I agree OP, nothing makes my heart melt more than hearing some girl talk about how she started crying when her boyfriend proposed to her. I just like how vulnerable women are under the whole 'tough feminist' exterior a lot of them put up, and I don't mean that in a creepy way either.

>I always hear /r9k/ say things like "all women want to do is to get married and have kids".

Wh.. When? What?

Hey you know what's been cool these past fifty years? Women being able to fuck around like men have been able to for centuries. You're gonna find the chicks who love sex, chicks who love relationships, and chicks who love both. There's enough variety for everyone now.

Also, since when did femininity become equated with the level of chastity/promiscuity? I've known a lot of women who are promiscuous are also hyper feminized.

>>355939
>Women being able to fuck around like men have been able to for centuries.

I love how poor the average "progressive's" knowledge of history is.

>>355901
Yeah, women have a lot of emotional vulnerability underneath. It's sweet, they should show it more.

>>355906
You know, the usual nomarriage.com shit all the men's rights faggots come up with.

>>355939
>Women being able to fuck around like men have been able to for centuries.

Punishment for adultery for men in the Middle Ages was just the same as it was for women in most European states actually. Although it's true the upper class males got away with it more later on in History as the Church lost power.

>Also, since when did femininity become equated with the level of chastity/promiscuity?

Have you just like... skipped over 3000 years of Western Art and Literary History or something?

Faulty premises to misandry in ten seconds flat. Should be a good thread. I'm out.

>>355939

There isn't really. Because deep down virtually all men prefer non-promiscuous women for LTRs.

>>355939
If it were only wanting to sleep around, that would be one thing. But females today are busy modeling themselves after the whore archetype. Shorts up past their ass cheeks, thongs at public beaches and pools, ass shaking videos. Sleeping around and just being a whore in general is all part of the image they're trying to portray. An imagine glamorized to them through mass media.

Being an independent woman is one thing. I respect the hell out of a woman that doesn't marry, that puts career first, that sacrifices for goals and dreams. But women being whores for the sake of being whores? That shit's destroying the family unit and is making our society as a whole weaker.

>>355988

I think a good example of this is the sheer volume of amateur porn available. Women just don't care anymore, they're perfectly ok with men fucking then, jizzing on their face then shoving that shit on redtube for the world to see. It's sad. There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of women who are doing this.

>>355988
this thread is bad and you should feel bad

>Being an independent woman is one thing. I respect the hell out of a woman that doesn't marry, that puts career first, that sacrifices for goals and dreams
None of that is feminine, that is women acting like men. Strong, independent women are actually a turn off to men, just like weak, dependent men are a turn off to women.

that's pretty much the exact opposite of what /r9k/ thinks of women, you idiot OP

>>356031
No it isn't, since PUA types took over large parts of the internet, the general attitude towards women is that they're always looking for men to ensnare through marriage after a certain age. I genuinely think most women don't give a shit anymore though.

>>356035

Exactly. Most women think babies are "parasites", something has gone wrong with their internal instincts and imperatives. I blame the pill.

I am a Christian girl and very traditional, I would love to meet a devout man and we get married or something like that. I don't know if I will ever meet one though, honestly. In the end, our culture has changed and I think where purity and chastity were once valued, now its all about sexual availability.

I am sort of feminine, in that I am sensitive and I like stronger dominant, but loving guys.

you are all such faggots dear god
women are allowed to be sluts if they want, doesn't mean you're required to sleep with them but it's everyone's right to fuck however much they want
some girls are feminine and some aren't, feminine girls can be sluts and some aren't, some masculine girls are sluts and some aren't
there really isn't any room for generalization you're just a mass of stupid fucks
underage niggers

>>356045

You're probably going to get a lot of people trolling you and attacking you for being a Christian, don't listen to them though. I'm an Orthodox Christian myself although I've already found the girl I love thankfully.

You are just another guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.

>>356058
>some girls are feminine and some aren't, feminine girls can be sluts and some aren't, some masculine girls are sluts and some aren't

It's like you idiots are completely impervious to the concept of pattern recognition.

>call women out on being whores and how it's unappealing
>they just call us sexist and oppressive
>wonder why most men can't stand women these days

you're never going to win this argument, because you're stating facts. and if there's one thing we've learned from feminist empowered modern women it's that they're never wrong because anything you put to them can be somehow nullified with 'YOU SEXIST MISOGYNISTIC PIG' or similar.

>>356063

>You're probably going to get a lot of people trolling you and attacking you for being a Christian, don't listen to them though. I'm an Orthodox Christian myself although I've already found the girl I love thankfully.

Aw, grats. I hope I find a great guy as well. I am used to atheist trolls, they are obnoxious but you can't go to any nerdy website without running into a handful or two.

>that feel when you don't want to be promiscuous but not very keen on getting married either

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

it's true that there's nothing more beautiful than a feminine woman

having said that, the woman in the painting looks gangrenous

>>356075
if you judge 100 cases on the turnout of 70 of them, they're not going to all be correct
it's much easier to just not be an assumptuous dickass for shallow shit like promiscuity
fucking kids on my arcanine

>>356075
>It's like you idiots are completely impervious to the concept of pattern recognition.

nice bullshit excuse, you fuck

You think femininity is dying?

No it's just shifting around, men are becoming more effeminate as being gay is becoming more acceptable.

and women are becoming more masculine.

>>356123
>actually thinks this
no such thing as a long term relationship that happens before any form of marriage where you come from aye?

>>356127
not even the same guy, but its not judging 100% based on 70%. it's more like judging 100% based on 97%. Yes there is a margin of error, but with the number of humans it's an insignificantly small number comparatively.

>>356131
still not the same guy, but that's not a counter point in any way. 'hurr u wrong' doesn't work just the same as 'sexist! misogynist!' doesn't work as a comeback. though this is the level of defence i'd expect from women dumb enough to choose to be slutty and think it's okay.

>>356127
>>356131
Yes, there are certain patterns that can be recognized. It's useful from an evolutionary standpoint to recognize patterns. That's why you don't go and live in a black neighborhood for example, because they're generally shitty and crime ridden. Not all of them are of course, but they generally are.

>>356131
Reasonable person: Men are on average taller than women.

Retard: That's not true! There are some women who are taller than some men!

Fuck off.

older girls want casual sex more
younger ones are still experiencing life

>>356173
>>356163
>>356162
the entire point is that judging the whole by the average is retarded
it's pretty obvious that "97%" is overly dramatic
the fact that there IS a margin of error (even 3% is a pretty large number when put into the entire female population, and that's using the 97% bullshit) should tell you that THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FIT INTO THIS and continuing to fit the pegs in the round hole just because the square ones only manufacture tuesday and wednesday IS FUCKING STUPID
go ahead and sort people into "shitty" and "not shitty" WHEN YOU FUCKING KNOW THEIR CHARACTER instead of their sex drive
it is just mommy issues central in here tonight, either that or "I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO SLUTS AND THEREFORE THEY ARE WORTHLESS TERRIBLE HUMAN BEINGS AND ANYONE THAT IS ONE SHOULD BE ASHAMED" night

>>356162

Well, no, those do exist but people in long-term relationships usually get married at some point.

Wow, you've managed to get very off topic.

A lot of you more 'modern' women need to respect people with differing opinions.

Just the current balance of power, OP. Women have a lot of power currently because our society has build just the hugest pedestal for sex and relationships. Sex has always belonged to the women and now that men use it as a tool for power, women have power go figure.

it breaks down to attractiveness and confidence. ie, hot, confident woman will fuck every guy she wants until she no longer can pull them.. THEN they will find some rich beta to leech off of.

however, not attractive or not confident bitches want to cling to the first man they find remotely attractive.

however as always exceptions errywhere. even though people will still reply to my post with hurr not always, or hurr i knew this one girl. such is life.

Traditionally, women of yore were taught to focus on caring, loving, and being a mother figure. The whole reason dolls and baby tea parties are such a prominent cliche of young girls.

However, I believe the nurturing desire is NOT genetic. Why? Because the huge cultural shift our society has become epitomizes this.

In the 1950's manners, regards, and civility were highly desired attributes. You've probably seen the old reels of people still handshaking at age 14 and asking "How do you do?". Generally people were taught to treat each other kindly and lovingly.

But now, who are our heros? Paris Hilton? House? Dexter? Pretty much everything in our society rewards assholes and fucks over the nice guy/girl. Our own society has taught girls that being nice will get you nowhere. The images in the media, school, and society no longer emphasize the caring and loving persona that would create a woman to be a good mother.

Think about this hard. In order to survive women need to be socially accepted. To be accepted by other girls in today's society they need to be hot. If they are not hot then they need to be a slut to get guys to like them. Or they need to be rich. Whatever it is, being a good gentile innocent woman never enters into the equation of "social acceptance".

Thus women are bitches and whores now. This applies to men too. If you really want a feminine girl you probably have to travel to some remote farm village where she hasn't had any exposure to modern day shit media.

Previously, females having high standards on men made sense. They were expected to stay at home to care for the kids and a successful male bringing home the cash was a necessity for this. In turn he got his house and family taken care of, company and most importantly, offspring.

However the deal has changed. Instead of offering the chance to procreate females decided to take the position of children themselves, making them the focus and goal of the relationship enjoying the luxury of having their needs and wishes being taken care of while providing little in return despite vaginal access. At best.
Despite this fundamental change, the most important being denied the possibility to spread their DNA through spermgolems, men are still expected to uphold their end of the bargain. Many accept this, pouring effort, time, resources and money into a relationship providing for someone who will leave them the second a better provider comes along. Or when they decide they do want to have children, just not with their current partner.

A big part of the reason men who choice not to play under these less rewarding circumstances, be it permavirgins, neckbeards or individuals simply deciding to pursue their own interests and make their own happiness their focus, get so much criticism from females is because they are a clear sign and threat to this currently very favourable arrangement they one-sidedly decided upon. A telltale sign the reason females hold men to higher standards because they want to reap their benefits without adhering to them themselves.

And that good honest "slut" is better than a deceptive "good" girl. At least with them you know you get and can adjust your commitments accordingly.
Source: general misogyny and sleepdeprived ramblings

>>356264
I can understand what you're saying, but there's no way the maternal/nurturing instinct does't have a genetic element.

Have you read about the theories that the pill stymies the production of female hormones for example, and makes them more 'masculine'? I think there are a number of cultural and physiological reasons that could account for this.

I like your explanation though anon

>>355881
>>355881
>>355881
>>355881
>>355881
>>355881
Fuck that. It's because guys these days are fucking pussies. You have 5+ guys lining up for every chick and she gets her pick.
When we were subconsciously leading them they became feminist. When there is an unspoken battle where only one party knows that there is actually a battle, who do you expect to win?
Now days there is no longer a conscious battle.Women are unconsciously on top.
It's up to us to take it back

>>356273
>And that good honest "slut" is better than a deceptive "good" girl.

Disagree, genuine good girls are pretty much snapped up instantly from the age of 18 onwards. The 'good girls' you're thinking of are sluts who claim they've 'made mistakes' and stuff like that.

>>356309
Point still stands, someone who admits to fucking around and being unreliable is better than one who insists on keeping up appearances, refusing to admit mistakes/responsibility and thus never will improve, since you know what you get yourself into.

Genuinely good girls, these exists, are whole different breed and were not included in my comparison.

>>356290

I'm not completely discounting genetic elements to caretaking. I'm especially cognizant of Oxytocin and prolactin when I type this. However I believe, (due mostly to empirical evidence of our devolved shitty society) that like all human behavior we are rewarded and punished. If the reward for being a caring loving person is not there, it will not be manifest. There is no reward to be a kind caring loving gentile woman anymore. It's not even featured in media. When was the last time you saw anyone in movie that was a kind paragon of a woman?

I can't think of any. Girls are taught being feminie has no rewards. And if you want anything you have to be more manlike to get it. Leaving nobody in the family to have the care-taker role. Feminism destroyed the family unit.

>>356173
haha, funny how the retard you depicted is pretty reasonable as well.

you just pwned yourself, faggot.

>>356366
>pwned

Assuming you're not a troll, the retard isn't reasonable at all because he doesn't understand the concept of an average.

>>356377
He does understand very well.

>>356386
If he understood he wouldn't respond to the statement

>Men are on average taller than women.

With.

>That's not true!

And claim Reasonable Person's point is invalidated by saying that some women are taller than some men.

Averages != Absolutes. Men are indeed, on average, taller than women, but stating this doesn't mean you're claiming all men are taller than all women.

You really don't get it, do you?

>>356223
hurr durr meet everyone and judge them individually

yeah, that's how shit works right? fuckoff lol.
you can claim 3% is loads all you want, i however said COMPARATIVELY.
you're ill. you've got 6 billion hypodermic needles. 3% will cure you, the rest are lethal. sure that's a lot if they're seperated, but what're you gonna do? gonna stab yourself with them all one at a time?

your entire premise is fucking retarded.

>>356366
>reasonable
you have to be a woman to be so stupid, and you have to be a modern whore to be so defensive on this topic. fuckoff.

>>356357

Have you noticed that modern woman seems to really hate kids? They're so selfish that they'll fuck around until they're 35 and THEN realise their biological clock is basically finished and have a kid. No wonder we have so many fucking downs children.

>>356404
Totally agree man. Ignore that other poster, Either troll or entirely fucking retarded. Doesn't think logically or clearly.

Most women feel "empowered" by their sexuality - which, up to a certain point, is healthy (being proud of being a woman and what all of that entails). However, I feel that nowadays they use their sexuality in the most negative of ways (sex with multiple partners, blackmail, etc.) and that truly saddens me. Women in this day and age are no longer ladies - they're irresponsible girls in womens' bodies.

A bit about me: I have been dating my boyfriend for seven years (we lost our virginity together) and I can't wait until he proposes to me. I think that marriage is a lovely thing, despite not being very religious. I would like to adopt children one day since I feel that there is no point in bringing more children into a world where there are so many that already need love and a good home.
I am a sexologist and you won't believe the things that I have seen with young girls - I once had a patient who was 16 and had already had over 20 sexual partners within three years. She had terminated two pregnancies and had contracted genital herpes. It's sad, really...

>>356615
>most negative of ways sex with multiple partners
what are you trying to say here?

>If it were only wanting to sleep around, that would be one thing. But females today are busy modeling themselves after the whore archetype. Shorts up past their ass cheeks, thongs at public beaches and pools, ass shaking videos. Sleeping around and just being a whore in general is all part of the image they're trying to portray. An imagine glamorized to them through mass media.


Well now who could do such awful awful thing like brainwashing our kids and promoting promiscuity and anti-Christian values?

Geeez I wonder sometimes...

>>356631
Women can have sex with multiple partners if they don't use protection.

Wasn't antibaby shit invented by men? Just like the condom

>>356631
I'm sorry I really wasn't clear with that statement. I meant to link that with the case I spoke about (the 16-year-old). I think that young girls, while they should embrace their sexuality, should really be more careful when embarking on a sexual experience (as in, using a condom or selecting partners with whom they are actually romantically envolved). I just find it unfortunate that girls as young as 12 are having sex - even one-night-stands - but we live in a hypersexualized society and I suppose this is the inevitable effect it has on younger generations, especially if parents are somewhat detached in relation to their children.

>>356671

I agree with your sentiments that being hypersexualized is manifesting with young girls and it's not to benefit of society or anyone. Building tennous relationships with the opposite sex (or the same for that matter) on pure physical manifestations will leave people superficial an unable to build solid relationships.

Albeit on the moral standpoint, I think most of us couldn't care less. Most of 4chan is quick with it from the amoral perspecitve

>>356691
>Building tennous relationships with the opposite sex (or the same for that matter) on pure physical manifestations will leave people superficial an unable to build solid relationships.

I could not agree more! In the years I have been working as a psychologist/sexologist, I can safely say that young ladies are developing more and more unstable/unhealthy relationships with their peers and subsequently having sex because it's the social norm for them now. They are torn between two extremes: to not have sex and be deemed "frigid" or "uncool" since they don't put out or to be deemed a "whore" but be cool.
These facts, however, do not solely part from the child or adolescent - usually it already comes from home. A solid relationship with one's parents (even if they are divorced) is essential in their sexual and moral development and will later aid them when they finally seek a relationship with a romantic interest.

>>356615
I'm 30+ and returned to university last year and without any education or particular interest in the matter it's still glaringly obvious something dramatic happened.
Compared to when I last studied nearly ten years ago the amount of girls who very clearly feel, and is in, shit are alarming.
I've respectfully poked and prodded three or four into sorting their life out to the better by simple shit like just talking and offering advice, small everyday stuff, but back in my days things like that were rarely needed.
Maybe parents kept their kids under tighter wraps or school had more resources back in my day I don't know. It's worrisome how many never get the help they need and end up getting a really shitty start in their young life due to poor guidance and decision-making.

Really OP? I thought that was what /r9k/ wants, and that they cant find any decent breeders to settle down with?

>>356763

>Maybe parents kept their kids under tighter wraps or school had more resources back in my day I don't know. It's worrisome how many never get the help they need and end up getting a really shitty start in their young life due to poor guidance and decision-making.

This isn't just exclusive to women, the baby-boomer generation on average genuinely has no fucking idea, how to raise children as they reach the age of becoming adults, alot of them didn't go to college or even thought about what they really want to do with their lives, they just coasted through on the economic boom of their time and are now raising kids, who have to make serious decisions that they never had to get close to making. The best answer they can come up with is "just be yourself, and do what you wanna do" In this sort of economy that's a load of bullshit, and a cop out answer.

In the long run they all think of settling down and having kids though.

And the reason guys want a steady relationship right away is because it's already hard enough to get in a womans pants so they try to keep it that way, if they ever succeed.

What's the use?
Whenever a girl does sometimes old fashioned and coddling this kind of threads pop up:
>>356717

just read some of the comment of the guys in there.

>>356842

>s because it's already hard enough to get in a womans pants so they try to keep it that way, if they ever succeed.

think you've come to the truth of the matter, Its not to say i still dont want it, but this is probably truly why, from a biological/evolutionary standpoint.

>>356849

insecure faggotos seriously, there's all types, and more normal-fags on here than ever. Most anons who want a relationship wouldn't give a shit, and would probably ask if they could do the same thing in return. I know that would be my reaction. Obviously i wouldn't want nudity in-case someone picks up her phone by accident.

I know one of these girls.
She's motherly,innocent and caring.
And she looks so elegant like an old victorian painting she has very pale skin and waist length blonde hair.
Yet she is with some sort of jackass guy who doesn't appreciate her.
>fml

>>356615
I respect your views, but I'd encourage you to reconsider about having children of your own. As everyone who understands Mendelian Inheritance knows, children are a reflection of the couple, whereas adopted children are less so.

>>356849
There are a lot of 'game' types on /r9k/ these days, guys who promote 'game' and 'pick up artistry'. Those are the ones who spit venom at any woman who wants something long term.

>ITT: Everyone has to have the same views on gender as me or they're destroying society.

>>356933
>>356933
>liberal fuckwit

Are you a guy or a girl?

>>356953
>implying only a liberal can call this thread on its aspie bullshit
>Implying only women would dissent against a biased, sexist and uninformed thread further propagating the misconception that genders should fit into ancient cookie cutter roles, regardless of societal advancement, else civilizations fail.
>implying you people actually go outside

>>356982
>implying gender roles didn't develop as they were for a reason

>I think it ties into the wider death of femininity.

Femininity isn't dying. Girls and women who don't want to be feminine simply aren't because there's no societal law or taboo in place keeping them from expressing themselves in ways that were once solely exclusive to men. The gender paradigm is shifting and it will not stop shifting. That doesn't mean that all men will become feminine and all women will become masculine, nor does it mean that everything will be fair in the shake-up. The world is simply balancing itself out after the culture shock.

In 1000 years, if humanity is still around, this gender bullshit will be a thing of the past and people like you will all look even more petty in the history books than you do now.

Get with the times, people. It's 2011, not 1352.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as actual "femininity". If your ideal woman us one that's quiet and represses her sexuality, that's pretty fucking sad, and don't ever think that you aren't the cause of sexism, because you are. You are the male oppression, and you are the reason feminism will never die. Get the fuck out of my /r9k/.

>>356996
>as they were for a reason
I'm not living in a cave, defending it from sabertooth tigers. Are you?

If people did everything as tradition dictates, we'd still be bloodletting and smoking would still be prescribed by doctors as a weight loss aid.

This country wouldn't even exist had we followed the status quo.

Allowing women equal rights as men is common damn sense. I know you jilted virgins, jaded aspies, religious fundies and wannabe pickup artists look at women as things or property. They're people, with interests, personalities, character traits, strengths and weaknesses. I've met women smarter an more rational than a fair amount of men I know.

It's really a matter of growing up and accepting social evolution over bias, bigotry and sexism.

For as much as you people bitch and moan about women, you all sound as petty, moody, emotional and over-opinionated as you make THEM out to be.

THAT'S irony.

>>357052
my ideal woman is quiet and repress her sexuality when not with me

My observation is that women who talk a lot never tell much, thus I prefer people who express their views only when they have something to say, and thats how I roll too

>>357059
There is no such thing as social evolution.

Traditional social roles developed for genetic reasons: women were weaker than men but they could bear children. Men were stronger than women though they were also more aggressive.

Non-traditional social roles have nothing to do with this, and thus its skewed. No society which works against nature can survive on the long term.

Considering how western society is going down the drain, I think I'm right.

Countries where women are "oppressed" are having more children than ever, getting more and more stronger. Countries where women aren't "oppressed" will be having a hard time keeping up.

My observation is that if women and men get total equality in terms of responsibilites and rights society will likely collapse.

prove me wrong etc. you will still feel it first hand

>>357060
Do you feel the need to repress your sexuality as well when not around her? Or is it only the woman's responsibility?

Also,
>My observation is that women who talk a lot never tell much, thus I prefer people who express their views only when they have something to say, and thats how I roll too

Since when does not repressing one's sexuality mean that one talks too much? I don't think you know what "sexuality" means.

>>357052
>inferring the only solution to engaging in obviously emotionally damaging sexual activities is not learning to manage maintain a fully functional healthy and rewarding sexual life but complete repression

No John, you are the raging bulldyke feminist. Enjoy your dysfunctional existence due to not being able to handle a basic physical need and fundamental concept in life with common sense and responsibility.

>>357083
>my ideal woman is quiet

>Mfw I want to get married
>Mfw I despise kids and never want them

Not only do I seriously think that I'd be a crap mother, I also think that my fiance and I would pass on a crap ton of bad genes. It's be a fatty because it runs in my family (I got off lightly, I'm only chubby and that's because I caught it before it was too late and started working my ass off to stop it. I'm still 20lbs off my ultimate target weight though), I'd also most likely have gestational diabetes, have bad knees which my mother has too, and her mother, and her mother, and have a hugely increased risk of diabetes. My fiance, on the other hand, has it way worse. All the men in his family get kidney stones at the age of 40, and will need to be rushed to hospital, he had cancer as a kid- and whilst I know that might not be genetic, I'd rather not take the chance, and he has some genetic thing going on in his brain, makes it way easier to learn quickly (shortened neurons, I think), but also increased behaviour problems. So.

I'd really rather not expose a child to those health problems.

Also I love sex, thank you very much, and love getting screwed every which way. Doesn't stop me from wanting one man for the rest of my life.

I was gonna post a picture showing exactly the sort of relationship that I want, but I can't seem to find it right now. Oh well, I'll keep looking.

>>357091
>implying sex is emotionally damaging

Yeah, I am a dyke feminist. k0000l

>>357113

As odd as this sounds, the things that make you "genetically bad" are actually in the grand scheme of evolution potentially beneficial. Society doesn't know jack shit. If a girl like Kardashin or Paris are famous then it really doesn't know its head from it's ass.

This said, consider this, anemia is considered a crippling disease, but it potentially is life saving when faced with malaria.

Your genetic "defects" add variety to the gentic pool. Whether good or bad nobody with human knowledge can decide that. Who knows, it's possible 100 years from now you have a potential protein that will ensure the survival of the human race.

Nobody really knows how the earth will change or what's better in the future. I wouldn't stave off birthing a child simply because society has you caught up in it's shit propaganda that you are "bad".

As if society knew anything at all.

>>357091
>Someone reacting to blatant sexism
>raging bulldyke feminist
Right. Any more misguided propaganda you want to spew?

>inferring the only solution to engaging in obviously emotionally damaging sexual activities
I know it's hard for you to believe here in /r9k/ world, but not every woman bawwwwwws over every guy she fucks. That's media and film overgeneralizing women as weak and self-destructive, who can only be saved by a man in their life. That's simply not true.

>learning to manage maintain a fully functional healthy and rewarding sexual life
Who are YOU to tell other people what a healthy and rewarding sex life is, random internet misogynist?

>dysfunctional existence
Opinion.

>not being able to handle a basic physical need and fundamental concept in life with common sense and responsibility.
Just because you don't sleep around doesn't mean sleeping around is bad. It just means you don't do it.

You jelly?

>>357130
I don't think being fat and diabetical have any benefits

Despite what most people would say being fat doesn't help at all in famine and such conditions.

Because fat people usually have much weaker immune systems and their body haven't got used to not eating more food their body needs, in a situation where food is in shortage, a fat person tends to die much early than people who never eaten much food and rail thin.

True story

Being fat is just a disease developed in this society, much like back pain and depression

>>357130

I'd still really rather not be squeezing out a 10lb baby. Which is a side effect of gestational diabetes.

But seriously, I despise children, the health problems stuff is one of the ways I can rationalise to everyone else why I don't want children. The real long and short of it is: children annoy me. If I have a brat as a child, I think I'd murder it. If it cries, I'd lock it in a room with it's toys.

I'm not unleashing myself onto any child. Especially if that thing about kids ending up like their parents is true. I hated my mother, I'm horribly repressed and unable to communicate because I was always scared of her.

So. Yeah. Bad mother gogogo! He'd probably be a wonderful father but I'm too scared of what I'd be like as a mother to ever so much as want children.

>>357093
Is this because you are quiet?

Are you this man?

>>357149
>Eastwoodblox

>>357141

That's the thing, nobody really knows. As I said, try to find the benefits of Anemia before we knew about it's interaction with Malaria and people would have called you nuts. Cancer is still a mystery and even though it's been dubbed by laymans as genetic accidents, there are some theories that cancers are either rogue individualist cells (Think prisoners dillema) or genetic mutations caused by environments.

Having fat stores ensures that longer bouts of food shortage are surivivable. We don't know if a meteor will come down shower our world with ash and then go 2-3 months without food. Muscle bound men will die first. The last to survive are the fat and chubby. They will also be the most sexually desired at that point.

We just simply don't know. The fact is our knowledge of biology is scarce of fundamentals. We have pieces here and there, but like a puzzle you can't claim to fully understand a picture with just it's pieces. We just recently found that the shape of DNA actually affects it's transcriptions. Huge wtf from the science community. Even more Epigentics seems further confusing. It's as if our DNA (and other animals) have "Plan B" blueprints in case an environmental change occurs. As an example, high levels of carcinogens in lungs have shown to change gene expression when passed to children.

There are stranger examples yet.

What's feminine anyway?
Vulnerability, being emotional, primness?

>>355881

If by "feminine" you mean, virginal and worshipful, then the death of femininity can't come soon enough.

Yeah, welcome to a world where women get to have the same kind of interests as men, and often respond to them in the same ways. You think that's wrong? Harsh, man. Sucks to be you.

>>357079
>There is no such thing as social evolution.
Every philosopher in history would probably want to slap you right there. For clarification, I didn't mean the sociobiological theory. I meant it as another way of saying societal advancement.

>Traditional social roles developed for genetic reasons: women were weaker than men but they could bear children. Men were stronger than women though they were also more aggressive.
Traditional social roles developed from living in a harsh land with death from giant deadly creatures around every corner and the need to hunt/gather daily... in the fucking stone ages. The last time I checked, men don't club women and drag them off to caves to fuck. At least not sane ones anyway.

That was a traditional social role, knocking women to fuck them and impregnate them. Try doing that now, lets see how long you'll last in society.

>Considering how western society is going down the drain, I think I'm right.
Western society is going down the drain due to various socioeconomic issues that have nothing to do with equal rights for all humans.

>Countries where women are "oppressed" are having more children than ever, getting more and more stronger. Countries where women aren't "oppressed" will be having a hard time keeping up.
Because overpopulation is a sign of a successful country.

>My observation is that if women and men get total equality in terms of responsibilites and rights society will likely collapse.
Your observation is tainted by your blatant bias against women and your ignorance of every societal, political and economic issue outside of your misconceived "injustice" of equal rights for women.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Shouldn't you be in high school by now?

>>357242
so angry

enjoy your crippling depression and loneliness, you don't deserve anything

>>357230
>What's feminine anyway?
Whatever /r9k/ says it is, apparently. I seriously doubt any of you have ever met a woman other than your own mother. Even on that, I'm unsure.

>>357248
Talk so much yet tells so little.

>every x says otherwise
>every y says otherwise
>I think I'm right but I won't tell you why and who I agree with and I won't tell you what I want to tell you either I just want to disagree so bad.exe

How is overpopulation a sign of a successful country you stupid whore?

>>357242
Could you please describe your ruined cunt and beef curtains to the board? Describe how many men have used your body too.

>>357021
>In 1000 years, if humanity is still around, this gender bullshit will be a thing of the past and people like you will all look even more petty in the history books than you do now.

I very much disagree with that.

One consequence of liberalism with regards to gender role egalitarianism is a radical decline in the birth rate. Liberalism seems to be a darwinian blind alley in that it destroys societies through low fecundity and mass immigration.

>>357283
She is strong and indepundent so she LETS alpha outlaw bikers/thugs and/or rich to semi-rich pseudo intelligent hipsters fuck her.

True story!

We reached equality yet women still go for the top 20% of men, who knew?

>>357052
>If your ideal woman us one that's quiet and represses her sexuality, that's pretty fucking sad

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but if you're not a troll and actually believe this, then that's pretty pitiful.

>and you are the reason feminism will never die

Feminism dies when the West dies. White liberalism is a self limiting mental disorder, other races do not possess the ethnomasochism we do.

>Get the fuck out of my /r9k/.

Nope.jpeg

We've always been here and always will be here.

How many men have used that body of yours?

>>355881

Yeah, generally speaking women don't want to get married until they're done with high school or college, kid. Don't mean they never want to get married.

>>357332
>Yeah, generally speaking women don't want to get married until they"ve found a rich and handsome dude

ftfy

>>357248
>Because overpopulation is a sign of a successful country.

It's not a sign of a 'successful country' by your socially constructed metrics, but that's not the point, the point is that the future belongs to the fertile and that races/societies that don't give a fuck about their future enough to even replace themselves through reproduction are doomed.

>>357294
>right-wing conspiracy theorizing against women and minorities

So original.

Emancipation of women has something to do with our historically incomparable level of civilization, and the declining birth rates with our unmatched prosperity. If you don't think educated and prosperous people should live emancipated lives with an individualistic predisposition, then that's your prejudice.

You're welcome to continue wondering why the world's going down the shitter and whores just won't listen to your mission to save the white race, but what your stance boils down to is self-delusion.

>>357370
Yes, exactly, nothing identifies maladaptive evolutionary behavior better than what we see in the West today: Self-hatred, low fertility, tolerance of all vices etc.

In fact, it's not even "tolerance", it's just an endemic apathy towards everything. That's what happened in the last days of the Western Roman Empire, Augustine described how refugees from the sack of Rome, when they arrived in Hippo, only cared to know where the nearest theater or brothel was. They literally didn't give a shit that their city had been sacked and a millenial empire had fallen because endemic apathy is a feature of dying civilizations. Compare that to their conduct during the Second Punic War.

>>357324
>other races do not possess the ethnomasochism we do

You mean that you have. We've been trying to improve our freedoms forever, empowering the individual and attempting to give all humans the chance at happiness. If you think that's wrong and stupid you're the one that hates your own culture.

>>357384
Are demographic trends 'conspiratorial' now?

>and the declining birth rates with our unmatched prosperity

I think there's some truth to that. But Rome also experienced such paradoxically low fertility during the latter period of the 4th and 5th centuries, when it was very prosperous. This ultimately contributed to its decline.

>If you don't think educated and prosperous people should live emancipated lives with an individualistic predisposition, then that's your prejudice.

Individualism in the sense of eschewing group identification is suicidal. The individual's relationship with the group is symbiotic. The individual requires a strong group to survive in the first place, and allow his positive individual aspects to flourish and feed back into the group, making it stronger as well.

Have you read Solzhenitsyn?

>"Before the camps I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn't be noticed - nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps, one learns: if you belong to a successful nation, you are protected and you survive. If you are part of 'universal humanity', too bad for you."

>- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago

>>357324
>White liberalism is a self limiting mental disorder, other races do not possess the ethnomasochism we do.

Poor Japanese and their self-limiting white liberalism. The reason why Japan has the lowest birth rates in the world must be because they're all commies that live in kolhozes.

>>357423
No, I mean that you have. I do not hate my race and the cultures and systems, states and empires and so on European peoples of varying stripes have produced. The people who want to promote one-worldism do though, that's why you see them talking about how White Westerners should have less children to combat overpopulation even though our fertility rates are like.... 1.5.

>>357446

Japanese aren't racially replacing themselves in their own ancestral homeland with people from the third world, that's the difference. When Japan's population falls enough to a point where the cost of living has decline to facilitate larger families again, then you'll see their birth rates spike again.

>>357324
Actually I'm a virgin (inb4 somebody super clever claims nobody would fuck me). How is a woman having sex mean she is being used if it is pleasurable and consensual? Is the guy being used too?

Sex is not bad or gross our morally wrong.

>>357473
*How does

>>357433
>But Rome also experienced such paradoxically low fertility during the latter period of the 4th and 5th centuries, when it was very prosperous

The Empire's population in 300 AD was half of what it was in 150 AD. Like the Indians later, the Romans died of measles in their droves. The world of antiquity cannot compare to our modern world because it was governed by different productive processes and possessed very limited technology.

>Individualism in the sense of eschewing group identification is suicidal

For whom? Today's people who live to an age of 80 in spite of only relying on their immediate family? The changes to our lifestyles have been enormous since WW2.

>>357473
Women attach a higher degree of emotional importance to sex in general, and female promiscuity reflects inherent mental problems more than male promiscuity does, or what are more commonly known as 'daddy issues'.

If men preferring feminine women bothers you that much, perhaps you should leave.

>>357473
Mate.. I'm pretty sure that nobody would ever fuck you.


Have you considered moving to Iceland?

>>357461
>Japanese aren't racially replacing themselves in their own ancestral homeland with people from the third world

Neither is any European nation. The labour that has been brought in from poorer countries came because businesses needed a workforce larger than what was available in the time of the post-war economic boom. These people were never intended to replace the natives, neither was this their wish. They wanted to earn money and go back home, like a quarter of all the Turks that came into Germany eventually did.

I don't know why I just wrote all this, arguing with someone who thinks Europe has a "racial" problem is ludicrous.

>>357507
>The Empire's population in 300 AD was half of what it was in 150 AD.

Rome, the city, was still extremely prosperous in the 3rd and fourth centuries because of the grain dole and various games that were staged almost weekly. It had literally reached the point where a huge proportion of the population didn't actually do anything. In late Republican times after the Marian reforms they'd have been drafted in the military, but in Imperial times they did fuck all. I'm using this to illustrate how badly the Italic stock degraded from the commensurate badasses they were in the second punic war to the late imperial period, when they were very degenerate and apathetic.

Most civilizations follow this pattern though.

>For whom? Today's people who live to an age of 80 in spite of only relying on their immediate family? The changes to our lifestyles have been enormous since WW2.

For everyone. Do you really believe the individual can survive without a strong group? Are you disputing the individual-group symbiotic relationship?

Why didn't you answer my quotation from Solzhenitsyn, he believed in universal humanity just like you at one point.

>>357545
>Neither is any European nation.

Patent nonsense:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8142176/White-Britons-to-become-minority-by-2066.
html

>They wanted to earn money and go back home, like a quarter of all the Turks that came into Germany eventually did.

And 3/4s didn't. See, that was the original plan of the West German Government, but it didn't exactly work out like you're claiming it did.

If you want a good illustration of how European immigration policy changed, see the report commissioned by the French Taxpayers Association, from 1947 to 1970, immigrants to France had the same rates of employment, welfare dependency etc as native French. After the 1970 liberalization laws for residency and citizenship and work permits and family reunification, these differentials skyrocketed.

It wil be the same with Denmark now their own strict immigration laws are being taken down.

>>357059
>common damn sense

This means "something I believe without having any rational reason to believe it. Also I am a huge faggot, please rape my face"

>>357579
By the way, I'm European. You're probably just some sunshine and rainbows American liberal.

>>356041

Women are very weakly, if at all, driven by their biological instincts. They do not care about their future, they care about now. The hedonism and lack of personal responsibility encouraged in our age only exacerbates that.

Patriarchy has existed for a long time to keep women contained, that is its purpose, to give society structure.

The liberal experiment of feminism in this past century is just that, an experiment. It is not capable of sustaining itself and will burn out. I already see it happening in this generation because women have stopped caring what feminism means, rather, now they only use it to justify their lack of accountability.

>>357551
>It had literally reached the point where a huge proportion of the population didn't actually do anything

...because Romans were decadent or because Rome was in a constant political crisis owing to its unhealthy wealth distribution cause by the victory of the military aristocracy in the 3rd century BC? What caused Rome's military expansion was the same thing that led to its supposed decadence.

>Italic stock degraded

Do you have cranial measurements to prove this?

>Do you really believe the individual can survive without a strong group?

Very broad question. I think what matters now is an international symbolic order. Why else do you think that the citizens of Monaco feel safe surrounded by France and without an army?

>Why didn't you answer my quotation from Solzhenitsyn, he believed in universal humanity just like you at one point.

Didn't seem like sound reasoning to me. Solzhenitsin belonged to a strong nation, at the time of his writing probably the strongest one on Earth. When looking to salvation, he must have mistook strength for prosperity. What you need to survive is a wide availability of resources and capital, not the very thing that caused his imprisonment, the strong Stalinist nation.

>>357596
>By the way, I'm European. You're probably just some sunshine and rainbows American liberal.

No, I'm Slovenian.

Allow me to make a generalization OP, as you've done. The reason it's so hard to find "feminine" girls is because there's no real men left. A real man would provide for his family, and never leave. Because of all these dads and husbands skipping town, we've come to realize that independence is the only thing worth having in this world. So if you want a traditional woman, become a traditional man.

>>357596
By the way, "European" is becoming a suspect term, at least on the internet, where various self-made traditionalists peddle it to justify their hatred of women, brown skin and humanist knowledge.

>>357623
lol Slovenia, the Little Poland of the South!

>>357642
Poland? Are a British xenophobe looking to frame Slovenians as imported manual laborers? I honestly don't know what Poland has to do with my country.

>>357605
>because Romans were decadent or because Rome was in a constant political crisis owing to its unhealthy wealth distribution cause by the victory of the military aristocracy in the 3rd century BC? What caused Rome's military expansion was the same thing that led to its supposed decadence.

Both. The wealth distribution in Imperial times doesn't strike me as particularly disproportionate when compared to other world Empires though.

>What caused Rome's military expansion was the same thing that led to its supposed decadence.

No, Rome's military expansion was caused by a number of things, not least the strong sense of civic virtue. They bucked Hellenistic trends by having a leadership caste that would fight to the death rather than sign peace treaties that were of disadvantage to them, as was the custom amongst the Diadochoi states in the Greek East. They were prepared to endure tremendous hardships as a result of this, you cannot simply boil this all down to geographical determinism like some kind of retarded liberal.

>Do you have cranial measurements to prove this?

No, I think it's pretty obvious from the latter days of the Empire that it had suffered from dysgenic fertility though, at least in Italy itself.

It's not just decline in psychometric g anyway. It's decline in bravery and physical courage too. This seems logical enough to assume when you consider the professional armies were increasingly made up of provincials and then later on, foederati. Consider that virtually ALL of Belisarius' army in the Eastern Roman Empire was made up of foreign mercernaries.

>I think what matters now is an international symbolic order.

Internationalism is not a unifying concept. Nobody is truly unified by vague liberal 'ideals' like 'tolerance' which don't even mean anything without contextualization anyway. People are defined far more by ancestry.

>>357666
>By the way, "European" is becoming a suspect term

It's no more suspect than "African" or "East Asian" or "Indian" - it describes a cultural zone in much the same way (made up of numerous ethnic groups, linguistic groups etc).

>Why else do you think that the citizens of Monaco feel safe surrounded by France and without an army?

Not sure what your point is here. How does Monaco's existence invalidate the fact individual identity and group identity are symbiotic? (Still can't believe you're questioning something so elementary).

>Solzhenitsin belonged to a strong nation, at the time of his writing probably the strongest one on Earth.

Based around left-liberal principles of universality of humanity, which was his exact point. Nice one glossing that over.

>>357638
>hatred of women

[citation needed]

>brown skin

I think this is somewhat over the top. I don't want to be racially replaced by people from the Indian subcontinent or the Middle East or North Africa, but that doesn't mean I have any particularly pronounced hatred for them. Please refrain from appeals to emotion like this.

>>357629
>So if you want a traditional woman, become a traditional man.

Yes, I agree. Traditionalists are not like "Men's Rights Activists", we eschew the idea of societies based around "rights" and instead hold that civilizations/societies are based on the more organic idea of mutual obligations/duties. A society with no men prepared to perform their traditional roles cannot expect to have traditional women either. Every civilization produces the women it deserves.

>>357684
Just to follow up on the "European" point - My basic point is that you can quite easily apply your subversive deconstructivist attacks to any other idea of broadly shared identity to say, Africans, The "Arab World", Indians etc.

Hm.

>In addition, an ever growing group of Third World immigrants is dependent on welfare. A study by Tyra Ekhaugen of the Frisch Centre for Economic Research and the University of Oslo concluded that immigration has increased the pressure on the welfare state, because many immigrants do not join the tax-paying part of the population.

>Third World immigrants are, the study showed, recipients of social security benefits at a rate ten times that of native Norwegians - destroying the liberal argument used by pro-immigration politicians in Norway that immigration was necessary to maintain the social welfare state.

>More than half of all social security benefits in the city of Oslo are spent on non-Western immigrants. Immigrants from Africa have the highest unemployment rate, with official figures in 2005 showing a black unemployment rate of 17.5 percent.

>Immigrants from Asia had an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent, while those from South and Central America had an unemployment rate of 10.1 percent. The average unemployment rate amongst native Norwegians was 2.4 percent.

>>357666
>No, Rome's military expansion was caused by a number of things, not least the strong sense of civic virtue.

Civic virtue didn't mean anything to the grain dole class. Rome's period of domination of the Mediterranean coincides with the Marian reforms and the crisis of the Republic, culminating in 50 years of civil war from Sula to Octavian. The result was an autarchic system which did not provide for the people who actually served in the legions, leading to ever greater impoverishment of said people and the reliance on slaves for the cultivation of the enormous estates, acquired through extortion and corruption, that came to replace petty landholders. As in other societies, honor and duty were the domain of the class that was robbing the common man blind.

>Consider that virtually ALL of Belisarius' army in the Eastern Roman Empire was made up of foreign mercernaries.

Which is curious, considering that the Eastern Empire was very much populous at the time, containing dozens of large cities. Perhaps this was because Belisarius lead an expeditionary force, and not a stationary legion such as were posted on the Danube and Euphrates.

>>355881
Trust me (I'm an old anon), you want a girl who's gotten out there and fucked around (as long as she hasn't caught anything) because when she picks you, she will know what's out there and will be much happier with YOU. You do the same thing. Once you've pounded enough pussy, you will realize that they all have them, and you will pay attention to who they are and not their tits and box.

Even the sweet feminine ones.

>Male dominated imageboard
>Bring up gender equality
>Misogynistic circle jerk of opinionated confirmation bias

Shocker.

>>357727
>Civic virtue didn't mean anything to the grain dole class.

Not in the mid to late Imperial period, no.

>Rome's period of domination of the Mediterranean coincides with the Marian reforms and the crisis of the Republic, culminating in 50 years of civil war from Sula to Octavian.

No, Rome became the predominant power in the Med basin after the Second Punic War. The only real threat to their power after that came from the Mithridatic Wars, and even then Mithridates was seen off quite easily. The Parthians are another matter as they were an Empire centered around the Iranian plateau, not really a Med Empire.

>and the reliance on slaves for the cultivation of the enormous estates

I think you're a little behind the times here, the idea that slaves constituted the bulk of the workforce on the Latifundia hasn't really held any popularity amongst Classicists/Ancient Historians for a while. Even in Egypt papyri show that most of the workers on most big estates were paid laborers. Read some Fergus Millar if you want a more up to date view of the role of the slave laborer in Antiquity. He's written a number of essays about it

>As in other societies, honor and duty were the domain of the class that was robbing the common man blind.

How very Marxist, I suppose you're going to tell me that the Gracchi were revolutionaries next.

>Perhaps this was because Belisarius lead an expeditionary force, and not a stationary legion such as were posted on the Danube and Euphrates.

"Legions" didn't really exist in Justinian's era.

>>357684
>it describes a cultural zone

According to traditionalists, a cultural zone of patriarchy, Christian fundamentalism and endemic militancy. What the contents of a culture are, is always open for dispute.

>How does Monaco's existence invalidate the fact individual identity and group identity are symbiotic?

You are equating group identity with national identity a priori.

>Based around left-liberal principles of universality of humanity

The old aristocratic semantic trick: Stalin's prisons were the inevitable result of the egalitarian idea. This cheap tactic fails at first scrutiny, when the opposing side asks how exactly did the spiritual aristocrat arrive at this conjunction, owing to what logic.

>mfw reading OP

OP, you're trying to define my gender for me.

What is "feminine" to you? To sit at home and churn out babies? Really? It saddens me that you think that finding out what I really want out of life means ONLY to fuck a bunch of guys. It sounds to me like you just don't give a fuck about what women want or need, and as long as you're that biased and closed to what women desire, you're gonna be foreveralone.jpg

>>357772
>You are equating group identity with national identity a priori.

No I'm not. I'm basing it around common ancestry/race, though there are examples of workable civic identities operating at a group level.

>The old aristocratic semantic trick: Stalin's prisons were the inevitable result of the egalitarian idea.

Strawman. I never said they were although they -nearly always- are. The reason egalitarianism leads to greater and greater totalitarianism is because it is completely unworkable as a principle, it's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The more the left-liberal attempts to do it, the more frustrated he becomes and the more he resorts to using the power of the state to attempt to bring about parity.

This is because left-liberals cannot accept the idea of innate inequality as they're quasi-creationists ('evolution stops at the neck').

>>355881
I, for one, wish more women were like a true Scotsman.

>>357815
>contents of the culture

At the most basic level, Greek thought and art, Roman (or Roman derived) law and Christianity.

>You are equating group identity with national identity a priori.

No I'm equating it with race and common ancestry and that's the most organic form of group identity.

>Stalin's prisons were the inevitable result of the egalitarian idea.

I never said that, I said that the Soviet Union, at least before the Khrushchev era and Russification was based around the principle of universality of humanity. Gulags don't necessarily flow from this, although I'd argue obsessive egalitarianism of the kind you seem to believe in, and the Bolsheviks did too, certainly leads to greater and greater totalitarianism because leftists are incapable of understanding the idea of inequality at a biological/physiological level. Thus when you see inequalities of outcome that conflict with your religious belief of 'If everyone is treated the same, everyone will be the same because all is conditioned', you resort to employing state poweer to bring about parity between various groups performing at unequal average levels.

>>357808
>finding out what I really want out of life means ONLY to fuck a bunch of guys

The sales figures of Eat, Pray, Love do not lie.

>>357815
>I'm basing it around common ancestry/race

You believe ethno-nationalism is an objective/natural, and not a constructed, identity. But in reality, the only natural groupation that people accept is the clan broken into "septs", which is a far cry from the nation, which is constructed purely through speech, and not expediency or biology.

>This is because left-liberals cannot accept the idea of innate inequality as they're quasi-creationists ('evolution stops at the neck').

So Stalinism happened because liberals didn't want to admit that Africans are in average dumber than Europeans?

>>357815

Yes, some people are retarded, that's true. The principle behind egalitarianism is that everybody should have equal opportunities to prove themselves, not the presumption that every person is exactly equal. I am more useful to society than some Downsie kid, and someone like Albert Einstein is more useful than me. Evolution isn't really a function here though, because the selective pressures in favor of intelligence are not as strong on a generation to generation level as is genetic variation. Over time yes, people are becoming as a rule smarter, but you're still going to have fucking moronic invalids on about the same scale as ten or twenty years ago. I, as a woman, should not be stereotyped out of the opportunity to practice law if that's my personal bent, and that is the idea behind egalitarianism: We should ALL have the same opportunities to fail or succeed, not cut some people out of the running because of their skin tone or what genitalia they have.

>>357854
Using that same logic, everyone in the world lusts to be gigantic fighting robots fighting other gigantic fighting robots.

Movie sales prove nothing other than good marketing.

>>357848
>At the most basic level, Greek thought and art, Roman (or Roman derived) law and Christianity

Nice synopsis of Medieval culture, but why Greek art and not Christian art? And what of our modern era with its modern art and theory? Why is it "not as western" as the Greeks and Romans?

>because leftists are incapable of understanding the idea of inequality at a biological/physiological level.

Like the idea of the French aristocracy under the ancien regime that the French peasants are of Gallo-Roman stock, and they themselves are conquering Franks? If you are consistent, you should believe that every nation is composed of two races - the peasant race and the conquering race.

>>357857
>You believe ethno-nationalism is an objective/natural, and not a constructed, identity.
>But in reality, the only natural groupation that people accept is the clan broken into "septs", which is a far cry from the nation, which is constructed purely through speech, and not expediency or biology.

Not sure what you mean here, are you claiming that because taxonomic subdivision can divide up individual ethnic groups, this means common ancestral identity doesn't exist? The whole point of common ancestral identity is that people choose to define themselves in different ways, a tribe can mean differing things to differing people, but it nearly always means common ancestry to some degree or another.

>So Stalinism happened because liberals didn't want to admit that Africans are in average dumber than Europeans?

No, Bolshevism happened because a particularly verbally dexterous group of people incited the urban poor against the aristocracy using egalitarian rhetoric to justify it.

>>357283
>mfw he thinks that beef curtains are caused by having sex
>mfw I have no face

Threads like this are hilarious. Keep it up, robots.

>>357867
Chick's right. Equal opportunities differ from everyone simply being equal.

Unless, you know, you're willing to run for office on the platform of marginalizing women/other minority groups. Good luck with that.

>>357854

Most of the women I know have a copy of that book, and most of the women I know who have read that book thought it was idiotic (like most of the garbage Oprah endorses). Regardless of the fact that my friends and I are not representative of the general populace, the general populace doesn't determine what specific individuals want. Just because I am X, and 60% of X likes y, it does not follow that I necessarily like y.

My point that others do not get to determine what my gender means to me still stands as well. Anyone who says that a man's job is to go play Let's Catch Bullets in Iraq is, let's face it, a complete fucking retard. Why is it okay to say that a woman's role is to make babies? That's a personal decision to make. And what's more it's a double standard because not many people bitch about men sleeping around before they settle down. Why is it so important for women not to express sexuality?

>>357867
>The principle behind egalitarianism is that everybody should have equal opportunities to prove themselves

Right, this is the problem. Alas leftists have a religious belief in human equality/blank slate theory.

Then when you see that there are unequal outcomes, which conflicts with your religious belief that everyone has identical capabilities, you resort to racial or gender based discrimination against higher achievers to bring about race/gender parity(affirmative action/set-asides/case law tests for 'employment discrimination'). The evolution of firefighting physical examinations since the end of gender barriers to that particular area of employment is a good example of this.

Unfortunately in a completely unbiased society where everyone is judged based on abilities, different groups will have differing outcomes and a hierarchy will emerge. Equal outcomes and equal opportunity are mutually exclusive.

>>357892
>Nice synopsis of Medieval culture

It's actually more of a High Middle Ages onwards thing. The Early Middle Ages had these ideas milling about, but they started to be synthesized in a systematic way from the 11th century, although I suppose you could argue the Carolingian Age played the embryonic role in all of this.

>Christian art

What kind of Christian art are you talking about? Iconography? Renaissance Art with Christian motifs and themes? Those are still largely Greek in origin.

>And what of our modern era with its modern art and theory?

That's art completely out of touch with ancestral precedent, so it exists in a cultural void. Posterity will consign it to the dustbin where it belongs.

For the record, do you apply this deconstruction to other similarly constructed broad group identities like "Indian" or "African"?

>If you are consistent, you should believe that every nation is composed of two races - the peasant race and the conquering race.

Why should that be true? Inequality is omnipresent, it exists within as well as between races. It's everywhere. The existence of group inequality within a race doesn't necessarily mean those groups are different races. That's more of a matter of whether or not they satisfy the varying definitions of 'subspecies'.

>>357922
>Unless, you know, you're willing to run for office on the platform of marginalizing women/other minority groups.

The United States is already a nation of tribes, as European Nations are increasingly becoming.

These 'minority groups' have no qualms about advancing what they see as their own common interests as a race.

They do not buy into your idea of a universal humanity. Not in the slightest.

>>357944

>Inequality is omnipresent, it exists within as well as between races. It's everywhere.

I wouldn't say that inequality is omnipresent so much as equality is non-existent and unnatural.

>>357934
Not the person you were responding to.

>Unfortunately in a completely unbiased society where everyone is judged based on abilities, different groups will have differing outcomes and a hierarchy will emerge.

Name one unbiased society.

>>357871
Eat Pray Love was marketed and sold as realistic fiction towards a specific female demographic.

Fighting robot stuff is pure escapism.

Modern women are obsessed with sex.