Does society tell women that they are good only for their sexual value? What does society "tell" women...

Does society tell women that they are good only for their sexual value? What does society "tell" women? Can you illustrate how different aspects of society give women different messages?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/!!9O2tecpDHQ6/]
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

When a woman is hot with big tits, she gets free shit and life on easy-mode. When she is ugly, but does what she considers to be a fantastic job (producing approximately 60% of what a male in her position produces), she isn't immediately promoted to CEO of google.

If you can't see why that's sexism, then you're literally hitler.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Women are good for one thing, and one thing only. Women are good for producing more men.

I get it. Women aren't told they're good only for their sexual value. They're afraid that this is true, and they foist the blame onto society. So how specifically does society relay its "message" to women? Or men for that matter. How does anyone know what society "says"?

>How does anyone know what society "says"?
They don't. The entire goal is to convince everyone that the only reason women aren't earning the same as men is because of sexism.

Reasons are not entirely clear, but I think it's because the guys up top want to take money away from middle/upper-middle class men and distribute it to women, who will then promptly spend it on frivolous shit - leading to the top guys + government getting the money.

This is a fucking homework assignment. Also society itself is half women. Likely more. If women are not accomplishing shit its at least half from women.

That makes economic sense and jives with the disenfranchisement of the middle class in general. So if someone says to you, " society says I'm not important because I'm a woman", how would you respond? I would argue that society thought women were so important that it gave them suffrage, and then took half the money made by men and redistributed it to women who now are employed at even greater rates than men. The problem is, they would immediately respond with an asinine statement about how their reproductive Rights are limited by the government.

It's not home work user, I just like to discuss these things. Typically not with women though because they're insufferable.

Additionally, if you told a women that they themselves comprise half of society and therefore decide what it's message is, they would tell you that women's voice isn't heard, because men make up most of government.

Ohh. There is no point in having this conversation with feminsts. They believe women are the same mentally as males. They will never drop this belief, nothing you say to them will convince them it's not true. Hence there is no point in having that conversation. It can only progress once that point is established, which it never will be.

I understand the futility of arguing with feminists. What I do think is worthwhile is asking them questions in such a way as to reveal the absurdity behind their ideas. Really the Crux of much of their thinking stems from the engrained knowledge of their true purpose and the refusal to acknowledge it. Society doesn't tell women their value is only as sexual objects. Women themselves know that their primary value lies in this realm however, not in having a career. I'm not suggesting that women are worthless outside of reproducing, they are and should be free to pursue opportunities that fulfill them. But I think that they want to pretend that making babies is not imperative to their existence, but only "a side thing", and attempts by politicians to limit when they can or can't kill their babies remind them that, oh yes, that's what I'm really here to do. Which they dislike for some reason.

real great shitpost there aussie. Even if you could prove that female's where mentally inferior beyond a shadow of a doubt (you haven't, you've just posted studies of which there are numerous contradicting ones), the idea that you can't convince feminists of this is ridiculous.

Women are people, their minds can be changed like anyone elses. I've seen feminists turn and I've seen people drag their sexist asses to a more balanced position reluctantly. You can't put a condom on your brain. all you can do is avoid putting it in certain environments. unfortunately, when women frequent areas with SJWs, theyre going to see some shit that pisses them off. feminist or not.

The fact that you niggers constantly assert women are inferior in all perameters is rendered potato by three factors. You constantly cherry pick data to fit your narrative without showing even any awareness that there is loads of contradicting data, an attitude and behavior I would never expect to see in someone who is superior in logic and reasoning to me. You continue to squeeze onto your beliefs """"iron clad"""" validity through emotional appeals and anecdotal evidence when the few of you who do realize the scientific evidence is lacking. And finally, you Your actions when discussing this evidence shows no curioisity about the implications of what you belief. you merely believe what you believed already, or wanted to believe it, and searched for evidenced, which you found in limited quantity, blinded by bias, and decided that was that. The severity of knowing scientifically that women are mentally inferior to men has several implications and questions that are a branching point to even more understanding of the mind. in other words, if we had the answer to these questions we'd be able to conduct even more research with a finer comb into how the mind works and why.

Men, for instance, know that their responsibility lies in working to provide for their family. A man who does not do this is defective, irresponsible, not fulfilling his duty. People recognize this. Likewise, a woman's duty is to have children and those who do not are similarly regarded as defective. Nobody ever said having kids was easy, or that pregnancy doesn't suck, but then again no one is asking men if they think working 9-5 for 50 years is a blast either. Part of the trouble lies in the fact that couple struggle to provide for their family even with two jobs now so women have been forced (didn't they say they wanted this?) to work too.

Pol in a fit of illogical behavior has proven they care more about their butthurt feefees over women r9k style than the very male dominated field of neurology is less important than getting validation and calling women stupid whores and roasties. Your actions aren't motivated by logic, superior thought, and curiosity about the world around you that you say women lack often,. It's motivated by anger and chouvanism. Man, I wonder what social movement I've seen tons of that in before?

Ok great, we're all the same and people can change their minds. I've seen it too. Now address the points of my conversation, nigger.

I'm not calling women names or degrading them, faggot. That's not what we are discussing.

Yes actually, we do. and the reason you're seeing less and less women interested in children and marrying men who want them to stay at home and cater to their every whim, is because not having a career makes you a complete dependant who has no recourse but to obey their husband because you have no money, no security but their security. Women want security. Jobs give women that security. They provide money that is lasting instead of consumed at the point of entry like being a wife. That money can be saved and kept incase the worse happens. Pol also has trouble understanding why anyone would want something like this if they have a vagina and that too is something I find blatant in counter evidence that men are smarter than women. No one with an ounce of logic in their brain should struggle to understand this concept and disaster planning.

Stop being such a faggot. You're making sweeping generalisations about a board that (shockingly enough) has more than one person and ideology on it.

I understand your point completely and I already stated that women are and should be free to pursue these things. What we're discussing is lies that women tell themselves ie: society is oppressing me, telling me I have no value outside of a sex object, etc.

>address the points of my conversation
I already replied to one of your stupid posts, but I am not beholden to follow your loaded question in the OP. Most of pol already believes sociology is a fake science so I'm not sure what you hope to grasp that you could believe is factual about what women are "told" by society.

Even if you did favor sociology as a science you'd be asking a crowd of people who think very little of it, and the few who don't, probably don't have a great grasp of it either. IF you want a real answer it's probably down to marketing in the very young that forms opinions like this, but thats not substantiated by any evidence I've run across, it's litterally just a guess.

By charging faggots like you to learn about this non subject

society does oppress women to a certain extent, the lie women are telling themselves is that theyre anything other than property if they force society to add them to decision making situations like congress to keep it even steven. Given the level of skull duggery going on in many levels of high buisness, putting a bunch of naive women who haven't climbed their way through and at best, become jaded if not worst, very involved like hitlery, in congress is signing anyway their rights, becuase the deep state will just control them and if they wont obey they will be put to death by (((right wing extremists))).

The only way to stop the minor level of oppression we have now is to fix all the broken shit men have to deal with and shouldn't, and change the culture of sexism, which will never be done by screetching. Feminists aren't necessarily being stupid per say, theyre doing what they've always done in the past, wave signs and write abominations of literature to get women angry. It just turns out angry women aren't useful when what you're trying to mostly change is peoples minds, not laws.

Women are only good for their sexual value. That's what nature says not society.

Ok faggot, looks like you tried to take a crack at answering my question, which was: where do women get the idea that they're oppressed? You think it's from marketing a a young age, but you have no evidence. So you're saying the media, essentially, promoted this idea. How? In what form?

>How? In what form?
I'm honestly not sure, I don't understand what you are expecting here, I told you I am not a sociology expert, and that you aren't a mong sociology expert, do you want me to offer some random clap trap so you can rip it apart and feel vindicated like
says you do?

Because that seems kind of pointless when I already know what I will be telling you has come from my ass.

Well you referenced a culture of sexism, so you must be able to expound on why you think our culture is sexist, and what that means.

Because women dont run. Offer them the stats on breakdown by gender of people who attempt to gain office. I bet the % of women to men in office is better then the % of women to men who attempt office.

I get fucking tons of attention for being cutesy with people (since I'm fucking weird and clingy) and friends, but I'm pretty unattractive so when online acquaintances learn of that, their likeliness of even talking to me as much as normal drops pretty heavily. Even those that have no interest in anything relationship wise do the same thing, especially other women, probably due to a lack of sexual attractiveness being associated with negative traits like social awkwardness, self- and inter-personal respect, and general discomfort around those people.

Just being around ugly people makes a significant amount of people uncomfortable, it seems like it's just harder for girls because it looks like you've completely fucked up the one thing you're supposed to """"naturally"""" do, which is pay attention to appearance.

So you get the general ugliness aspect plus an assumed lack of ability to take care of one's self just from outward appearance and sexual attractiveness, even if they're just naturally and unavoidably unattractive. It's an issue of both vanity and dumb, archaic requirements that girls be expected to put as much effort into their visual and sexual attractiveness as they do. Leads many to start focusing on that because it's just simply an easier way to get what you want, albeit a rather uninteresting method. If you're given the low road, why go for anything else? That part is natural.

Pretty sure it starts atrophying parts of the brain when one only uses one method of manipulation like that instead of learning core and general skills to get around and about life. Pretty sure that's partly why so many bimbos are air-headed; trained to be stupid.

no faggot, that's what technology says. Tribal women had value beyond being a pussy you had to pay to get rid of because of labor scarcity compared to the work needed. Mental and physical skill is so valuable in that society you can't aford to have anything but the most utilitarian sexism; male main leader of most tribes, for their added spacial reasoning, and men doing more hunting, because human childrearing is longer than most animals. other than that it was open game for most women, because nobody could afford to tell her not to do something she was good at because it was "for men"

Society tella women that they are tradable commodoties, just like men, and they don't like it.

You haven't told me anything about how or why our society is sexist, other than that you're ugly and people don't seem to like that very much.

Explain

It claims not to but that is exactly what society is telling them. The only thing that men and women have to offer each other now is just meaningless and fruitless sex.

1) you're projecting
2) if you claim society tells people anything, explain to me how society communicates there ideas and how we come to a consensus on what is being communicated to us?

I think its a combination of biology and social culture, but you asked how women get the idea that theyre oppressed, which is different from people being sexist. Biology seems two fold, and the evidence is just not here yet to support both assertions thoroughly, but basically men seem to overrate their peers for grades, this implies but does not at all conclude that men might have a built in sexism bias against women, rating their male peers higher even with women at a higher grade level in the classroom. The reality is far more complicated and there are far more variables to be controlled for me to be happy with this conclusion, the methodology needs work badly. Similarly, there are thin research papers on how voice tone makes an impact, hitlery actually comes up in this research because she's a female politician who used to be very shrill, compare now with her modern speaking voice for campaigning from before, and you'll notice a pattern of politicians aping the male pitch, and the reason they do is that humans as a whole seem to subconciously favor trusting males for leadership roles. Women get the same favoritism for their regular voices in court cases and other questions of innocence.

This makes sense to me as men's factual higher spacial reasoning and time hunting meant that there was unique pressure among males hunting to not get lost, and having the trip have a leader who would not get lost is very important to the whole tribe. similarly, women and their children could be killed if they did something like cheating, or where falsely accused even if not, which we have to assume was a part of tribal society since it is now, and those children have a higher chance to survive the better women are at appearing innocent, in truth or not.

the highly financed marketing to all demographics, including the ridiculous commercials of males not knowing what the fuck is going on at all times. leads me to believe this bullshit is worth investigating.

"What society communicates" is completely arbitrary from individual to individual!

>durr
you need to pay more attention to tags you stupid fuck, that person is answering your question and isn't me. are you superior when you can't even juggle two topics?

Ok so you can't point to specific elements of our society that are explicity sexist, but you have a vague notion that men see women differently than other men. It seems that all women have is this vague notion, but nothing of substance. Maybe they'll point to a high profile rape case, like Brock Turner, and hold this up as evidence of sexism!

this is pure bullshit. having someone you trust intimately who is your equal in finance is not meaningless, it means a cheaper home can be afforded, chores and food can be shared evenly, and work between two can be reduced to about 1.5. people just value their privacy or are waiting for the best relationship they can get ahold of.

>where do women get the idea that they're oppressed
Marxists. They see group A doing worse than group B, so they label group A the oppressed and B the oppressors. Then they start blasting rhetoric that supports this statement; anyone who refutes this rhetoric gets called a sexist misogynist patriarchal AD HOMINIM pig.

You see this everywhere in the media. Places like buzzfeed publish articles about the wage gap and slut shaming constantly.

All I saw was your faggot flag, but yes, I now see that there are two faggot posters here. There is room in this discussion for more than one fag.

I don't have a vague notion of that you moron, I have scientific evidence that suggests its the case, but it is fledgling and imperfect.

this is the kind of talking point I'd expect from a woman if what you said about us being inferior where true, you don't seem either willing or capable to talk about a field of research and are completely impatient with the time it takes to refine data to get the answer you want me to provide that I already told you aren't 100% understood.

Now we're getting somewhere. How did Marxists convince women they were getting a raw deal? I mean, aside from lying about wage gap and telling them that they're oppressed for not being able to kill their children as easily?

you realize marxism worked at the time it was introduced because it was objectively true right? it didn't have a society that could function any differently, but the destitute and oppression was very real.

In capitalism our stature in society is down to our ability to be exploitable in a given market; our earning potential, our capital and cash holdings... Every aspect of our person is reduced to what is exploitable.

Women don't like that their femininity is the most explpitable part of them and that players in the various markets will focus on that.

For example in the employment market a woman is a liability because she has periods and can get pregnant, therefore her inherent productivity is lower than a man's and her value less.

Women are good at support roles.

Nothing else.

That's not how it works. Society tells each individual the exact same thing, otherwise it isn't society telling them. What is received by the person can differ. Important distinction

Ok I'll put off this discussion until you irrefutably prove that men think less of women, or that ancient hunters had better eyesight than their female companions. These things are immaterrial. I'm not arguing about these things, I'm trying to get at the idea of how and why women believe themselves to be oppressed in society today, despite having more freedom and power than ever before.

the wage gap isn't fake, its overblown.
abortion used to be legal before the modern world made it far more easy.
its hilarious that talking points of science are too hard for you so you're going to now sit back and fap to marxism hatred. Just about everything wrong with marxism can be applied to most political structures in existance because it is unironically a system made so simple even an undereducated starving filth covered flea and cholera ridden corpse of a person can understand it, exactly what the target demographic was. It's simplistic point of view is also why it fails, focusing on what is wrong instead of how to actually fix it.

Those are both really broad but okay..

Hell if I "know" why? Just presenting anecdotal effects of it and shit that seems to contribute to propagation of it. I'm not that crazy to say it's pretty sexist to expect a ridiculous amount of personal grooming from women which it serves no actual purpose other than finding a mate. Yet, lotta fucking good finding mates does when it's so rampant that it promotes degeneracy and fucking around. Sure at one point it was important to present superior personal grooming to show that you were clean, neat and caring about health and image, but as society has grown and technology advanced, it's easier to stay clean & get make-up, so the usage of it has ballooned to compensate for the increased competitiveness.

So those old tribal/medieval qualities of beauty from grooming and cleaning became less relevant as disease, bacteria, etc became less prevalent in the developed world. Instead of saying, "okay hey yeah you're pretty good looking, that's good enough, can you do x y z too?" it just continued the over-value of outward appearance. Men get the advantage of not having to look great, just simply adequate (mostly), and then their lack of quality physical appearance can be supplemented by intellect, skill or social aptitude. We're still, then, expected to do WAY more appearance-wise than we ought to and then not credited by peers when excelling in school. To specify, by peers I mean like-age girls; popular girls don't give a shit about nerdy girls etc etc, ye olde meme, because bimbos learn from their stupid fucking mothers and stupid fucking television and stupid fucking social media to focus more on looks. There's no real encouragement to do better from your peers, just adults. I can just say it's sexist to continue expecting stupid shit of women instead of expecting intellectual growth.

I can only really present one aspect of this since I'm not gonna pretend I know more than that when I don't really study bitches.

That's the point. There is no "society" that dictates anything to people. Obviously we live in a society, but people who think they're being told something by that society are simply listening to themselves. Or do you disagree?

>ancient hunters have better eyesight
jesus christ. how is it that I'm having a discussion with someone who thinks women are inferior to men and they don't even know what men are objectively better at than women?

I've answered your questions in huge ammounts of detail, you are complaining that some massive ammount of evidence doesn't exist yet, not taking in any information and reasoning with it. You are behaving like a petty short sighted child and I'm done with you.

Here's something so simple you could understand it.
You want women to accept you're superior to us? stop being such a fucking idiot then.

I can't fucking believe this shit, spacial reasoning, it's fucking _basic_ and you have no idea what I'm even talking about.

I didn't say the wage gap was fake, I said women are lied to about the wage gap. Of course it exists, people just argue about the reason. Feminists say it's because they're oppressed. Rational people understand it's simple economics.

Look like you agree with his point, but why are you passive aggressively attacking us when women are the downfall of the western world. You refuse to take the blame for your mistake. We build this civilization remember that

I understand that men exhibit better spacial skills than women, faggot. Don't get your dick tied in a knot. I don't want women to accept that men are superior, this isn't about superiority. It's about lies women tell themselves about being oppressed.

Your statement has substance. Does this mean that capitalism is inherently anti-women? I think perhaps not, because women are the catalyst for male productivity.

Birth Control causes Frontal Lobe Damage/Disorder, it has also "Empowered" women to such a point where they are destroying Society.

[Talked about this in various threads: archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/!!9O2tecpDHQ6/]

Women are more vulnerable to brainwashing & Social Engineering due to there conforming to social norms nature. Social Media makes them have inflated value(Women are always valued due to Biological need of offspring creating/making) due to all the Beta Males & promoting "Empowerment & Travelling" makes Women waste there energy on having sex with a unlimited(Thanks to Birth Control) number of Men rather then Raising/having Families/Children.

Well the Marxists saw differences between men and women and put those differences on blast. There weren't enough women in office. There weren't enough women in CEO positions. There weren't enough women in STEM degree programs. The housewife position is inherently inferior to the career woman. Gender roles are oppressive. Women can't fuck like men. Women can't dress like whores. Women get shamed for being too vulgar.

It's not purposefully anti-women.

People seem to think that when they are marginalised in a capitalist system that it's a personal attack. It's not. It's the system being efficient and selecting against weakness.

Feminists are so tied up with socialism and the concept of centrally planned societies that they can't accept that there isn't some kind of board room conspiracy to keep women down, and that actually it's just a symptom of a free market.

You don't build this civilization, you police it. as for the downfall of the western world, The fact that you think women's involvement in politics is somehow cancer is something I've argued against in the past, but I can give you the easy tl;dr.

If you don't fix first past the post first, no ammount of women you bar from making political decisions (thus ruining us and leaving us resigned to being docile trade goods again, except nearly worthless now) will ever change society for the better. the problem you have from women voters is that when we win, you have no representation. the entire system is built from the ground up that you feel that way about the opposite side. It ensures strategic voting is the only way, and it keeps the country divided and prevents people from changing the political landscape to something other than what the two big jew parties want it to be about.

I very much don't agree my superior would fall for their sexism and chouvanism when analyzing the worst damaging parts of our political system. they would realize the biggest flaw for what it is; turning the future of our country into a social bloodsport.

pols main position is that oppression is natural and not a lie, and that we need more of it, not less. Perhaps you might get some who consider oppression to be a lie because somehow the idea that women are actually worse renders the definition innert, but all that does is put a new label on the same topic.

I already told you what I think women are lying to themselves about. they think protesting changes minds like it does politics.

In the 1800s it brought up valid points in spite of its flaws. Today however, it's just that asshole that stirs up shit to make people hate each other.

So does female angst come from the fact that there are differences between men and women, and that people won't pretend like there aren't?

So if I'm a woman in a capitalist society, I am inherently weak in the sense that my productivity (and thus my usefulness to society) is diminished? But this also isn't completely true because women have an important role in propagating society. So they have different roles, because they are inherently different, which is a reality they don't like to face?

you aren't wrong. but because of the explosively bad PR it has now and how much easier capitalism has made our lives, Ancaps would often have you believe that marxism did not have valid criticism nor did it change how capitalism works for the better. The positive effect is self evidence in the social works and policies that turned london livable again. Regulations on buisnesses behavior is not a lost cause, even if marxism is, and capitalism would never the benevolant hand it is now without the teeth marks of the rabid dog that bit them.

>So they have different roles, because they are inherently different, which is a reality they don't like to face?

Women aren't radically different from men if raised properly. Value isn't just from childbirth and whatever else you might be referring to, or at least not so much of our societal value that it should so severely diminish our worth as potential workers in certain areas. Women are capable of filling many intellectual roles in society but are pushed away from it, then a lot of Sup Forums, chauvinists and others will use the examples of dipshit girls who act like retards to enforce their position when by doing so they're just fuckin' helping push women towards being trained into dumb, slutty dogs by discouraging them from joining the workforce or applying themselves to a higher level. Women could be more useful given enough of a change in treatment and upbringing.

having an inherently valued role doesn't lend you power senpai. Look at how much hatred pol has for womens rights. they don't want women to be paid for this supposedly equal valued role of home maker and childrearer, they want women to be forced to do that as a priority. Sometimes when something is weak and has something valuable in capitalism, it's will can be subverted and pushed aside so that you, the exploiter, can control and benefit from its value. this is what many of pol advocate for, a restriction of womens rights in voting and career options so that they will be dependant on men and must seek their help to survive. In other words, just because the goose has the foie gras doesn't mean it gets to enjoy it.

What you are seeing now with childrearing is women having children either by mistake, or when they think it truly benefits them, either emotionally or not. The former fire is mostly constant, and the latter is the cooled down fire from when women had many children because their husband told them they would, so that he could have male heirs to take on his heritage.

Women are creatures of nature, and the only law of nature is that there is no law of nature. if it works, it works, even if you don't think it should work. hyhena women have 'penises' most ants are sterile and non reporductive, and some humans are faggots. Women having less children sustainably will mean the role has successfully changed, and given the massive ammount of population we deal with in the moddern age, it's not hard to see that with the right immigration policy and patience, the reduction in childrearing could be beneficial to society. of course like all ideas it will explode if you put too much combustable material in with.

You claim women are pushed away from intellectual roles, but see the opposite. Grants and scholarships solely for women, tons of propaganda about women scientists and how girls are achieving higher education at greater rates than men. How are women pushed away from anything they set their mind to?

>There are no laws of nature
>Having less babies and more immigrants could be good for society

Fucking dropped

Yeah pretty much. It's really the people that pretend these differences are an issue that fan the angst though.

If women like becoming teachers and nurses, and as a result the average female wage is less than men, then it isn't an issue. Only by saying WAGE GAP over and over and over without context do women become resentful. To me, female angst is caused by misinformation from places like buzzfeed.

>There are no laws of nature
>Having less babies and more immigrants could be good for society

>Fucking dropped
yeah, thats about the level of stupidity and projection I expected from you I admit. No scientific understanding, and a complete errasure of what I said in favor of a familiar strawman (if a complete inversion of what I believe could be considered one rather than just a bullshit fallacy). Stay in school pol.

Oh absolutely. The ideal would be a mix of free market and government services. It's just at the extremes that things become bad.

>You should let your culture be replaced
>If you don't agree it's because you're too stupid to understand science

>Grants and scholarships solely for women, tons of propaganda about women scientists and how girls are achieving higher education at greater rates than men. How are women pushed away from anything they set their mind to?

I raised that in an earlier post. Institutionally yeah we're given lots and lots of opportunities but it's other women (mainly) that push girls away from making use of those opportunities and flourishing intellectually. You're expected to be a housekeeper/trophy by other women and waste a lot of effort on inconsequential things like looks and short-lived school popularity. Men retain some of the expectance that women should stay in the kitchen and look pretty, literally and/or figuratively.

The same rule applies to boys too. You could give tons and tons of incentives for boys to perform ballet but do you honestly think many are going to do ballet regularly with how they'd be ridiculed or not taken as seriously as if they were playing contact sports or some-such?

oh look more retarded stramans, let me know if you ever want to talk about what I actually said instead of what you wanted me to have said so you could jack off over how "right" you are.
indeed, I wont argue that socialism can be used badly, but it definately has a place and the mentality of the average masses against it seem to be just redneck mcarthyism "muh communism"

>these fucking images
Literally just looking into a mirror of the past is enough to make feminists admit their failings, insecurities, and to project all over the place

You claim that having a valuable role doesn't lend you power. That's absurd, because control over a thing is power, and women are therefore powerful because of their value role in society. That's why we're having this conversation in the first place, is because women's beliefs do in fact matter, and when they are misled we all suffer.

I honestly see it partially another way. the woman pictured here was banned from /r/food, she looks amazing despite having a wide jaw, is good at home decor, painting, baking, and photography, as well as marketing herself, has written books, etc.

this woman is banned from /r/ food for being too good, in other words the sjws there in a fit of the most un self aware irony decided that no women could have achieved all that for herself, she must be some kind of psi op. so they banned one of the most amazing rennaisance women I have ever laid eyes on and you know who's trending in /r/food now?

Babbish, someone who does the same thing; person with training in photography and cameras becomes involved with food. and theyre lapping him up. It almost seems like when one woman accomplishes something, they treat her like she's broken the PAROS treaty. becoming too beautiful and successful as women seems to anger other women and they will tear someone down like she's been getting too many bad boy points in EU4

Yes it does, it says, show yourself off, dont let yourself be beholden to male restraints, all while covertly putting you into a whole other set of shackles.

The problem with that is that the only places with birthrates high enough to fuel immigration are third world shitholes. If the birthrate in a country is 1.6 per woman, you'd need to import 1 immigrant for every 3 babies to maintain sustainability. Immigrants won't assimilate when they're a large enough group, and you end up with third world no go zones like sweden. On top of that, they keep their third world birthrates and outbreed the native population. This has already happened in the United States.

Immigration isn't a viable solution if you want to keep the native population and culture intact. You have to increase the native birthrate.

You make a good point about the ballet. Obviously boys will not flock to it for the reason you described, even if there are incentives. Some will, but not generally. So are you suggesting women don't really want to take on these intellectual roles because they themselves would rather be fulfilled in feminine ways, or because of ridicule from others?

>133498424
>missing the point
see you aren't looking at a mirror into the past, you're looking at a modern rennaisance women, she's succesful independant, and has style. she litterally could not exist without feminism and they tore her down for being better than them.

>control over a thing is power
correct, and how do you propose that women, who are weaker than men and have less social mobility in the times that we are discussing, use their wombs to force men to give them equal rights because of how 'valuable' they are?

>when they are misled we all suffer
oh wouldn't it be great then if you could take away their rights and force them to walk the path you think would be better for men? but they have the wombs so I guess thats impossible.

Having something valuable without the strength to defend it is just asking to get your shit slammed, and once women were no longer an essential part of the tribe but just another cog in the city structure it was easy pickings. welcome to the real world.

>The problem with that is that the only places with birthrates high enough to fuel immigration are third world shitholes.
don't fall into that guys trap, read carefully what i wrote again and ask yourself on your own what I meant when I brought up immigration and patience.

women hate superiority

oh even if we could prove that there is feminine fullfillment scientifically there would still be bullying, see

not if a hot chad does it in a soothing drone.

I'll overlook the fact that you referencing stupid websites and video games to make a point, and ask simply, do you think women dislike seeing other women achieve success? That seems to be what you're implying.

Well to be fair I'm browsing multiple threads and those images caught my eye more than any of the other context but your right

Chastity has currency.

Oh I get it. By "the right immigration policy" you meant keeping them all OUT. Good idea.

I dont have enough data to suggest that it is a majority opinion among women, but they where influential enough to get someone banned on a popular website on a subforum that has nothing to do with politics. make of it what you will. it will never stop getting old to me that 'this woman was made possible by feminism' and the sjws hate it. I want to strangle them and laugh at them at the same time.

>Does society tell women that they are good only for their sexual value?
to a certain extent that exists

95% Of women are primitive af. Respect blind displays of force and dominance. Don't understand the high road. They are products of hundreds of thousands of years of rape breeding and savagery. Remember, DNA has the ability to absorb experiences.

Are you retarded? I'm not advocating taking rights away from women or even changing their social roles. Secondly, women have all the strength they need to defend themselves, it's called the State. A woman can make a single phone call and have a man removed from his home by force.

>this woman is banned from /r/ food for being too good, in other words the sjws there in a fit of the most un self aware irony decided that no women could have achieved all that for herself, she must be some kind of psi op. so they banned one of the most amazing rennaisance women I have ever laid eyes on and you know who's trending in /r/food now?

Oh honestly I can't even begin to examine the SJW take on it because it baffles me too much; my explanation of occurrence uses normies for the most part. They make up a decent portion of society so I think it's still a viewpoint worth examining.

But yeah you have a point when it comes to SJWs. Even if that woman loves what she does it will not matter to a lot of SJWs despite their call for freedom of choice for women. Different examination from my own but still a necessary part of the entire picture, I think.

>EU4

Stability? Threat? That metaphor went over my head. I play too much CK2. :v

Also like I said earlier, if a girl could get tons of attention and gratification for doing easier things, why would they ever put themselves through the pain of going against the grain and get ridiculed for it? There's enforcement of applying yourself to improve your feminine traits and negative reinforcement by dismissing girls who try to be utilitarian or work in the generally-masculine roles.

I hope you're just playing devil's advocate here because, yes, that is part of their point I imagine. Loads of feminists are so narrow-minded that you have to play by their rulebook. If you don't play by their rules they will think you're helping the enemy, men, by succeeding in le patriarchy and thus empowering the patriarchy. My own fucking mother scoffed at me when I was 16 for getting promoted to a community manager trainee from a volunteer position on a gayman website because she thought it wasn't important, even though I learned a fucking lot and improved my social & communication skills.

Don't fret faggots. Sex robots will be getting really good at about the same time the instagram feminists are hitting their 30s and 40s. We shall open a cat island and make millions off of them. It's either that or you will see a shit ton of radical feminists become suicide bombers in their war against the sexy replicants.

of course the down side is our population tanks and we end up with an aging population, but someones got to bleed. our world isn't infinate. If I could come up with a solution to make em all happy I would.

I'm also for helping refugees, throw em in concentration camps, let the immigrate at whatever policy we deem acceptable for the rest of the world, or return if they think it sucks here too. no need to let them slip into the country side.

Body count;
Moral high ground retained
deprive militant groups in the middle east of manpower
actually have a real use for our on shore military other than as a detterant
keep the potential best people that come over, ignore the idiots.
Casaulties
muh ur a nazi why u put in concentration camp
muh military fraternization f-senpai.

iunno seems worth it to me.

dog, I dont know if you caught onto this politics thing, but normally when discussing politics we discuss opposing sides because the interesting thing when talking with faceless varied individuals we can't keep track of is not learning about their individual beliefs we'll never be able to re-convene on again, but discussing the large and macro movements of both sides, this is why you want to discuss how women feel as a group and why I am interested in what pol will do as a group, and while I am glad you understand how much limiting those rights will hurt us even if it arguably helps you, I can't assume pol thinks like you.

And as a side note, women see you as a group just like you see us as a group.
>My own fucking mother scoffed at me when I was 16 for getting promoted to a community manager trainee from a volunteer position on a gayman website because she thought it wasn't important, even though I learned a fucking lot and improved my social & communication skills
wow that really blows

>Stability? Threat? That metaphor went over my head. I play too much CK2. :v
bad boy points are what happens when you eat to many countries at once and the rest of the world rises up to kick your ass.

giving women the vote destroyed society, quite literally, and we're seeing the death spiral....define the smallest unit of society...if you say the individual, you are wrong and part of what is destroying society....the family is the smallest unit of a functioning society and, prior to women getting the vote, there was one vote per family- the man's vote....once women were given the vote, they voted for the government to become the provider of society...the welfare state only exists because women innately expect someone else to take care of them and they voted that the government should be the one taking care of them....

>giving women the vote destroyed society, quite literally, and we're seeing the death spiral....define the smallest unit of society...if you say the individual, you are wrong and part of what is destroying society....the family is the smallest unit of a functioning society and, prior to women getting the vote, there was one vote per family- the man's vote....once women were given the vote, they voted for the government to become the provider of society...the welfare state only exists because women innately expect someone else to take care of them and they voted that the government should be the one taking care of them....
just because pol tells you something doesn't mean you should shove it whole sale up your ass like a suppository. maybe you should learn a bit about the actual conditions that birthed socialism, we've already discussed them in this thread amicably inbetween all the shit flinging. I don't honestly see a point in talking about women at all when you think socialism in the western world only started to have an impact in the 1920s after we got the right to vote.

You clearly live a sheltered life and that is why you are capable of giving such weight to minor issues such as your appearance. You'd better find something to do.

When you start to talk about how other girls see you, the contents on the mind of a bimbo or appearances and trifles in general, the mind of any clear minded individual with goals and real problems will just tune out of whatever your blabbering about. You should occupy yourself enough to be able to naturally do that too.

That trait is something I bet the OP has, along with other people in this thread. You, on the other hand, championing this vain cause with extensive posts is a very strange sight to people like that, with actual worries and achievments.

I'm trying to understand women (futile, I know) not what pol thinks about women. Pol is not a monolithic entity and I dont care what "pol" thinks. If I cared what pol thinks I wouldn't have bought a wedding ring. Furthermore I do not view women as a group because I understand they exhibit a range of value and ideas.

First time in my life I switched you're with your. I was planning to go for another route with that phrase, which "your" was more appropriate, but when I changed course I didn't bother to check what I had already written.

>I'm trying to understand women (futile, I know) not what pol thinks about women. Pol is not a monolithic entity and I dont care what "pol" thinks.
If you don't believe women are a monolithic group, why are you trying to understand them as a whole? if you do think they have some properties that could be understood as a whole, why do you respond with vitriol when the topic of oppression inevitably turns to perception of a group of people who very much do want to oppress women for comparisons sake? why do you suppose i'd be interested in keeping up to date on such groups as that?