>you were born a man
>you won the lottery of life
>no slutshaming for masturbating or having sex
>you are not underrepresented in fields where you earn a lot of money
>you are not physically weak
>you wont have to get pregnant
Feels good man
>tfw you feel so bad for women that you are a victim feminist
typical effeminate Scandi beta
fuck denmark and fuck danish people
>hw*te boi thinking he relevant
lmaoing familia
...
...
So you agree that its better being a man?
If you have sex before marriage at all, you're a slut. Regardless of gender
Yeah but slutshaming only affects women
And women cant masturbate without breaking their hymen
No, just saying your kvetching is retarded nonsense that's not going to change anything. I'd say sell your balls, but I doubt they would go for much at this point.
>And women cant masturbate without breaking their hymen
Why would i sell my balls?
Im VERY happy to be a man
>you were born a woman
>you won the lottery of life
>no effort sex anytime you want
>you are not required to work and can live off the earnings of a spouse with lots of money
>you are not required to accept responsibility for almost anything
>you wont have to get conscripted during the habbenings
Feels good man
So why are you sympathetic to people (victim feminists) who would make your existence as a man an unhappy one?
[incoherent blabber]
t. you
>>no effort sex anytime you want
there are plenty of countries where this isn't true
like poland
>>you are not required to work and can live off the earnings of a spouse with lots of money
this just shows that men are on top of society
and you are totally dependent on another person
doesn't sound great to me
>>you are not required to accept responsibility for almost anything
>this is what /r9k/ actually believes
>>you wont have to get conscripted during the habbenings
this has been changed in many countries
like USA, Israel, Norway, Sweden
Women do not have to register for the selective service draft in the USA
>Israel
>Norway
>Sweden
>""""countries"""""
You are not dependent on a man, but it is socially acceptable to live off his income and in fact you are encouraged to marry a successful man.
>No argument
I'd say I'm surprised, but feminists gonna feminist.
>You are not dependent on a man
yes you are
you are dependent in the man whose income you live off
>but it is socially acceptable to live off his income and in fact you are encouraged to marry a successful man.
this again just shows who is on top of society
REMOVE WOMEN
what are you talking about?
you didn't have an argument either
you just said that certain feminists hate men
No you aren't, you could leave him and sue for alimony, go on the dole, easily find another man to support you, or enter the workforce where millenial women make slightly higher average wages than comparably educated and experienced men.
No, I asked you if you're happy to be a man then why side with victim feminists who almost invariably target men and make their lives worse. It wasn't an argument, it was a simple question.
>easily find another man to support you
yeah right
>enter the workforce
you cant enter the workforce if you have no education
> millenial women make slightly higher average wages than comparably educated and experienced men.
proof?
have a (you) my friend
>Still no argument
It's a simple question user. If you're OK with having a set of balls (and presumably using them) then why do you side with people who promise through rhetoric and past action to make your life worse?
ill bite
do you have any evidence that victim feminists target men?
>yeah right
You think women have trouble finding men?
>education
Women make up the majority of college degree recipients in Canada and the USA, not just meme certificates and associates degrees either, actual bachelor's degrees from actual not online universities.
Victim feminism as a worldview is incredibly negative to men, it's the same mentality of perpetual victimhood that made such lopsided standards as the Duluth model, or leads to woefully one-sided initiatives. Like point out, victim feminism was behind the pity and drive to reform education but like most feminist actions, went so far it has altogether flipped the script.
The blatant double standards inherent in victim feminist point of view can only lead to coddling for one and demonization for another. It's the gender equivalent of white savior complexes and race fetishes.
>You think women have trouble finding men?
in some countries they do, like poland
and yes i do believe that, mainly because i believe few men would want to marry a woman that has made another man go through an alimony
>Women make up the majority of college degree recipients in Canada and the USA, not just meme certificates and associates degrees either, actual bachelor's degrees from actual not online universities.
yeah but its still mostly shit degrees
they still make up a minority of engineering degrees
and you are missing my point
if you have spend your days being a homegoing housewife for a man who has supported you of course you dont have an education
Also while it is true that women in their younger years earn more it is also true that women over 30 earns less
it is also true that most of the super rich and CEOs are men still
>asks for evidence
>gets more blabber
>Victim feminism as a worldview is incredibly negative to men
how do you know that?
i asked for evidence
What's the problem in women making up a minority of engineering degrees? You're not one of those silly people who thinks true equality is enforced outcome do you? You're not one of those people who only focuses on the top and completely ignores that men make up the overwhelming majority of those on the bottom of the ladder too right?
And I gave you evidence. The Duluth model is pure victim feminism.
>What's the problem in women making up a minority of engineering degrees?
its the degrees that makes the most money, helps humanity the most and are remembered the best in history
>You're not one of those silly people who thinks true equality is enforced outcome do you
what do you mean?
>men make up the overwhelming majority of those on the bottom of the ladder too right?
that is simply not true
povertyusa.org
>For example, in 2015, 12.2% of men lived in Poverty USA, and 14.8% of women lived in poverty.
the difference its not much but it does show that there are more women at the bottom
>And I gave you evidence.
no you didn't
i meant evidence in the form of how many percent of victim feminists that hate men
I don't know anything about Poland, I can only speak for people in Canada and America. There are pros and cons to being a man or woman here, but to pretend men have a much better life than women is silly. Women in their 30s earn less because they start having kids and are less career oriented. There are less women in STEM but there are also more opportunities for women that want to go into STEM. There are dozens of grant applications only available to women going into STEM fields. When I was at uni there were monthly faculty and student discussions on promoting women in STEM and business fields. That women still choose not to is no one's fault but their own.
Also women initiate between 69% and 90% of divorces depending on the study, clearly they aren't worried about dependency on a man
>Women in their 30s earn less because they start having kids and are less career oriented
and as i said having to have children is one of the cons of being a woman
And its not like women can just choose not to have children
we need those children
>That women still choose not to is no one's fault but their own.
women have been shown to be affected by stereotypes when it comes to choosing careers
>en.wikipedia.org
>Numerous studies have shown that gender stereotyping plays a big role in influencing women’s academic and career aspirations by reducing their interest in male-typed occupations like engineering, leadership and mathematics.[85][86][122][123][124] In a 2002 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a group of researchers found that gender-stereotypic television commercials can restrain women academically and professionally. Exposure to the stereotypic commercials resulted in women underperforming on a subsequent math test and avoiding math items in favor of verbal items. Furthermore, the women who viewed the stereotypic commercials expressed less interest in quantitative fields and more interest in verbal domains, both academically and professionally.[123]
>Also women initiate between 69% and 90% of divorces depending on the study, clearly they aren't worried about dependency on a man
so?
what does that mean to men?
I though Danes were good people.
>in some countries they do, like poland
Poland gets invaded by millions of desperate single men every year, it's not hard to find a man there
>its the degrees that makes the most money, helps humanity the most and are remembered the best in history
Ignoring that half that shit you just said is simple-minded nonsense that is completely unquantifiable (how do you know it helps the most or is the most remembered?), that still does not answer the question. What is the problem of women making up a minority of engineers if they knowingly choose other vocations for their fulfillment?
>what do you mean?
I mean viewing equality as a percentage quota, an outcome to be strived for instead of an opportunity provided is silly. You will never get gender parity due to an infinite number of extenuating circumstances and if you do, then it'll be through purposefully fixing, rigging, and enforcing that "equality."
>that is simply not true
Yes it is. In the western world men are the vast majority of the homeless, the destitute, the uneducated, those dying on the job, or those who end up incarcerated. Poverty is not the only measurable quantity of "the bottom." The overwhelming number of women's shelters compared to the almost non-existence of those for men mean the poor and victimized will receive vastly different treatment regardless of their rates of poverty. That dynamic is reinforced by victim feminism in the first place.
And you're being disingenuous with that request because you know for a fact no such statistic on such a thing exists. Feminists don't conduct polls based on "do you hate men?" That doesn't mean we can't use the behavior of victim feminists on an institutional level as indicative of that thought pattern though. Just look at how many times the National Organization for Women has killed equal joint-custody laws across the US.
>>no slutshaming for masturbating or having sex
I'd rather be slutshamed than not have sex at all.
>>you are not underrepresented in fields where you earn a lot of money
And that's supposed to be a good thing? I'd rather be underrepresented so people would make sure I stay so their quota doesn't drop.
>>you are not physically weak
But I am.
>>you wont have to get pregnant
I'd rather get pregnant than not have kids at all.
>tfw you feel so good for women that you want to be a cute girl
> >tfw you feel so good for women that you want to be a cute girl
gay
Life sucks for both sexes in different ways. No need to argue about who has it worse.
what the FUCK does this have to do with int?
>>you are not physically weak
Well, so much about that...
MFW YOU'RE RIGHT
HOLY SHIT I FUCKING LOVE BEING A WHITE MALE
>Ignoring that half that shit you just said is simple-minded nonsense that is completely unquantifiable
i honestly dont think so
>What is the problem of women making up a minority of engineers if they knowingly choose other vocations for their fulfillment?
if they earn less its not good
>I mean viewing equality as a percentage quota, an outcome to be strived for instead of an opportunity provided is silly. You will never get gender parity due to an infinite number of extenuating circumstances and if you do, then it'll be through purposefully fixing, rigging, and enforcing that "equality."
Then why do you care about the "fact" that there are more men on the bottom?
>In the western world men are the vast majority of the homeless
only because women can prostitute themselves
note that im not saying homelessness is better than prostitution
>the destitute
again i dont believe this
look at the poverty rates again
>the uneducated, those dying on the job
the uneducated ones become carpenters and the like
pretty well paying jobs
women dont have this opportunity because they lack the muscle
and of course when they are able to take carpenter jobs they are more likely to die on job
but personally i would much rather earn a lot and have a slight chance of dying earlier than the alternative
>The overwhelming number of women's shelters compared to the almost non-existence of those for men
do you have any statistics on this?
>those who end up incarcerated
that is true
> Feminists don't conduct polls based on "do you hate men?"
then you haven't gotten any proofs
>good thread with actual arguing
>I'm at work and can't participate right now
>When I get home there will be only senseless shit
Why
bravo denmark
>you were born poor
>you lost the lottery of life
>France
>Complaining about opportunity
Why? I live in a shithole and I haven't had parents since sixteen and yet I managed to achieve somewhat decent live.
>if they earn less its not good
hahahaha what an argument you absolute retard
Yeah, I think you're right OP. We're the supperior sex.
Stronger physically, we don't require any "man's day" or any action regarding who we are because we're strong socially already. We're not as prone to mood swings, stronger emotionally as well.
But to feel bad for the other side just because they are weaker? What is your reason for that?
Joke's on you, I'm going to celebrate man's day tomorrow.
what's to celebrate, all the german men died in 1945
>you wont have to get pregnant
women don't have to get pregnant. Germany is proof. Even the Japanese have a higher birth rate in some years and we have to import arabs so that the average populace won't becaome too old. Plus there are many women who say pregnancy isn't that bad. They get pregnant many times
>you are not underrepresented in fields where you earn a lot of money
Nothing worse than being a forever alone nerd who doesn't even get friendzoned because he has no female acquaintances
If you want to be funny, the year's 1942.
"Helps humanity the most," and "are remembered the best in history," are indeed unquantifiable. You cannot prove engineering benefits humanity first and foremost over everything else, nor can you prove engineers are the most revered people.
Why is it not good if a woman chooses to go into a profession with less monetary benefits? Why is it a bad thing they can choose to find fulfillment in a vocation by other means than simple income tallies? Why do women arbitrarily need to make the same amount of money as men?
I bring up the men on the bottom because it's a refuting point to someone who focuses all their attention on the upper rungs of society and the male domination in it while completely ignoring the bottom. It's willful ignorance and hypocrisy. I'm not the one trying to correct the top, and I know why the bottom looks the way it does.
And no, it's not just prostitution. Again, there are hundreds of women's shelters designed to alleviate this problem, shelters that will turn away teenage boys due to the idea they will abuse or make the women there uncomfortable. Again, more victim feminism hurting men.
I'm sure many people forced into hard manual labor jobs with significant health risks wish they could have cushy safe jobs too. It is very strange you're qualifying the notion of working hard labor and potentially dying on the job as a benefit versus making less money.
The word is proof by the way. You can quite clearly look at the way victim feminist organizations act, the political ideas they espouse, and the people who run them to make informed decisions without a poll that does not and will never exist. You need only look at the way Earl Silverman was treated when he committed suicide after the Canadian government refused to help fund his private shelter, the only one devoted to helping male DV victims exclusively in the same way many women's shelters operate.
>"Helps humanity the most," and "are remembered the best in history," are indeed unquantifiable
i dont believe this but ok
>Why is it not good if a woman chooses to go into a profession with less monetary benefits? Why is it a bad thing they can choose to find fulfillment in a vocation by other means than simple income tallies? Why do women arbitrarily need to make the same amount of money as men?
well other than the fact that you even admit that you dont care about equality im gonna say it
1. its not just black and white
all societal problems dont just disappear as soon as you earn the slightest bit of money
people who earn less money still have more problems than people who earn more money even if they dont live in poverty
2. in many countries its the reason for sex selective abortions
3. its not like they just choose it either
see my comment here they are forced into these professions
>They are forced
Well, if you can be forced then be it. Weak persons get less in life. Why isn't it fair? Be responsible for yourself or GTFO.
Doesn't matter if you don't believe it. You can't prove either of those things because they're subjective statements.
Where did I say I don't care about equality? Providing the same opportunities is equality. Forcing an equal outcome is not, especially when that means forcing women into vocations they often do not want to be in. There's incredible incentives for women to go into STEM degrees right now, but yet they continually show up in small numbers compared to the men.
The countries that practice sex selective abortions are not relevant to Western feminism and the attempts of Western feminists to appropriate the struggles of other people to provide justification for their continued existence in a society that no longer requires their sort of activism is beyond disingenuous. It's disgusting.
>they are forced
And yet you seem to advocate for the same thing given you seem ready to deconstruct all of their perceptions down to the tiniest minutiae of every day experiences in order to facilitate a false equality of outcome regardless of their personal decisions. If seeing a man in a commercial is enough to turn a woman away from a STEM degree she was never going to make it in those fields anyway. This last point touches on the one from the very beginning. Victim feminism like the kind you're exhibiting, coddles and infantilizes women while demonizing men.
>Doesn't matter if you don't believe it. You can't prove either of those things because they're subjective statements.
to be fair, you cant either prove that men are worse off
its also subjective
>Where did I say I don't care about equality?
right here >Why is it not good if a woman chooses to go into a profession with less monetary benefits? Why is it a bad thing they can choose to find fulfillment in a vocation by other means than simple income tallies? Why do women arbitrarily need to make the same amount of money as men?
>Providing the same opportunities is equality.
equality and equal rights can be the same thing but not necessarily
>Forcing an equal outcome is not
so why fight for the opening of more male shelters?
Its still de jure illegal to rape and abuse a man
but you still want more male shelters opened
isn't that also forcing things?
>Forcing an equal outcome is not, especially when that means forcing women into vocations they often do not want to be in.
maybe you didn't read the part where scientific research have shown that women are affected by their environment in their choice in career
its the same like criminals
they are also affected by the environment
or maybe you think that's ok too and that we shouldn't try and get them out of paths they have "chosen" themselves?
>And yet you seem to advocate for the same thing given you seem ready to deconstruct all of their perceptions down to the tiniest minutiae of every day experiences in order to facilitate a false equality of outcome regardless of their personal decisions.
again, i believe its the exact same thing you are doing
>If seeing a man in a commercial is enough to turn a woman away from a STEM degree she was never going to make it in those fields anyway
this is a lie
the number of women in stem fields used to much smaller than what we see today
there have been change but its not completely equal yet
>coddles and infantilizes women
firstly, stop trying to act like you care about women when you obviously dont
you dont care about equality
you dont care if they earn the same money as men
again and again i have shown that women are under a scientifically proven stereotype threat and the only thing you do is to deny this evidence and say i pamper women
>demonizing men.
when?
> slutshaming for masturbating
well yes they break their hymen and is seen as less, satan
I never set out to prove that to begin with. I simply said being a man and siding with victim feminism is a self-defeating proposition as organizations like NOW continually prove.
So, taking into account the other factors that make up personal fulfillment and happiness over a straight worship of salary figures means I don't care about equality? If a woman wants to be an engineer, go for it. If she finds a life as a babysitter/stay-at-home mom more rewarding, go for it. You gave no reason women should arbitrarily value money to a point anything less than perfect 50/50 pay ratios means descrimination.
Answer the question, why is it a bad thing if women on average make less because some of them choose to do other things while still having the same opportunities?
I'm not forcing anything. I brought up shelters to emphasize the point of victim feminism hurting men (when the overwhelming majority of homeless are men). I wasn't advocating for anything. I know why that dynamic exists.
"Scientific research," that often sets out to prove an assertion before it gets there. Pray tell, if a commercial shows a field is male dominated, and that represents the truth, why would forcing that woman or blinding her to reality make things any better when her natural inclination is to go somewhere else? Are we going to start forcing men into nursing now by pretending it's not a feminine dominated profession so as to facilitate that completely arbitrary end of superficial equality?
If the opportunities for women to go into STEM are there, and indeed arguably higher for them than their male counterparts, why is pushing to reach a magical 50/50 number important? Why not just institute the policies and let them make their own decisions instead of deconstructing the entirety of everyone's experience into a mush of sociological jargon designed to push political policy? Why is having engineering 50/50 important compared to providing the opportunity if desired?
I do care about them, I just don't think forcing a down the line version of equality represents the idea in any way. Women earning less as an average of their gender =/= an individual woman earning less for doing the same work as a male counterpart.
>Stereotype threat
You are pampering them if you think discounting their own choices in life because a few were turned off by too much man vibe in a commercial is a worthwhile thing to do.
Victim feminism infantilizes women and turns them into fragile children and you making the argument that we need to overhaul the way engineering looks to them otherwise they'll stay away from all that male space is a perfect example of that infantilization. It's also a perfect example of the demonization of men because it pushes the idea that men in groups acting like men is somehow a problem in need of rectification in order to facilitate your arbitrary forms of equality.
Only if they penetrate and even then a woman without an intact hymen means nothing in the western world. Outside the ethnic enclaves anyway.
I can't think of any societal aspect where men have it better these days. Slutshaming for masturbation? Fuck off, if someone gets shamed for masturbating it's men.
>descrimination.
never said there discrimination
>Answer the question, why is it a bad thing if women on average make less because some of them choose to do other things while still having the same opportunities?
because i want the best for women?
people who earn more get more respect and are more needed by society
there are tons of people on the internet (see Sup Forums) that makes fun of women for this exact reason
>"Scientific research," that often sets out to prove an assertion before it gets there.
wew, try harder
>Pray tell, if a commercial shows a field is male dominated, and that represents the truth, why would forcing that woman or blinding her to reality make things any better when her natural inclination is to go somewhere else?
we aren't blinding anyone
we are trying to tell people scientific facts
>Are we going to start forcing men into nursing now by pretending it's not a feminine dominated profession so as to facilitate that completely arbitrary end of superficial equality?
i have never said i would force anyone to go into any field, but educate them on reality and advocate for them to do so
but yes, we could advocate for men to become nurses
why not?
>If the opportunities for women to go into STEM are there, and indeed arguably higher for them than their male counterparts, why is pushing to reach a magical 50/50 number important?
because again, they earn more, are more needed and get more respect
>Why not just institute the policies and let them make their own decisions instead of deconstructing the entirety of everyone's experience into a mush of sociological jargon designed to push political policy? Why is having engineering 50/50 important compared to providing the opportunity if desired?
again because i think they would be better off overall and because i think equality is desirable and bears a reward in itself
>forcing
its advocating
im not forcing anyone
>You are pampering them if you think discounting their own choices in life because a few were turned off by too much man vibe in a commercial is a worthwhile thing to do.
its not pampering them if its true
one of the reasons why more men are living on the street is because them are suffering from mental illnesses
this is also a fact
or do you think this is also pampering men?
>It's also a perfect example of the demonization of men because it pushes the idea that men in groups acting like men is somehow a problem in need of rectification in order to facilitate your arbitrary forms of equality.
i would more call you a manhater since you obviously believe that men have definite roles they should fit into
>Only if they penetrate
what do you think female masturbation is?
>even then a woman without an intact hymen means nothing in the western world.
i dont believe this
there will always be the thrill of being a womans first sexual experience
men can always lie and say to a woman that he is a virgin or havent ever masturbated and no one would be able to tell
and im thinking of non-western women too
also if you aren't even advocating for the opening of more male shelters what right does it give you to criticize victim feminists for not caring or outright hating men?
more men are millionaires just to mention something quick
that's not true lol... you don't have to insert your fingers inside to masturbate. you can just rub from top and it feels good.
the risk is always there
despite a man can masturbate as furiously as he wants without any risk
a woman has to do it carefully and considerably
yes but it shouldn't matter because sexes aren't held to the same regard in their worth anyway.
and men are shamed for other things.
like having bad social skills or being poor, or short.
but not having an intact hymen is one of the things women are shamed for
but yeah men are shamed for those things you mentioned
it's natural because males can impregnate many women at a short period of time without getting exhausted while women can only get pregnant for 9 months for like 25 years years. so men are praised for having lots of sex partners (virginity doesn't matter) while women are supposed to be more exclusive
yeah but if they didn't have hymen they could masturbate as much as they wanted, in whatever way they would want it and it still would not make a difference