is either a retard from pol or trolling, but i partly get what he is saying
i guess you need to have a whiteknight mentality to understand

>>11614201
This.

Also, he was very fond of polemics. So he would literal shitpost just to get a reaction from someone like Wells or Shaw.

>>11613052
"The brain is a cooling system for blood"
--Aristotle