Have you swalloed the chattelpill yet user? If women were property: they wouldn't vote so there'd be no retarded policies that destroy our countries; they'd be unable to divorce so they wouldn't destroy our families; they wouldn't be proudly promiscuous so they wouldn't create superAIDS; they wouldn't abort our children so we would have large white families.
Make the switch. Women as chattel.
Other urls found in this thread:
i 100% agree, women should have no rights. bump for visibility
this is the final conclusion of pols beliefs on women. dykes like me will oppose you sure, but there are plenty of your delusional bretheren who don't understand this is the inevitability of what must be returned to if they want things how they where 3-10 hundred years ago. having laws and rights after all doesn't make one not a slave anymore than dressing a doll in fine silks instead of polyester makes it not a doll.
Wanna goto College honey? That's nice, are they going to teach you to cook, clean, have babies, be healthy, be a good wife?
No???
They're going to teach you that all those things are sexist and wrong and you should do the opposite and sabotage the life of your husband???
Well honey you're just not gonna go, because the kids need a bath and the floor needs cleaning and you're legal property.
t. All of human society before the 1970s.
What's a real fucking irony is how all these feminists today LARP as being 1950s homewives. Like they KNOW and WANT to be like that, but the indoctrination and propoganda won't allow them to submit to their own desires. Instead they act like gross wannabe men and end up unhappy and unwanted.
>muh home makers in ye modern world
senpai its significantly different when you don't have someone telling you who you're going to marry and fuck.
When a women is born she takes her father’s last name. Once she marries another man, the father walks her down the aisle and hands her over to the new man. This is an exchange of property from one man to another. Which is why she takes the new man’s last name.
Why aren’t women going apeshit over this is mind boggling. They are nothjng more than property.
So basically white islam?
>Why aren’t women going apeshit over this is mind boggling
because its already legal to not have to take the husbands name in our country?
what really boggles my mind is why more women don't buy mens pants.
You are a fucking retard. Hang yourself, faggot.
Did you ever ask yourself it is that liberals come up with these memes, ostensibly to attack conservatives?
The following should be required reading for all men. pic related. thepurityspiral.com
seems so
while its possible that liberals will meme this to discredit you, it is the only incarnation of your beliefs that is actually somewhat stable and not prone to slide right back into the current year. it boggles my mind how there are actually morons in this board right now that think removing womens right to work and vote isn't just OP's idea without an offensive word slapped on it. if you have no money or political power, you are chattel. it's that simple.
Free Will's a bitch, ain't it?
I quite enjoy my biological nearest available approximation of free will and have no intention of handing it over to a bunch of fucking assclowns. but can you really blame me for wanting, should it be stolen from me anyway, that those assclowns stop behaving like a pack of delusional assclowns? all they'd have to do is understand the relationship between what they want and what it will take to keep what they want going. And not misconstrue their romanticism as inherent to the experience of being a woman in that system. And behave at least in the most base ways as my intellectual superior.
The real bitch is being blessed with enough intelligence to realize those Hypocrisies but being powerless to stop any of it.
Imagine you were a man and had the capability of condensing that drivel into one or two sentences. How better off everyone would be.
MY PROPERTY!
...
>In exchange for 2% of women getting to wear pantsuits and play at being power executives, 80% of women must work as waitresses and grocery baggers whether they want to or not. Funny how much this freedom smells like slavery, isn’t it?
Very accurate
>Imagine if you took out all the hard work in understanding something, why cant you just make simplistic points for my soft girlbrain
I wouldn't be a man, I would be a b8 poster, and you would be a child.
See you may think you did some long analysis but to every other person in the world who reads that they just see tripe. There's just waxing lyrical. Women can't express themselves, they just start rambling. Disgusting.
inaccurate, you do not need much money to be a house wife, its raising a family that gets expensive.
>See you may think you did some long analysis
No actually I thought I posted something very simplistic that even a supposed superior would have no trouble comprehending it, but I guess in the b8 down under they don't have people down there.
you could read what he's responding to at the very least
What kind of housewife doesn't have children you stupid slut? They're the same thing.
>Just gonna have a homewife sit around and never breed her. We're traditional like that. We also fuck other people and she tells me what to do. Also she's going to Jamaica by herself next week.
>open thread
>see a literal mudslime posting about making women property
Fuck off and die ahmed.
Lol, you can only dream, stupid boyim. You have lost this battle before it even started. Men are the cattle, womenfolk are the owners. The only reason you're allowed to exist is to provide for the best gender, so get used to it.
O-only the m-muslims v-value a strong society!
Or you can just have strong religious values and not be retarded.
I don't need to read it twice, its wrong. women have always worked in society, and working at a grocery store does afford you massive ammount's of freedoms women get to enjoy today that they didn't before. the only thing different about working in a grocery store compared to before is that the woman gets to keep the spoils of her effort instead of handing it all to the Hoh to manage. the 1950s house wife is a fucking meme. the real base state of society for women is shown in the lives of those before the industrial revolution and during the industrial revolution pre-feminism. Feminism didn't barge in and make every woman have to start doing work to survive. they always had to, only the very wealthy and high middle class could afford to be at leisure, and even those women had strict etiquite and a narrow field of acceptable hobby like conduct and where basically also prisoners in their own homes. Learn some fucking history, just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean it didn't happen for any reason. feminism got popular because it came about in a period of time where; being a woman blowed (note; being everyone pretty much sucked), and women had enough free time, money, and safety to protest about it.
I understand that you sometimes need to vent.
We all do.
But you seem to also be beating your head against a wall.
Please stop.
>What kind of housewife doesn't have children you stupid slut?
not the problem famalam. no one is forcing women to be grocery clerks if they'd prefer to not be. you can support a wife who doesn't have to work.
>Just gonna have a homewife sit around and never breed her.
yeah 16k a year sure is going to make a stellar difference on that front,
>both need to work
is a meme, the problem is overpopulation and immigration.
If women are property then their ownership should reflect the income distribution. Legalize polygamy.
not venting, just stating facts. sorry that offends your delicate sensabilities. if you have a problem with expectations of being superior to me maybe you should abandon ye old sexism hmm?
I have not attacked you.
Please do not make blanket assumptions.
I didnt say you attacked me, but you equated reasonable expectations as head beating against wall levels of stupid frustration, that is what is known as bullshit.
OK.
I hope you have a better one.
Goodbye.
>projecting
what causes idiots on this board to equate a reasonable expectation
>if you are my intellectual superior you should behave as such
with shitty day anger?
I agree, women do the most retarded braindead shit imaginable, for example one woman made these cake things out of vaginal yeast, absolutely retarded, and this is why they are inferior
>working at a grocery store does afford you massive ammount's of freedoms women get to enjoy today that they didn't before.
hahaha you fucking idiot. The homemaker with everything she needs is better off than the woman who can't afford to make rent because she's on minimum wage at a supermarket. And if she can make rent, she can't afford the creature comforts that a homemaker had. And if she can afford the creature comforts (she can't) she still doesn't have a husband to make her feel appreciated. And if she has a husband (she doesn't) she doesn't have children to make her life worthwhile. And if she has children (she doesn't) she can't afford to be there to raise them because she's working all the time and they become parasitic citizens who more often than not are a detriment to society.
You don't need religion to recognise the downward spiral of society since "the great liberation" meme.
>hur fudr heye
being a comfortable slave isn't the same as having freedom, I suppose you must love the idea though so maybe you should go serve some jews and see what its like?
> And if she can make rent, she can't afford the creature comforts that a homemaker had
home makers cannot in any way afford any creature comforts. slaves are wholely dependant on their master's generosity. which is exactly the system we are addressing the idea of reinstituting.
>she still doesn't have a husband to make her feel appreciated.
there is no appreciation in husbandry in your system. it is not a choice to find a husband, it is abjectly enforced, and the subject of abject chattle does not have a choice in who or why. Women are to marry who their families decide they are to. there is no choice. they are property.
>doesn't have children to make her life worthwhile.
children are not worthwhile under this system, she is an appliance that brings into the world these babies, but they will be raised under the husbands name, and under his rules and ideals. she is an empty vessel, and her own hopes for those children, in particular her daughters, will be perpetuating the very system that destroys her agency.
>there to raise them because she's working all the time
this is not a bad thing. the reason this is the case is because of overpopulation and is a sign to stop reproducing so much. of course if you allow immigration or import subversive overbreeders comfortable living in such squalor, of course this will continue to be a problem. the financial reprecussions of childrearing are its own barrier to reproduction in the same way foreign aid distorts it to allow explosive overpopulation.
>All of human society before the 1970s.
Have you seen males before the 1970s and the shit that is bred now?
It was not a good deal back then, and it's retarded to agree on this deal now.
You fags are one step away from "hurr durr i want my govt subsidized girlfriend", which is a total fucking bottom.
The problem isn’t whether you have an opinion or not. You just live in a culture where everyone agrees that it matters. Under the patriarchy, you will still have your opinions but nobody with power will take it seriously. It’s not much different than the dynamic with children.
The intent is not to “turn back the clock” to some greater time. The idea is to move forward and be open and honest about why egalitarianism is flawed. Children will be raised learning the reality of the dimorphism of humans and not this nonsense now.
Non sequitor. what is being discussed isn't my opinion and weather or not I have it and it matters but rather, that your behavior is not along the lines of a superior. and that necessarily makes it increasingly easy for your opinions or views to be dismissed based on their character rather than the source's attributes. People who say they are superior but act like fools will get nowhere. odds are your ultimate victory over us will be no different; hinging in totality on physical advantages as opposed to mental ones.
This mentally ill bitch is a great representation of what happens when women manifest without a mans influence.
All the talk of redpill and blackpill and wanting to know the truth, and the betas of pol are unwilling to accept a large proportion of societies problems are caused by the liberty of women.
You think communism and marxism and degeneracy just springs to life by itself by a bunch of working men and child raising women?
It's embarrassing how indoctrinated "red pilled" people are.
you're a fucking moron if you honestly take my constant posting as any kind of proof that others here don't think like you, which further shows your own lack of self conviction. Hatred of womens rights is one of the most unifying factors in this entire board, with the only dissenters silently contributing to polls at most.
but then why would you have any defenses set up against your own human weaknesses? its a no brainer for you to just believe whatever your gut tells you. a nigger by any other name.
My wife is my property and freely admits she belongs to me. She loves me telling her so. She will belong to me even death, but I also belong to her. We both cherish having an absolute relationship, which is such a rarity today.
That's beautiful mate. Congratulations. I've only tasted that in half measure, but I know it is the correct way of living after experiencing it. And the girl knows too.
Sadly we were from different religions and I wasn't prepared to enter hers to keep her. I grapple with that still, but I think it was for the best.
Daily reminder that humanity will progress with or without you backwards cavemen. Your ideas are literally from the past, and will never be reality again. Stop living in the past.
There is no religious component for us, we just got lucky. We are those 1 in 100k people that are completely compatible. Both from quite different European countries. Life is strange and surprising.
It is the right way to live. And I believe there are a significant amount of women out there that want meaningful relationships like that. Women are just as affected as men in this age of nihilism.
They are property, to be traded for dowry and breeding. We gave them a chance. It's like giving a teenager a car and having them get a dui two weeks later. You take away the fucking car.
>Everything that was old is never new again
Summerchild you're so cute. You think degeneracy never occurred before? You think a return to traditional working behaviour never responded? You never read history in your gender studies class outside of discussing the womens rights movement?
That's awesome. I've met one other woman since then but she moved with her family overseas. These women do exist and they do know that being owned and protected is preferable to whatever the raging lunacy of the "women" in this thread and elsewhere desire.
They would be happier, really.
This. It's funny we're actually living in the anomaly even if most people believe this is a normal lifestyle.
We all know that would be the best thing to ever happen... but it never will...
>They would be happier, really.
see this is the kind of stupidity and delusional mindset that continues to prove your lack of superiority over me.
Fucking this, mandatory reading.
> I want my wife running off with a wild Tyrone, so what it's a free country dude, you're a bigot or something? What these values have only beein place for 40 years? Nah bruh It's european culture you fucking bigo, my roastie wife needs to fuck around, it's 2017!!!
How is that going to work when Europe will be majority Muslim in 10 years
You're not making any arguments woman.
Most women would be happier to never have to work some shitty job to make ends meet or have enough to provide for her children. Most women would be happier staying at home, taking care of children, or doing something else. That is where a man comes in. A proper man provides, protects, takes care of, and loves his woman. She provides children, companionship, love, meaning, and a loving home in return. I would die to protect my wife without a second thought. I'd give her the last of our food and water if we were starving. I'd go sleep hungry and cold if I had to. Likewise, she will and does do anything for me, but in her own feminine realm. Not because I force her to or make ultimatums, but because she understands that we have something special and meaningful. She values the differences between us as a man and woman. Your worldview will never bring you the happyness, fulfilment, or sense of meaning that our worldview brings us. It just won't.
It’s this retarded larping that’s kept the left in power for so long. CNN or BBC will run some report on how the ‘alt-right wants to make women into fuck toy property’, and a bunch of virtue signalling sheep will make extra sure to go out and vote left. Good job retard OP.
>Most women would be happier to never have to work some shitty job to make ends meet
they will have to, weather it is working as a grocery clerk or as an absolute authoritarians baby oven appliance.
one provides more safety, the other more freedom.
>Most women would be happier staying at home, taking care of children,
then why aren't they? do not act as though this option is not allowed. you complain relentlessly about the shitty laws giving women free money to raise kids
>A proper man provides, protects, takes care of, and loves his woman.
there is no care here. the womans desires are ephermerial, she is a slave, property, as the op already went over. She will marry who her father tells her to. A man will provide for her in the same way you might care for a nice car or TV, but in the end, she is not provided for, and her security is entirely in his whim, and that is the future you want. There is a difference between being compensated for your work, and being granted the privilage of using the owner's things while you belong to your owner.
>I would die to protect my wife without a second thought.
and you would die to protect your home too. it does not mean the home is happy for it. it might very well be more happy to have more trees and less houses with little parasites everywhere,
>Likewise, she will and does do anything for me
she will because unlike you, we have no choice. you create value, and hold us seperate from it, never to grasp anything that we could use to survive on our own two feet. ergo our choice is to do as our father tells us, and then husband tells us, or die. from cradle to grave. you can call that safe, but it is the kind of safe like one might consider a china in a hutch. I prefer to use my china for example every day, not pretend I love it by keeping it prisoner.
> Not because I force her to or make ultimatums,
support of a society where she cannot exist apart from you _IS_ an ultimatum weather you choose to acknowledge it
>Your worldview will never bring you the happyness, fulfilment, or sense of meaning that our worldview brings us. It just won't.
that is where you are wrong. helping others, pleasing others, all those things have great meaning to me, and I do not need to sell you my rights to keep me as chattel for me to reap the benefits of feminine hobbies nor provide for those I care for and recieve their care in turn.
>She values the differences between us as a man and woman.
what value is there to be had in being someones absolute inferior I wonder? feel free to elaborate how that brings her fulfillment in your eyes.
So wait im confused does Sup Forums people love or hate women?
>then why aren't they? do not act as though this option is not allowed. you complain relentlessly about the shitty laws giving women free money to raise kids
this option isn't allowed because the corporate jews cut men's wages by half which means 2 parents have to work to sustain a household.
don't let the backfire effect hit you too hard
Sup Forums loves women as the mothers that raise upstanding citizens of the new generation
Sup Forums hates degenerate whores that destroy nations by muh feelings
pol over all does not hate women, but they are filled with HATE and resentment for women. emotions bleed into actions if you will. Pols beliefs on women can be split into 3 distinct groups
The first are absolutely silent and I only theorize their existance from strawpol results. people who do not think women are inferior and do deserve rights. these groups are fewer in number than any other group but are still sizable enough to be worth nothing. though I suspect many of them may have been women.
Second you have people like the op. People who unabashedly feel women deserve less status and rights and to ultimately be returned to the chattel existance of before, and are unapologetic about it and rarely delve into the self defeating delusions that this will be for women's benefit. they know it is for men and society as they see it's benefit.
Then you have the delusionals. These people are the same as above, but they lack any self awareness or authenticity. they hide the brutal pragmaticism of their actions by pretending the outcome will be pleasant for women, or their views on inferiority by inventing some contradictory notion of how women are equal in some seperate metaphysical way. In short they are romantics who cannot grasp the true horror of what they believe they must do so they have painted over in an image of placidness that does not exist in our biology.
Over all in my experiance only about 4-10% of posters who believe in female inferiority on pol support that belief with any behavior befitting of a superior as well. instead they act petty and emotional as one might expect from the very people they look down on.
Over all the board favors significantly female inferiority in action (posts) as well as results (polls) and as a whole does not want women involved in work or politics.
Do I give a shit? Voting is for cucks. Those who do not live and let live should be conquered.
>this option isn't allowed because the corporate jews cut men's wages by half which means 2 parents have to work to sustain a household.
women have always had to work. compared to the time in which women did not have rights and the market was more free mens wages are incomparably high.
either way the solution to this problem is LESS PEOPLE in the workforce, you can artificially create that with women being banned from it or you can do what it is telling you and stop fucking so many people into the world or letting in people who do.
Oh, I agree. But the faggot soy boy, bugmen let women walk all over them. When men become MEN again, they will be able to make women property again. The ball is in men's court. faggots.
t. woman
...
>Second you have people like the op. People who unabashedly feel women deserve less status and rights and to ultimately be returned to the chattel existance of before, and are unapologetic about it and rarely delve into the self defeating delusions that this will be for women's benefit. they know it is for men and society as they see it's benefit.
You're incorrect that there's no benefit to women. They feel happy. They are protected and provided for. Their biological instincts are satisfied. They become complete. They enter into union of trust and love with a man who gives them a sensation that can never be met by indoctrinated consumerism and individualism.
It is a symbiotic relationship and everyone benefits.
women had to work, but not for wages. It was mostly housework and raising children. Now since women has to take the burden bestowed to men, no parent are in the household. So who loses? The kids for not getting adequate parenting. The women for not allowing the freedom to not work. And the men who want women to take care of the house.
>b-but what is men stay in the house
catch 22, women eventually disrespect husbands that are not working. They want their partners to be smarter, stronger, have better pay, and have greater or equal social class then them.
Curse the jews who prevented me from enjoying that idyllic life
lol sounds like Ukraine.
>hey! see those people over there? let's make them our slaves!
>come on, it'll be easy, they won't dare fight back - and if they try, we'll win!
Go home Mohammad, you're drunk.
Bump
>You're incorrect that there's no benefit to women.
I said it is not for womens benefit not that there is no benefit. that benefit is safety
>They feel happy.
this puts you firmly in the last camp.
>They are protected and provided for.
preventing someone from providing for themselves and then providing for them is not actually providing for them, it is keeping them hostage.
>Their biological instincts are satisfied.
wrong, in this society they do not have any selective power and must marry who their father tells them to.
> They become complete.
metaphysical bullshit.
>They enter into union of trust and love with a man
there is no union or trust
only authority. A woman cannot disobey a man in your society.
>gives them a sensation that can never be met by indoctrinated consumerism and individualism.
you do not need to give up all of your rights to get this effect which is why
>It is a symbiotic relationship and everyone benefits
It is a parasitic relationship that primarily benefits men and keeps women about as content as a horse who has to sit 12 hours a day in a stable stall. its primary goals are focused on satisfying your desires; "more wealth for me, less for women who don't obey men, no political power for women, no rights for women that are not socially agreed upon pity or given to them through my absolute athority, more children to carry on my name, obedient daughters to secure social relationship security with" for women? "you get to obey your father, then obey your husband, you have no choice in who you marry, who you marry decides everything about how your life will be, you must raise your daughters to be obedient to this"
Find me this legion of tradcon wives who are okay with the notion that their partners will be chosen for them.
>then why aren't they?
Because it's no longer possible for most people to be able to support a household with one salary. A lot of reasons for that, women entering the work force is one. Double labour supply and reduced wages.
>there is no care here.
These are your own insecurities, projections, and quite frankly, delusions. Nobody forced me and my wife together. We are from different countries, for one. I care about her more than anyone else on the planet, including myself. Not as some item or product, like you pathetically suggested, but as the most important person to me. Our goals in life are one in the same, we discuss and build our future together.
>and you would die to protect your home too. it does not mean the home is happy for it.
Would I die to protect a meaningless piece of land or a pile of bricks? Fuck no I wouldn't. But I'd absolutely die to protect a home me and my wife both created. This is what you don't seem to understand. You really cannot understand the level of love we have for each other.
>she will because unlike you, we have no choice.
You are being silly again.
She had every choice in the world to pick whatever man she wanted. We are Europeans from western Europe, not moslems from Pakistan. She chose this just as much as I did. You're conflating genuine love, something you will not experience or see often in this world, with servitude and imprisonment. It's quite sad really, your ideology really is against everything good. I'm not arguing every man is going to be good for every woman or will treat his wife as a man should. Some men just won't. But those men exist now and still hurt women.
If you say so lol
Good work. This needs to catch on, because it's right, true, necessary.
>women had to work, but not for wages. It was mostly housework and raising children.
wrong, most worked along side the family in many manners required to make money, which automatically belonged to the head of household. then they worked in factories, because your very idea of a fucking home didn't exist for most of the dirty parts of the industrial revolution. Only the emergence of the service economy and time off from work from social upheavel created the 1950s delusion you hold so strongly to.
>no parent are in the household.
no women would have had time to raise children in the manner we do today in the ancient past either. there where no child labor laws back then, which is also why your idea of hose work and raising kids taking up time is so absurd.
>Because it's no longer possible for most people to be able to support a household with one salary.
I already went over why this is the case and how it is rediculous to assert women caused it. your continued shilling of it shows you are nothing more than a big liar. Big lie technique is not something I will tolerate in discussions, try again.
>wrong, most worked along side the family in many manners required to make money
Are we talking about the US? Because your flag makes it hard to gauge what standard of living you're talking about. Because I'm talking about the US, not asia
>no women would have had time to raise children in the manner we do today in the ancient past either
There is a distinction between western and eastern nations about this. Had to learn it in psych some time ago actually. Eastern cultures are primarily concerned with the children's physical needs, such as food, clothing, shelter, which I suspect you are deriving your conclusions from. However, in the west, because a man's salary were more than sufficient for maslow's lowest levels, they were concerned with nurturing the children's reasoning, critical thinking, social behavior, and ect.
>b-but muh ancient times
Please refrain from moving the goalpost.
women ARE the property of the state..
and the state rents out women to men at higher rates then ever before.
nowhere have it ever been so that a woman was a property of a man.
she was either a property of church via monarch or a property of the state
women have never been a property of men in general. otherwise the world would a completely different place
women are a tool in controlling the society
the state is not gonna give that tool to men EVER
i mean if you take out a woman out of state propaganda bubble.. what are you left with?
basically nothing. a useless piece of shit, only good for shitting out a couple of kids and you can basically scrap her after that.
if it weren't for the state.. we wouldn't even see most of the women. there is nothing to see.
plus they stink.
I'm talking about literally everywhere short of the industrial revolution.
>There is a distinction between western and eastern nations about this. Had to learn it in psych some time ago actually. Eastern cultures are primarily concerned with the children's physical needs, such as food, clothing, shelter, which I suspect you are deriving your conclusions from. However, in the west, because a man's salary were more than sufficient for maslow's lowest levels, they were concerned with nurturing the children's reasoning, critical thinking, social behavior, and ect.
meaningless in every scenario being discussed, in the past women worked because they lived on their plot of land and worked it alongside the person who owned it and had her hand in marriage. weather or not they owned this land or what diverse things they did to earn an income was irrelevant, they did it as a family and it was the man who at the end of the day owned everything and said where the finances went. During that time women raised the mans children and put them to work in the fields or other working ways as early as possible. everything from farming to textiles to dinner to cleaning.
Once the industrial revolution rolled around, there was enough filth that the children who did not work in factories were left to roam the streets or joined the new schools that started existing around that time. They along with the mothers and fathers, worked in absurd conditions and even worse living conditions and there would have been no ammenities to keep a home until the rise of the suburbs.
>Please refrain from moving the goalpost.
this is not moving the goalpost. women were for most of human history in the labor force, so you cannot argue that they fucking doubled it. the only acceptable interpretation is that historically men became so rich that they could afford for many of their wives to LEAVE the work force, artificially halving it. That is the cold hard fact, "superior"
This state produces a shitty women product. I’m leaving.
but koreanon, you are in a country that had been culturally hostile to women. By that I mean for example, when a man demands divorce because he cheated, the woman is blamed for not keeping him happy enough.
and that has nothing to do with the state.
>I'm talking about literally everywhere short of the industrial revolution.
Okay, I'm talking about the era after that
>what value is there to be had in being someones absolute inferior I wonder? feel free to elaborate how that brings her fulfillment in your eyes.
Where did I say she is my inferior? Or even suggest it? I don't believe any woman is my inferior. We are not the same. You have evolved over tens of thousands of years to possess different skills and abilities to me. People like you want to erase those differences which make relationships between the sexes beautiful and meaningful.
>that is where you are wrong. helping others,
The greatest happyness is brought by love, family, and a meaningful relationship. This is not even up debate, these are central values in every human society since the dawn of time. Unsurprisingly, their weakening nearly always corresponds to sociatal collapse.
Those 3 things are built on selfishness, exclusivity, and devotion to and for each other. You will never experience it because you do not have capability to transcend your own petty selfishness. Mark my words, that void you feel will never be filled by any ideology, consumer product, bank balance, house, or job. The only thing that will fill it is a life long genuine bond with your man and your children.
>Okay, I'm talking about the era after that
thats as misleading as cutting off the part of the graph that shows your misconception of the gender of the laborforce is non extant for most of human history. I also went over the industrial revolution and its effects.
>huf and puff and blow my own house down
you didn't even bother to fix your previous post, but whatever,
>You have evolved over tens of thousands of years to possess different skills and abilities to me.
like what exactly?
>thats as misleading
sure
Well not you in particular, you are mentally ill. But women in general.
glad you agree then, at last a productive conversation.
So list them. I'm eager to hear what advantages we women have evolved that makes us equal to men.
>look how much passive aggressiveness I can put in one post
It's okay. At one point you will grow up. Either that or kill yourself, don't really care either way.
>more projecting
I've already grown up, my main reason for hanging around here is seeing if any of you will, but time and again I'm disappointed. you all cant even face the ugliness of your own values, you have to paint over it with bullshit.
>They're going to teach you that all those things are sexist and wrong and you should do the opposite and sabotage this life of yours
What exactly am I lying about?
I'm sorry, but if you think women entering the work force to unprecedented levels, including entering countless previously all make industries, didn't low wages or place stress, you are white frankly retarded a unaware of basic economics and shouldn't even be entering discussions.
Secondly, women entering the work force to unprecedented levels placed new levels on relations between the sexes. Both people having to work for long hours is terrible for relationships and for children. This whole issue directly correlates with decreasing birth rates and marriages.