Hey Sup Forumsros

Hey Sup Forumsros
ITT: Explain to me why women should have rights?
Pro tip: You can't.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9XjejPJvQP4
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

edgy and misogynist on Sup Forums

wow kid careful you dont accidentally join U2 with all that edge!!!!

Protip lerk moar

Just expressing an opinion. I post when I wanna post. Even if its just shit posting.

Its not an opinion or decent bait.

Your mom and Rosalind Elsie Franklin /thread

Found the femanon

...

So in your mind there is absolutely no way some people can hold different opinions on issues you have strong convictions about? Fucking kids...

My mom? She is an over-controlling bitch.
Rosalind Elsie Franklin? Someone else would have achieved her accomplishments.
I need better b8?
You need better arguments.

Though seriously OP, you are kind of right. There is no real good reason we should treat women as equals, but there are plenty of reasons for why we shouldn't. Gender roles are important.

My mom? She is an over-controlling bitch


EEEDDDGGGYYYYYY

My mom? She is an over-controlling bitch

EEEDDDGGYYYYYY

Right?

idk where you read i said that user but im deffo smarter than u, do you have air tight logic on your (presumed, since youre getting involved) misogyny? or do you just have that one hyperbole technique?

**bonus points if you had to google hyperbole**

/muricans

Maybe edgy. Still doesn't make it any less true. She's a control freak.

holy shit i dont care about your personal life fag

Good on you for actually being open-minded enough to consider the possibility that absolute or extreme egalitarianism may not be the best model to structure a society on. We hear from the time we're children that men and women are equal in everyway, and a lot of idiots just eat that shit up without ever applying even a little skepticism.

Ohhhh someone's salty.

>egalitarianism
Agreed. if we were equal in everyway then we'd see women in far more manual labor jobs. But just ask on to fucking try it. "But that's a man's job."

bureaucratic entitlements / protections = Women can lift heavy things too.

Im starting to think where everyones going wrong is a misunderstanding of what rights are

OP:
>Maybe women shouldn't have equal rights
You:
>That's not an opinion

But it is and you're retarded. From the way you type I doubt you're even old enough to drink (at least in America) though, so I feel even a little bit embarrassed replying.

Because they are tax-paying citizens.

Precisely-- men and women are programmed for different roles, and society works best when we encourage members of their gender to conform to what they do best. We allowed women the right to vote on a purely abstract moral basis, and nearly a century later we're realizing the consequences. It was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of Western civilization in my opinion.

because if inbred autistic faggots like you have rights it isn't a privilege anymore


This is also how we justify animal rights

OP here. Have to admit. Far less h8 than I expected.

sick rebuttal m8, How about this, Car Insurance? Women get cheaper car insurance because they are statistically less likely to crash, why do you never hear women ask for more expensive car insurance?? Im making your arguments for you because I am so far Sup Forumseyond you....also attacking the way someone types online stopped being a valid argument for intellectual integrity before people had even left Myspace

Oh my god, men are so stupid

ITT Americans, Trolls and ppl with Mommy issues say things without actually sayig anything

I think believing that all people are inherently entitled to certain rights is a mistake within itself. It severely limits our possibilities for true progress-- one that can only be achieved through tough decisions and sacrifice.

Cause theyre human beings and most of them are smarter than you edgelord

Women have their roles. They should stand by the side of their man and support him. A woman doesn't need to vote. And she doesn't need the favor of the courts just because she has a vagina. Look at what happens in most divorces, and what happens when she isn't smart enough to use the pill. Women's rights? Pffft...... More like "We have vaginas so do everything for us." Shit you need a pre nup just to get married in case she's a gold digger just out for half your shit.

>"high schooler that stumbled into ayn rand for the first time" detected

What I want you to do is screenshot this conversation, and when you are 5 years older, I want you to open it up so you can read this and realize just how ridiculous you sound. If you seriously want to contribute, why don't you start by answering OP's question.
>Protip: you can't

>My mom? She is an over-controlling bitch.
Hows that puberty going kid?

No. And maybe it's also the responsibility of the guy to wear a condom? jfc, don't be crying about courts when you get yourself into those situations.

Nope

I'm an adult and I've never read Atlas Shrugged, if that even matters (it doesn't).

>be random guy
>be wealthy
>get married
>merrage sucks
>get divorce
>ex-wife sues you for half your shit and wins

you started off well but this ''- one that can only be achieved through tough decisions and sacrifice.'' is self righteous nonsense. I agree, liberals have buried us in entitlements. The only document I adhere to is the OG declaration of Human Rights by the UN, which, as you've already said isnt being achieved, before we let boys use the girls bathroom, maybe lets get everybody Food, clean water, a house and maybe some WiFi.

Wow now you proved me wrong
Im speechless
Clap clap clap

bruh why u mad tho?

Women certainly do. Many people believe the misconception that a woman not being equal to a man means she isn't necessary for a healthy and strong society. That's just plain retarded. Women absolutely have their place; it's just the man's job to ensure she fulfills her duty. When men start acting like men again, all this feminism bullshit will stop.

Women think they are entitled to a lot of things just because they have a vagina. I disagree. The fact that most people flavor that argument up a ton then the people on the receiving end say "You know hwta, you're right." just pisses me off.

I don't believe in righteous causes, I just think the belief that a hierarchical society is a difficult point to sell, as most people are persuaded by moral arguments. Consider then just the pragmatic arguments against egalitarianism.

>Feminism: Because not all women can be beautiful.
That's all I have to say about that. Feminism pisses me off.

Shouldn't of married

Because the deal in democracy is that everyone gets a set of rights, under the stipulation that they uptake a set of responsibilities. If you fail to uphold these responsibilities, then you lose your rights (i.e. incarceration, banned from working in a certain field or banned from ever possessing a firearm etc). If you want to take away women's rights then you also need to absolve them of all those responsibilities. Anything short of this is undemocratic. In the case of an authoritarian state, none of this matters. But, in the case of democratic states, this is the only fair solution.

In this new democratic state, where women have no rights, they cannot vote, work, own property etc. But, in turn, they cannot be held accountable for their actions (because - in this hypothetical scenario - they are not citizens, merely property). So, if a woman commits murder, arson, child-abuse etc. the blame lies solely with her man (i.e. her father or husband, or whatever man is head of the household in which she lives). In this world, women can still be punished for misbehaviour but the primary blame - and hence the primary penance - must be assumed by 'her male', as he has taken on her societal responsibilities.

In short, I don't think it would work. So, your options are:

1) Deal with it.
2) Move to Saudi Arabia (or any number of Islamic authoritarian nations where women already have limited, or no, rights).
3) Start a fascist movement and attempt to overthrow your government (surely getting killed or imprisoned in the process, with little to no effect made on anything; die insignificant and autistic).

Again, I don't think the moral justifications of who deserves what right and who doesn't is entirely irrelevant. Men and women are better at different things, and society functions best when men are the primary decision-makers. If that is true, that is all.the justification that is required for disbanding gender equality.

What things do you think I think I'm entitled to exactly?

But that's what this society idolizes. Its the most financially beneficial thing you can do. An not every woman would take to kindly to a pre nup.. Take away her right to sue him and ta-da No more bull shit. His hard earned fortune is intact and she goes about her business.

>hwta

How did you manage to get every letter in the wrong place?
How is it possible to fuck up the word 'what' that badly?

Agreed. Men make more rational and more long term decisions. A woman makes a decision based on her mood and can go back and contradict herself 5 minutes later. Men should be the only one in decision making roles.

anything is possible. open your mind

So, you get married because apparently it's "idolized"? You couldn't pay me to get married. And if you do, you should be aware of the consequences that could happen

Simply really you egotistical fuck. Typing fact to keep up with the thread and doing my best proof reading after I hit the "post" button.

You know dude, I have no problem with women having rights, the only thing I have a problem with that they do is whore it up like how men do, it's so much grosser when a girl is used a lot, regardless if it's fair or not, women weren't made to open their legs all the time, that's my only problem here

lmao and when men shoot up people, are they not acting irrationally?

People are swayed by morality, there is no way some peoples votes should count as much as mine, just as my vote shouldnt carry the weight of someone who actually studies politics and really REALLY knows what theyre talking about, but I struggle to believe the separation of the two, Cold logic and irrational morality, is justified, theyre both aspects of the human condition. Pragmatism over Idealism is a dangerous road and pretty autistic imo

Most people don't. They are "head over heels." We are not talking about us. We are talking about society as a whole.

Mean want women to sleep with them but then think they're a slut when they do. Makes sense

Dude...this is the opposite of whats true?? Women have a better sense of longevity and Men think quicker in the moment...If youre not trolling stop posting and read something

Well, society as a whole is fucked so there's really no point

You know an interesting fact to consider-- the first female congressman (Jeanette Rankin) was the only member of Congress to vote against entering WWII. That is the kind of retardation that we allowed into our politics.

That is a minority of men whom are disturbed mentally by some sort of imbalance in the brain or following a religious cause.

Men*

Lol @ desperate, clingy, creepy manbabies who can't get a woman, then project their self-disgust onto women.

There's nothing 'egotistical' about pointing out a spelling error. That word is not appropriate in this context. It was pedantic, petty and shallow. But not egotistical.

In any case, it was a joke. No need to call me a fuck. Do you remember jokes? We used to make them all the time.

So when you say men, you don't mean *all* men

Lol'ing @ you getting your feelings hurt on the internet. I bet you think you're the victim of cyberbullying.

First i was like ''what a douche''...then I kek'd

>Do you remember jokes? We used to make them all the time.

pedantic, nice one

people r becoming more and more sensitive to every little thing. jokes r becoming a thing of the past bro

This is actually a decent answer to OP's question. Not saying I agree 100% but at least it's a thought-out answer.

The rest of this thread has descended into some petty shit about personal issues with women.

Yes. Of all men who commit a crime on the planet they are a minority in the grand population. We are excluding those who commit crimes in this debate.

I believe the opposite. Idealism is the true danger because we start with a system of beliefs about how the world should be and then try to make it that way, even when it doesn't work. When we start as skeptics and view the world without any preconceptions or expectatioms we learn from it and can make better decisions on improving our condition. Idealism leads to subjective morality and the necessary enforcement of those moralities in order to sustain the societies that are founded on them. It is dangerous and misguided, no matter how much we like them. Call it autistic, but it's the uncomfortable truth.

agreed.

I, along with many other married guys I know, still believe in maintaining patriarchal households. Deal with it.

Thanks Sup Forumsros. Good to know some of you still have a sense of humour. Even after explaining it's a joke (which was obvious anyway) people continue to rage: See ().

I dunno, man. People hate jokes nowadays for some reason.

OP here. I agree, It is a good answer, but the woman can still be held responsible for her wrong doings even is she has no rights. So his answer is null and void as a result.

I knew it was a joke, just felt like exploding for no reason. Don't worry I kek'ed No feeling hurt on OP's side.

Yes, they can be punished. But they can't be held accountable to the same judicial system that would be (in this hypothetical world) run by men exclusively and built around the needs of a male dominated society, in which only men can own property, earn money, pay taxes, drive cars, own businesses etc. Women would need to be processed by a completely different system. The same way we currently don't punish children the same way as adults, because they are less societally responsible. Do you see what I'm getting at? I know the hypothetical isn't perfect (since it is merely hypothetical) but I wouldn't say it is null.

lmfao

Some great points my man! The sceptical eye is obviously the best one to move forward with and subjective morality is indeed how we got society in its modern kerfuffle! Think this dude Pretty much nailed the thread, I'm going to sleep Sup Forumsuddy but keep reading, being awesome and Ty for the thought provoking

Not all men want hoes though, sure we all want to fuck women, but anymore women fuck everything that moves damn near, and it's incredibly easy for a woman to get dick then it is a man to get pussy, so the numbers aren't fair and don't add up so when women whore around they have gigantic numbers whereas an average dude whoring around will have a much smaller number by average, so that's my problem with women, plus I don't see any of them being faithful anymore and a huge waste of time because of that

Well, I certainly can't get any dick so it's not that easy. But I'm not sure I want any. But maybe I say that because I can't get any. Fuck

You're right they would have to be processed through a different judicial system. But as you said they are not citizens because of the lack of rights. As a result, this separate judicial system could be harsh on them to deter crime from women.

You know this would never happen right? Or did I miss where someone said they were playing make believe?

It was in response to annons comment. I understand it wont happen. Just adding to the debate.

Women have rights, just not the right half my shit if they try to cuck me

To keep them occupied with thinking are anything but a pussy to fuck. Ezpz question now where's my chocolate milk and brownies?

I don't think the crime rate would differ that greatly from the current system. Female crime is proportionally already pretty low.

My point wasn't really about the punishment of women, it was more to do with the responsibility men would need to take for women. The way parents can be held accountable for minors crimes, owners can be held responsible for their pets behaviour, manufacturers are held responsible for their products.

In any case, that was only one aspect of the hypothetical negatives. If we did not allow women the right to work, then almost every country (certainly in the west) there would be a drastic shortage of teachers, nurses, carers, social-workers and office/secretarial personnel. Not to mention the huge financial implications of not allowing 50% of your population to ever work.

I think this alone explains why women should have rights, not to mention the democratic process.

Yeah, just to clarify we were discussing hypothetically. Neither of us are under the illusion that this is a possible reality. We may be on Sup Forums but we're not that autistic.

If they cuck you and you divorce them after (assuming you were married) Then yeah. Since they have rights they have the right to half your shit now.

Never said I wouldn't want to live in a society where this is all factual and not just hypothetical. It can't be implemented now, damage is done. We fucked up a long time ago.

lets get a Misogyny thread going....
GREATEST TUNE IN HISTORY and the theme for this thread:
youtube.com/watch?v=9XjejPJvQP4
your thoughts on those lyrics?

But what if at that turning point America never gave women rights. What would today look like if they never got them in the first place?

...

Kek.
I like how you think annon.

...

...

Well, you and I will have to differ. I know society isn't great right now. But, removing all the rights of 50% of the population really isn't, in any way, a solution to that. It's absurd to even claim that. What would a society capable of that be like? And where would it end?

Today, only men have rights.
Tomorrow, only a certain race of men has rights.
The day after, only a certain race and class of men have rights...

And so on, until you have an authoritarian government run by very small group of people, until eventually no-one really cares that democracy died.

...