/lit/ - Literature

>>7289795
why would you willingly identify with the label of 'misogynist' OP? do you not love your mother? serious question.

>>7289795
Yanna Karienana

It's most people that are shitty, not most women, or most x-group. Remember that and judge situations based on their contexts & historicity.

>>7289795
tbh stop being western-minded, read books about womens experiences from human sex trades, third world countries where getting help is no option etc

If you're being serious OP, the women in my family have worked with female victims of many atrocities from Sudan, Syria etc for a long time, I can recommend you some texts for studying how these situations came about and continue to this day, thus helping you understand this plight better.

Its useless to be misogynist. No value in that.
I don't particularly like women. Most of them have no value beyond their appearance, no hobbies or knowledge, and I don't like the way they behave nowadays. Not interested in spending time with them. They don't seek out my company often either, so its probably mutually beneficial this way.
I don't hate them though. Why should I? No reason to have such strong feelings about them.

>>7289795
a newspaper

then you'll see how shit everyone is, not just women

>I'm a Muhsogeenuist
Is it misogyny to believe that women should be creatures of the home and family and raise children?
And men are creatures of the land and are tasked with defending the home and supporting the family?

Yeah, but it's not a book. Go meet people. If you think that women are particularly worse than men you either haven't met enough women or haven't met enough men.

>>7289825
No that's being spooked

>>7289822
>I don't hate them though. Why should I? No reason to have such strong feelings about them.
this. a true misogynist has no resentment towards women while he knows that they are far too different form men to be expect anything form them.

>misogynist
kek

>>7289818
the only women OP is going to interact with are going to be western/westernised so he's obviously going to be western-minded because he doesn't live in a war-torn shithole where female mutilation is common.

>>7289837
>Thinking your role in life is determined primarily by biology
>Not the biggest spook of all
The big black nigger of MUH GENETICS is fucking your life while you watch and masturbate, fam

>>7289861
>implying you have any role other than a biological role

>>7289837
Why?

>>7289863
If that's the only role you have, it's because you're too much of a pussy faggot to make your role in life anything else.

>>7289868
Not that guy but, people usually define spooked as having an idea that has power over you so that guy allows the idea of men having a certain role in life and women having a certain role in life power over him therefore being spooked.

>>7289871
dammit

>>7289795
Misogyny is a side effect of egalitarianism. It's only when you attempt to see women as equals that you get frustrated by the cognitive dissonance between your ideology and reality.

When you start out seeing women as lesser beings they won't frustrate you when they are like they are. Pic related.

>>7289882
Why is this bad?
It's not just an idea, it's a physical essence of man and women.
Physical, mental, spiritual even.

>>7289889
except when you meet one that is much more intelligent than you will ever be.

>>7289896
Found the dumbass.

>>7289861
?...
I never said anything to do with biology or determinism. I implied that it is spooked to believe men and women *should* do something or are *tasked* to do something inherently.

>>7289795
The only woman who has been bad for you is your mom. Think for a second.

>>7289893
I'm not saying whether it's good or bad, I'm just saying why that guy thought it was a spook.

Don't really care too much about gender tbh.

>>7289903
if only

>>7289896
When you have low expectations of women you can really appreciate those wonderful exceptions. When you have high expectations you're just mostly disappointed with a few exceptions.

>>7289896


Then she's still not my equal is she? Hence the theorem anon proposed still holds.

>>7289795
Why did schope mellow out later on? Didn't he say something about a woman being equal to man if she rises about the herd or is that fabricated?

>>7289896
Kek
>anecdotal evidence
There is a disparity between male and female Iq. And a disparity between male and female EIQ and verbal IQ.

oh my god you are all so disillusioned step away from your fucking computers holy shit

>>7289889
So you're suggesting he deal with his misogyny by being a misogynist?

Anyway OP, are you a misogynist, and why do you want to change?

Lol this virgin can't get laid

>>7289919
>oh my gawwwed
>>>/tumblr/

>>7289801
>>7289795
>be me
>backpacking in Ireland
>in hostel
>some guy from England there, late thirties
>rants and raves about all women being whores/fucking sluts, the usual
>ask him if his mother is a filthy whore and a fucking slut
>quiet for a few seconds, changes subject
You are falling for your own fallacies. People are cunts, I'd venture to say most of them are. Some of them are amazing, whether they're male, female, black, white, gay, Muslim, etc.

I'll agree with you that the image of the modern woman isn't one to look at with admiration, and a lot of women happily conform to this image, which is honestly pitiable if you ask me (as much as it gets mocked here because of extremist representatives, the societal pressure on women to be beautiful, and not much else, is very real, especially among ''lower class'' people), but the same goes for men, for blacks, for almost any self proclaimed group of people.

Regarding your pic, remember that Schopenhauer wrote from a very different scientific state of mind, and even he didn't resent women, ''on women'' is a genuine attempt to make the life of women the most suitable for their disposition, which according to his scientific/philosophical framework, was one that was lesser than the male.

Basically, think about your ideal person, see if you are acting accordingly, your answer will be no, unless you are a narcissist, then realize that there are thousands of women more ''virtuous'' than you, regardless of what system of ethics you are willing to uphold.

It's nobody's fault to be born into their bodies, it is ridiculous to resent someone for this.

>>7289918
>IQ
fucking kek

>>7289822
>nowadays
This a word teenagers use in order to trick others into thinking they're experienced.

Hopelessly transparent

>>7289889
This anon speaks the truth.
For women as with negroes, I've had little problem dealing with them ever since I consciously saw their..., say, otherness.

Just don't jump on the "humankind" or egalitarian bandwagon and recognize they are not the same. Do you hate or get angry at all the flowers you see for not being men?

There are some situations where the current egalitarianism may block your action, but with some attention, you should be able to avoid them.

>>7289918
>IQ

lol

>>7289931
I don't resent anyone for something they can't control, I resent them for trying to be something they are not, or shouldn't be.
>>7289934
IQ, way of thought, emotional responses and what not.
Pick any of the lot that suites you if you reject IQ as a valid measure of intelligence. It's mostly beyond their control as Western society bred them specifically for home life.

>>7289934
>Not using post-hoc reasoning and bullshit pseudoscience to justify your anxiety about talking to women
lmao

>>7289923
>So you're suggesting he deal with his misogyny by being a misogynist?
No, since there is no hatred involved.

If you expect someone to be something she's not you will end up frustrated with them, which fosters animosity. If you accept someone for who she is you will be more able to appreciate her good traits.

Misogyny comes from entertaining the complaint that women are not like men but ought to be.

Tesla spits on you all

>>7289937
English is just not my native language. I don't know what words teenagers use or don't use as I don't have daily experience with English as some others do. I am not teenager by the way, but I am sure you won't trust me so whatever.

>>7289943
>it's post-hoc and psudoscience because I say so
Top lel, next you'll start spouting anthropology and sociology like they are actual sciences.
>>7289952
Tesla fell in love with a Dove.

>>7289952
>women will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress

I love radical feminism,menstrual cookies and gender studies they've all made a big impact to society. Thank you women.

>>7289959
Tesla also achieved more than any of us ever will. What's your point?

>>7289959
>Most people doing studies on IQ especially as it relates to sex and race aren't psychologists and sociologists
Great meme friend

>>7289952
Way to misquote. Tesla also said that women would use all of their faculties to destroy the world and turn it into a collectivist hell similar to a beehive only there would be more laziness involved.

Shift in size and direction of public spending after the introduction of women suffrage proved him right.

ITT:White knights and villainous madmen

>>7289966
Tesla invented two things, and is a wildly blown out of preportion man.
His standpoint on women is hilarious, seeing as he has no experience with them. He was white Knighting in hopes of getting laid.
He also fell for the progress meme.

The problem with women is they can't formulate anything and cooperate in groups larger than about 4 or 5. Otherwise they fight to the death, or do something retarded.
t. Every survivor island scenario where they split the genders, the men immediately built shelter and find food, the women sunbathe and play in the water and eat all the extra starter food.

>>7289972
you're a madman

>>7289974
he was confirmed asexual

>>7289974
>He was white Knighting in hopes of getting laid.

i like it how, when feminists try to impose their modern logic on historical figures, it gets rebuffed

but when its about imposing shit like cuck and white knight, nobody bats an eyelash

>>7289967
Their study in a field of genetics really isn't viable. They use anecdotal evidence to berate anyone with the subversive communist word of "RACIST" to submit to their fallious ideology of egalitarianism.

>>7289931
This is pretty much the only worthwhile post in this thread.

>>7289974
>implying reality shows are real in any way and don't at all just perpetrate the false image that women are useless to make lonely men like us feel like we were right all along and it's teh womenz dat r stuped

>>7289983
He wanted to fuck a Dove.
Hardly asexual.
>>7289984
More of a little joke, and I'm not a feminist. He ligitmatly had no experience with women.

>>7289984
That's because feminist modern logic is MODERN, whereas cuckoldry and white knighting have existed for thousands of years, they just happen to be under different names like 'Chivalry'.

>>7289986
It's a meme post that at best could be in a self help book.

>>7289947
So are you making up this origin to suit your argument or what? Sure, there's no overt hatred in that, but there's definitely contempt.

>>7289990
Women are not useless. They are incredibly fucking useful.
Do you not remeber what Romulus told his gang of men?
"I have seen the future and it is in women"
Women are VERY much needed, but they are needed in THEIR ROLE.
The roles of men and women are SPERATE.
Pic related
>>7289825
>inb4 le ebin nazi

>>7289990
Except it's not men that mostly watch reality tv shows, there's no conspiracy to make the women look shit; they just are.

>>7290000
This is pretty much the only worthwhile post in the thread. checked

>>7289997
wow, so apart from being wrong about women, you also dont know anything about history, or the idea of courtly love

>>7289985
I was expecting this reply. The fact that you iq fanatics think that liberal ideology wouldn't make psychology and sociology infinitely more hostile to that type of research only goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about.

>>7290003
What manner of insecurities is needed to call contempt anything deviating from egalitarianism?

>>7289997
Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the same friendo.

>>7290011
Looks like tumblr is raiding lit?
Modern feminism has no source from women, it was started by men. Women's drug is freedom, it's like giving a bowl of candy to a five year old, they will simply eat themselves into a diabetic coma and kick and scream and cry when someone says "no, you can't do that".

>>7290000
Oh, so you'd prefer more "LEL CUCK! WOMEN ARE DUMB! I CAN'T THINK ON MY OWN AND THEREFORE RELY ON BOARD CULTURE TO DO IT FOR ME!" posts then?

>>7289974

>t. Every survivor island scenario where they split the genders, the men immediately built shelter and find food, the women sunbathe and play in the water and eat all the extra starter food.

You fucking idiot.

>>7290020
tumblr has been part of 4chan for years anon.

>>7290020
i like how you dont engage with the argument at all, and just spout memes about tumblr

>>7290015
It does, 90% of it is violent opposition.
Show me some accredited psycs and socs that support racial theories? Interested.

>>7290021
why did you fall for it man. your only feeding

>>7289997
>white knighting have existed for thousands of years, they just happen to be under different names like 'Chivalry'

Jesus Christ you dumb nigger, white knighting has nothing to do with feudal relations. Fucking kill yourself.

>>7290021
Cuckposting provides some keks, while self-help-book rehashed memes are really dull.

>>7290022
Just one example.
If you would rather take actual real world examples please show me otherwise.
Men don't watch those shows, that isn't some conspericy againts them to make them look ineffecient or not primally experienced at shelter making and survibal, it's just beyond them to cooperate.

>>7290003
No there isn't. Do you feel contempt for your dog because he is not human? Or do you appreciate him for being a dog?

>>7290016
What kind of insecurities is [sic] needed to literally view more than half the world's population as patently inferior?

>>7290021
Women are pretty dumb lol.
But they do make proper home makers and raise children pretty well.
As I said with Romulus, I have seen the future, and it is women.

>>7290042
(Not him)
Not inferior, different.
Inferior and superior are opinion.
We are different on fundemental levels, and have different roles in society.
Egalitarianism is hilariously wrong.

>>7290026
You say the study isn't viable in biology because the field is too hostile, but you admit that sociology and psychology are more hostile. Why do they choose those fields then? I'll tell you: because they're bullshit handwavey fields in which you beat statistics until they say what you want them to. Look up studies yourself (I'm on my phone and it would be a pain in the ass for me to do it) and see who supports them. By and large psychologists and sociologists. You'll see I'm right.

>>7290037
>if you say something true, and the problems don't actually go away, after a few weeks, your truths are stupid lies
I guess it fits with the whole ''everything has already been written weeeehh I can't write anything weeehhh'' shit that flies around here.

>>7289795
It's quite simple. Do you have some character trait in mind that you think applies uniformly to a sex, race or what have you?

Well stop. You're just incorrect.

>>7290041
No, but that's a shitty analogy, given that the social roles of modern men and women are entirely constructed. And you'll reply with some shit about hunter-gatherers, probably, or if you can't be bothered to think of that you'll just tell me to go back to tumblr.

>>7290042
Nobody even talked about inferiority. It's interesting that you see everything on a one dimensional scale but it has no bearing on what is being said here.

>What manner of insecurities is needed to call contempt anything deviating from egalitarianism?
My other post, that you embody perfectly. Being against egalitarianism = seeing things as "patently inferior".
Kek, there aren't even order relations on the complex numbers, you are the one pushing it on the world at large.

>>7290062
I don't know which position you are arguing from.
Sociologists and Psycologists have no business metteling in the field of Genetics and biology. You're accusing me of doctoring statistics or cherry picking studies? The ists listed rarely have falsifiable or reproducible studies or tests, it's all a matter of opinion with no real data to back it up.

Individualism is a lie.
Egalitarianism is a lie.

The individual doesn't exist in nature. The individual was invented by Descartes as a philosophical exercise.

Equality doesn't exist in nature. The only equality that has ever been legitimate is Christian equality based on the idea that every one has a soul of infinite worth above the distinctions of the world and the body.

Feminism is woman's attempt to take their rights in a political sphere defined by individualism and egalitarianism. In a sense, women have every right to do this, because if these two principles are correct, then women are every bit as entitled to them as men. The problem is that they are false principles. Women are not individuals, they are women. They don't become happy from being self-defining Cartesian egos with private ambitions. They become happy by fulfilling their role in nature & society. Women are naturally submissive and this is great because submission and obedience is absolutely necessary for society to work. There is nothing wrong with women being models of obedience, it is a virtue worth imitating. The entire concept of womanhood shouldn't overthrown just because 1% of women are half-masculine.

>>7290066
Men are more mechanically inclined, work better togeather and are the major inventors and builders of civilization.
Women are the makers of the home and the raiser of the children.
That isn't misogyny , it's actually the direct opposite.
It's hilarious to see "feminists" claim that opposing the destruction of feminine traits in women and the traditional lifestyle are oppressive and backwards when they themselves are almost acting out the world's biggest dramatic irony

>>7290066
That's a completely otherworldly expectation. Even the magnetic resonance of industrial magnets of a given type don't conform to this.

Mere survival would be literally impossible if this argument was taken seriously.

>>7290000

>>7290083
This is also why women are becoming promiscuous btw: they can't fulfil their submissive role in the public sphere so they need sexually dominant men to fulfil their desires to be submissive and looked-after. In a pre-feminist society women were submissive by culture/habit so there was no need to seek out men who would force them into submissiveness.

>>7290068
>given that the social roles of modern men and women are entirely constructed.
Even if that is true, it doesn't matter for the argument. My point is that expecting something to be something it isn't is not leads to frustration and possibly hatred. Getting mad at women for acting like women is like getting mad at the rain for being wet, whether their behaviour is 'constructed' or not.

Do you honestly think the biological differences between the sexes have no influence upon their conduct, though?

>>7290093
>In a pre-feminist society women were submissive by culture/habit so there was no need to seek out men who would force them into submissiveness.
False as fuck tbh fam

did you even read Schopenhauer? He says monogamy is pure fiction made to make women subservient

>>7290100
>Getting mad at women for acting like women is like getting mad at the rain for being wet, whether their behaviour is 'constructed' or not.

What? Of course it matters for the argument. If women act like their constructed role instead of their natural (which for my purposes I assume is a "netural" role) role, then it would lead to "frustration and possibly hatred." You know, like it did for feminism to arise as a movement.

Maybe you should read the bits of Schopenhauer about not confirming your prejudices with his work before reading the bits about women. You know, like how most people read a book in order not just page 57. Then you might actually see he was a misanthrope.
>inb4 but lols didn't he say shit about women
jej he said much worse things about men and humans, and you didn't understand the world as representation if dissimulation is a problem for you

>>7290112
Kek.
It's just made up right?
There is no natural tendency for monogamy that developed in western society? It's all one big conspericy to oppress women?
No.
We're not fucking bonbos.

>>7290051
Yes yes, merely /difference/. You are the rational observer, all men truly are. Women are different in that they are good at cookin' and cleanin' but ain't so good at being rational observers who know how to qualify everything rationally in terms that all and /only/ men can agree upon.

What is it, when you claim that women must be the "cleaners" of society? The homemakers? You don't want to be those things, you don't want to be a woman. So how is it not contempt to think it is wrong for a woman to want something aside from that? You want society to agree with you and for them to be relegated as you see fit, rather than they having any say. You want them to be socially coerced into the role YOU want them to play.

You're just manipulating your hatred into something palatable, using your rationalization to hide.

Because if women don't have some intrinsic flaw in the context of our present day, it means that you must have a flaw. The ironic thing is the flaw is exactly the only thing you have to lose; it's your misogyny.

>>7290121
>jej he said much worse things about men and humans

the difference is men don't throw a shitfit if some cuck writes some mean things about them.

>>7290126
>monogamy
not according to genetic descent. maybe genetics are wrong tho

>>7290130
yes they do.

>>7290130
>the difference is men don't throw a shitfit if some cuck writes some mean things about them.

Like a lot do when a radical feminist does?

>>7290130
>I haven't read Schopenhauer on Hegel
You sound retarded and ignorant.

>>7289931

On the contrary, the persons at fault in a birth are certainly the parents. And if the birthed party is epecially unfortunate, say some combination of ugly, poor and so on, then it is not merely not ridiculous for the afflicted person to resent their unnecessary summons into being; quite the opposite, such a resentment is (going for the ten dollar word now) eminently reasonable.

-regards, /r9k/

>>7290037
>not resenting people for things they can't control is self-help-tier

oh come off it already. you faggots can only think in memes and labels. fuck's sake

>>7290145
is the board not shit yet? what with robot back.

>>7290128
Holy fucking kek.
It's not just me that wants this or desires this, it's themselves.
Have you looked at female happiness quantified from the 40s onwards? It has absolutly plummeted. How is it difficult to fulfill their primal roles of having children and raising them; I have no hatred of women, I have a love of women that act as women, not women that act as men.
I do not coerce them into a role, they coerce themselves out of it. Is there not inherit roles to society? Above all there are innate biological differences that determined these roles. Men are stronger, more mechanically inclined, prefer harder work, it goes on and on.
Women, in the world's most "gender equal society" of Finland still overwhelmingly choose social care and "pink collar" jobs even with every opportunity for STEM or mechanical and labor fields.
You are attempting to coerce me out of my position by coercing others into it.
This is my position because of how we have developed over tens, a hundred thousand years.
You can't simply destroy a hundred thousand years of development;
and it's hilarious you are trying to impose hatred or "MUHSOGINEE" onto me.
>>7290134
Are you talking about how men used to maintain a Haram of women?

>>7290165
>Are you talking about how men used to maintain a Haram of women?
You probably meant harem, and no, I'm talking about female infidelity. No, I don't expect you to know anything about the genetics of that because you cite Finland, one of the most inbred countries in the world, as a reason women would choose social care for political reasons rather than material necessity.

Protip: don't use the country with the most tomato shaped babies outside of FLDS sects as a good hunting ground for STEM students.

>>7290157
You fall for the same thing, which is conceiving the fact of seeing anything as alien as a form of resentment.

>not resenting people for things they can't control is self-help-tier
That's not really what the original self-help-tier response was about except for the last sentence.

>>7289795
This fucking thread is the dumbest shit I've ever read. OP is completely incompetent belligerent dipshit. He will die alone and thoroughly convinced the problem is everyone else

>>7290126
It is not a conspiracy to oppress woman it is an ego fueled delusion of owning sexual partners. Also an inability to share

>>7290226
Projecting much m8?

I can't tell if these people are serious or not? Is it all bait? Are they really mad virgins? bait or angry virgin seems more plausible than people thinking these things in earnest

>>7290119
>. If women act like their constructed role instead of their natural (which for my purposes I assume is a "netural" role) role
This is ideology, tbh. Your notion of neutral is just another construct.

And the notion of a natural way and an artificial way is fallacious. Everyone people do is natural. Saying that something isn't is like calling out a crow for acting in a manner which you consider unbefitting for a crow according to your image of one, while the crow per definition acts like a crow does, which means that behaviour should be incorporated in your image of the crow rather than that the crow's behaviour should conform to your idea of it.

>>7290240
Just choose whichever coping device generally helps you best when confronted with different opinions than your own.

>>7290252
YEs this post

>>7289938
It's not so much that I hate women, It's that we have to "play along" with feminism dominating the social narrative while we have to operate on workarounds like the ones in the picture.

I'll be angry as long as I have to take feminism seriously. Why can't we just have an open debate about it instead of muh feelings and muh offensiveness.

>>7290252
>Everyone people do is natural.

Then why do you argue that feminism is unnatural? Is seeking rights an unnatural thing to do?

>Saying that something isn't is like calling out a crow for acting in a manner which you consider unbefitting for a crow according to your image of one, while the crow per definition acts like a crow does, which means that behaviour should be incorporated in your image of the crow rather than that the crow's behaviour should conform to your idea of it.

Yeah, that's the problem, you seem to have an image of a woman, and are now getting upset that they are not acting according to your image. Thank you for articulating my point for me.

>>7290252
>Everyone people do is natural. Saying that something isn't is like calling out a crow for acting in a manner which you consider unbefitting for a crow according to your image of one, while the crow per definition acts like a crow does, which means that behaviour should be incorporated in your image of the crow rather than that the crow's behaviour should conform to your idea of it.

You don't understand the concept of nature. Please read Aristotle.

>>7290274
because of the competence capacity divide of trust. men are seen as culpable because they have competence so mistakes must be intentional, whereas women are seen as incompetent and therefore inculpable. it's fucked up and denies women would ever be competent and callous, because if they are callous, it must stem from lack of ability, while men will be afforded full intentionality. similarly, smart men have a greater capacity for being seen as intentionally evil than dumb men, because it's assumed their competence gives them less capacity to make a misstep without it being intentional. failures are more easily forgiven if it's thought most your actions can be ascribed to compassion without any confidence, but if people hold confidence in your abilities, they are less likely to forgive you and see your mistakes as a lack of compassion instead.

>>7290261
Get back in the kitchen.

>>7290165
Your response actually changed my mind.

>>7289931
>the societal pressure on women to be beautiful, and not much else, is very real, especially among ''lower class'' people)
where did you get this "lower class" idea from? the women born into money usually push themselves to be beautiful before all else—as in "trophy wife"— unless they are naturally gifted with intelligence.

>>7290281
>Then why do you argue that feminism is unnatural? Is seeking rights an unnatural thing to do?
I did not say that.

>Yeah, that's the problem, you seem to have an image of a woman, and are now getting upset that they are not acting according to your image. Thank you for articulating my point for me.
That is also not true. I'm saying that misogyny is the result of men expecting women to be/act the same as them.

>>7290288
Aristotle doesn't understand the concept of nature.

>>7290179
Then use Sweden or Norway, either work and are declared as the most "gender equal" societies.
And it's not just about STEM, it's also about the down and dirty jobs that women simply are not fit for or don't want to do.
>>7290228
Kek.
Are you getting cucked or something? Mogomy has been the foundation for familial life in western society, I don't why you seek a "inability to share" not just "no desire or reason to share"?
Is it ownership? Or mutual agreement.
I feel like you're going to quote marx about his women are just objects of sexual production or something lmfao.
>>7290240
>DUDE VIRGINS LMAO
>IT'S 2015 HOW ARE YOU NOT A FEMINIST
>YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY SHIT LORD
Oh wow look, I can strawman aswell.
>>7290252
>the everything is subjective meme
Everything people do is /not/ natural, that would be a very exploitative use of the word /natural/; is it natural for 9 year olds to want to pump themselves full of the wrong hormone and act like the sex they are not?
Is it natural for women to want to fulfill the role of a male; when the results say they utterly fail at it (single motherhood is a huge problem in America and many other places) we must find and go with what is natural, you can not just deny that there is no objective natural and not, and declare all is natural therfore okay and good; that IS the naturalistic fallacy. We can however proclaim it is natural because it has been domonstratibly the BEST within a society, objectively the physical and biological and mental traits define the natural aspects of man and women alike; and objectively they have determined that we are different.
>>7290261
No.
No that post.
It's the same typical moronic everything is subjective arguing that leads to "transabelism" or "transgendered" or "non-binary" actions. It makes zero sense, it's a generic rambling that gives and portrays no evidence, no reason, and violates a simple naturalistic fallacy.
>>7290281
But you fall into your own pit of "logic", you have an image of women being men for all practical perpose when very strictly they ARE NOT. There is nothing about your image that holds true or relevant, it has no basis in biology or history or standard; it's not arbitrary, it's there for a reason. Your image is actually worse because a majority of women WANT the traditional lifestyle, but because of the belligerent actions of Feminism make the home lifestyle almost impossible.
Your point isn't actuated, it's self actuated; and it's hilarious you don't see your own convictions because you have subjective arguments that rarely hold any kind of intellectual fortitude, much less competency.
>>7290313
Muhsogieny is the result of women coercing themselves to act like men.

>>7290313
>Aristotle doesn't understand the concept of nature.
Those Greeks in general had no fucking idea about nature, more than 90% of them literally equated it with what they deemed to be good. Start with the Germans people, this is no joke.

>>7290318
>No idea about nature
Kek

>>7290316
>But you fall into your own pit of "logic", you have an image of women being men for all practical perpose when very strictly they ARE NOT. There is nothing about your image that holds true or relevant, it has no basis in biology or history or standard; it's not arbitrary, it's there for a reason. Your image is actually worse because a majority of women WANT the traditional lifestyle, but because of the belligerent actions of Feminism make the home lifestyle almost impossible.
>Your point isn't actuated, it's self actuated; and it's hilarious you don't see your own convictions because you have subjective arguments that rarely hold any kind of intellectual fortitude, much less competency.

What I find hilarious is that people like you think that you can discredit a corpus of work and thought that dates back decades just because "my particular and incomplete interpretation of history and biology invalidates it, and that's all the reason I need!"

>>7290313
>I'm saying that misogyny is the result of men expecting women to be/act the same as them.

And you advocate misogyny as a way to deal with misogyny? Was that your post?

>>7290165
>Have you looked at female happiness quantified from the 40s onwards? It has absolutly plummeted.
Source.
>I have a love of women that act as women, not women that act as men.
Construct/ideology/spook, whichever you prefer, this isn't based on anything empirical, and no, history can't help you as evidence here.
>Is there not inherit roles to society?
No. There have been societies where women worked, there have been societies where women were polygamous while men were forbidden to, etc.
>Above all there are innate biological differences that determined these roles. Men are stronger, more mechanically inclined, prefer harder work, it goes on and on.
This is the biggest load of cliche sophisms. ''men are stronger'', yeah, great. What jobs other than shit tier ones require this strength nowadays? What's next ''men must protect the home''? from what?
>Women, in the world's most "gender equal society" of Finland still overwhelmingly choose social care and "pink collar" jobs even with every opportunity for STEM or mechanical and labor fields.
Right, just like a lot of men choose not to go into STEM. Just because women want equal opportunities and equal rights doesn't mean every woman is going to go into the classic manly professions. This is a really stupid thing to say. You're also not taking into account the prevalence of our old gender roles in contemporary society which can influence people's choices in life.
>This is my position because of how we have developed over tens, a hundred thousand years.
There have been societies of practically every kind. An ancient tradition doesn't validate it as correct. Nothing is justified by the amount of time people have spent doing it, unless you want to give magic a shot and tell me how that works out for you.
>You can't simply destroy a hundred thousand years of development;
You really like your hundred thousand number, I see. You really want to make it seem more special like that? You aren't just going to start around the Neolithic revolution like any reasonable person would? And you're trying to say we haven't successfully smashed ancient practices already? We have atheist, democratic (if you even think of replying ''Athens'' to this you're a moron), universal suffrage built nation-states that aren't in perpetual war with their neighbors. We've already destroyed ''hundreds of thousands of years'' of ''development'' (>implying teleology)

>>7290316
>Everything people do is /not/ natural, that would be a very exploitative use of the word /natural/; is it natural for 9 year olds to want to pump themselves full of the wrong hormone and act like the sex they are not?
>Is it natural for women to want to fulfill the role of a male; when the results say they utterly fail at it (single motherhood is a huge problem in America and many other places) we must find and go with what is natural, you can not just deny that there is no objective natural and not, and declare all is natural therfore okay and good; that IS the naturalistic fallacy. We can however proclaim it is natural because it has been domonstratibly the BEST within a society, objectively the physical and biological and mental traits define the natural aspects of man and women alike; and objectively they have determined that we are different.
Saying that behaviours you like are natural and behaviours you dislike are unnatural is a lot more exploitative use of the phrase. You try to equate the natural with the good and the good with your personal preference. You might consider certain behaviours undesirable, but that does not make them any more unnatural than you wishing not to be bitten by a mosquito makes her bites unnatural.

>>7290316
>violates a simple naturalistic fallacy

I find it funny that you would call out someone for that, while doing the exact same thing.

>>7290333
>And you advocate misogyny as a way to deal with misogyny? Was that your post?
No, I advice men to not expect women to be the same as them so that they won't get disappointed in them, so that hatred does not arise out of frustration.

That is not misogyny any more than not expecting a dog to be a tree is misocynist.

>>7290358
Oh, okay, I thought you were the guy saying "misogyny arises from men thinking women are on the same level as they are, and so the solution to it is to accept that women are inferior."

You seem to have a whole different set of unjustified prejudices.

>>7290128
Define "think" first. We're not going to make any progress on this issue until the problem of consciousness is solved first.

>>7290316
>We can however proclaim it is natural because it has been domonstratibly the BEST within a society, objectively the physical and biological and mental traits define the natural aspects of man and women alike; and objectively they have determined that we are different.

That's a huge leap in logic you got there slugger, which makes me think you're probably still in high school.

>>7290308
I didn't mean women in this sentence, I meant that lower class men will often reduce women to their looks alone, and exert a pressure. Of course women do it to themselves, and rich women have always been dolls in most societies, so it's not really a blame game, it's just that I notice lower class people often not really having anything but looks to discuss. I'll admit it's a bit of a weak argument, though. And mostly anecdotal for that matter.

>>7290316
>Then use Sweden or Norway, either work and are declared as the most "gender equal" societies.
>And it's not just about STEM, it's also about the down and dirty jobs that women simply are not fit for or don't want to do.
No, it's about you not having enough background information to isolate what could well be a genuine problem without making retarded mistakes which blow your attempt at illustrating it out of the water. If you don't understand what that means, I'm saying you're acting like a third wave feminist in all but which ideology. Accusing them of making the same logical loops you do after that is going to seem like it's purely based in ideology also, and not a better one, just an equally retarded one.
>tl;dr- stop you are hurting all men by trying to represent them

>>7290366
I am that guy though.

The silly thing is that you think that considering someone as inferior necessarily implies a hatred for them.

Well, I'm not going to try and fight 5 people at once, I guess I changed one persons opinion at least.
I have now learned the /lit/ really is full of cucks who haven't even read the basic primal definitions of man, women alike and demand that theirs is superior to the social and biological development of a hundred thousand years or more.

>>7290417
Is one of those guys you think doesn't read the one who schooled you on genetics? I think he prob read some shit about that bro.

>>7290322
>Idealism.

>>7290417
So you can't argue back because you got nothing? Okay then.

>>7289805
Yusa Navabich

>>7290417
(You) confirmed BTFO

>>7290417
>I-I-I'm not wrong
>It's the world that is wrong!
>Y-y-you're all idiots, I can't articulate why, but you are!
>H-h-ha!

Sure thing buddy.

>>7290422
No I do have plenty of stuff, it's more of the time commitment I don't want to give to a tiwansese fingerprinting imageboard.
Especially in a board that doesn't regularly align with any of my positions or ideas.
It's almost futile, especially with such a dismissive and singular rhetoric.
Here is that thing on female happiness.
http://naturalsociety.com/depression-in-women-doubles-since-1970s/
I can't find the exact article right now, maybe I'll be back later.
>>7290439
>>7290431
Same fag

>>7290420
I don't know what you're talking about.
It's hilarious you think you can school a med student on genetics.

Anyways here is a real paper about it.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
Still not the one I'm looking for but maybe you guys can dig around for yourselves.

>>7290449
>additional sources:
>Dailymail.co.uk
>WomensHealth.about.com

lol

Christfags even try to argue sometimes, it's sad. Just accept your inferiority of perception and limitations you impose on yourselfs, Aristole would agree, he would say you have no right to complain over things you do to yourself.

>>7290383
Lower class men are as likely as upper class men and there are good husbands in both classes. There is a reason for high class prostitution.

>>7290449
>Especially in a board that doesn't regularly align with any of my positions or ideas.
>literature doesn't align with my positions or ideas
uwotm8

>spoilers on your study: everyone who moved out of lower classes of labour with civil rights experienced a decline in work satisfaction
"better" jobs like being a lawyer or doctor or banker destroy your life and job satisfaction regardless of gender/race compared to jobs that are traditionally filled by lower classes. humans find basic labour satisfying and high powered jobs stressful. whodathunkit?

>>7290449
>No I do have plenty of stuff, it's more of the time commitment I don't want to give to a tiwansese fingerprinting imageboard.

>Y-y-yeah guise, I got the best arguments!
>B-b-but I'm not sharing them with you!
>But just know, I still win!

>Especially in a board that doesn't regularly align with any of my positions or ideas.

>Y-y-yeah, fucking liberal hugbox!
>H-h-how dare they not be a hugbox for what I believe in!

>>7290461
I'm talking about the guy who was talking about inbreeding and female infidelity. >>7290179 If you're >>7290316 I really hope you are lying about being a med student, because even a lay person can see how rekt on basic fact you got by medicine. I looked it up and apparently genetic research on diseases of inbreeding is what Finland is famous for in the medical community. I'm trusting the guy who knew that when you didn't, Mr I'm not qualified to practice medicine.

>>7290467
Simply one quick article.
The paper is in the next post.
>>7290479
>Muh class theory
Has nothing to do with this.
Men's baseline has been relatively stable while women were once far above men, have plummeted to below.
>literature doesn't align with my ideas
No, I said I would be hard pressed to find many people that agree with me; yet I found one or at least changed his mind.
>>7290493
That wasn't the point, but you can strawman all you want.
Putting dashes inbetween your letters doesn't make my points less vaild, I just don't find the energy to respond. So yes, in essence you guys have "won"?
But I doubt you would want my approval or submission. You proclaim it all the same.

>>7289938
John Maynard Keynes was a greasy old pederast who only liked boys because he liked to penetrate boycunny. He was literally so tremendously queer that he was grossed out by women. At Cambridge he was part of a secret society for fat old men who liked to rape male students and I'm literally not making this up. It's from Ray Monk's bio of Wittgenstein, there's this whole section about how Keynes couldn't contain himself and he had to fuck this new boypussy right there in front of everyone. It made Bertrand Russel uncomfortable, but not uncomfortable enough to quit the club.

>>7290502
I'm not qualified to practice medicine, and I don't think the relevance of inbreeding equates to a refutation to my point.
I pointed to the two other Scandinavian countries, or you could use other European countries if you want.
Find any really and the things I stated about typical occupation are true.

>>7290505
>I don't have the time or energy to argue
>But I'll keep posting just to prove I'm superior

Do you get tired of shitposting, or is it like the highlight of your day?

>>7290505
>>muh class theory

I like how instead of answering the point raised, you trivialized it so you don't have to interact with the uncomfortable truth of it.

>>7290519
I don't equate your terms of superiority or inferiroty, that is your own obsession; I focus on the real and defined differences between us that I can't fathom you denying.
Maybe it's a fundemental difference in our genetics that determines that; a bit unrelated but I don't think I can convince you any more than you can convince me.
I certainly can't convince 5 people(assuming no samefags) each sustaining eachothers arguments.
I'm just suprised one person changed their mind.

>>7290407
Would you even classify uneven with inferior? Sure, women are less likely to be great in the way men are great, but are more likely to be better parents. Motherhood makes women hold a special and not by any means inferior position. My mother isn't a great businessman, but she is a great teacher and a caring mother. The fact that she isn't as versed in theology and law and makes less money isn't making her inferior, it's just making her different to my father. There is no reason to judge women the same as men. Each have a thing they ought to be like and in which ways to achieve greatness on a personal level. Virtue isn't the same for sexes in this regard.

My only issue with the anti-feminists is that they are themselves always exactly what they profess to hate: irrational, feelings-based, bigoted, etc.

Easy to see flaws in others and not in yourself.

>>7290449
>depression-in-women-doubles-since-1970s
Yeah that probably doesn't have anything to do with better diagnosis of depression since the 1970s

>>7290417
>I have now learned the /lit/ really is full of cucks who haven't even read the basic primal definitions of man, women alike years or more.
Hahahaha
Care to tell me what you've read on ''the basic primal definitions of man, women alike''? I'm curious.
>and demand that theirs is superior to the social and biological development of a hundred thousand years or more.
Here we go again, you literally only have your delusions and your evidence is ''hundred thousand years of development'', which is funny, because there's a reason it's called prehistory, as there are no written sources whatsoever, and all we have is guesswork.
But then again, as soon as you read ''cucks'' you should know you're being sucked into an argument with a retard.

>>7290523
I addressed it, and you actually still proved my point regardless of your dichotomus and falsely founded class theory, women's happiness has absolutly plummeted and I don't think you can really refute that

>>7290535
Read the way of men by Jack Donovan if you want.
Might help.

>>7290505
If you actually read that paper you posted, you'd see the argument for female unhappiness advanced by the researchers is that it's due to the lack of interpretability of earlier data with regards to modern data.

But of course, "women are unhappy now because they're doing something unnatural as dictated by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and history."

>>7290532
Post of the thread tbh

>>7290505
>>Muh class theory
>Has nothing to do with this.
No shit, you're seeing class theory where there is none. The post is about rewarding labour vs unrewarding labour, not class theory. I'm not sure you know what class theory is to bring it up.
Women used do more of the jobs with high satisfaction, and branched out into ones which were traditionally where males with less job satisfaction were. The same thing happened with blacks, where they now had the opportunity to do jobs like being a lawyer or doctor and suddenly they had the same lack of job satisfaction as doctors and lawyers always had in whites. And no, that is not racial theory either.
>No, I said I would be hard pressed to find many people that agree with me; yet I found one or at least changed his mind.
Your ideas are confused, and you seem to be seeing validation like a girl. I'm right wing, think female lib was a misstep, but you are a freaking retard filled with memes and slogans which my right wing desire for competent leaders says you should find satisfaction scrubbing toilets with the lower class women. You are the worst showcase for these ideals, not least because you can't read comprehensively.

>>7290543
>Donovan concludes that The Way of Men is the way of the primal survival gang. The simple, amoral, tactical virtues of the gang define our most basic conception of manliness. The “crisis of masculinity” is really a timeless push-and-pull between masculinity and civilization. The world has changed more than men have, and the security and luxury of modernity have put us conflict with our own natures. The path back to honor for men may lead through a new dark age.
Toppest of keks

>>7289795
my diary, tbh

>>7290529
>I focus on the real and defined differences between us

Oh, you means the one you don't prove, don't define, and just like to justify with some tired old logic that "it's always been this way, so it must be true!"

You can't claim to hold the empirical candle of truth without the data to back it up buddy.

>>7290543
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
HAHAHAHA
God, I hate people that do this online, because it makes them look like 10 year olds, but fuck me and call me dinky because I can't believe this is what we're dealing with here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-JWqHlKpU8
>we gotz too prutekt ower hoooomess!
>me gotz biceps so I big stronk Amewican mayn
Holy fucking shit, I can't believe this. It's mind boggling that any person can just write a book out of his arse and can so thoroughly convince people with it.
Maybe pick up some actual history books, ya dingus.

>>7290543
>What is masculinity? Ask ten men and you'll get ten vague, conflicting answers. Unlike any book of its kind, The Way of Men offers a simple, straightforward answer-without getting bogged down in religion, morality, or politics. It's a guide for understanding who men have been and the challenges men face today. The Way of Men captures the silent, stifling rage of men everywhere who find themselves at odds with the over-regulated, over-civilized, politically correct modern world. If you've ever closed your eyes and wished for one day as a lion, this book is for you.

>basing your view of a complex sociological concept on a self-help book

So this is who I've been arguing with. Okay.

You're an idiot.

>>7289915

All men mellow out with age; the T goes down and they're not in the heat of competition with each other any more for the best women (or, as sometimes happens, this competitiveness, whose proper end from "nature's" point of view is reproduction, is reguarly diverted into autistic scientific ends, and we in general are the better for this accident-Newton and Tesla with physics, Schopy with his philosophy, etc).

Senescence comes to all; those who have successfully reproduced, have some money, and haven't been abandoned or divorced, are generally the most content with life. But even men who have had personal catastrophes in life, yet managed simply to live into late middle age, have usually made some sort of peace with themselves, or else they wouldn't have been able to function all this time.

>>7290572
>Hahahahahaha
What are you 12?
>dingus
Correct, I guess
>>7290559
More of the ones you refused, simply dismissal.
>>7290582
In no way was it a basis, you suggested need for a simple reference, I provided.
>>7290553
>You're a confused girl
I don't appreciate the projection

>>7290755
>I don't appreciate the projection
what? you threw a hissy fit like a high school girl about how only one guy could be friends with you because his one line response in agreement with you obviously made you better read than everyone else. You're either a girl or a school shooter in the making with that attitude.

>>7290543
Yes, I'm sure some fag's post-apocalyptical erotic fantasy will help.

>>7290771
No, I just don't feel the devotion to be constantly berated againts, while sure my ideas are not refined and maybe not properly articulated(?) I attacked no one. And I'm not speaking of
>you dumbass
>moronic
Ect, I'm talking about genuine mischaracizations and outright dismissals. It's pretty frustrating I'll admit, and for the wrong reasons I was seeking more of a discussion rather than be called a virgin, misogynistic, something or other who's all ideas of nature are unfounded and so on.
I just found it shocking that I affected one persons position.
That and the samefagging on my posts seems to be quite a nuisance.

I don't know, I really haven't eaten today and haven't posted on /lit/ for a while. Just meandering I guess.

>>7290755
>y-y-you're all projecting!
>y-y-you're all 12!

>>7290788
definitely a girl. go have a cookie sweetie, none of that was anything more than a blog post, you can try again later.

>>7290796
Oh it definatly was a *blog post*, but what other response did you want?
>>7290794
>l-l-look mom I d-d-did it again!

>>7289822
This may sound like I'm just bragging here, but I'm not. There are very few women who are nice to be with if not for their looks, I just use most girls. I fuck them and break up the relationship and get away with it because I'm pretty popular and handsome.
>inb4 highschool fag, im in uni
>inb4 stories that never happened

>>7290800
>>7290800
>Oh it definatly was a *blog post*, but what other response did you want?
so how new to 4chan in general are you? i'd spoiler "it's not your blog" but everyone else has read that, young lady.

>>7290788
>I attacked no one

Says the guy who called his detractor a twelve-year old for attacking the shitty material he brought up to the discussion.

Dish it and can't take it back? Definitely a high-schooler.

>>7290788
>>7290796
>I-I-I'm not being able to argue properly because I didn't eat
>A-a-and I haven't posted here in a while
>B-b-but I convinced one fellow idiot, that counts, r-r-right?

lmao, little validation seeking kid

This is a board for those 18 and older

>>7290813
I have been here for a long while, 2011? I mostly just stayed on /f/ and stuff for a laugh, but got heavily into reading after highschool.
/lit/ has been my home board for a good two years.
>>7290827
I don't call spamming H and A in capital letters a detraction.

>>7290837
>l-l-look mom I posted it again
I seek no validation, I ramble now and then. Habit of keeping to typing keys.
I was a typist for a bit in the summers.
>one fellow idiot
So much projection.
Go shout muhsoiginee from the rooftops some more.
Maybe the patriarchy will finally come crushing down on your head.

>>7290838
I don't care how long you've been here, you're still a shitposter and need to lurk moar, possibly forever.

>>7290847
I don't even think misogyny is a real problem.

I just find it offensive that you think you can argue for my gender when you're clearly an underage idiot. Lurk moar and stop spamming this retarded "hundreds of thousands of years of history!!!!" meme. Seriously, it's embarrassing. Say that to any history professor, even the most conservative one, and he'll slap you right across the face.

But of course, that's assuming you're even out of high school (biiiiiig assumption).

>>7290838
>posts idiotic reference (akin to talking about Austrian Economics on an econometrics conference)
>is surprised when people laugh at him
>"Laughing out loud is not a valid argument!!!!!!!"

lol

>>7290857
A hundred thousand or more, not hundreds of thousands.
Sure it was an attempt to oversimplify history, but I was speaking from a very broad evolutionary perspective of Western women.
>I find it offensive
Go cry more dyke bitch, nobody gives a damn.

>>7290866
>allow me to counter your accusation i'm an idiot with my idiocy
k

>>7290872
>let me attempt to project my own insecurities by calling others idiots
K

>>7290876
I wasn't the guy you're responding to but I am a history prof. Even students are this bad, and student are terrible things. Please sage your posts which are obviously just for a flame war and of no value to this board. On second thoughts, just don't make them.

>>7290886
*are not this bad

>>7290886
Your acclimations of personal merit really don't matter on 4chan.
There's also no way I can now you're not just same fagging the fuck out of me again.

Are you so upset you have to lie?

>>7290532
Literally trial of intention.
You don't even try to address the matter but go on judging people.
I guess if someone yells angrily that 2+2=4 to a guy he hates, then the proposition become false.

All the more retarded when it's about throwing banalities as your post says nothing but "lel, as you are any better, lulz. I can't even, I mean, wow, just wow, how bigoted can you be. Downvoted".

>>7290891
I just came across you being an idiot because you keep bumping it to the front page. Seriously, sage your off topic posts, it's rude and just lets other people see you being an idiot to join in.

>>7290896
kek, when did he say anything about truth or falsehood?

>>7290898
So you made up being a history professer in an attempt for what reason?
Oh right none, you are doing nothing different then me.
If it's an off topic thread than report the thread or hide it.

>>7290866
>>7290876

Yep, not even those other posters but it's clear you're a dumbfuck. Please stop posting.

>>7290866
>Go cry more dyke bitch, nobody gives a damn.

>I don't do ad homs, it's everybody else that keeps doing that to me!

Cry more faggot. This isn't even trolling, it's just being unintentionally pathetic.

>>7290866
>Sure it was an attempt to oversimplify history, but I was speaking from a very broad evolutionary perspective of Western women.

I love it when people who know nothing about the subject like to justify themselves by saying "I was just talking broadly!"

>>7290532
>>7290552
>>7290909
Reminds me of this.
I don't know what any validity these empty words of
>prejudice
>bigoted
Have. Both are used improperly.
Also it might be worth noting that one is in response to, not instigated by.

>>7290924
Then please, enlighten me master of history about the lives and roles of western women?

this thread needs this
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPjUsu2-QMQ

>>7289893
spook is piretty much synonymous with essence

>>7290917
>Muh feels

>>7290930
I'm not the one using some gross overgeneralization to prove my "point." I'm just stating how much of a clueless idiot you come across by talking about being justified by "a hundred thousand or more years of history."

You're the one who should pick up a book nigga.

>>7290930
And again, when I said hundreds of thousands I was speaking of the biological developments; not for me to claim such incompentancy of "western civilization has been the same or even existed for that long".

>>7290945
I believe I stated specifically to the biological developments between man and women.

>>7290930
I'm not him, but my recommendation on the subject is reading legal history as it is the best reflection of a time. For example the more dangerous the society the less of a role a woman had had in a certain period, generally speaking. Rights always increased as wealth grew. Thus a woman had a stronger role in Venice than she had in Franck state (Charlemange, don't know the exact English name) and as wealth grew we had an increase also in Germany in the beginning of the 16th century and so on.

>>7290952
Then enlighten me on those biological developments, specifically the existence of this so-called "homemaker gene" that seems to be expressed in around half of the world population.

Hi I'm a girl and you're all stupid

>>7290957
So you don't think nature has determined the differences between men and women (mainly physical. Most certainly) that determined men to fight the wars and women to raise the children?
>>7290953
I prefer to use the term energy over wealth. Wealth is difficult to define in the modern era?
As with the increase of stored or available energy in a social system the more rights and freedom women and children are allowed.

>>7290000
A lot of people on /lit/ do need help.

>>7290969
Tits or gtfo
(^:

>>7290970
Men being stronger on average has no bearing on why women should be homemakers in an era where little work is physically demanding enough to need to be done by a man.

have you tried, you know, actually talking to a woman?

>>7290982
>little work
Oh I'm lauffing.
>>7290991
>le virgin meme

>>7290982
Whoops, got ahead of myself, welders, builders, bricklayer, sewer cleaners, majority of combat troops that actually see battle, policemen, farmers, and many other laborers are intensively occupied by men that women simply refuse to even attempt to do and society would fall apart without the jobs.
Then they are spit on when people screem "MUHSOGINEE" when women are not CEOs and presidents and shit; while instead they could get comfy office or classroom airconditioned the real workers are out breaking their backs.

>>7290994
Nice counter-argument. About the same as spamming the H and A keys.

>>7291006
>while instead they could get comfy office or classroom airconditioned the real workers are out breaking their backs.

How is it that I know you haven't done a day's work in your life?

>>7291007
Calm down offended women.
A man is speaking

>>7291011
How do you know that? I worked weekends on a farm doing cotton, maize, wheat and tending sheep and cows.

>>7290994
I'm not saying you're a virgin or whatever....I just mean that if you don't interact with woman a lot then women stop seeming like people and you get your idea of them from the internet. I mean, you have to admit this happens? right?

>>7291021
>>7291017
lmao

Ok kid. You win.

Original Poster, you fagoulas. Read the "Story of O", it's basically a manual written by a woman on how they want to be treated.

>>7290970
How is wealth difficult to define? It's literally how much food, shelter and other resources a society produces. That's why Mesopotamia had more women rights than say a women from the middle ages.

>>7291031
K
>>7291028
That would be r9k, I have quite a bit of experience with women personally. Quite a few in my age group are alright, better than the generation before maybe.
>>7291038
One women now rights the dictionary of how to treat women.

>>7291028
and btw I'M a virgin. and there's nothing wrong with virginity, it's healthier than sleeping with someone just cuz you don't want to be a virgin. but being a virgin doesn't mean I don't socailize

>>7291047
>That would be r9k, I have quite a bit of experience with women personally. Quite a few in my age group are alright, better than the generation before maybe.
but do you think boys from your age group are any better? they mostly just have simple interests that relate to their sex too. a lot of women read YA or whatever, but boys tend to not even read, they like video games. there are both boys and woman who read higher literature and can think deeply

>>7291041
Because there are different non-tangiable aspects of wealth that are not totally relevant.
I find energy to be a better director, for both evolutionary perpose, and for relevance.
I like talking about energy in social systems, more interesting than simple wealth; it explains a lot more than wealth can.
But they are also somewhat synonymous.

>>7291047
Wow it's saying something about my intellect when I could understand 1/3rd of a fuck about that pic.

To the Pirate Library!

>>7291038
like they could write prose as well as any man, even Sade? yeah she won that bet.

>>7291057
Boys from my age group? We don't play video games as much; those below us do a lot.
We may be picking it up more because there are less and less opportunities to express our primal actions. So we try and simulate it the best we can.
A lot of it has to do with the schooling system and how it is structured primarily for female behavior and boys don't get a chance to be *boys*.
A lot of stuff is blown out of preportion but it appears like women are being held hostage by a very extreme group telling them they are oppressed and fulfilling this culture of self victimization.
Boys just kinda sit there and whatever, and or shoot up a school.
>>7291063
Kind of a random picture.
Doesn't really apply.
But you do seem like a Hare.

>>7291059
I find energy to be pointlessly vague and not mean anything. Wealth and ideological basis including philosophy and religion are also strong factors (Islam having historically relatively a lot of wealth, but ideology and philosophically stuck in the 7th century).

>>7291080
Hm, I guess energy is better used for evolutionary discussion between Europe (cold challenging enviornment were the best survive) and Africa (warm mild climate were advancement isn't nessicsry)

>>7291072
Bitch I'm more wolf than Jacob the Werewolf, my supreme shirt-removing skills are unmatched even by Hulk Holgan himself, also-...
Oh wait, I see your point now.

>>7291094
>Hulk Hogan
I'M A REAL AMERICAN.
FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERY MAN.
Actually r/K theory is pretty dumb. Just thought it was kinda funny.

>>7291098
Hahahaha ISIS IS KILLING OUR TROOPS, MUST PROTECT THEIR OIL!
Hey, it seems like some people here are actually fun to talk to.

But yeah, actually I never heard about that.
Will check it out sometime next week.

>>7291090
There was advancement in both hot and cold ares, what the fuck are you talking about? More in hot or warm than in cold for that matter. Greece is very hot, so is Egypt and so is Mexico. India is also just about as hot as you can get.

>>7291072
>A lot of it has to do with the schooling system and how it is structured primarily for female behavior and boys don't get a chance to be *boys*.
even when schools were exclusively for boys, they were about discipline, not acting like an ape

>>7291123
By hot I means seasonal or climate that causes significant need for competition for resources or survival traits.
Northern Africa a desert, competition, India and Europe challenging and seasonal climate, Mexico actually didn't develop as far as is projected, but they did have a weak written language and some interesting rituals.
Defiantly not near the level of achievement of the Egyptians.
>>7291115
>2015
>not wanting to make America great again
I mean come on
>>7291134
They were about other values such as mastery of skills and more critical knowledge. Now we are also very heavily weighted in English and other lesser aspects that appeal to men.

>>7291134
I used to study at a brazilian school for men. Everyone there was an ape.
Your point?

>>7289795

Why post a pic of Schopenhauer? Was he a misogynist?
If so, I didn't know this. Can't remember anything significant along these lines from The World as Will and Representation...

>>7291162
I don't know what you mean by "primal actions". you mean fornication and violence?

>>7291162
Fucking kek

>>7291154
>They were about other values such as mastery of skills and more critical knowledge. Now we are also very heavily weighted in English and other lesser aspects that appeal to men.
they appeal to male employers, that's why they're weighted that way

>>7291175
Primal actions?
I could give you a silly answer that is partially correct, like playing grab ass and getting hurt doing stupid shit.
But the correct answer is promoting a range of skills like construction and arguing, many different forms of competition as possible.
>>7291184
I don't understand.

>>7291212
>But the correct answer is promoting a range of skills like construction and arguing, many different forms of competition as possible.
isn't football a major source of scholarship? and don't a lot of schools have debate teams?

>I don't understand.
schools are about preparing you for the job market, mainly. they exclude many job skills because they cater to the jobs where employees are in highest demand

>>7289795
Call your mother?

>>7289795
>/lit/ leaves
>thread devolves into pseud-circlejerk, feat. /pol/ and /int/ memes

>>7291243
Ah yes, but football is a major source for athletic scholarships for people who will go on to be football players primarily.
Anyway, I don't know how lit feels about Prager university videos but they do a good one on this.
>debate
Oh for the love of god don't go there. Policy Cx is so fucking disgusting now.
If you're not a minority you can't win.

>>7291248
And it would stay like that, but you just Skinner-boxed the thread into something far worse.
Embrace.

>>7291248
>/lit/ leaves
come on guy, /lit/ is only three people and they seem like they go on a lot of coffee breaks.

>>7289918
Average is the same, though variance is smaller. So you're less likely to run into brilliant women, but also less likely to run into idiotic women.

>>7291253
>If you're not a minority you can't win.
You should write a song about it.

>>7291300
I'm not fucking Taylor Swift (even if I would love to).
I quit after two years because I would get to finals and face two black bitches and lose to "Race theory of the Nigga"

>>7291163
Im surprised you dont know this but he wrote some a pretty hard essay on them

>Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long

>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give the name of the fair sex to that under-sized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race; for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the un-aesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art, have they really and truly any sense or susceptibility; it is a mere mockery if they make a pretence of it in order to assist their endeavor to please. Hence, as a result of this, they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything; and the reason of it seems to me to be as follows. A man tries to acquire direct mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely, through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is entirely confined to him. And so it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else, it is simulated — a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and feigning what she does not feel.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter7.html

>>7291300
Just like how women should write a song about all the times there husbands beat and raped them.
Yeah because that's so fucking useful isn't it? Don't be so fucking dense.

>>7291311
>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give the name of the fair sex to that under-sized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race; for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the un-aesthetic sex
damn

>>7291349
You must be trolling, the anon was obviously yanking the other anon's chain.

You're probably not a misogynist, but a feminist. It's just that you have higher standards for women than most feminists. You see that they don't push themselves as hard as they can, that they often settle for less, take the easy way out, etc. and it makes you hate them. But if a group of virtuous women came along, who had mastered some field you respect and didn't give into herd mentality like most women, you would probably not hate those women.

>>7291485
But feminism has a low view of women, everyone has higher really. Self absorbed, lazy, thin skinned child murderers are hardly something admirable.

>>7291518
You mean that your view of feminism is that it has a low view of women.

Which 0% of feminists would agree with.

>>7290886

>Whaaaa whaaaaaa!!! My precious board quality is going down!!

What a faggot lmfao. Kill yourself tbh fam.

>>7291604
And my view is how exactly wrong? Isis soldiers would probably argue they are doing Gods work and are doing just work, but that wouldn't really change much.

>>7289805
for the life of me i can't fathom why there is a "y" there. like wtf

>>7290421
At least it's better than romanticism.

Bunch of delusional faggots whose minds broke like a house of cards over trench warfare.

>>7289795
>I'm a genuine misogynist, /lit/.

Well, aren't you a special little guy?

>>7290038
In the example there's more at play than just genders, its usually cultural background. Considering most of those "survivor" island scenarios, whether they be reality tv shows or thought experiments, usually consider the western woman by default, who is raised with the traditional western values of males being the leaders.

You don't need to be a MGTOW or a feminist or an anti or pro egalitarian (or anyone in this stupid fucking modern "who should we limit and take away opportunities from and place expectations at risk of those defying said expectations being treated like shit because reasons" argument) to know how important cultural values and background affect how a group of people behave.

Only the naive assume that their cultural norms are standard for everyone.

>>7289795
Just watch female ASMR videos while you read or write, enjoy the beauty of women without the bad points that come with actually having to interact with them. Carry on with your life!

>>7292118

>b-but your mother
weakest shit ever
the majority of women aren't my mother and 90% of a woman's life isn't mothering

>>7290530
Whether uneven leads to considering them inferior depends on what you want to get out of people, of course. I desire above all that people be interesting, and women tend to have a harder time at at.

>>7292187
my mother is a fuckign piece of shit though. she's weak willed, bows down to my father, has never had anything intelligent to say

i mean, i want that sort of woman to be my wife sure but considered with any honesty women do not possess character

>>7292254
>women do not possess character
but my mom does

Try to become misanthrope, you are halfway through there already.

>>7292100
Kek.
I disagree wholly, I think biological or genetic standards trump most aspects of any sort of "culture" or "upbrinin". This can be demonstrated in twin studies alike that turn out freaky in their similarities.
Women in western society have been predominately child raisers, with not much political advocacy on their own no? Now through their men or what not, you can argue, but there is no time for the weaker sex to influence the society when death could be around the next corner.
These "cultural values and norms" are that wich allowed us to reach unprecedented levels of wealth, health, education, and civality; including of course our seasonal climate shaping our population, I am not saying legislate the cultural norm. Soft legislate it, promote it, do not deny it.

you should stop using misogynist when you just mean sexist tbh
it's a politically loaded word meant to induce an immediate negative reaction

Do you want something appeals to your sentiments, or your reason? I'd recommend the former, since resenting women is not a position derived from reason.

>>7292994
No value judgement is derived from reason.

>>7292996
Indeed, so it's a rigged game from the start. If someone appeals to sentiment, their argument will immediately be dismissed for it, but that's all there is to appeal to here.

>>7289931
Finally a sensible viewpoint.

>>7289818
in what way would that displace a misogynistic outlook? Men are the primary victims of those locales and conflicts, we hear about the female victims because the male ones are all dead

>>7289931

anon for president

>>7289931
>tfw no gf more virtuous than you

>>7289795
Who wishes that their mother would cease to exist ?

I do, I would at last start my life, at 30. My mother is like a ball and chain, she drains me, emotionally, financially in being irrational, hysterical, incapable, dumb and fucks my life up. Until the very last day, she will be a pain. She kills me bit by bit, a little more every day. she does not even understand it, or refuse to, idk.

Her whole life has been miserable and to her, I am the only good thing that she did. She is a complete neet, watching TV and sleeping all day long. She is friendless. She knows nobody in the town. NOBODY, not a fucking soul. Too bad that she poisons me day after day. Even when I am thousands of kilometres away. Always some stupid things going on, that even If I tell her to solve, she manages to fuck up which will cost me. It is even worse now that I live with her as a shut-in dead emotionally and intellectually, . I (and she) pay the consequences from her actions that she did even before and after my birth in staying in this crappy little house wherein I feel as a complete stranger.


I cannot even understand how my father went for her. It is just beyond me. He was the exact opposite of her, smart and easy-going, with lots of connection, but also had mental issues, just like the hysteria of my mother (you should see how immature she is AT THE LEAST contrariety). Today, I have inherited the worst part of my parents. MY rotten genes have NOT A SINGLE good thing from them.

Hopefully, he went out, but she was pregnant and it went down hill, even after the divorce. The worst part is that, even today, she expects me to succeed somehow, even after the whole disaster that is my family.
I think that I will be free only when she dies. I do not feel connected to her, given the extend of our differences. I really wish I was adopted tbh just not to be related to her. I wish that I had stayed in some foster home longer than what I did. The worst part is that I wished to go back live with her, when I was in the foster home, but that was before knowing her. Imagine your sole dream in life, becoming your worst nightmare. It is depressing to know that there are still a few decades to live like this. God it does not even feel good to vent.


The last one that she pulled is her dream to move out, out of her shitty little house badly built, badly conceived, badly located, badly oriented.

Somehow, she manages to believe that she will find a buyer and have enough money to get a nicer house on the beach, whereas she cannot even manage her own money. DECADES LATER, she understands that her house is worthless, that nobody will want it. But no, she perseveres.

My dad was rich, whereas she has now barely any equity. Perhaps 10k in her bank account. She did everything wrong, she cannot manage space, time, money, cannot manage her life. it will be like this until her last day on earth. GOD !!!!

If I had stayed in the foster home, everything could have been different

>>7293361
Wow anon, that sounds horrible. Isn't there any hope?

>>7293361
You sound pretty selfish tbh, your mum's a mess because you don't love, care or even at least look after her.

>>7293361
You sound resentful.

>>7290005
Subjective, one can argue the same about sports being equally stupid.

>>7293446
sports at least provides a model for self improvement

>>7293361
Well, you're just a little cunt.

>>7293451
So, that guy doesn't masturbate and waste his spermies?

>>7293446
Sports demonstrate objective virtue, except gymnastics, where most people prefer to watch women.

>>7293007
Agreed tbh.

>>7290322
Socrates never said that. I really hate it when people attribute this made up quote to him, when he was a fat drunk.

>>7293361
Oh poor Oedipus.

>>7293785
And I hate it when people misquote that shit head voltair.

bump

>>7290372
Monoarchy was seen as the "best" in a given society for hundreds of years (btw your argument of natural goes out the window as soon as you mention society) is that the natural form of government?

Not book-length, but Antony and Cleopatra (although written in the early 17th century by a man who would by most accounts be a misogynist in today's world, still Shakespeare's keen eye for humanity transcends all constraints of time and space, and his keenness does indeed apply to HUmanity, and not just mankind. Cleopatra is one of the definitive women of literature: distinctly human and distinctly flawed, cloying, and manipulative, but in spite of this a profound and powerful woman, and Woman through-and-through. The Taming of the Shrew is a younger Shakespeare's uxorious outburst; Cleopatra is the highest praise of Woman from a wiser Shakespeare.)
Ulysses (a book which will cure anybody of any serious misconception: it works just as well for misogyny as for suicidalism or general insensitivity. One of the true literary panaceas.)
Most anything by Virginia Woolf, to put on clear display the visionary brilliance of a female writer

There are of course many more appropriate, but reading these things should be enough to change your mind: if Shakespeare, Joyce, and Woolf in grand procession are not enough to move you to sympathy and sensitivity, nothing ever will be, and it will be clear you simply are not fit to grasp the condition of the other half of humanity - or at least not at the present time.

>>7291713
I think he was parodying the hyperforeignization of Russian words popular among some Dead Souls (which is to say, Myórtvyjye dúshi) around here.

>>7290145
Nope, its on you to improve your life.

>>7296849
Monarchy > Monorchy

>>7289931
>It's nobody's fault to be born into their bodies, it is ridiculous to resent someone for this.
...What? What does fault have anything to do with it? I dislike spiders, it's not their "fault" they are spiders.

>>7293452
is /lit/ this /sci/ illiterate? A sperm will not become a human being following the natural course of events, but a fertilized egg or fetus will.

>>7290383

(>>7290474) has it right. if anything, upper class men are the worse influence in this regard, as their approach is usually a confident entitlement that slowly degrades a woman's self-esteem rather than violent rape that triggers hatred (though i guess trauma bonding exists as well and is sort of a more extreme form of the upper class approach)

>>7290383
lol if you think upper class men are better in this type of thing you havent spent enough time with the upper class

>>7297075
Define the upperclass