Le feminism was good xd

>le feminism was good xd

How do we end these people?

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.jim.com/culture/emancipation-of-women-was-a-fitness-test-that-we-failed/
blog.jim.com/culture/all-women-are-like-that/
blog.jim.com/culture/implementing-patriarchy-without-the-state/
youtube.com/watch?v=Y69tkCbeC5o
youtube.com/watch?v=V6oHA9hFIVs
youtube.com/watch?v=JXe0Xr5u6g8
blog.jim.com/culture/when-the-rot-set-in/
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Feminism was and is good

prove me wrong

Women are equal to men & and all men should die.

Voting was never a right, it was a reward for fighting for your country. Before women could vote if they owned property.
Reproductive rights were purely gynocentric and exist to give women more legal power over life and death than men.
Feminism was never good.

>all men should die
they should not

Oh, right, my fault. They can be farmed for their semen to prolong the human race, and be servants to women, since we’re equal.

>be servants to women
why should anyone be a servant to anybody

Are you being a contrarian for arguments sake? Current feminism is all about women getting gibs from men for free. What are you even doing here.

>Current feminism
stop calling something "feminism" when its clearly not feminism

I've noticed it's almost always libertarians who say this

With pure NRx autism

blog.jim.com/culture/emancipation-of-women-was-a-fitness-test-that-we-failed/
blog.jim.com/culture/all-women-are-like-that/
blog.jim.com/culture/implementing-patriarchy-without-the-state/

Also see heartiste.wordpress.com

When you understand the true nature of the eternal roastie, you know that women are no more capable of conducting their own affairs in adult society than adolescents. They must be the property of their fathers until marriage, and thereafter the property of their husbands.

youtube.com/watch?v=Y69tkCbeC5o

youtube.com/watch?v=V6oHA9hFIVs

youtube.com/watch?v=JXe0Xr5u6g8

why are you posting shit tier normie bait in my super sekrit Nazi reactionary societal-takeover-plotting board

Normie please go

...

so what should this mean

...

Even first wave was liberal/leftist nonsense
It reduced the basic civic unit down from the family to the individual, pitting husband against wife and paving the way for a slew of other faggotry and degeneracy under the banner of "it doesn't hurt you as an individual, so what's the problem?"

You give them a finger, they want the entire arm. It has been deteriorating ever since they got the right to vote

Same with niggers

>Before women could vote if they owned property.
wat

dude we should not think bad of women, they dont deserve it

women have truly earned their right to vote in any imaginable way, why should we opress them?

Because giving them the right to vote is a double edged swords, and Iv'e been bleeding more then stabbing with it.

what? how does it ever hurt you and who are you trying to "stab"

read this shit it's important

Forget 1st wave. We got too liberal on women in the Victorian age, starting with George IV, when we started to see women as virtuous, pure angels in need of protection from evil lustful men, rather than the irresponsible, immature perverts we knew them to be in the 18th century.

>Umpteenth wave feminism is the logical consequence of the failure to divorce Queen Caroline.

blog.jim.com/culture/when-the-rot-set-in/

It's a figure of speech, which probably doesn't sound as good in English. What I tried to say is that giving women the right to vote brings more suffering and damage to society, than helping it.

>blog.jim.com/culture/when-the-rot-set-in/
pretty much this.

what kind of suffering did it ever bring to the society? as far as I remember there has been not a single point in the history of Russia when women would vote radically different from men and that it would in any way damage the society

You state that the women's suffrage movement was not feminist, only allied with the feminist movement

We don't convince anyone. Destroy the welfare state, its the only way.

Everytime I see your flag I get depressed. I don;t know what's more morbid, the things the do to you or that the media is trying to hide it from the world

>Forget 1st wave. We got too liberal on women in the Victorian age, starting with George IV, when we started to see women as virtuous, pure angels in need of protection from evil lustful men, rather than the irresponsible, immature perverts we knew them to be in the 18th century.

Holy shit, It's worse than I thought.
Can you tell us more?

All feminism is all about women getting gibs from men for free.

There fixed it for ya.

As Russia is drinking more and more of the poison known as westernization, you will see it too. As for now, the videos I gave you are an example what Feminism does to women in countries that already fully embraced it.

Cape Town is OK (except for the water shortage, but we can buy storage tanks for that). I sure as hell wouldn't like to be an Afrikaner farmer in the countryside, though. I'm going to emigrate from this shithole as fast as I can.

always a good read
I don't agree entirely on a couple of points, but I reallyy like how well it's articulated

>blog.jim.com/culture/when-the-rot-set-in/

>Eighteenth century view was that women were sex crazy and needed to be kept under tight control or else in their feverish sexual lust they would destroy the family, and because state, society, and the church rested on the family, if you let women loose, everything would fall apart.

>Nineteenth century view was that women were wonderful, and the marital contract only needed to be enforced against men, never against women, because naturally a woman would never break it unless a man forced her to do so.

>Left to their own devices, women will sleep with males whose sexual market value is far higher than their own. Finding themselves at number eight on his booty call list, they then sleep with another high sexual status male in an effort to get to number six on the next male’s list. This continues until they are no longer hot enough to get booty calls, and their most fertile years have been used up.

>And we just have to stop women from doing this. We have to deny her sexual access to any man who is not willing to marry her, and especially and particularly deny her sexual access to married men. The rule has to be that they are not allowed to live independently on their own, not allowed out except in the company of a male who has proper authority over them, and not allowed to date and stuff except they are engaged, an engagement being a legally enforceable promise to marry if you have sex.

What did they ever do to earn it? Even their right to vote is a freebie given to them by men.

Godspeed

thats not feminism, same as calling modern "left" communists

Old feminism was good but current feminism is bad is the first step on the road to all feminism is bad.

If they dont like current feminism it shouldnt be hard to explain why all of it is bad. Crying about people or women in particular thinking that old feminism was good will make you look like a retard without good explaination.

Its just the first step.

So basically women have always been given rights and privileges without responsibilities.

"no true scotman sugars his porridge"

No actual 'no true scotsman' argument actually starts with "no true scotsman"

They fought in the wars as much as their physiology let them, they built my country through hard toil just like men, they worked day and night in the factories making tanks and shells for the men to fight. When the war ended they restored the country on their backs when millions of young men were dead and the country layed in ruins, they plowed the soil instead of horses when there was nothing to eat

Women truly earned their rights with blood and sweat.

Yes.
I'm not sure why so many men viciously dispute this, and why even on Sup Forums so many posters struggle with this concept.
Dealing with women from early childhood into your adult years should make it clear how they are.
Perhaps men are too chemically lobotomized and castrated to have that realization about women, I can't think of any other reason.

>le women shouldnt have the vote because they always vote liberal XDDDD I know this since I saw a meme about it

It's more of an example for the logical fallacy itself, aka dismissing ones argument by appealing to "purity" of an ideal

The abolition of coverture was certainly one of the worst mistakes in human history.

I was being facetious.

Have you had your phenotype inspected at the NRx nude bathhouse or still waiting to be inducted?

Oh, then I completely missed the point. Lol, I guess your'e right

No it's all good. Most Jews are pretty bad at humour.

It's not that, it's just a little too rare to find humor in here that isn't, well, politically incorrect

Yeah I guess I was kind of asleep at the wheel on that one.

>He doesn't want to re-institute patriarchy
>He doesn't want women to be submissive, sweet, demure and controllable again
>He doesn't want to bring back the honorable, supercharged, high-T environment of all-male business and military institutions
And I'm the gay one, huh?

Does seeing how women are just retarded in politics and workplace gay?

Suffragists were fine, Suffragettes were cancer. That's how I understand it anyway.

>there have been a steady rise in suicide for women for the last 10yrs
we need not do anything since feminism is literally killing them

always has been, always will be a supremacy cult

You were and are a fag.

There's nothing wrong with a woman, raised Christian, offering what she has to the world.
Part of me would argue that it makes a level of correction to dysgenics. Almost every kid born to a rich person can survive and reproduce.EVERY ONE. No matter how stupid, evil, or perverted they are, they'll not just survive and reproduce, they'll prosper and shape society. You're seeing this now in Hollywood and college campuses with these fucking bourgeoisie lunatics brainwashing kids with postmodernist retardation. They can also take any lower class female and try to bribe her into marriage with a superior life style, skipping selection entirely and monopolizing someone who may or may not be a more valuable reproductive component, in spite of being on the shallow end of daddy's gene pool.

Genetically superior females should be able to select the mate they want, and letting them take a career permits them that luxury without punishing them with a lifestyle that's limited by imperfections in their mate's situation. You're seeing it a lot today in the us, on account of the fact that there are more female college graduates in our generation than there are male. Some girls are marrying "down" instead of marrying guys old enough to be their grandpas, grabbing some survivor DNA instead and forcing it into the middle class.

More details from reactionary demigod Jim (top deities are still MM and Land):

>Queen Caroline was ugly and was not a virgin when she married Prince George. Prince George did the minimum a husband’s duty required, but paid more attention and affection to his mistress. So she scampered off to get laid by someone else, and proceeded to slut it up spectacularly and publicly. Which pissed prince George off no end.

>A power struggle was going on between priests and warriors (counting academics and newsmen as priests, and aristocrats and military officers as warriors) The priests were demonizing the warriors as alpha males who caused angelic women to do bad things. So they demonized Prince George, and sainted Caroline. No matter what evidence was produced of Caroline’s immoral and lecherous conduct, no evidence could possibly suffice, because everyone knows that women are angels with no interest in sex. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

>Or at least all beta males know that women have no interest in sex.

No se puede, al menos en nuestro país lleno de retrasados mentales con su lenguaje inclusivo.
Entré al Nacional de Buenos Aires dónde pensé que iba a haber gente inteligente pero no, está lleno de este tipo de pelotudos.

Close the Internet.

This is a good one user, saved