Women’s rights

In your ideal world, what rights would women have?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jEUXxLlVKLw
twitter.com/AnonBabble

none

none

This guy gets it.

none

Gotta admit it.

At least Europe would be a lot better off if women couldn't vote. No massive amounts of immigrants, no pro muslim agenda, no degenerate feminist art.

All they want, I'm more worried about my rights.

Fpbp

youtube.com/watch?v=jEUXxLlVKLw

The right to choose between sucking my dick and going to prison

Same as men but with no double standards.

If she hits you, you can hit her back and she will get the trouble for doing it first.

The courts wont fall to their crying and if the judge in said court does, they are instantly fired.

If she is in a job that pays more than her husband then she pays child support.

She will get the same length of prison in prison sentences.


No double standards and any attempts to break this by women or men (Looking at you 3rd wave feminists.) Will result in a long prison sentance and public shame for the individuals involved.

fpbp

The right to remain silent.

Women's rights wouldn't exist in my world because we wouldn't be cave-people still ordering society by artificial gender roles, everyone would have an equal amount of HUMAN rights, and from that, an extension of our liberty unto the animals of our Earth.

whipping the floor and cooking

This. FPBP

>whipping the floor

>human rights
No. Egalitarianism is the cancer which kills our societies.

Everything except voting and abortion "rights"
Watch that Bear Grylls island game if you want to be redpilled further on the women shouldn't hold or decide who holds office pill.

rights? same as anyone else really. any job they wanna work. but no diversity quotas, and no reduction in standards to accommodate them.
if a woman wants to work as pipe kicker on a well site thats fine, but she better do the job as well as a man does if she wants to get paid the same

Shut up neo-burger, you're shitting on your ancestors with this faggoty facist bullshit.

Only negative rights, just like men should have.

Monarchy is and always has been the way foreword. The USA was doomed to fail from the start of the revolutionary war. Egalitarianism has always been the root of societies problems. Democracy is a massive failure, this was known during the times of Socrates

Women shouldn't have distinct rights from those of their fathers and husbands. Aggression toward female should be interpreted as an aggression towards her male guardian. For criminal matters it would mean full human rights for her, for civil matters whatever her guardian decides.

Egalitarianism under the law does not exempt political officials like a monarch from such laws, Henry VIII couldn't legally get divorced and so he had to adopt protestantism.

I'm against corruption, I could support monarchy, but egalitarianism would have to be a protected right ensured by the crown, and the crown, sustained by the will and use of the people, such as a government should be, not it's own independent entity.

The right to make me a sandwich

Property of sorts but not allowed to vote.
I like the idea of a constitutional Monarchy

Silly user, you only give rights to people!

>He thinks non absolute monarchies are actual monarchies
>He thinks anti corruption efforts in the west are actually effective
>He thinks the development of Protestantism was a good thing

>egalitarianism would have to be a protected right
Why do you insist upon sticking to that cancer? Can't you see how every problem we're facing stems from that ideology re-popularized during the era of enlightenment? Proper hierarchy is necessary for a healthy society. Every single unit of societal development relies upon a hierarchy, even the family has the man at the top, wives/children below him. A healthy society also naturally has a eugenic effect.

Those with more merit attain more resources, those with more resources have more wives/offspring. It ensures every level of the hierarchy stays motivated to utilize their potential, while eliminating less capable families.

Oh yeah, look at the UK is doing. The idiot peasants hold all the power, while the monarch can only sit by and look on at the abomination the empire was turned into.

I see, the gerund is wiping. I actually googled wipping the floor and the correction said whipping, never trust jews I guess...

The right to make me a fucking sandwich whenever I want it.

I support a free society and so a free people, and I reject patriarchy and so I see that the family become decentralised, as well.

People will mate with whom they please, if their mate cannot provide for them, then they will die and so fall from the gene pool, I suppose people don't want that and so will seek refuge in secure mates which promotes competeitive sexcual behaviour between people in society.

Same as now, I don't want to maintain a dumb bitch just to fuck and have children and clean
the house

Freedom is a meaningless buzzword which has been popularized in American society. Absolute freedom is anarchy, a society exists to manage the tribes within it, of which each tribe is composed of families. Of which each family's success depends upon the individual males within it. The individual and collective are dependent upon one another in the larger picture.

>I reject patriarchy
As long as you hold egalitarianism at your core values, you will see nothing but ruin, you cannot build a house on poor foundation. You cannot build a society without foundation.

>People will mate with whom they please
Women lack independent agency, every aspect of their "unique self" is a reflection of the authorities in their life. Whenever you speak with a woman, she serves as a messenger for the men whose beliefs/values shes reflecting. Women and men are not the same, they do not think,act, or function the same way.

>People don't want that so they will see refuge in secure males
>Implying women are ever capable of knowing or pursuing their own interests or those of others
You must understand the nature of women, when you do, everything they do makes sense.

none

The right to be evaluated based on performance standards established by men. The majority of those of can't cut it will be relegated back to whatever domestic roles best suited for them. The ones that persist in trying to break into roles they are not qualified for will be arrested and branded as a public pariah who wastes time and resources of others.

I value family, I would love to be a prent one day, but I seek alternative modes of raising children, as independent agents of thought and action, I want as little intervention of their development as possible.

Egalitarianism is only that of which is represented under the law, I don't care much about how shitty people are to eachother, respectful of their personal space and empathic of their sensitivities.

I agree, many women are stupid, but I feel that this is from their youthful self-objectification, many older women have a brilliant spark of humanity present in their lives, after they're done with being bimbos they're ascended into personality and intelligence. I feel that if we eradicated this aspect of culture which objectifies women and makes sex a centralised part of our lives then we can eveolve into self-development at an earlier stage than usual.

I would advise men not to sleep around with young women unless they're settling down, sex is meaningless without child and young girls are worthless as anything but status symbols, and motherhood is better for kids than how they eventually look. (Basically, personality counts in a female more than their looks).

>I value family
You don't if you reject patriarchy and support egalitarianism.

>I want a hands off approach to raising my children
You have that now. Government takes the head in western society. Most parents have little to no actual interaction with their children during their formulation years or otherwise these days. The time they do "spend" is sitting in front of a light box or otherwise under the influence of something.

>I don't care how shitty people are to each other
>A society is based upon healthy interactions of individuals, families, tribes
>Emphatic of their sensitives

If your idea of 'valuing family' being no actual family and not having to do any work was a heads up to your individual weakness. Comments like this certainly are, it speaks to a child, someone who hasn't grown up, or that of a woman.

>Many women are dumb
No, the point isn't that women are dumb. Largely the only two things limiting a woman's intelligence is her man, and her ancestry. Women are limited in their capability because of the way their brain functions. They do not think like a man, they do not function like a man. A woman aims to please her authority, she is an eternal dependent. Where a man questions his every day life, forms a unique identity, a woman does not.

She sees social
"How can I please my authority?" She does not work the market stand, or work in the lab because she holds genuine interest in the work. She does it because she's instructed to, because she wants to do it for someone who instructed her to do so.

THE RIGHT TO SUCK MY PICKLE DIIIIIIIIIIICK

I am a woman, yes, but I never said I didn't have to do any work, and I would prefer to homeschool my children, if you were wondering.

The right to remain silent.

The same as everybody else.

I'm not a sheltered child that needs women to be forced into relationships.

>Older women ascended into personality and intelligence
The age of a woman being molded successfully doesn't matter. What matters is the sculptor, and how much time/energy they put into molding her. An older woman only appears to have a more "developed personality" because through time she's been exposed to more men to reflect qualities of.

Get a young girl, mold her as you like, and she can surpass the older woman who lacked a single, comprehensive training. In the modern world the common authorities of women are media and government.

Government instructs women to pretend and act as men (become providers) media instructs women to become consumers. But because these nameless entities are not individual peoples. It leaves the women feeling unhappy and empty, but they live to serve their authority. So if government instructs her to waste her life in career and never reproduce, she will do so. Women will self destruct if her authority wishes it of her, and they do, quite commonly these days.

>They're done being bimbos
As before, they become sluts because the will of the man around them demand it of them. Just as they may 'stop' appearing as sluts because the older men typically have different demands. A woman is the product of the wishes of her authority, who she is is a reflection of the men in her life.

>we eradicated this aspect of culture which objectifies women and makes sex a centralized part of our lives then we can evolve into self-development at an earlier stage than usual.
To fix society, all that must be done is fix the men. The women don't matter because as before, all they are is to serve, and reflect the will of their men. A healthy society would naturally see less degeneracy, for a family which allows for such behavior falls behind the others.

Cool feels. Nothing that you said means anything, you are just spewing hollow proclamations based on nothing but emotions.

>Basically, personality counts in a female more than their looks
The "personality" of a women is entirely dependent upon her authority. Any man who has dated a "liberal woman" and watched as they where reshaped into reflecting his right wing views can attest to this. Same way "conservative" women will re-shape the moment their authority is a liberal source. It doesn't matter what "personality" a woman has, they can always be re-shaped.

the same as men.

This.

There are no such things as rights and I wouldn't want there to be - I don't think anyone being entitled to a God damned thing is psychologically healthy. You are owed NOTHING. EVER. Live like that.

>I am a woman yes
Figures as much

> I never said I didn't have to do any work, and I would prefer to home school my children, if you were wondering.
What you prefer or not doesn't matter because it's entirely dependent upon your current authority. Something being the proper way to do things is such independent of what you "think" or "feel" . Women are great resources, if you train them properly you can delegate practically anything. But their competence is reliant upon that of her trainer.

Yes, well, we fall into similar ideas of male dominance, but you see it as micro and feminists tend to see it macro, we both see that men decide the game that we play through their influence in power hierarchies.

muh equality

>We fall into similar ideas of male dominance, such as feminism
You do so because you're instructed to do so. The entire idea of feminism was a male desire, men told women to pretend they're men. This is 18th century Victorian era in a nut shell. Different men wanted it for different reasons (some because they thought women where "pure" and thus must be liberated. Others to enter the work force and drive down wage costs, etc) Every "right" women have is tied to the egalitarianism men who demand women pretend to be men.

Weak men who cannot handle the responsibility which comes with being a man. Of being a leader, even in his own life.

I'm pretty sure if you condition anyone to something, they'll fall in line, look at soldiers, it's not a gender thing, you're just viewing this through a sexist lense.

Raise a boy and a girl, the girl will become what you tell her to. The boy will question, the boy will want to know why. The girl becomes "rebellious" when she goes to public school and another authority challenges your instructions. Where this is a horny male student, a government appointed teacher, or otherwise. A boy thinks and functions differently than a boy, a man functions differently than a woman.

>I'm pretty sure if you condition anyone to something, they'll fall in line
That's not true. There are people who won't be conditioned or who can't be conditioned in many or all regards to anything.

I don't think it's especially situated around sex though.

>Look at soldiers
Soldier's typically fight for something greater then themselves. They're not taking on the role because they're mindless idiots (these days they do because of poor opportunities, most modern "soldiers" come from poverty). They take on the role because they understand the need and are willing to self sacrifice. You not being able to comprehend this - as a woman, does make sense though

What if you questioned it and you got punished and so you learned to accept in order to avoid penilisation?

I neither know nor care. I think that women tend to be more impressionable and conflict averse than men, but a tendency isn't a rule, and it's not an observation with important implications to begin with.

t. my asshole

Look at Sup Forums most of the board consists of men who despite every aspect of their environment telling them not to, cannot stop questioning. Left leaning men don't stop questioning either, they're just broken. I highly suspect the 'cuck' fetish is self hating men who honestly believe they really do don't deserve to be treated well.

You will however often be able to rationalize and discuss ideas with even far left men. Never women, women only listen and reflect.

Well that one guy seems to think it composes the entire existence of a female, to be trained like a dog.

Rights in criminal law (no getting murdered or robbed, etc) but no civil rights like voting or political representation

Not allowed to vote nor work.

>To be trained like a dog
Good comparison actually, but no, women are still human (non-Negro ones anyway). A lot of men have a difficult time accepting the nature of a woman. Comparing it to training a dog seems to help get the point across.

Women can't argue? You're literally discounting my existence as I'm talking to you, I think you just blank everything a woman says out and so you mistake that for passiveness and submission.

Dipshit sheeple can't imagine exceptions to the broad strokes of universal characteristics they paint a caricature of the actual world with.

none

In the ideal world they coud be trusted with the same rights as men including vote

...

>Women can't argue
Essentially yes, any "argument" a man has with a woman is arguing the man she is reflecting. A woman is only the messenger, if a woman sees something say - on social media, or TV; and it contradicts what her man has told her. She will confront him with it, not because she has instantly changed her view, she cannot hold a view, only reflect. She is serving as a messenger for the contradicting information, and wants to receive the response of her currently established authority. Most men know this as a "shit test" but misunderstand the reasoning or why it occurs.

>You're literally discounting my existence as I'm talking to you
Emotional outcry void of validity, if I discounted your existence, we wouldn't be communicating in the first place. I cannot discuss something with someone who doesn't exist.

>Vague attempt at personal attack
If you where capable of comprehending what I've said so far, you would realize how silly what you're accusing me of is. But you're a woman so it doesn't matter if it's valid or not

>I want women's nature to change because it's easier then accepting them for who they are and not applying expectations they cannot fill
Getting upset with a woman because she cannot fulfill the expectations of being a man. Is like getting upset with a Negro when it fails to fulfill the expectations of being a human. It's ultimately pointless

>nature
To be in [x's] nature, a characteristic must be innate and inalienable to [x]. What characteristic is UNIVERSAL to ALL women?

>What characteristic is universal to all women

If you haven't been able to determine that from my posts so far let me simplify it for you. Women lack independent agency

Yeah - that's the question. Name one thing.

>Didn't read my post all the way through
Are you okay user?

Everyone in this thread seems to want sharia.

You are fake news

...

Two closest religions adhearing to natural laws is probably hardcore Orthodox Sunni Islam, and Mormonism. Even Sunni Islam is following the egalitarian lead of the west these days. Look at the reforms in Saudi Arabia, and the weakness of their men. Mormonism has started abandoning their principles in the past few decades too.

>Male bitterness the post
A lot of the MGTOW stuff is because men started to question the nature of women after seeing poor results in their own life. Understanding the nature of women is not the same as hating women for not being men.

This, minus the right to vote or stand in government.

Generally instead of starting a new line which looks like you're responding to someone you'd do
>like I said here [stuff]

Women make choices and decisions of their own accord. Men do the same. That's what agency is, so to make the claim "no women have agency" is moronic.

...

The same rights as a male.

None, property can't have rights. Cunts are meant to be owned by men.

>Women make independent choices/decisions
False, women make decisions based upon what their authorities tell them. In the modern world this is generally media and government, but media and government is not a person. So she also takes ques from the men in her life personally. With egalitarian males, this effectively means no interrupted consistency between the message of media/government and the weak men.

I saw a MGTOW video were the guy said that the perfect human being would be a transsexual female because they would have the appearence of a woman which would attract people and the mind of a man which would be the pinnacle of God's creation.

They're a pretty cooky cult if you ask me.

Yes. But there seems to be a sense of hatred tinged with that understanding like the picture attached of If I tell you dogs are not people, and thus should not be given human expectations. This does not mean we should rape, murder, torture dogs. A woman not being a man does not mean you should act hatefully towards them. Being responsible for a woman, just like a dog, requires a competent owner. One who intends to make use of the dog/woman for mutual benefit/gain

They have the right to shut the fuck up.

>I saw a MGTOW video were the guy said that the perfect human being would be a transsexual female because they would have the appearence of a woman which would attract people and the mind of a man which would be the pinnacle of God's creation.
Yes exactly, that's what I'm talking about. A lot of the hatred of women the MGTOW people express is due to their own inability to accept the nature of women. The tranny attraction thing is still men wanting a woman to act like that of a man.

They'd have strict equality under the law, but no affirmative action protections and favourable court rulings.

>women make decisions based upon what their authorities tell them
So you'd maintain there has never been a women who has ever made an independent non-contingent decision ever?
And that men have? How do you differentiate between actions that are predetermined by outside forces and actions that are free?

right to give me milkies

No, I think it's just a device to cross the canyon of homosexuality, the penis only encompasses the tool of male SEXUALITY, if they were interested in tomboys then sure, whatever, most transsexuals overly portray the features of the gender they identify as anyway so that's false.

Women should be respected and protected. We should have values like Medieval or Victorian chivalry (Not the modern cucked 'nice guy' version),

Men and Women would both know their role and place in society. Men out working, being soldiers and leaders to provide for their women/children. Women at home, nurturing the children, cleaning and cooking; providing for their husband and children in their own way.

That is how the contract of marriage has always worked. If you want to think of it more crudely, the woman offers her body in return for a man's money and protection. This is how things should be, not both sides fighting over who makes more money or who has to care for the children. Feminism has stigmatized traditional feminine activities and virtues but in reality they are just as important to the well-being of society.

The same right women have in the napoleon code

Cuck

MGTOW is bullshit just like feminism. They realize all the problems with modern relationships and gender roles but they reach the wrong conclusion. Just like there are many cucked numale men these days, there are many degenerate sluts or SJW harpies. That doesn't mean all men are terrible, neither does it mean all women are.

>So you'd maintain this concept regarding the nature of women universally
Short answer - yes
Longer answer - I would need the ability to objectively study the nature of women to say yes with a greater degree of certainty. But as it stands currently - yes, I am confident in my conclusions based upon existing evidence.

>That men have
Yes, every aspect of modern and past societies leads to this conclusion.

>How do you differentiate between actions that are predetermined by outside forces and actions that are free?
You must first quantity what is the individual. As far as I can tell individuals are the product of three key factors - genetic, environment, and their soul. If you're non-religious, we'll call it x. The individuality of a person from others of similar environment and ancestry is shown through the assertion of will via x. I'm unsure if women lack a soul/x, or the vessel for it/genetic component is what leads to what the conclusion I'm putting fourth.

If you want to conduct a real world experiment, find a woman, learn aspects you consider 'her identity/personality' become her authority, and watch how easily those 'core beliefs/values' change to yours.

Try the same with a man, and watch how it fails.