Redpill me on the waves of feminism, Cred Forums

>1990s: "do me" feminism

Not sure what wave this is but this was when feminism embraced slutdom. Prior to that feminists were anti-porn, anti-sex in advertisement, etc. as they felt that porn exploits women.

Look up Lisa Palac and Suzie Bright. This wave of feminism is what led to slut walks and anti-slut shaming that we know and love today.

...

No, it's communism. For the record I'm a democrat and I'm voting for Hillary. But Liberals who think this should be purged from the party.

Politics is supposed to be about raising everyone up. Not fucking one group to benefit another.

>freedom is bad!!! but muslims threaten our freedom!!! so islam is bad!!! but you should still love freedom!!!! but don't love feminism because their freedom is bad!!!! but don't become a muslim because our freedom is good!!!! I mean love all freedom!!! no wait only our freedom!!! wait I mean freedom!!!! USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
kys
>Politics is supposed to be about raising everyone up. Not fucking one group to benefit another.
which is impossible under capitalism

communism when? post-scarcity can't come soon enough

>equality of outcomes is not superiority.

It is when the competitors aren't equal.

The gap in hazard jobs and demanding physical jobs alone makes the gap impossible to close without rigging the system. Men are better workers and earners than women by their very nature.

I'm talking with a proclaimed feminist who admits that the patriarchy must be destroyed, sees feminism as a ĺ balancing of the scales," but refuses to acknowledge 3rd wave feminism and insists they are not real feminists.

Fuck I just want to watch anime, why did I fucking engage

>I agree with that
Do you agree competition is absolutely necessary to ensure maximum effort from workers and maximum incentives to workers?

>I disagree with that. socialism is about class not race, white males make up a larger chunk of the higher class so you're perceiving it as an attack against whites.
Yet when class becomes equitable to race/gender it becomes exactly that. Third wave Marxism is a critique of society, it exists to persuade less rational people via sophistry that non-systematic privileges with no evidence found in any laws or legal system actually exist amongst people due to race and gender despite all the media that exists to persuade people with power over employment to take race and gender into consideration with employment.

Basically to hire based on racial and sexual grounds.

Sorry, is it actually not an attack on white men when almost all HR agree we need more women in STEM and (because intersection) we also need more minorities in STEM? Are you that retarded that you can't see how this cosects into we need more of everyone in STEM except whites and males?

This IS an attack on white men. This is an attempt to paint them as the oppressive bourgeois. This is Marxist feminism and it is bigoted, racist, sexist and extremely evil.

Equality of outcome is absolutely about superiority when there is absolutely no equality of effort. If women wish to become 50% of STEM workers, they must first become 50% of STEM graduates. Instead, by the time teenage girls finish high school they've internalized so much misandry against engineers that they rarely sign up for STEM out of fear of association to them. This is bigotry. This is why there will never be equality of effort and thus why equality of outcome becomes supremacist.

>Strawman: The Post
You obviously don't belong here, so why don't you leave?

1840s-1920: demand right to vote; granted, immediately results in most disastrous constitutional amendment of US history (prohibition), long-term increases support for leftist parties, growth of the welfare state, exponential growth of taxation

1930s-1960s: demand socio-economic equality, impossible without destroying the nuclear family and "equal opportunities" and "anti-discrimination" legislation, legally mandating that society ignores biological reality in order to enable unequal genders to pretend they are equal

1970s -2000s: biological reality is still reality, and this enrages and embitters feminists, who become radicalized and man-hating, looking for somebody to blame for the failure of the state to legislate fantasy into reality. Political Correctness is born. The family decays as woman-favoring divorce rates and births out of wedlock skyrocket; blacks are hit hardest by this

2010s: verbose attempts to rationalize the failure of the state to legislate fantasy into reality are formulated around the framework of critical theory; women begin to outnumber men in universities, and invent more fake problems to explain the failure of feminism; myths such as the gender wage-gap, 1-in-4 women raped on campus, rape-culture, are mainstreamed; gender hiring quotas, increasingly loose legal definitions of rape and paternal responsibility, and bans on male behaviors (urinating while standing up, sitting comfortably in public transport) are enacted in many western countries; out of wedlock births and divorce rates continue to skyrocket; feminism is successfully married to other leftist causes (gay rights, secularism, multiculturalism); western society's decay begins to approach the point of no return

>we need people to stop being degenerates and focus on families so politics will cater to families
>we can't let gays get married and form families instead of being single and revel in debauchery their whole lives because it hurts families

Hurr durr try harder, faggot.

pro capitalism memes are the worst
>Do you agree competition is absolutely necessary to ensure maximum effort from workers and maximum incentives to workers?
under scarcity yes, but competition also leads to exploitation which is why equality of outcome is impossible under capitalism
>Sorry, is it actually not an attack on white men when almost all HR agree we need more women in STEM and (because intersection) we also need more minorities in STEM? Are you that retarded that you can't see how this cosects into we need more of everyone in STEM except whites and males?
you're trying to make me support something i never said I supported. I want economic equality, i don't care how people get the income.
you're a molymeme poster, you don't deserve good responses

>1900s: shame men for not fighting in retarded wars when they themselves sit at home doing nothing
>1960s: nothing notable
>2000s: fat retards with purple hair complaining that women in media are attractive and video game protagonists aren't women

>post-scarcity

I love that meme. I love you liberals. You're like our crazies on the left. Just as bad as these right wing crazies here that praise Putin. All of you saw Zeitgeist one too many times and took diverging political paths.

I swear I'm gonna write a book about it someday.

You make things too complicated. It's not really about "freedom", "good" or "bad" or any other bullshit subjective words you want to throw around.

It is simply that the majority of Cred Forums posters don't appreciate the Muslim way of life. They don't want to pray to Allah because they don't believe in it. They don't want suicide bombers blowing shit up. They take a look at the world around them, and notice that the darker the skin tone of the inhabitants, the more violent, disease-ridden and shittier everything tends to be. They don't want to live in such a civilization, so they do anything they can to stop theirs from ending up in the same place, even if it means ridding society of Muslims.

They also disagree with the left's notion that whites and Asians are only achieving so much more (on average) than other races because of racism. The left wants to blame whites (in particular) for their success. People on Cred Forums, and probably people on the right in general, don't believe they are to blame, and don't agree that they should be held accountable.

Hence, they disagree with all your viewpoints, and that's all there is to it.

>jews
>jews
>jews
There, congratulations you know it all.

>gays are capable of not being degenerate

You're an idiot m8

>gays are more likely to abuse children and the children they do raise have far higher instances of mental illness and instability
Ah, so letting them raise children is the solution!
>you posted a Molyneux image so I will shitpost at you because you dont deserve a reply without fallacies ha so there!
So when are you going to start making decent replies to the other posters in this thread?

For thousands of years fags got married to people of the opposite sex just like everyone else. We can just go back to doing that.

Or do you think homosexuality is a new thing? Or that they just went unmarried for thousands of years?

How is literally spending years fighting to try to assimilate into normal culture and live normal lives "degenerate" exactly?

the rate of technological improvements is only increasing. We're able to make use of resources more efficiently and will be able to harness more resources. For example, do you really not think humans tech won't advance enough to harness the energy of the sun efficiently. The possibilities are endless. Also population seems to level off with industrialization so our population won't increase exponentially as our tech does.

There are no reasons to believe post-scarcity is impossible.

that muslim post wasn't serious I was just doing an impression of an american trying to for american superiority while arguing against what they believe is superior about america in their eyes.

I tried to make this a srs post for you molymeme poster, I hope I did well. :)

Gays are one of the most highly educated demographics. The Cred Forums meme of "lol child abuse" is also a fucking bust. They have mental health issues because mudslimes throw them off of buildings and chads and weeaboos like you bitch about them all day.

define exploitation

I'd even be in favor of giving only one vote per family, minimum of a married couple, or maybe a married couple + at least one child, to apply for voting rights. With that rhetoric, the change in times and marriage rates mean that a return to male-only suffrage would not return things to pre-universal suffrage, so what's really needed is the institution of family-based suffrage. Since families are the constituent unit that makes up the nation, why bother giving a sub-family unit (i.e. the individual) the right to vote when an individual has no stake in the long-term (e.g. hundred+ year) future of the nation. Only the family has a vested interest in long-term prosperity, since only the child-bearing family votes to represent their children also.

Why give the power to vote to anti-socials, the immature, and those who don't pursue the continuation of the nation and its prosperity?

There were literal "practicing" homosexuals in ancient fucking Greece and Sparta.

This is a good summary. First wave is legit, hard to argue that. Second wave is still pretty worthwhile, mostly about workplace and educational equality. Women still barely try to be engineers or get real jobs, but I don't think they should be laughed at for trying.

3rd wave is still obviously bullshit

You are really bad at devising arguments. This might work in your lefty hug group that directed you here, but Cred Forums only honours REAL ARGUMENTS.

Communism or any Marxist derived thought (and most Hegelian thought too) can never be used to achieve equality. Even in Soviet Russia certain demographics were oppressed by the whims of whatever other demographic happened to be in power in Moscow.

Need I go over the anti semitism of Stalinism? Or the deliberate famine of the Ukrainians?

>under scarcity yes, but competition also leads to exploitation
[citation needed] and I've already made it clear the communist manifesto is not an appropriate citation. What you did here was present your opinion as fact.

>which is why equality of outcome is impossible under capitalism
In fact, it's neither possible nor is it desirable. There must be winners AND losers in a competition, but provided the winners do so under their own merit this isn't a bad thing. When potential winners are made losers because of their race and gender, which is exactly what's happening in tech industries of some of the more left leaning western cities, this is when you have neither equality of opportunity nor equality of outcome.

>you're trying to make me support something i never said I supported. I want economic equality, i don't care how people get the income.
This is exactly what you support if you believe white men aren't being deliberately disadvantaged for employment opportunities. This is exactly a third wave feminist tactic, it's exactly the redistributive policy that's motivated purely by resentment and outright bigotry towards white male engineers.

You weaseling out by pretending this isn't exactly what you support is the cracks in your ideology. You know, deep down, this is evil.

There is no one more racist or sexist than an intersectional third wave feminist because there is no one more assured that they're immune from racism and sexism.

Could anyone point to events, that feminism caused, that caused the direct decline and destruction of the American nuclear family?

I recognize that women voting caused a shift, and women working took them out of the home, and then sexual revolution weakened the bonds between men and women, but surely it couldn't have gone so pear shaped in just eighty years?

Third wave actually has no coherent objective. It's a mish mash of everything that seems to offend them.

The funny thing is a lot of what they complain about is fuckboys, but they created fuckboys by plummeting the price of pussy.

Oh, ok. I didn't read the huge wall of text, but I agree with the first line. Women shouldn't have the right to vote, by definition. As far as I'm aware, in your country it was given to men in return for signing up for the draft. Women just got it by whining about "equality." And look at the result in Europe, and in America. Plenty of women admit to voting for Clinton just because "it's about time we have a woman president," while screaming about the sexism of the patriarchy in the same breath. It's just fucked. You should pick a side. If you're a white male, in my opinion you are retarded if it is not obvious which side you should pick.

Homosexuality is not a choice, but it's also not genetic, and also gender is a social construct. Homosexuality has always existed in every society, and it's only white men who Jane ever been homophobic, except the Romans and Greeks, 100% of whom were gay, but you're born gay (despite it not being genetically-determined) and you can't be "converted" into being gay, so there's a "natural rate" or ceiling on the proportion of the population that is gay, except for the Greeks and Romans who accepted homosexuality and therefore were all gay. Transsexuals and gay marriage were also always around, and it is only racist sexist Christians who made them taboo. You can be born the wrong biological gender even though gender is only a social construct, also gender is mental and sex is biological so it's only gender that is a construct, but it also matters if your mental gender differs from your biological sex, so even though gender is a meaningless construct we have to surgical alter your sex to match your mental perception of your own meaningless social construct identity. Men and women are 100% equal because gender is a social construct but it's morally wrong to hit a woman because they are weaker than men and can't defend themselves.

B8/10

I have to deal with academic feminists a lot, so you can take this for what it is worth.
A lot of the more modern well educated feminists are actually against the radical craziness which gets shown around here. They even spend a lot of time writing and researching mens rights, they are usually pretty grounded, want equality and are willing to look at things rationally to work towards realistic solutions, in short they are practical.
The biggest issue is that there is a 'huge' amount of young women in uni/college with very limited understanding of realistic feminism who have simply spent way too much time on Tumblr and think everything is a war, they are basically dangerous, they give real feminists a bad name, they create divides between the sexes and they actively discriminate against men, these people are cancer.
I am only posting this to encourage a reader to actually check how someone acts the next time they call themselves a feminist, don't condemn the people who are doing good work because of idiots who don't understand feminism but want to call themselves that anyway.

For the record I am a straight white male and don't call myself a feminist or a SJW,I just run in circles which put me in contact with some people who deserve better than to be lumped in with a bunch of angry, ignorant fools.

Gender isn't a social construct. Die in a fire

Do they believe the pay gap is due to gender discrimination?

...and you wish to end the economic system that created all of this "technological adavancement" because?

What even makes you think that such advancement is possible without competition?

Fucking tardos didn't even get halfway through it

Women entering the workforce halved the value of labor by doubling it's supply, making a one-earner household impossible. divorce laws were passed that favor women and make divorce easier to initiate, leading to skyrocketing divorce-rates, which are primarily initiated by women. These factors led to a steady decline in marriage overall. Normalization of divorce, premarital sex, promiscuity, cheating on spouses, and out of wedlock births led to skyrocketing out of wedlock birth rates.

Hordes of single mothers led to women voting for socialism, which caused the state to replace the husband and father as the provider for many families.

Millions of boys raised without fathers led to a death of masculinity and masculine values (confidence, self-reliance, ambition, responsibility), which then created a feedback-loop as the loss of these values increased divorce-rates and out of wedlock births. Women were taught that a career is the key to self-fulfillment, leading to the replacement of feminine virtues (nurturing, understanding, supportive, passive social roles) with feminine vices (vanity, selfishness, entitlement, pride).

Thus the nuclear family became economically unfeasible at the same time that men lost the values which it required, and that women became vapid harpies, while a legal framework was built that rewarded women for destroying their own families, and supplemented or replaced their income with benefits

So fertility rates tank (men afraid of divorce refuse to marry, women seeking fulfillment in careers put off children for too long), divorce and out of wedlock births skyrocket. Everyone shuns responsibility across the board, and society begins to fail to reproduce itself.

Great, you're a singularity fag with little to no understanding why technology jumped from 1960-2010 and has recently capped. You don't have any engineering degree, you don't understand the (temporary) effects of technology that effects the rate of technology.

No, user, the possibilities aren't endless. That is a slippery slope sourced from your own ignorance of technology. Intel's Skylake is the last step in silicon technology before we collide with the limitations of miniaturization, the speed of light and quantum tunnelling is a bitch.

There is every reason to believe post scarcity is a delusion.

No, I'd argue there's a hierarchy. The professors, who's professors were outright bribed by Soviets in the 70s, are true, honest, committed Marxists with the same goals as any Marxist: use critique (or violence for traditional Marxists) to motivate the common people to revolt and bring revolution with the Marxists as the vanguard.

But yes, the lower tiers of feminists do not have as well defined goals. The most virulent feminists have set themselves up in positions of power over employment, such as HR, which is how they're able to effectively and covertly oppress white men.

This is how they destroy equality of opportunities. This is how they're getting away with it.

I'm yet to see a single feminist call for the end of affirmative action. This is why I don't believe you.

The more intelligent feminists ignore it when talking to white men because they know how common the facts are. Their latest strategy has been:
>but what about genital mutilation in this far off country?
>sex slavery is on the rise in Africa and India and central Asia!
>This is why we need more feminism in the west!
Somehow they believe this is more believable than stay at home mothers not being paid enough to equal the income of STEM educated men.

keeping surplus profits from the workers who created them
>Communism or any Marxist derived thought (and most Hegelian thought too) can never be used to achieve equality. Even in Soviet Russia certain demographics were oppressed by the whims of whatever other demographic happened to be in power in Moscow.

Need I go over the anti semitism of Stalinism? Or the deliberate famine of the Ukrainians?
economic equality under the USSR failed because communism can't work properly in a world of scarcity.
>There must be winners AND losers in a competition
it's a good thing I'm arguing for commmunism in a world without competition

the other stuff you said doesn't reflect my views

men got it in america because that was the tradition given to us by the british. it has everything to do with culture. women got it by interpreting our founding documents in a way that was a-cultural.
>...and you wish to end the economic system that created all of this "technological adavancement" because?
are you implying that technology didn't advance before capitalism? of course it did. as society reaches technological milestones new economic systems become viable. in pre slave societies slaves were not useful because there wasn't the tech there to make them increase output at a beneficial pace, in fuedalist societies accumulating capital was not beneficial because capital did not increase in any real beneficial way. tech advanced throughout history but it was never beneficial to use it/accumulate capital until our tech advanced to the point where it did become beneficial. once post scarcity comes it will no longer be useful to accumulate capital because that's only a solution to the economizing problem, which ends with post scarcity

Not quite, the end goal of third wave feminism is to get all the privileges that men have and women used to enjoy, while getting out of having to deal with any of the responsibility that goes along with that.

What about everywhere else in the world? Or is your point that only in decadent civilizations which were beelining towards a collapse was open homosexuality a normal thing?

Homosexuality is 100% choice you dumb fuck.
Just like Pedophilia is 100% a choice.
Both of them are born with their attractions, but what defines them is their actions.

I dont give a fuck if Pedos are born that way, I dont care if Homos are born that way. STFU and dont give into your sexual attractions and live a normal life or fucking kill yourself. Honestly dont care which.

meant to quote in that

>Posting stuff from behind the Rooting Kings paywall

>keeping surplus profits from the workers who created them

how do you know they will be surplus? the majority of businesses fail, yet workers are not obligated to give their wages back? Didn't they just steal surplus?

>quantum tech is the only area available to advance in
I hate this meme

Original article
It's so-so

>how do you know they will be surplus?
surplus profits are used to invest in capital. that's how I know they are surplus. everything that is invested is money kept from the workers

I laid the sarcasm on pretty thick, guise, come on now

No. They know there is a gap in statistics but the reasons are complicated. Many for example argue for greater support for men to raise children and take time away from work to help with family. So they are actually trying to decrease the 'gap' by campaigning for men to get the same support for time away from work. The basic opposite of the popular 'pay women more and make them all CEO's' shit we often see. They also advocate for changes in law to recognise female domestic violence (especially psychological)' male circumcision, men's support networks, changes to divorce legislation for male parents and many other things we barley ever read about. They are not all poison. [same person you responded to, just switched device]

So all of the goodies and none of the agency? Sounds like a fantasy.

Ya know what, I only read the beginning of your post. So ya got me 10/10.

>10s
Fight to remove the sexual revolution. Hijack the Christian right's cencorship/indecency policies and wage war with video game developers and publishers to censor as much offensive sexual content as possible.

Greek "homosexuality" was completely different from modern western homosexuality. For one thing, anal sex was considered abhorrent, as was lesbianism (both were banned in most hellenistic cities). For another, there was a strong age component. A "homosexual" relationship was generally pederastic, but usually between a young teenager and a young man. Mature men were expected to grow out of it and marry a woman, as their duty to society. An adult man who had sex with other adult men was pretty much shunned and sneered at as an effeminate degenerate.

It was also perfectly normal for "valid" homosexual relationships to be platonic and nonsexual, because anything in excess was seen as barbaric, drink, food, sex, etc. and a platonic relationship with a sexually attractive person was seen as a laudable expression of self-control. Hypersexuality was seen as barbarian degeneracy, and weakness.

Tl;dr: the "homosexual" ancient Greeks got married to women, had children, and would be at least as sickened and appalled by a gay pride parade as the average pollack. Most would consider a 21st century homosexual to be a loathsome deviant deserving to be put to death to remove his pollution from society.

They also considered women and anyone who wasn't Greek to be subhuman worthy only of slavery and subjection to actual people, so it's really laughable for 21st century leftists to hold them up as paragons of progressive tolerance

If they were needed to invest in capital, then they weren't surplus. otherwise a worker owned company could never grow

It was a joke famalam. Learn to recognize the bantz.

>keeping surplus profits from the workers who created them
There is no such thing as surplus profits, only profits.

>economic equality under the USSR failed because communism can't work properly in a world of scarcity.
Considering post scarcity is beyond our current capabilities, in fact it's something only accessible to space age civilisations capable of automated mining of asteroids, I find that believable. Only then will minerals and thus goods be so cheap post scarcity might actually be a thing. Until then, you're a dumb singularity fag and escaping earths orbit is expensive as fuck.

Now, if labor was distributed by merit rather than race and gender with merit only becoming a factor amongst people with the right race and gender, maybe technology would advance quicker considering all those white males denied an opportunity to contribute might actually be able to raise standards and productivity instead of becoming an ignored, invisible demographic.

>it's a good thing I'm arguing for commmunism in a world without competition
There's little competition in this world already. Gotta get them female engineers.

If you don't believe affirmative action is the worst thing about western society (okay, or unequal law courts) then you have no right at all to talk about equality or justice. You're simply either a soft bigot towards the people benefiting from this system via inferior merits, or you're an outright bigot advocating for supremacy at the expense of demographics you have only envy and resentment for.

I'm sorry that there'll never be a female minority as skillful as Carmack, but that doesn't mean anyone who looks like Carmack deserves to be denied their pursuit of happiness, which is exactly what's happening.

>the other stuff you said doesn't reflect my views
Or it actually does and you're internally committing a middle ground fallacy. Again, weaseling around for wiggle room is perfectly acceptable in your lefty hug box, not so much here.

Ah yes let's be just like some Dumbfuckistan country and put all muh gays and wymyn as second class citizens so we can have our totes no homo brojob fests. kys

Confirmed faggot

>Fight to remove the sexual revolution
Nigga what. How are they doing that? They're more sexed up than ever.

I'm just saying it's been around in multiple civilizations prior to [current year]. The reality is that no one gives a fuck what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. Who gives a fuck if people want to buy into having families? The sooner the assimilation into normal life happens, the less of a freakshow it'll be. Would you rather have them be getting married and being productive members or society or continually have pride parades with fat old men in speedos waving their dicks in front of children?

Wow as if it wasn't obvious enough. Want a gold star, faggot, or will a (You) be enough for you to go masturbate to?

The equal pay act was signed in the 60s you mega fuckhead

that's the point, businesses can't grow without exploitation. meaning capitalism can't work without exploitation
maybe surplus profits is the wrong term, but you know that all money produced by the workers are not given back to the workers. they receive a fraction of the money they generated.

>If you don't believe affirmative action is the worst thing about western society (okay, or unequal law courts) then you have no right at all to talk about equality or justice. You're simply either a soft bigot towards the people benefiting from this system via inferior merits, or you're an outright bigot advocating for supremacy at the expense of demographics you have only envy and resentment for.
I don't like affirmative action either, idk why you keep trying to put me into some category of people who want to eliminate competition by government intervention. I believe competition will be eliminated when tech advances enough, there's no need for government intervention to do that.
I'm talking about equality of outcome not of opportunity

5 star post, friendo

>they receive a fraction of the money they generated.
They receive the rate set by the free market for their labor, if they want more they have to begin selling themselves to other employers.

>I don't like affirmative action either, idk why you keep trying to put me into some category of people who want to eliminate competition by government intervention.
Because your initial response to me: outright denied actions being taken against white men. You denied the use of socialism was associated to racially and sexually hiring. You even denied that equality of opportunities without equality of effort is a supremacist ideal. You are denying that women, specifically non white women, aren't extremely privileged in our society especially when it comes to STEM employment.

>I believe competition will be eliminated when tech advances enough, there's no need for government intervention to do that.
Then you are an idiot who simply does not understand human nature. As all Marxists, you are distinctly anti humanist.

Again, you've spent this whole thread weaseling for wiggle room within a middle ground. That does not work here.

>CTR still hasn't figured out millennial right wingers are actually the smart ones

this could never get published today. what 13 years does, my goodness

>They receive the rate set by the free market for their labor, if they want more they have to begin selling themselves to other employers.
Exactly. Workers are unable to receive the fruits of their labor because capitalism prevents them from receiving them. EXPLOITATION
>outright denied actions being taken against white men. You denied the use of socialism was associated to racially and sexually hiring. You even denied that equality of opportunities without equality of effort is a supremacist ideal. You are denying that women, specifically non white women, aren't extremely privileged in our society especially when it comes to STEM employment.
I didn't deny that those actions are taking place. I denied that those actions are inherently part of socialism, or necessary for achieving economic equality of outcome. I've already said I believe it will happen naturally as tech advances.

11/10

Fucking saved

No one said the feminists are smart.

But that's one of their main current agenda.
Sexual games are bad.
Japan = ultra patriarchal evil of the world
Sexual games from Japan = The ultimate evil of the world.

Yeah they managed to prevent Dead or Alive Xtreme getting released in the west, which I think is a shame.

I don't buy into that genre of game personally, those kind of games are a Japanese passtime anyway.

But it's such a small niche and a lot of their demands are being catered to in mainstream games, so I thought it was pretty petty.

The funny thing is they didn't do a whole lot against Dead or Alive. That was the publisher being cowards first and foremost.

But what the feminists have done is putting their own people inside the niche localisation companies in key positions.
Such as grammar editor and other such language check jobs.
They have infested localisation companies like Treehouse, NISA, Atlus USA, and a few others.

They have also infested the Australian Rating Board.

And they have infested certain Video game review websites.

More weaseling.

Until you accept that affirmative action is the worst thing about this society (again, except maybe unequal law courts), you're still a considerably hateful, bigoted person.

As true as this is, you're missing factors.

Men, even educated men, can't get jobs because affirmative action, this has created a youth unemployment so high no one is talking about it because it's one of those economic statistics that are so bad awareness would make everything else bad.

So women complain about a man drought, since they're incapable of considering a man earning less than her for a long term relationship. This means dating has basically ceased for millennials, as in the men most effected by affirmative action are in fact millennials. The exception here is the hive of lies that is tinder: you'll tell her you're successful, she'll invite you around for sex if you fix her fridge.

latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-millennials-less-sex-20160802-snap-story.html

This is actually a misleading article, they're having sex, they're just not dating in any fashion that leads to marriage.

Men aren't scared of divorce (although, again, unequal law courts), married women aren't going to not have babies just because they have jobs. This current climate makes it impossible for men, again specifically white men, to reproduce. It promotes poverty amongst white men, again, specifically white men in their 20s and from promoting poverty amongst men it promotes social infertility.

Because there are almost no women who'll date a NEET. Nothing is more unattractive to a woman.

Again, every fucking post on this shithole until it's ingrained in the consciousness of whatever political movement I've inadvertently helped spawn. There are only two issues that matter in social justice:
>unequal law courts
>unequal hiring AKA affirmative action

Anything else is subterfuge, populist appeasement and inconsequential to societal growth.

So I agree with you that affirmative action is bad, now you say I don't agree with you that it's THE WORST thing so I'm some kind of terrible person? I guess I should have expected this from an aussie.

>not starting with 1800s
Youre leaving crucial part of modern history out my friend

This is not how you began in this thread. You began by supporting equality of outcome.

1900's: women bitching
1960's: women bitching
2010's: "women" bitching

yes, and I'm saying that all those actions you described are not necessary to achieve equality of outcome. which means I don't support those actions, which means you're wrong to try to pin me to affirmative action and all that. I've made no contradictions or anything, I've been consistent.

Except affirmative action actually achieved equality of outcome for a short time, until women under 28 began out earning men, but of course a feminist will tell you that's just because women are superior. No overcorrection here at all.

I dont understand. Why do conpanies give a fuck? Women arent their demographic

You're acting like Joe telling me to disavow affirmative action every second of the day in every single way even though I already disavowed it. Calm down Joe.

You're asking why someone who leads a company can be cowards.

The answer is why not?

>equality of outcomes is not superiority.
They aren't pushing for equality of economic outcomes, though. Women already work less and spend more than men. They have an easier time getting jobs, get equivalent jobs with less training and experience, and get paid more for jobs involving less risk and hardship.

So they already get preferential treatment in the workplace and in education, in addition to the traditional strong societal pressure for women's husbands, lovers, ex-lovers, ex-husbands, and male family members to support women financially, and an extreme bias in family court, which causes them to be not just kept out of poverty, but supported in luxury whenever possible through the men in their lives.

In the end, they do about half as much work as men, and spend about three times as much money.

What they're pushing for now is to also get a higher number of low-performing, inexperienced, unreliable women into elite management and creative positions, and to get paid top dollar for the times when they don't even show up.

This is "line-item veto" equality. They want to be able to go through all the situations in life, defined as narrowly as they can and looked at in total isolation, and anywhere women are not as doing as well as men, regardless of reasons, change things until they're clearly getting *at least as* much as men. And have any situation where women are getting more than men, or otherwise being treated better, left alone.

Men getting more key management jobs because they show up? Give at least half to women!
Women having to show up for key management jobs or lose them? Let them have time off for children and keep their good jobs!
Women having trouble finding men that earn enough to let them choose to stay home, have multiple kids, and still live in greater luxury than they did by being single and working? Men need to stop being useless bums and earn more than women! (but no policy should be changed to make that happen)

It's my only point on Cred Forums. I'm sick of this place. I'm sick of these people. I'm sick of how everything has at least 3 layers of abstraction or meta.

As sick of all this shit as I am, I'm most sick of being a NEET, but that won't change until someone accepts one of my 100+ job applications, which won't happen until HR become acceptant of white men in STEM again.

As the only place on the internet so openly against this cancer of inequality of opportunities, the only solution I see to changing my unfortunate circumstance is to ensure as many arguments against feminism exist in the open for use for all on Cred Forums.

If you have a stronger platform and have used these arguments, thank you. If there were more of you sooner perhaps the tide against feminism would have ended sooner and maybe I'd have a job by now, probably be able to afford a better guitar, start a band, get a go pro and make videos myself or just earn lots of money and find a stoner girlfriend to fuck without abandon.

But instead I'm a pathetic NEET with absolutely no means of income. I beg for money, that's demeaning, especially when it's your friends and family you're begging.

Did it ever occur to you I wouldn't be so unhappy or shitpost this board as much if I wasn't outright denied opportunities? If I was simply allowed to begin my career and start living like a real human?

With any luck this will be my last post. Put yourself in my position, I'm suffering and people don't give a fuck especially when caring means being anti feminist. Instead, they care more about butt promises and raising children with gay culture. That is a non issue. This is my angst.

Now you understand why I'm the crazy Australian shitposter. I don't want to be, I want to be an engineer.

BTW, vote yes on that plebiscite Australians, at worst they'll STFU for a year. At best they might start caring about male youth unemployment, the actual economic problem of our society.

ALL of them were the same shit, just reheated.

The ultimate redpill: Gender pay gap is real and caused by social constructs, not biology

1. If gender pay gap is due to evolutionary psychology/biology how come it vary from 5% to 30% in OECD countries, and 5% to 20% in the West?

2. If female employee is economically more risky to hire than a male due to parental leave, why wouldn't for-profit companies discriminate against women?

3. Studies have shown that in most fields (although exceptions exist), job applications with a female name are less likely to get a response compared to identical job applications with a male name. Wouldn't it be weird if this would not contribute to a pay gap between the genders?

youtube.com/watch?v=pDMcW58PWCU

It's not about waves. It was inherently flawed and easily corruptible from the beginning.

Fucking kill yourself

Or move to sweden same thing

>2003

Lmao
Imagine if a magazine made this today.