

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 148 KB, 1320x1320, feminist-mental-health-fist-feature_1320W_JR-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16035524 No.16035524 [Reply] [Original]

I'm writing a chapter on feminism; I have already dismantled the excuses for the total lack of great women in science and art but how do I argue the intelligence difference between the average man and the average woman without appealing solely to common sense? I would rather not appeal to IQ as even women with a high IQ seem incapable of doing anything productive.

>> No.16035532

yep, i know where this is going

>> No.16035542

So no argument?

>> No.16035555
File: 231 KB, 196x275, 1590856706665.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

this is what your argument likely amounts to

>> No.16035558
File: 261 KB, 1090x1389, Non-tumblr_tier_feminism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Have you read any of these?
If not, your book is gonna be shit.

>> No.16035559

So no argument?

>> No.16035567

Why would I read any of those? The chapter is about dismantling the feminist idea of biological equality in order to lay the groundwork for more taboo manifestations of biological determinism.

>> No.16035571

Socio-cultural values? Women are coddled from a young age and they don't have any reason to push themselves beyond conventional success. Sure, most women will finish high school, maybe even get some shitty degree, perhaps start a career but they all pretty much eventually realize there is no point to it. Why should a woman work 100 hours a week to be a successful CEO or a chess grandmaster? She can just marry one and have a much more fulfilling life as a house wife and a mother. Only men are retarded enough to go above and beyond because this is their measure as a human. Any woman you try to court will consider you career, how much money you have, your achievements etc. but most men don't give a shit.

TL;DR - There's no real payoff for women to be successful after a certain point

>> No.16035572

do these books unironically good?

>> No.16035580

Well are you arguing about intellect or productivity? How are you defining intelligence?

>> No.16035585

I hate bugmen.

>> No.16035591

Delete your work and masturbate instead.

>> No.16035592
File: 1.99 MB, 400x283, 1596378708793.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Oh look, it's this stupid thread again and it will amount to +300 of incels and incels larping as women

>> No.16035594

Steer clear of the IQ/ intelligence autistic debate and focus on how feminism has driven a bloody wedge between the sexes, how the goals of the successive waves were only allowed to succeed by politicians that wanted more votes, corporations that wanted a larger workforce to cut their bargaining power by half, how women have been less happy and more miserable with feminism, etc.

>> No.16035601

I was going to end the chapter discussing these things, at this point I am - as I said earlier - interested in laying the groundwork for biological determinism. It is much easier to argue racial determinism than it is for the sexes; I think it is because sexual determinism is just so obvious that the opposing viewpoint is absurd and having to take anything absurd seriously leads to difficulty.

>> No.16035608
File: 782 KB, 500x352, 1594217552706.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Based and redpilled

>> No.16035612

This is, by the way, because it is much easier for people to accept an intelligence/character difference between the sexes than it is for them to accept the same about the races.

>> No.16035624

That sheer arrogance from OP. I ain't helping you and I hope you get brutally BTFO by the professor.
Luxembourg is cool but I hate communists co-opting feminism like this.

>> No.16035637

You don’t seem to have a clear goal here. Do you want to dismantle feminism or attack women from a biological determinist angle?

>> No.16035657

How is this not a clear goal? Dismantling the foundation of feminism which is that the sexes are of equal capability which lays a foundation for other forms of biological determinism, then finishing the chapter discussing the consequences of feminism.

How am I "attacking women"?

>> No.16035676
File: 120 KB, 651x529, 1596422662938.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You aren't, pay no attention to that fucker and finish your job

>> No.16035678

>liberal feminism
Nigger-tier worldview T B H senpai

>> No.16035697

You are shooting yourself in the foot by using biological determinist rhetoric, which is already a false premise.

>> No.16035698
File: 24 KB, 954x539, 0907_-_7MXGvOG.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Please post it here when you're done, I want to see another Belcea-esque philosophy shitpost

>> No.16035702

You can point out that statistically men vary a lot while women are decisively mediocre
Human Diversity has a third dedicated to the congnitive differences between the sexes

>> No.16035703
File: 130 KB, 503x810, 26a05e5f3f34b652.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Biological pressure differentiated males from females, making women less in terms of spatial awarness (because unlike men they didn't need it sitting in a cave rearing kids), agression (social cohession was more important when your wole life was spent with other social women) etc and better in terms of linguistics (chatting and bitching with uuga-booga-karen increased bonding and prevented being shunned and killed as well as understanding kiddo brabble). The bell curve shows pretty well that the most retarded and most intelligent people are both males, on average both se are pretty similarly intelligent, women are simply more "mean" and men more "extreme". It does end up as less intelligent tho, as giving birth reduced IQ while increasing reading skills as well as those emotionall inclinations meaning that less emphasis will be put on rationality. That's not a bad thing tho, as Hubbard has shown. You don't see it as productive, because you only just your own skillset as important, without seeing the necesity for both. Feminism is trash but trash talking femininity is just as retarded.

>> No.16035707

Explain how it is a false premise.

>> No.16035747

Not him but feminism asserts that women are equal to men. Saying otherwise suggests that women are inferior to men in terms of intellect or some other faculty. Human society has always seen intelligence as a valuable and positive trait. Suggesting that women do possess as much of it is thus an attack.

>> No.16035752

>writes chapter on feminism
>doesn't read feminist theory

why even bother

>> No.16035757

Because you are coming down hard on the nature vs nurture debate and assert that your genes alone determine your intelligence, failing to take into account education, diet, environment, etc. You can argue about the differences between the sexes (men and women are not the same, obviously) but if you want to dismantle feminism, other lines of thought would be more fruitful

>> No.16035761

I'm not trash talking femininity, like I said to someone else - one of the points of the chapter is to point out that feminism is meant to create an artificial division between women. The point is that feminism expects women to be successful in the way that men are successful; I am looking to show that women cannot be successful in the pursuits of men.

>> No.16035769

*coming down firmly on the nature side of the debate, obviously

>> No.16035782

I'm so happy I transcended into normiedom when it comes to women. By far the best aspect of shedding the entire permanently-online redpill mentality.

>> No.16035785


>> No.16035791

What, do you eat out girls that have had other guys' dicks in them now?

>> No.16035806

females have a lesser thinking ability, but I'm willing to bet that OP is even dumber than most of them. If you have to dedicate such a big effort to the topic then you are a nigger faggot.

>> No.16035823

>books that have nothing to do with feminism and its just communism written by women
God /leftypol/ is pure faggotry

>> No.16035839

americans are so stupid, they dont know iq is a metric of stupidity , but not of intelligence.

>> No.16035848

i hate you too anon

>> No.16035849

>*identity politics is pure faggotry
FTFY /leftypol/ is based

>> No.16035854

OP here, this is exactly what I have felt for the longest time but I had not heard it expressed like this. Thank you.

>> No.16035858

are you sure ?
According to men, being successful for man means
-simping over lots of women, giving them free sex and free money in order for women to have lots of pleasures
-adhering to the current spooks of the ruling class and developing society by paying taxes to the ruling class and again providing a comfy life to a woman by making her stay at home raising kids (easy job) and living a carefree life.

>> No.16035869

I meant that the feminist view of female success is to overtake classically masculine success - career, education, power, etc.

>> No.16035917

>states an unsupported opinion
>now you explain how this is wrong!!!!!!!
Men. Typical. Lazy, unaware and autistic. Please go and 'lay foundations' for genetic determinism in your paper. The harder you try the more you'll learn from the criticism.
Nah, liberalism is based, communism is pseud garbage, therefore liberal feminism is the best feminism. Commies can only use /pol/ tropes about tumble to 'criticise' liberals; they've nothing else other than ad hominem. I used to be one myself before I calmed down a little.

>> No.16035927

But before feminism there was an artificial division between women and men. A huge one. Recent waves of feminism have created more overt hostility but objectively the division between men and women is smaller in terms of what each could do.

>> No.16035944

Actually, it's the idea that men and women are equal that is unfounded. Anyone who has any experience in the workplace can tell that it is wrong; anyone who has had a conversation with a woman can tell that it's wrong. There are plenty of studies that I could use, however I would rather not have my piece just be a collection of studies about which feminists could just make more unfounded claims. Can *you* explain why there have been no great female inventors or artists?

In before "Frida Kahlo was the greatest artist of the 20th century"

>> No.16035955

That was an artificial division based on their natural roles; a division which would be akin to labour specialisation more than competition. This resulted in the sexes being complimentary (though still not equal) to one another whereas the divide that feminism (all forms of it) creates is unnatural and drives men and women apart.

>> No.16035959

Reminder that the oppression of women is ultimately rooted in materialist conditions (they are physically smaller, weaker, and get pregnant) and therefore the only real feminism is that which is rooted in materialist philosophy i.e. Marxism.
Radical feminism, so called "trans exclusive radical feminism", is the only real feminism.

>> No.16035960

>he has no interest in understanding what he is arguing against

>> No.16035961
File: 256 KB, 1052x1052, 1596154636935.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Frida Kahlo was a disgusting whore and her """art""" is shit
T. Mexican
>inb4 of course you're a spic you can recognize art xD
Fuck you nigger, no one with a brain can say Kahlo made good shit, she was only famous because of her fucking husband

>> No.16035962
File: 330 KB, 1656x1083, 8DD7EFD1-B67C-4A41-A70F-47A7CC8BB35A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.16035971


>> No.16035987

You seem like a female I knew from incel discord servers, very sad.

The fact that you see art, philosophy and politics as "copes" is very telling. Odd that you see yourself as having no function other than pushing out babies but are so obviously childless.

>> No.16035989
File: 37 KB, 709x432, 82F8F675-8D70-4F27-963E-CC9D84A365E7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

And yet she overshadows him now that they’ve passed away

>> No.16036000
File: 26 KB, 400x300, F7FFF095-26A1-4372-94FD-060BDF5EA5E1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.16036002


>> No.16036003

Imagine simping this hard lol

Feminism IS communism for women

>> No.16036016
File: 100 KB, 900x814, 1fb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>she overshadows him
Of course, idiots i.e women have to cling to something

>> No.16036027

kys tranny nigger.

>> No.16036045

>communists co-opting feminism like this.
Feminism is inherently dialect-materialist.

>> No.16036046

claim: women are dumber than men
>proof: anecdotes from my work place xD and the 5 women I spoke to in my life xD

you're gonna go far in life

>> No.16036056
File: 259 KB, 924x833, old man shids.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.16036059

I think you are dramatically over-stating the naturalism of pre-industrial gender roles. They are based on biological facts but expanded to largely artificial extremes by societies.

>> No.16036061
File: 188 KB, 800x800, 1595776927468.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>just because there are few smart women it means all women ara capable!

>> No.16036067
File: 72 KB, 828x826, 1592082145543~01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Kek, I didn't need to see this shit again, that thread was enough, I think buttershit needs to die from an infection as soon as possible

>> No.16036079

I didnt claim that *all* women are capable, learn to read you butt-ugly waste of DNA

btw you will never be a great inventor or artist either, so would you oppose a political movement that seeks to give dumb trash like you equal rights?

>> No.16036097
File: 253 KB, 680x597, 1593652462000.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm pretty sure my life is playing out better than yours
And even if it was the case that I was a bigger waste than you I still would ask more capable people to put me off my misery
How does feminism give me equal rights? If anything the only thing it gives to me is the right to be shunned by women for trying to explain to a dumb bitch that she is wrong

>> No.16036100

>Wasting your time arguing over precisely the same irrelevant talking points that are continually brought up in the mass media
What does women's intelligence have to do with the importance of creating stable, single-income families?

>> No.16036106

Are you really incapable of figuring out the world from real life experience? Do you need some nerd to chew up the data from his study and spit it into your whore mouth?

>> No.16036116


>> No.16036117

How many times do I have to explain that this is part of a much larger work and that the purpose of bringing up the female/male intelligence disparity is only in part as an end in and of itself but primarily a means of setting up the rest of the work?

>> No.16036124

think aboutt it logically, you oppose feminism on the grounds that women can never become great artists / innovators / thinkers / whatever, but neither can you. You might have an okay life, make some money, write one or two patents if you try hard, but you will never significantly change the course of human history. So, do you not deserve rights in general? Do you not deserve a workplace free from harassment, and an equal wage for doing the same work as other simpleton brainlets? You see there is no relation between producing great individuals and how basic human rights should function?

>> No.16036125

You don’t know anything about art.

>> No.16036129

Also, the point of bringing up female intelligence is to justify not allowing them to waste their youth pursuing a career.

>> No.16036136

>do you not deserve a workplace free from harassment and an equal wage
Women should not be in the workplace at all, dumb dumb.

You think that Frida Kahlo deserves the fame she has?

>> No.16036141
File: 47 KB, 640x482, 1594295023350.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

But I never said any of that
I don't want women to have equal rights because they are scum, that's all
And if I were to tell you that's the case, then I still would value men lives more because even if some of them can't produce anything worthy they still have more intrinsic value than women

>> No.16036145

You surley seem to know a few things about art, you seem to spout art out of that asshole of yours: >>16036056
Now go and die, you middle aged tranny.

>> No.16036149
File: 96 KB, 500x625, 1593894089113.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>you don't know anything about art
That's what everyone think of people that lick Khalo's ass

>> No.16036173

This doesn't follow at all. I'm probably more conservative than you, and even I think that's bullshit.
Stop writing. Erase everything you have. Go back to the beginning, and spend the next ten years reading before you dare to pick up your pen again.

>> No.16036178


>> No.16036211


>> No.16036221

Anyone else a feminist but also a bit of a racist? I absolutely believe women are generally equal but I'm skeptical of whether that's true of darkies.

>> No.16036231

This isn't cope, you fucking faggot. It's good advice. I'm trying to help you here. At this rate, not only will you become the next Horia Belcea, but you will literally ruin your life in order to make a silly political point that tons of other mouth-breathers make every single day on the internet.
There is no point. You won't gain anything. You won't change anyone's mind. The only solution for you is to stop behaving like a political heel and start learning from the greats. Take a look at the biography of any figure you respect, and note well how old they were when they first produced a work of lasting impact. You'll notice that next to none produced their greatest work before the age of forty.
Stop thinking that you need to act now, and realize that inaction and study is preferable to hasty and ineffective action in the present.

>> No.16036237
File: 22 KB, 479x512, 159421859018.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.16036242

Doesn't follow how? Women are not capable of performing at a high level therefore it is ridiculous to 1. allow them to waste their fertile years during which they should pair bond with a man and have children and 2. allow them to take opportunities away from men who can perform.

>> No.16036248

OP here, the guy saying "cope" was not me. This was me: >>16036242

(this was not me: >>16036237)

>> No.16036254

Considering something happened universally across every civilization for thousands of years

>> No.16036267
File: 74 KB, 1024x1024, 5c996e6663a3c2ef1b92ad9ef13ffef7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So you admit to having an openly emotional, irrational, misogynistic bias and you want help on how to write a contrarian essay to be difficult. Pathetic. At least do your IRL contrarianism without begging for help from others. Yu have more intrinsic value than the professor right? It shouldnt be hard to trick her tiny female brain?

Why shouldn't women be in the workplace?

>> No.16036268

Camille Paglia wrote about this, her line was "there is no female mozart because there is no female jack the ripper", man have a drive women lack.

>> No.16036276

You can find out in my book, coming to a shelf near you in like a year and a half.

>> No.16036277
File: 185 KB, 374x470, 1595927207664.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm not even OP, looks like he's renting free on your head

>> No.16036285

>Women are not capable of performing at a high level
Martha Nussbaum
Carmen Blacker
Christina Hoff-Summers
Jane Austen
Mary Elizabeth-Berry
and so on and so forth. You've clearly never bothered to look into the question of female achievement.
However, even if I were to grant your point, you would still face an insurmountable problem of reasoning. The vast majority of men cannot perform particularly well, either. Why should we not restrict men from working on the basis of their intelligence? Furthermore, why should it matter whether or not someone is intelligent? What is the relationship between someone's level of intelligence and the necessity or lack of necessity of permitting them to work?
Seriously, have you spent even two seconds thinking through your argument? This is juvenile crap, and will only turn you into a joke, even among those who claim to share your opinions.

>> No.16036288

Ok, OP here. Anyone posting a picture alongside their comment is not me. Can't you retards figure out mannerisms?

>> No.16036296

Lol, you just simply do not get it. The fact that you list these women among "the greats" is evidence of that.

>> No.16036307

How many men are capable of performing at their level?

>> No.16036317

Do you not understand the effect that women have in the workplace on wages alone? Combine that with every other factor such as the workplace having to totally change in order to accommodate them, them shifting work onto men in the workplace, highly trained women dropping out to become mothers (and thus having wasted a position which could have gone to a man who would have provided for a family), so on and so forth.

>> No.16036324

Far more than there are women - the point is that this is the upper limit for women and it is not impressive whatsoever. The fact that you list a romance novelist as an example of a "great woman" is just evidence that the ceiling for women is incredibly low.

>> No.16036330

None of that is relevant to your retarded, juvenile point about intelligence. Further, you have yet to give us any reason to care about this. To your opponents, women's equality matters more than any of those factors. They literally do not care about families. What you need to do is go to the root of the question and reexamine the history of the human family structure, its importance, and the effect that recent policies have had on that structure. Juvenile crap about muh intelligence doesn't convince anyone. It just makes you look like a complete and total fucking retard.

>> No.16036341

You're the retard here, go read through the first few posts in this thread. I have stated over and over again the place of this intelligence argument in the overall work, there is no reason for you to assume that intelligence is the sole factor in this chapter. Did you expect me to outline my work in full in order for midwits like you to understand?

>> No.16036352

I've already read those posts. They are dumb. Your point is dumb. You have not established the importance of intelligence in any way, shape, or form. You have not established any logical link between differences in intelligence and your proposals for social policy. You have given us literally no reason to accept anything that you have to say.
Here is the fundamental question: Why should we care about the traditional family structure? What does it do for us? Is it even going anywhere? Why should we care about how it has changed? Why should we accept your idea of the ideal family structure over that of anyone else?

>> No.16036353

To add to this, do you think I am writing a book which involves chapters on biological determinism in order to convince radical feminists, BLM supporters, or even women and non-Whites at large?

>> No.16036356
File: 386 KB, 808x535, mysteries of vidya.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

But Mozart was a prodigy, his talent was more natural than driven.

>> No.16036365

You clearly did not read those posts, I already said that the chapter will include these things which you are bringing up. I say that I will include these things then you start sperging out and posting "WHY AREN'T YOU INCLUDING THESE THINGS YOU JUVENILE RETARD?"

>> No.16036374

You are essentially just sperging out about the fact that I have not provided my entire argument for a traditional view on women in a two sentence imageboard post.

>> No.16036381

Sorry to break it to you, but those people control the narrative. You do not. If it comes to a fight between them and you, you will lose. You need to produce an airtight argument if you'd like to receive anything other than an evisceration, and that's not what I see here.
That's not what I'm saying, you absolute troglodyte. I'm saying that intelligence does not contribute to making your point. It's a red herring, at the very best. If you can't even figure out the difference between essential and non-essential elements in an argument, then I'm afraid that you will have to wait much longer before writing anything.

>> No.16036387

You come across like someone who would post cringe superchats in a Nick Fuentes stream.

>> No.16036409
File: 210 KB, 1200x800, 6A3F1738-4063-4FD1-A7E5-B5E7A8BF88FC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I’d spam your shit thread with pop surrealism, but I have reading to do.

>yer a tranny!
So scared of women, you have to reduce me to a male

>> No.16036428

Nobody had replied to you for ages yet you came back to scour the thread for (you)s, enjoy your last one.

>> No.16036444
File: 6 KB, 225x225, 1592050797038.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I’d spam your shit thread
4chinz jannies and moderation, ladies and gentlemen

>> No.16036505

I can't believe you're defending anecdotal experience lol

>> No.16036529

Do you have anecdotal experience of women being intelligent or introspective? If so, it's likely just relative to yourself.

>> No.16036554
File: 16 KB, 500x250, getthumbnail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Basically this. Women seek such amount of "success"(college, good job) which will allow them to meet the best partner possible, where best(to have secure family with) is mainly money, but also the men at high positions have psychological properties which women find attractive (hard working, intelligent or influential family, possibly functional amount of psychopatic/sociopathic tendencies, higb status in society/comparatively to their friend circle. With inteligence come sense of humour. To climb corporate ladder you must have some manly tendencies). This is seemingly interrupted by childlessness and hedonism in modern women, but these hedonistic tendencies again find them looking for these same men as they are the most attractive. However these men do not pick the childless+hedonistic women usually and that's why they end up "settling" with weak males, who have some status, who will provide their hedonistic thirst. Allow them to cheat, pay their expensive vacations, etc.
Women misunderstand men in this. They believe that successful men, they seek, will find them attractive based on their own success. This isn't case, as these men can pick and for settling usually pick younger, family oriented and attractive women, who do not have to be successful in career. This is why it seems to women that men date down, but in reality they do not. As men measure women by different qualities than women measure men by, but women do not realise it. Neither men realise what qualities women seek.
Hopefully this makes sense, am not english speaker.

>> No.16036569

Hi,, globohomos

>> No.16036573

>Interesting thread already at 100+ replies
Why bother.

>> No.16036592

OP here, I noticed you buddy. I'm still open to ideas if you wish to contribute, most of these replies have been total dog shit.

>> No.16036599

My grandgrandfather fought in the Freikorps that killed Rosa Luxemburg

>> No.16036632
File: 165 KB, 252x403, 1594080339202.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Fucking based

>> No.16036676

>total dog shit.= dismantled your thesis

>> No.16036698

I thought you had reading to do? Nothing posted itc has dismantled my thesis, all you replied with was that women are insectoids with no appreciation for art, politics or philosophy; no desire to understand the world that they live in or to improve human society in any way, only to push out babies (asexually, apparently - seen as how men have "no natural role").

>> No.16036736

>with no appreciation for art, politics or philosoph
>except those that do
Except they (GENERALLY) do, and it is men who suffer from turning away from their (General) wisdom.
Face it. Confess to yourself. You are an ignorant fool that’s cut off from the whole other half of humanity, and for whatever reasons why you are now lashing out, for whatever reasons for.
Your chapter is as useless as notepad doodles one does while on the phone. Reconsider.

>> No.16036743
File: 23 KB, 846x362, images (98).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Sylvia Plath is my waifu

>> No.16036769

Are you forgetting that you're the one that posted this (>>16035962), dumb dumb? All you're doing is posting ad hominem attacks. I am not cut off from the other half of humanity, nor am I lashing out at women. I desire to see men and women come together in returning to their traditional roles - complimentary but not equal. Men cannot be mothers, women cannot innovate in any manner whatsoever.

>> No.16036772

Oh, and thanks for bumping the thread sweetie.

>> No.16036834

> Are you forgetting
No. That goes right along with it. Women aren’t inferior. They’re actually superior in many respects. And its always *generally* so, and vice-versa

>I desire to see men and women come together in returning to their traditional roles
That’s nice I suppose. I am only reacting to part of your OP where you come off as the typical “incel” with typical misogynistic views.
>but not equal
Inequality is a false god, fucknut.
Men should never rule much less backtalk their mothers. That’s why the world has gone to shit.

>> No.16036843

Nah, liberalism is cringe, liberalism is faggy garbage, therefore liberal feminism is the worst feminism. Liberals can only use reddit tropes about 4chan to 'criticise' illiberals; they've nothing else other than ad hominem. I used to be one myself before I thought a little.

>> No.16036846

I am a globalist and I am for homosexuals' rights, hi

>> No.16036850

this is pretty good butterfly satire, m8

>> No.16036857


>> No.16036864
File: 33 KB, 500x628, 1596446411053.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>wants to dismantle feminism
>doesn't want to research feminism
Oh kay?

>> No.16036916

Again, why would I bother reading through eight books of feminist theory when the foundational belief can be dismantled instead?

>> No.16036932

Why would you think it has only one foundational belief?
It doesen't. I mean, they are stupid, but they are stupid in multiple ways.

>> No.16036937

Of course men should "rule" their mothers if their father is dead (assuming that they are an adult, ofc), however nowhere in this is it suggested that we should be disrespectful towards women.

Even if this isn't the real middle aged tranny, it's a good exercise and it bumps the thread.

>> No.16036947

The belief that men and women must be given the same opportunities (or in the case of feminists, the same outcomes) is based on the belief that they are equal by nature.

>> No.16036950

You’re going to have to “dismantle” socialism to get to feminism
Which you cannot.

>> No.16036976

Yes, and that's just one line of argument. If you reduce every feminist discourse to that you'll get laughed at. >>16036950 Don't listen to this tripfag tranny, she's as dumb as any whore.

>> No.16036977

The first part of this statement negates the second part. (You guys do this on purpose. I see it so often)
The idea a boy should rule his mother, just because he can shave his mutant face, is very disrespectful. What, are you a muslim or something?
Again, I am not a fucking tranny, you cowardly twit

>> No.16037007

Actually, the way that Muslims treat women is not something that I take issue with - nor is their treatment of homosexuals or Israel. My issue with Islam is that it is a false religion which aims to expand (specifically into Europe). Why should a mother automatically rule her son for his entire life? Why is it disrespectful for a man to rule over his mother?

Feel free to post other lines of argument - I will take them into consideration. I will also be addressing the egalitarian idea of allowing them to pursue things even if they are unequal.

>> No.16037041
File: 400 KB, 1302x2083, EC1685F6-FF00-4B41-BAA9-C784A0CC1E37.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Because male run society is and has always been a sick a degenerate game.

Here’s a book to start.

>> No.16037052

kill yourself tranny. Go and shit your panties somewhere else.

>> No.16037054

and female run society is and always has been-

Oh, that's right.

>> No.16037066

This thread was moved to >>>/trash/31894590

>> No.16037066,1 [INTERNAL] 

Less dangerous and suicidal

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.