My girlfriend is "red-pilled" on feminism but sticks by her guns that first wave feminism was a good thing...

My girlfriend is "red-pilled" on feminism but sticks by her guns that first wave feminism was a good thing, is she right?

Keep in mind the people back then probably didn't know how it is now

Other urls found in this thread:

theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html
eugenik.dk/static/pdf/nyborg-paid-2005.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Sounds like she feels she can get away with just about anything in the relationship.

The girls I date know that they will be replaced if they disagree with me, and so they don't.

We're still running on software that is thousands of years old. Why aren't you taking advantage of that to be the master of your home? Your word should be law.

go to bed scott

...

This was the end goal of "first wave" feminism

Equality + family destruction + marxism

Short answer, yes.

First wave feminism was about making women legal citizens and not just a husband or father's possession, giving them lives of their own etc. It's one of the hallmarks of our civilization, in my eyes.

Despite the edgelords on this board who will disagree, I'd rather have a person that's a true partner with me, educated enough that she can help me with things, share my life. I want to be able to respect the woman I'm with and a part of that is not being a degenerate whore, but another part of that is having a mind of her own and being able to be her own person. I have had a very servile and docile girl before and while it's fun at first, it's rather annoying to feel like you're dealing with an immature, insecure thing and have to be the grown up for two. My gf and soon to be wife now is much more able to carry her own, rational and calm, while still being a true "copilot" as it were.

Feminism in general has had more positives than negatives, we just take the positives for granted and exaggerate the negatives

It is only natural as we moved away from physical work and into a service based economy that women would need more rights

I see on Cred Forums that a lot of people complain about how women working means double the workforce but the jobs stay the same so it hurts wages and the ability for working men to provide for their families

This is mostly or at least partly true but that's not caused by feminism. This arrangement benefits employers at the expense of worker and you can be certain that it would've arisen no matter what, feminism is just one line of reasoning that advocated it.

without feminism we'd be no better than shitty Muslim countries in terms of how women are treated, feminism is a good thing overall even though it's causing a lot of problems now and there's a lot of retarded shit feminists believe and say and do

>Is she right?
No. Female inferiority is a tough pill for women to swallow. Especially ones who are above average in intelligence. Granting ALL women the right to vote is never good. Ideally we would have voting restrictions on men too, but letting all men vote is still less damaging than letting all women vote.

Reddit detected.

>without feminism we'd be no better than shitty Muslim countries in terms of how women are treated

women is one of the few topics islam gets right

They firebombed shops in the name of their cause, and from the very beginning were shilling the "men are le evil" line. They also happily purged any dissenters from their ranks just as they do today. They did actually address inequalities but anyone who thinks that they didn't carry the same vile ideological baggage as modern feminists is living in a delusion. 3rd wave feminists inherited their shitty ideology, censorious behavior, and hatred of men from their progenitors. The primary difference between original feminists and modern feminists is that issues which specifically harm women substantially more than men are almost completely nonexistent in modern society. The only reason they persist in existing at all is because they don't actually care about human rights in the slightest, some of them care first are foremost about feeling and looking virtuous, and others genuinely only disagree with supremacy if it isn't their supremacy.

No. Giving women the vote was the first problem, it enabled the leftists, communist and safety net vote as women vote with their emotions and instincts which is to have a provider of some sort and to feel security.

Secondly, they demanded equal pay which

A) Cucked men in the workforce with inferior workers earning the same wage and depressed wages generally by doubling the labour pool and

B) "freed" women from relying on the husband so she could earn her own money which facilitated the destruction of the family and therefore the west generally.

Feminism was always a jewish/bolshevist/communist plot to destroy the west

Fag. Women are designed to be subservient. An equal is a man, not a woman, as most of them are uncapable of logical thought un influenced by emotions.

...

...

Many girls are anti feminist but would vote for feminist policies.

The real redpill is that no body is going to go against their best interest

...

The more you learn about women the more you realize that their entire "movement" is predicated on allowing women to carry out their internally evolved mating strategy without social repercussions.

No. for example, suffragettes immediately brought us massive increase in government spending, and Prohibition which resulted in fucking the first amendment and rapid expansion and consolidation of police power and infringement in the US.

>first amendment
should be second amendment. tired

Men are incapable of thought "uninfluenced by emotions" too, nobody can separate emotions and logic entirely

most of Cred Forums would prefer a mindless drone that sits around taking care of a baby and cleaning over a educated human with a job?

How could anyone accept this?

>The real redpill is that no body is going to go against their best interest
Underrated

t.Cuck McCuckerland

Not an argument and poor misdirection, you fucking shill. Men are able to look at a situation way more dispassionately and objectively than women are. If you believe differently reddit is back down the hall and to the left.

None of those women in the first wave actually wanted to vote, it was all a ploy on behalf of some candidate to double the voting population so they might have a better chance.

There were men working behind the scenes, mostly husbands, who put those women up to it,marching and demonstrating.

All the feminist literature from that time was written by men and attributed to some old woman.

Obviously those men had no idea the reverberations would echo so far as to threaten the whole human race.

The problem with first wave feminism is that it gave women the right to vote.

I think it's great that women became more independent, but they shouldn't have the right to vote. I should state that I'm okay with a female politician, as long as she's voted in by men.

Why, what do the majority women really do with their right to vote except for going with their emotions? Then there's the cucks who follow the pussy they'll never get.

>Id: FaG
Ignore my post, this is a sign from kek that I was wrong and women really are as shallow and useless as Cred Forums thinks

So we just let them sit around at the house doing nothing and then complain that they aren't getting a job so they are still bad? I mean they are so stupid they could be emotionally manipulated to vote for globalist agendas the easiest

Do you have any primary sources or secondary interpretations which support that?

Seems like an argument to me

You claim most women are incapable of logical thought uninfluenced by emotions, I say that that's an unrealistic standard of logic

Your response is to say if I disagree I should go to Reddit, very impressive argument

...

You must be new here. No one would complain if women stayed at home and did their traditional duties like housework and child-rearing.

I don't especially have an issue with gender equality - the problem is that women in general don't want gender equality, and aren't anywhere near honest with us or themselves to admit that.

Yes

remind her of prohibition

>Seems like an argument to me

Thats because youre a faggot who thinks men and women are the same.

Before current feminism I would've agreed. Now I think women's suffrage was a mistake.

i hate to say it, but this.

The problem with gender "equality" is that they're often not arguing for equality of rights, but equality of outcome, which contradicts equality of rights--you must infringe other's rights if you're going to alter the outcome of someone who can not otherwise perform competitively. A female firefighter is fine if she literally is strong enough and with enough endurance to do the job. A female firefighter is not fine if she was allowed the job because Women Are Wonderful.

people treat private property better than public property and are more invested in their future.

it was ass rich women wanting to vote but only for rich women and men. Fuck the poor. Pankhurst was a rich cunt who looked down on poor people.

First you have to consider the context.

'First wave feminism' generally refers to the various suffragette movements, but also other feminist movements of the time.

The earlier and proto-feminists had already sought various privileges over men, and openly campaigned on principles like "female moral superiority" (this was an actual term promoted by early feminists). They sought, and mostly obtained:

>Raising the AoC (putting the legal burden entirely on men, something that would destroy many men's lives and involve state brutality)
>Establishing gender-segregation of prisons
>Establishing things like the Old Age Pension for women (it was originally only for elderly women, eventually expanded and extended).
>Abolishing alcohol (succeded at this for a while)
>Teaching feminism, anti-masturbation, anti-alcohol lies and misandry in schools

If you read the feminist literature of the time, the main idea was to overcome "Patriarchy", and establish Matriarchy. Feminists like Elizabeth Cady-Stanton promoted the idea that a "return" (they came up with a fake historical narrative in which society had 'originally' been matriarchal) to matriarchy, or what she called "The Matriarchate". The aim of many of these feminists was to destroy what they considered the role of "provision" for men in marriage. So basically, the were quite explicitly arguing for Alpha fucks and Beta Bucks (they phrased it in terms of creating a society where women didn't have to marry for money - an idea which appeals to naive men, but the question is where do they get their income from otherwise? Basically, from a collective of men).

The call for votes was immoral because they not only never sought to redress the many ways men had less rights, but actually explicitly maintained those double standards - for example some of the Pankhursts actively campaigning for men to fight in war, even handing out white feathers - while maintaining that women should have the vote but be exempted from that.

Maybe only INTP's should vote.

Sounds pretty comfy to me, cuck.

And that's precisely my point. Third wave feminism doesn't acknowledge that it's perfectly ok to recognise limitations and biology - there are things that men are built for, and things that women are built for...Third wave feminism wants a role "because it's time".

Hell...You poor bastards in the states have had nothing but that over the past decade - a black president "because it's time", and now a female president "because it's time".

This problem would be removed entirely if we lived in a meritocracy, but as we move into an era of permissiveness and degeneracy, all you're going to get are more whiney little cunts, demanding more rights for women while stripping them from men out of some bizarre sense of vengeance.

Everyone uses their emotions when they vote.

The only difference is that some people think they're using reason.

First wave feminism back in like the early 1900's? Well, yeah - I'm pretty okay with that. They actually had a few good points back then, among the bullshit. (Because there was bullshit back then too!)

I still think it was already quite bad by second wave, though. Giving women the right to vote is debatable if it was good or bad - Making all women sort of need to work is something I'm against because I would be happy to take of a sweet lady if she took care of the house and kids. I feel like everybody wins in that scenario.

Do you guys think women would have got the vote if it wasn't for the war?

The government was obviously saving face by saying "You get the vote because of your contributions to the war effort" but was it really for that reason? Or did they just get sick of them causing trouble?

Not him, as you can probably tell, but you're a real fucking faggot

Are you seriously telling me that while women are bags of shit who listen only to emotion, you, YOU, an enlightened, I N T E L L I G E N T and wickedly nihilistic 16-year-old obey LAWGIC and confuse people saying that men and women share common traits with the retards who claim there's no physiological difference?

Men and women are different, but broadly similar. Yes, women are susceptible to blind emotion, but men are as well. Take, for instance, (You).

Anyway, yes, women deserve the vote, and I'd go as far as to say that felons deserve the vote and the voting age should be lowered, to possibly 13, 15, or 16. Are their opinions trash? Yeah, but most people's are anyway. Everyone deserves a say in democracy, fucking fascist, because if one group doesn't get a say then anyone can treat them like shit and get away with it, at least in theory.

>Feminists like Elizabeth Cady-Stanton promoted the idea that a "return" (they came up with a fake historical narrative in which society had 'originally' been matriarchal)
Technically it might be correct, there's some evidence that civilization is linked to the advent of patriarchy, i.e. prehistoric humans were matriarchal in some capacity.

>Do you have any primary sources or secondary interpretations which support that?

Do you understand the concept that there aren't primary or secondary sources to corroborate everything that ever happened, especially things that were intended to remain secret?

Do you understand that two men might secretly conspire to influence something and they wouldn't be sure to write their plan down for the convenience of future scholars and Historians?

Do you understand that the VAST, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of all Historical events have gone completely unrecorded and unsaved?

History is not only a set of lies agreed upon, it's an agreed-upon set of lies stretched out to cover the whole of time, when it can't represent even a single percentage point of everything that has ever happened.

Not me. I have autism.

making all women need to work effectively destroyed the family unit, and made women married to the state instead, to have children that are raised by the state.

Pic related

INTP-T here. I agree.

>is she right?
I don't think so.

>are their opinions shit? hell yes
>let them vote
It's like you want civilization to collapse. You realize the "let's let eveyone vote!" meme is a new idea that's causing the decline of the west, right? We were doing just fine when only white male landowners could vote.

I think it has nothing to do with the war mate. Sure, they contributed by making shells and building wings, but that's much safer, and a far, FAR cry from the men that were doing the actual scary shit.

If anything, the liberal movement was born in the UK as a result of being tired of depression and post war economics - everyone was tired as fuck, and they wanted something different.

Oy vey that status quo bias. Very well goy.

>Men and women are different, but broadly similar. Yes, women are susceptible to blind emotion, but men are as well. Take, for instance, (You).

My girlfriend is very intelligent but would support hillary "because shes a woman.

They do not deserve the vote.

They never got their way the first time around, and hopefully, they won't this time.

As for women not fighting in war; well, they can't, really. Women are terrible liabilities on the battlefield, even if they're fit enough - don't give me that shit about "Average man blah blah strength strongest women", I bet any average woman could beat the shit out of at least 30% of the fat neckbeards on this board - gender-mixed units cause male soldiers to risk their lives disproportionately to save females, they pose high-value targets and they're prime hostage candidates. Plus, sexual tension exists.

In the Second World War, women worked in factories to produce bombs, tanks, and shells for the war effort. I see no reason why they can't do that if WW3 broke out.

Matriarchy is the 'natural' state, women ALWAYS have inherently more social status power, their 'maternity' is always established, the social collective always works in women's interest, both males and females have more female friends, males and females both prefer to look at female faces, etc.

What matters is that these feminists fabricated a history, they claimed to know something they couldn't really provide any real evidence for - and it's a history that makes it look as if men were in a conspiracy together to oppress women. This is the fundamental lie of feminist - "patriarchy theory".

In other words, the average individual male is very powerless in society, and even the fabrication of civilisation does very little to change that. A woman chooses whether a man or male will be in her life, and he has to earn that. 'Patriarchy theory' is about framing the situation of male powerlessness by REVERSING it - and this is used to FURTHER aggress against males.

Just got sick of them. Women only have power over men in two respects: Sex and the knowledge that if they whinge and moan enough men will say 'oh fuck it just do what you want'.

Men are unlikely to do something wholly irrational unless not doing it would bring more harm than good.

It's the same logic that bears use when selecting prey; they won't eat anything they think would take more calories to kill than they would gain from eating it.

Men at the time had no idea Feminism would turn into the clusterfuck it is today, at the time it seemed like the lesser of two evils.

>Yeah, but most people's are anyway. Everyone deserves a say in democracy, fucking fascist,

Also, falling for the democracy meme and implying fascism isnt the best form of government.

Implying the first wasnt damaged as well.

Fucking kek. This is like saying children should have a say in parenting, or lunatics should vote in asylum rules, or prisoners should have a say in prisons, all because policies are created which affect them.

>you work long hours just to get by because the economy is shit and your the only source of income
>she gets to sit at home taking care of children and cleaning all social media indoctrinates her how horrible men are
>you get home to her nagging every night about your average pay not being enough for her and the children

Every
Single
Day

But most of this thread will be shitposting so I will leave your aussies to your craft, you seem especially drawn to threads involving womens rights are you guys having some sort of revolution over there?

Why do British men always look like they've got a stick up their butts?

Yes, and I'm sorry to say it, but that was also a time that was pretty shit for everyone that wasn't a landowner or male or white. You a poor fuck? Get fucked bitch, you have no say in things so we's knocking down your house because it gets in the way.

Stupid fuck, you want to support the Jews? The "White" male landowners in charge of the world?

Look, most people in general are fucking retards. Yes, children should have a say in parenting. Have you seen the shit that goes on sometimes with parents? Prisoners and people in mental institutions are forced to be there because they did something bad or are unfit for the outside world. There is a fucking difference.

>As for women not fighting in war; well, they can't, really...

In WW1 many men were literally commanded to just run into machine-gun fire. This is something women could totally have done, but that's not my point.

The point is that the "vote" means power over men, but not women. The political state primarily affects the lives of MEN. Men go to prison, men get sent to war, men pay all the taxes.

Just consider the tax issue for one. Women have worked for 10,000 years. There was never a 'bar' on women working as feminists like to claim. However, it wasn't until the 1960's or 70's when women started really entering the workforce en masse - the result of the "piped water" "airconditioner" revolution. So for about 70 years men LITERALLY made up practically the entire workforce - certainly all the 'hard' shitty jobs were held by men exclusively... but women suddenly had the right to command how these men's lives would be ordered, how they'd be taxed, etc.

Basically men allowed the state as "Bull" to enter his relationship to women. The "Bull" has now surpassed men. Young men today earn significantly less than women, this despite the fact that most women still expect a man they marry to earn equal to them or more. Men are powerless in relationships, the police literally bully and kidnap men every single day on behalf of their wives (the explosion in 'domestic violence' system, something that takes up now the MAJORITY of court and police time).

So it was not a move TOWARDS equality, it was a step towards higher female power.

Because we're usually found cleaning up the shitstorms cause by our american children.

>Being this beta that your woman would nag in the first place.

>Not understanding that nagging is a shit test.

Have fun with your wifes son.

>In WW1 many men were literally commanded to just run into machine-gun fire. This is something women could totally have done, but that's not my point.

Could have? Sure. WOULD have? Fuck no. Back then, just like today when it comes to personal threat, they would have pulled the "but I'm a woman" card.

Fuck no.

It destroyed the family unit.

Yes, that's my point. Even the most strident first-wave feminists were all in favour of men being the ones to go to war.

>but that was also a time that was pretty shit for everyone that wasn't a landowner or male or white. You a poor fuck? Get fucked bitch, you have no say in things so we's knocking down your house because it gets in the way.

And you think letting something whos evilutionary strategy is alpha fuck and beta bux the ability to vote improves this situation?

Top most kek.

Personally i think theres a lot to be said for restricting the right to vote to land/property owning citizens with children.

Ah. I misunderstood. Apologies.

>implying I'm ever falling for the marriage jew

Enjoy your divorce goyim, hope you decided how you want to split all your property

Oh and don't plan on spending any time with your son, their new dad will be more than happy to take your place :^)

Wasn't universal suffrage a big part of Fascism?

Wasn't the first British fascist party founded by a woman?

I think this whole "feminism is inherently Marxist" mantra is a leftist myth. You all know that there's a ton of redpilled ladies out there who would help build a redpilled nation if they could.

Wrong. That time was just fine for women as their happiness was higher than it is now. You're talking out of your ass using liberal talking points with no factual evidence to back it up. And also, you would be the one supporting the jews. Who do you think were the primary actors of universal suffrage to begin with?

Yeah it must be terrible to raise the next generation of human life instead of being a cog in the corporate machine.

Women who hate babies and motherhood are fucking disgusting, they're unnatural perverted fucked up weirdos who will die alone and unloved.

>Enjoy your divorce goyim, hope you decided how you want to split all your property

Only betas need to worry about divorce.

>You all know that there's a ton of redpilled ladies out there who would help build a redpilled nation if they could.

Women take on the opinions of a sufficiently strong authority figure, be it a dad, a husband, a priest, the state or the media.

They will do whatever the authority figure tells them to do. There are no red pilled women, only women moulded by the authority figures around them.

How many women died in the trenches?

How many women are here on Cred Forums egging on Donald and fighting for something?

Fucking none. Women do not belong in the political sphere and anyone who thinks otherwise has never been around women.

If you think women should make political decisions or have a say you are invalidating everything our ancestors believed in.

So all of our ancestors from the Romans and the Greeks to the Founding Fathers of America were muslim tier savages because they kept women in the kitchen?

So 19th century America was an Islamic country then? Forcing women to wear bags all the time, cutting off their clits and beating them for fun is how women were treated in the west before 1919?

Hardly. Y'all are have been the instigators of our problems for more than a couple hundred years now. You're like a spurned lover who can't let go.

>implying feminism is bad

Jesus fuck you colectivists...
How about we start judging after idividual traits opposed to grooping people LIKE communists do!
Im all for restricting stupidity but lets set some standards that all humans should reach rather than just stating women can t into politics.

>Women do not belong in the political sphere and anyone who thinks otherwise has never been around women.

I feel like a lot of Liberals base their view on women on hypothetical females that very rarely exist in real life. I used to be the same way until I spent a significant time around a variety of women. I used to think that I was just around a bad bunch until I started working in female dominated fields and saw the almost pathological need they have to over complicate everything and project their own agendas onto every facet of daily life.

The majority of women I know can't decide what to eat for tea and yet we are supposed to assume this indecisiveness goes out the window when they make political decisions, instead of becoming measurably worse.

Womens suffrage was the worst thing to come out of the French Revolution, which was the worst catastrophe of the modern world.

He's right you know. Although I suspect less than 5% of women would pass these standards, it would still be unfair to them.

>collectivists

You're right we should never pay attention and notice patterns whatsoever. Police shouldn't investigate suspects because they look like the perpetrator. Just because a model of car breaks down 9/10 times doesn't mean it always breaks down.

Face it cunt. Western civilisation has never, ever let women into politics at any point before the 20th century barring a handful of queens who were mostly told what to do by their advisors. If you told Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Descartes, Voltaire etc or any great Western mind that women belonged in politics they would have laughed you out of the room.

>Jesus fuck you colectivists...
>How about we start judging after idividual traits opposed to grooping people LIKE communists do!

On a scale from 1 to 5 how triggered are you right now?

Theres no downvote button here brah, get used to it.

You misinterpreted his post. Setting standards is not the same as refusing to acknowledge patterns. It's an attempt at true egalitarianism that can actually work and isn't self-destructive.

She isn't. First wave feminism is the rise of individualism and the destruction of the traditional family.

Egalitarianism is skullfuck retarded but that's another matter entirely.

The simple fact of the matter is that I did not misinterpret his post. The fact that women act in such a way that is wholly detrimental to society and culture at large when given political privileges and choices is undeniable. Just because 1% of women happen to be fucking white nationalists and therefore recycle their viewpoints means nothing.

>software
Hardware, firmware at best. The software is what is changing. I foresee you and blokes like you winding up lonely, or with as succession of poverty import brides, if you don't tweak your software.

This is true. And I think 5% is very generous, but you did say "less than" so.. But yes, they would indeed be getting the short end of the stick. However, I think these women are intelligent enough to prefer that to having the whole world going to shit because the stupid ones are allowing it to happen? Hmm..

>what is reading coprehension.
I did say do it like communists you inpossible faggot. Im saying you are doing like communists you faggot. You are instantly labeling women as politicaly incapable right of the bat. It may be true in 60 70% of the cases but that doesnt mean EVERY WOMEN is politicaly inconpetent. Besides you need as much of a diverse field of opinions to draw the right conclusions rather than eco chambers. Conflict and conpetition breeds succes.

The simple fact is that you did, in fact, misinterpet his post. How can you complain if voting standards based on things like IQ and political knowledge are met? These are the things that make women fail at voting in the first place. If standards are implemented and 1% of women can pass them, then isn't it basically the same as your policy of refusing women in the first place? The only difference is your policy is unfair to the 1% of women who are actually worthy.

Communists were pro womens liberation. Shill harder gypsy.

>You are instantly labeling women as politicaly incapable right of the bat.

Only liberal faggots think generalisations are wrong and stereotypes are false.

Women being in politics has far more to do with things like IQ and political knowledge.

There's a reason that women have never invented anything at all. Men and women differ markedly on not just intelligence but also how they socialise and organise.

Women do no belong in politics in the same way children do not belong in politics no matter how smart they are.

When you have 40% of competent women and 60% of incompetent women and your alternatives are to either let them all vote or let none of them vote, assuming your goal is to not-fuck up your country, it's pretty obvious which alternative is the way to go. If you can think up a merit-based voting system, go ahead, we're all eager to partake of your insight.

Then your argument is that the standards can never truly capture what makes men better at voting than women. And you know the standards can never work because I'm sure there's a mountain of empirical evidence for this age-old hypothesis. Oh wait.

>bombing buildings
>white feather campaign
>hated the poor working class, were racist against blacks and poo in loos

Even the "first wave" of feminism was just a bunch of narcissistic upper middle class white cunts trying to grab more power for themselves. A lot of the men couldn't vote either, even after they came from the that terrible war.

>waaaah waaaah i can't vote
>meanwhile the poor men who had to slave away all day in a factory or in a mine couldn't vote either
>waaah waaaah being in the kitchen is so hard
>even more waaaah waaaah waaaah
>meanwhile the 16 year old boy who was shamed by their "white feather" movement into war, is being slaughtered in trenches, he also can't and couldn't vote

Feminism was never good and never will be.

One thing you are right... you trigger me heavily because you are so fucking dense.

Im not saying all or none. Im saying fucking judge people as individuals not as a group.

Im i am basicly pointing out is that you are no better than regressives. They judge people out of broad labels (see white man, man in general etc) and instantly put group atributed qualities to you. You do exactly the same only to other groups ( women are politicly incompetent, all niggers are bad, all faggots are bad).

The world aint black and white. Its a clusterfuck of mullato opinions and races.

Feminism is only a good thing in its infancy if men are honorless cowards

A good man should be able to lead his woman, and a good woman should he his support. Like a spotter for a sniper or a co-pilot at his side. When the man has a better brain, he should run both their lives and if that is too much work for him then maybe he is too weak for a woman. A woman should be a man's property. But by that I mean she should be his most prized possession and thus the man should be useless without taking care of and living for his most prized possession. That relationship sets both up to be strong and happy.

Only betas want to let women into politics. Men used to laugh openly at the idea.

...

Yeah, I'm with you as long as it stops there and none of this SJW/self-mutilation/fat glorification liberal bullshit and man-hating takes over.

I'm not into helpless flowers either. It's one thing to enjoy your role as a woman and be comfortable with your femininity, and quite another to be totally dependent. That gets really annoying.

Women should not be suffering alone and men should not be living for themselves. Women should be with a strong man that leads them and men should be making the world and future a better place for their wife/children.

> When the laws granted woman the same rights as man, they should also have given her a masculine power of reason. On the contrary, just as the privileges and honours which the laws decree to women surpass what Nature has meted out to them, so is there a proportional decrease in the number of women who really share these privileges; therefore the remainder are deprived of their natural rights in so far as the others have been given more than Nature accords.

theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

>mfw i cant prove my point by calling you a white male(aka racist, sexist, homophobic and all other leftist labels) since you probably are all of the above.

But i can call you a srunktard criminal who has a singlendigit iq just for being australian :). You also probably have a kangaroo wife.

Because thats what the australian label can be translated into.

>No. Giving women the vote was the first problem, it enabled the leftists, communist and safety net vote as women vote with their emotions and instincts which is to have a provider of some sort and to feel security.

You're right to some extent, but shouldn't we have been smart enough to work around that? I think we dropped the ball somewhere, badly. Maybe a certain laziness took over and we neglected our duty to make sure our women were educated and taught to be responsible, informed voters by US, not by the liberal media, etc.

That said, I know too many men nowadays who are doing what you describe. Not men I'd call cuckservatives either, macho military men in at least two cases.

Never ever EVER underestimate the power of brainwashing. We should never have let things get this bad, no matter what we had to sacrifice to stop it. We got too comfy.

If you weren't an anti intellectual you could look up dozens of men outlining why women are unfit to be involved in politics.

>regressives
Now you have outed yourself as a retarded Milo import. Probably an r/thedonald browser.

It is very easy to judge groups of people who share similarities. The difference is whether or not the beliefs are true. And whether making exceptions for the few is worth suffering the consequences of the majority.

No, I repeat no, western government gave women any power at all until the twentieth century.

You are the one rejecting the idea that generalisations and categorisation is inherently evil or disreputable for some bizarre reason. You claim it's communism despite the communists being pro womens rights.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that communists are the only people in all of history to ever generalise or categorise groups of people?

If you do then I categorise you as a stupid gypsy nigger who needs to fuck off back to his slum.

>is she right?
yes
there was certain level of equality due to distribution of labour in agricultural societies where there were no modern comforts, at least when it came to common people

when industrial era and long before in certain monarchy run western-european countries as social rules were drafted men gained privileges as well as responsibilities, women missed out on the privilege part because they suck at standing up for themselves as a class long story short

so far as the story goes today they've gotten them and rid of many responsibilities in one sweep, but there will be an equalising moment when they either do or society stumbles under their weight

>Im not saying all or none. Im saying fucking judge people as individuals not as a group.

10 per cent of niggers and muslims are probably ok to be able to be left to their own devices in modern western society. That doesnt mean we should let them all in carte blanche. Same applies to women.

The mistake was giving women the vote.

Matriarchy only fails to outwards threats and in direct conflict patriarchy always beats matriarchy whether from the outside or withing.

I suggest you read my previous posts in this thread, friend. I already agree with this man. You are strawmanning my argument, which is that if we try to implement standards for voter registration, only a tiny fraction of women would even pass due to their inherent inferiority. My only argument is that voting standards are inherently better than catch-all identity generalizations, because there ARE a tiny fraction of smart women and there are still yet plenty of dumb men.

do *take responsibilities back

>But i can call you a srunktard criminal who has a singlendigit iq just for being australian :

You could but youd be wrong. Im first gen from white immigrant parents.

You are refusing to continue the debate to its logical conclusion, rather you choose to strawman me insisting that I say "let women in politics." It's a game of numbers. If I let 1% of the top women in politics, that's vastly different from "letting women into politics." But you refuse to acknowledge this stark contrast because you want to be correct. You are the one being anti-intellectual. We already agree that women as a whole are bad for politics. Stop being petty, as you're just confusing the lurkers.

This thread is pretty me why no civilisation ever stopped its collapse due to letting woman have political power.

White knights and cucks.

All women obviously are in favour of feminism, but if all men were sane it would not be such a problem.
Sadly, the white knights and cucks exist, pushing the balance toward civilisational collapse without hope to change anything about it.

Data ?
Outliers and anecdotes.
Genetics ?
Outliers and anecdotes.
Historical precedent ?
Modern exceptionalism.
No matters where your logical argument arise from, it always have an emotional argument to be stopped in its track without needing to be consistent as long as the perceived moral high-ground is in their favour.


Let's hope that we succeed in self-genociding and end this joke known as the european species.
Time for the east asians to shine, with their insect mentality i foresee a great future for Humanity. An africa without africa, arabia without arabs, india without indians, south america without beaners.
A world free of subhumans.

This

#NotAllX shouldnt mean trust them all, it should mean trust none until they prove otherwise and then gamble with them.

If you give them an inch they will take a mile. It only takes one traitor to open the city gates for the enemy and likewise a small proportion of women no matter how qualified can do immense damage to any institution or organisation.

Fair enough, m8. Can't let others misinterpret you and not have a counterpoint though.

I see your argument, but personally I'm still not for letting capable women vote. As many better men than me have said, they are well represented by their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons. Intelligent, rational women can sway men's votes just fine. Testing seems like needless overhead.

>Keep in mind the people back then probably didn't know how it is now
>probably
So you believe some of them may have been able to see the future?

>implying colectivism=communism.
And communist probablybsuported pro women stuff for pr and ideological reasons (after all everyone is equal m i rite?)
Societal generalisation (as in certain sterotypes) shouldnt be demonized but neither put on a pedestal. And yes since since punishing 10% for the 90% isnt moral they should be treated as blank slates IN THE EYE OF THE LAW. The law is to be applyed to individualities(person company ideology as in islam is bad not all religions are bad) not to fucking groups this broadly applyed.

Testing would primarily serve to weed out the dumb men more than enable the smart women. Ultimately it would result in an even more rational electorate, ideally.

To even have voter standards at all would be a huge step towards what YOU want that the normies could actually understand. You will never sell the general populace on "no voting for women again". At least my idea can still be construed as "progress" and people might actually fall for it because they all think they're the smartest thing around and everyone else is stupid.

please see

Im not necesarly this extreme in trust but basically this. Judge everyone of em individually.

Women are not being punished. They were better off when they had no say. Now that they have a say they are being brainwashed and agitated into voting for the importation of Islamic and nigger savages who will make their lives a living hell. There is no valid reason for letting any women vote at all given the consequences have been wholly negative.

The law exists to uphold the social construct not to satisfy your individualist masturbatory fantasies.

The number of female outliers is ridiculously small, white knight.
That would EXACTLY like as wanting "1% of the top google".

First, you'd have to find them.
Since their frequency is so small, good luck.
Second, you have to find among this very small group ones that want to do politics. Again, good luck.
Third, you'll still have a wreacked political landscape since women, have with the highest IQ, have a very very small prefrontal cortex and act according to their limbic system, not to their logical mind ( and it's very hard to argue they possess one in the first place ! ).

I'm not talking about what is or isn't politically possible. I'm only talking about the reality of women and politics. Obviously taking the franchise from women is pretty much impossible in this day and age. It was essentially a pandoras box.

damnit i was just about to post that gem (;

so many shills reacting to this post
>even though hes dead right
god put men in charge of the home
anyone want to guess why>?

Stuff like this really makes me wonder if religion as a cultural meme only worked because they have this "bug" of human civilisation "fixed".

I'd prefer an educated, intelligent person who is willing to take primary responsibility during the day for raising our kids while I work. IF the economic situation here gets bad enough that she has to work too for us to make it, okay, but I believe that should be a last resort.

The ultimate truth regarding kids is that they need as much of at least one parent as they can possibly get to turn out well. Latchkey parenting is shitty parenting. Period.

>he thinks im a white knight
Click my ID and start from the top, friend. also see this

>Testing would primarily serve to weed out the dumb men more than enable the smart women. Ultimately it would result in an even more rational electorate, ideally.

Yeah I'd say so. Before the first wave of feminism women were 2nd class citizens, they fought for equality... They're just fighting. God knows what for but they're pissed and they talk a lot

>TFW I break my back at a warehouse that women refuse to work in, for 8 hours a day and minimum wage, 0 hour contract while some bitch being paid to bitch makes more and still bitches about it

I was relieved that someone typed a good answer
but then he digressed into cuckoldry. First wave feminism is useful for going forward into modern life and beyond. Probably necessary. But make no mistake, equal parners and copilot stuff is a diagram for failure. In a dance, one follows and one leads or the dance breaks down and men better be the leader or she's gonna start dreaming of Ricardo the meringue instructor because you are on the road to asking people "are you kidding me?" instead of saying and doing exactly what you mean. Third wave feminism is forbidden to men who have working testicles and second wave taken only under silent protest and only then if you know how to handle women (its possible to learn)

I don't judge them that harshly. But I don't want to marry one. Such women should find what happiness they can with a like-minded mate and try to work hard and do some fucking good in the world.

Having said that, I've literally never met a woman who "hates" babies and motherhood. Such creatures are rare at best. I have met women who just aren't super fond of kids. Even a couple of them I've known ended up having one and loving their own, even if they still had short tolerance for the brats of others. Kek, I'm a bit like that myself. But I'd do anything for my own kids.

>How many women are here on Cred Forums egging on Donald and fighting for something?

Ha. A lot. You sound pathological. I literally know several females who come on here and are the biggest Trump supporters ever. One is outright Natsoc.

Grow the fuck up. Or get help, or something. Jeezus.

Regardless you're making claims with no evidence or precedent.

>voting restrictions wouldn't work cause give them an inch and they'll take a mile
>voting restrictions can't work because they will never capture the essence of what makes someone a good voter

Why do you hate the concept of voting restrictions so much that you'll make up claims that have no evidence about it.

>2nd class citizens
They weren't conscripted and they didn't have to work dangerous or tough jobs. It's fucking laughable that you would consider them "2nd class citizens".

>equality
They are blatantly not equal in mental or physical ability.

>TFW I break my back at a warehouse that women refuse to work in, for 8 hours a day and minimum wage, 0 hour contract while some bitch being paid to bitch makes more and still bitches about it
Congrats this is what you approve of if you thought feminists at any point in time were right.

My only hope is, since this fall is so well documented, it will be incentive enough for future civilisation to part way with the ancestral parasite and the ancestral paradigm, and turn to the artificial womb, and turn into a male-only species reproducing technologically.

The mere fact of needing technological to reproduce would means said society would need a certain average IQ to maintain technological civilisation, destroying any group in just one lifetime that would subhumanise, making sure Humanity as a whole never succumb to subhumanisation, and probably just generate a virtuous cycle as the high-IQ would secure more ressources and so reproduce more than the low-IQ.

Ah, such a dream, such a brave new world.
Will i live to see it, Lord Kek, whether in flesh or metal ?
I hope so.
This world of retarded meatbags repeating a documented cycle for ages is so tiring.

Trump has lot of married woman support he only dips with single.

>letting women vote

That was the second mistake, after letting non-whites vote.

>male only reprduction
Didnt they manage to create FEMALE only reproduction? Thats legit scary.

No as it lead to the other 2 waves. There is no point in discussing them speratly, as they're all the same. Apart from that whats good about a whorish society, low birth and high migration rates?

Woman need a one night stand to get pregnant user. Nothing has changed.

>I literally know several females who come on here and are the biggest Trump supporters ever. One is outright Natsoc.
Sure you do.

Women follow the opinions of the strongest man in their life and fail that society. More evidence for why women shouldn't be involved with politics. Their partner will defacto be their representative because they mimic his viewpoints.

You scheme would not work for a geological timescale, friend.
One day, the equality meme will rise again and destroy your carefully engineered government type.

No, you need something more akin to a force of nature, that self-select automatically without needing an active role except maybe in its infancy.
We need to become a male-only species reproducing technologically.

Aside from a singleton emerging, this is the only way to have stability for the aeons to come.

I dont think i was explicit enough. Female only reproduction as in not needing ANY MALE (sperm including) to reproduce.

ditto.

>trump?
>actually i would have rather seen a Perry, Paul ticket.

Considering any civilisation where women hold political power collapse, i would be afraid about women-only society.
Just look at this picture and realise how laughable the mere thought of it is ;^)

case and point.
voting for a woman because she is a woman is like voting for a nigger because hes a nigg.... oh wait we did htat already...

>>TFW I break my back at a warehouse

>warehousing
>Backbreaking work

Top kek. Im warehousing atm and its cruisy as fuck.

>you trigger me heavily
He triggers me rather heavily because without macho, incredibly chauvinistic, woman-hating fucks like this guy we probably wouldn't have to deal with feminism at all. It was literally created in reaction against men like this faggot.

Again you misunderstand me. I have also come to the same conclusion, but until that becomes technologically feasible (I understand it's in the works), a stopgap measure would be appreciated.

Women know exactly what they want desu

And they always have a shit eating smile when they get it.

And male don't need female to reproduce either - well, to produce the embryo, that is.
The big, unsolved problem is the womb.

Well, unsolved may be too strong a word, pic related...
More like soon to be solved :^)

Yes, the sufragette movement and the fight for equality is what separates us from the muslim hordes.

This isn't a serious response but you could not be more obviously a woman if you tried.

So the West was Islamic before the suffragettes turned up?

> hasnt happendd to me so it must not exist.

Oh i understand now.

I dont argue for ALL to vote im arguing for only the worthy ones to vote.
As for standards (since you asked i think) if i knew this i would have probably started going into politics harder. Thats why the first step to actually start thinking outside stereotypes.

yes

and yes

>You also probably have a kangaroo wife.
kek

>voting standards
I'll go for this. Probably should have fucking parenting standards too.

>muh decimals which i dont understand i am le science nerd fuk women rofl muh dik

>I took le epic class at le epic uni I have le epic understanding of le statistics that is le exclusive to le me.

Learning to read graphs is neither hard nor long.
Please do so and come back, you have no reason to project your insecurities all over everyone, my friend.

Fundamentalist religion is the most likely candidate next to an ethno facist police state like Israel is a proto version of.

Individual freedoms voted and they voted themselves out of power.

Feminism was a good thing before it was hijacked by the new wave leftistmarxist agenda which is more about delusional identarian politics then fighting for social liberties for the working class.

You really should look at what you post. The female IQ curve is just as wide but is clearly HIGHER.

god why do I come here.

A man who doesn't hate all women has to be a female to be believable in your world. Of course.

Wrong again, kid. American father of four great kids, 40 year old white nationalist with a wife I love. You sound like a miserable fuck. Cheers.

I did used to work with a bitter, self-hating lesbian misogynist who talked a lot like you. She used to beat her girlfriend regularly. I'd say you could be her, but that flag.

I would love for your idea to be implemented.
I just don't see how it could be, with the geopolitics being what they are, before the collapse of western civilisation.
And since by this time the kinks of the artificial wombs would be worked out, and since a collapsed civilisation are the perfect ground for political evolution, i would very much prefer to go straight for the golden age into of going baby step.

Well, i guess it's not like neither of our positions have to or even can be implemented everywhere at once.
You'll do your thing, i'll do mine.

>a Marxist movement was good until it was hijacked by Marxists

Correct. England used to be seperated from muslim hordes but then we let women have the vote and suddenly london has a muslim mayor and birmingham is a muslim majority city.

>resorting to personal insults
>I'm not a woman though

Have you considered that maybe we work in different warehouses?

I unload baths and showers, up to 80kg and 7ft, all manual, all day

The man who plays the drums at parades and the men on the front lines are in the military together, both jobs must be equally dangerous

You dumbfuck. You dare look down on us? You can't even read the axes on a graph.

Israel voted themselves out of power? Tell me more.

i am le internet browsing science genius with muh political beliefs i change the world cuz i cant get a gf for muh dik muh iq lol video games r kool

I don't quite understand your argument here.
I can only see the implied assumption that bell curves comparing population should be equal ? What ?

Do you not understand what the word frequency means ?
Are you under the impression that, for a given standard deviation, frequencies differ depending on the population ?

I used to lift timber beams into a processing production line weighing up to 180kg each with one other guy. I also used to work fifo in the desert.

Warehousing cruisy as. Got shade, got forklifts, got 8 hour days.

No, but you can work with that anyway.
If she's wife material put a baby in her and she'll trend more towards your views.

To be fair the graph basicly states women are more average than man. While man have larger extreme bases (smart as fuck vs dumb as fuck.)

Feminism was more of existential movement in the beginning which later also came to associated with the marxist movement shortly after second WW. Don't forget that A.H. essentially was a proto feminist himself.

Obviously not I mean we can go down either road and most likely we will choose the opressive state over Islamic rule.

I see Israel as a micro cosmos of what will likely happen first in sweden or france.

While this is wholly true, asian first world politics has not fallen to the individualist gender war trap.
Maybe its a matter of time, but just because the right for women to vote is socially risky, doesnt mean it will necessarilysubvert a nation

you can scale the axes all you like, and the frequency of higher female IQ will still be displayed.

there are lots of charts to "prove" that men are smarter. go find one and post it and stop digging your hole deeper.

t.statistics and probability instructor

If i am a genius, why am i not a billionaire ?
If i am a genius, why do i keep making grammatical errors ?

Okay, carrying 20kg over my body weight for 8 hours every day is 'cruisy'. I'll make sure tomorrow I rember how 'cruisy' it is and the day should go 'cruiser'

I get on with it, not complaining at all. Saying it's hard work, if you disagree that's fine

Singapore has the lowest birth rates in the world, East Asia in general has the lowest birth rates in the world. I would say women have done a pretty good job of fucking things up.

That's not really fair, actually. Women have a higher frequency even at -3 standard deviations. Regardless the primary message to take home from this is that it perfectly explains men's more frequent success as there are simply far more intelligent men. The feminists don't give a shit about the bottom end of the spectrum.

>t.statistics and probability instructor

LOL ask me how I know you're lying or utterly incompetent.

I don't think you'll find many women that don't want to have at least equal rights with men
though most want more than equality

...

Well, pedantically first, it's g and not IQ. Respect my labels shitlord.
Second, here is the study :
eugenik.dk/static/pdf/nyborg-paid-2005.pdf

I know you lot hate Nyborg and automatically dismiss him and Lynn, which sure is convenient since they are the ONLY GUYS PERIOD that study differences between genders and races ( while still managing to not lose their jobs/go bankrupt/get murdered by the local LGBTSJWANTIFA group ).

Birth rates arent indicatuve of social decline especially in a place as crowded as asia. The government was also very instrumental with their 2 child policy in the 80s.
The difference between asia and the west is the two party system. Asian countriea dont have a two party system, so gender issues never became a central battleground

Better yet I'll just tell you. You can clearly estimate the integral of mean IQ just by looking at the graph. Women only have a higher frequency of intelligence BELOW THE MEAN DUMBFUCK HAHAAH.

>Socrates not being in support of womans suffrage

But apart from that spot on mang

Yes, i personally, even after knowing the average is not equal despite all the ( unbacked by data claims i always heard, still believed the "men have more smart sure but also more dumb.
I was honestly shocked that it wasn't the case.
I case that's what definitively destroyed forever the equality meme that was so deeply ingrained in my skull by all those years of propaganda.
Quite liberating.

Apparently that first wave feminism was created by the Rockefellers to:
1. Have women enter the workforce to tax
2. Break up the family where kids are indoctrinated by the school

youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA

The only thing femenists have done was corruptining the women. Allways striving to equalize women to man. Its certainly different from "all man are rapists" but it is bad anyway.
Women are not men.

Remember that, even though the skypes pushed the snowball, they still needed the metaphorical hill.
And what a hill women are, for feminism ! Haha !

Damn. Nailed that.

An appeal to the audience

Thats very rare on Cred Forums

Point proven. I generalised you using the label for australians. But you are not that. Same goes for every thing. You can t generalise so broadly such a large group of people. You can point the trends yes but you cant act on a farly large part of the group based on what the majority does.

>mfw clicking that thumbnail after reading all that

The first feminists were right. I agree that women should have the same rights as us men

Tits or gtfo

This.
Fuck edgy mudslim-tier Cred Forumsack's here.

#notallwomen are degenerate.

#notallwomen
#notallblacks
#notallmuslims

Isn't it funny how any group needing a "#notall" is a complete burden on Humanity and genociding them would be a net and probably absolute good ?

Women's suffrage was a mistage, you fucking retard.

>Just believe me because I said so
>you're the idiot here

fucking amazing

ITT: anger over past rejections