/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>but feminism as a whole movement over the last 50 years had a few good points

The bullshit vastly, vastly, vastly outweighs "the good points".

>During both world wars a lot of woman entered the industrial workforce

This is good… why? Generally, women should be at home looking after children, not out working some job. And I swear to G-d, if you say "muh stay-at-home husbands".

>The large success of females in the education system would also point towards this not being a mistake

Large success? Women still don't make a significant amount of top positions in important fields (no, gender studies is not important) and it's not because of "patriarchy" or "muhsoggyknee".

In general, I think most of the new online right today believes that women should be allowed to be educated if they wish but the problem is that today it's pushed SO FUCKING HARD.

Like, a woman MUST BE EDUCATED, SHE MUST WORK! Oh, you're a house wife? You poor poor thing! So oppressed, soooo marginalized! You should go to college honey, get a degree, go work, that'll make you haaaaappy and FREE! Arbeit macht frei!

Women working is terrible for marriage and monogamous relationships, women WILL NOT MARRY A MAN POORER THAN HERSELF IN 99% OF CASES. There are statistics proving this, I don't have the sources off by hand but you can probably easily find some via Google. With college being mostly women now and most graduations being women, this is terrible for men and society in general. The typical age of procreation goes up, children become sicker due to being born by an older woman, women are more stressed because of work, two working parents = poorly raised children, raised by society+workers at some fucking daycare instead of their parents.

Everybody losses when women work (in mass, not when the few that direly wish to and those who are very intelligent), even women themselves. I say, most women would happier being a housewife than working. This is a big uh, broad statement and generalization but come on… who actually likes working 99% of jobs? They're mundane, boring and shitty.

You ask me, I'd rather be at home looking after kids, cooking and cleaning than being a secretary or whatever the fuck.

The only people who WIN when women work in mass is… you guessed it, big business and government (in the hands of big business). Ahh, a bigger workforce, lower wages, easier to control populace and generations of children raised by government+business. They love it, while you goyim have to both work and send your children to some daycare or whatever, the richies are sending their children to private schools and of course, they don't have to work two jobs, oh no.

But, that's enough on this point. You can see what I'm getting at here.

>Likewise, what's up with homosexuality hate?

In urban areas homosexuality is thrown in your face and appears to be intentionally disrespectful. It's similar to a teen throwing a tantrum or going through a phase. I can do this regardless of what society thinks and I will because that's who I am. Gay Pride parades are the pinnacle of this. It's anything but discreet.

If there were no gay pride parades and gay advocacy groups weren't pushing hard on gay marriage, really, nobody would give a fuck. Case closed, homosexuality is bad but eh, who cares, not a problem really when between consenting adults.

>Would the existence of a machine that allowed one to magically change their body to whatever gender they wanted be that bad for society?

Hypothetical arguments are pointless.

>homosexual child-rearing then

Doesn't exist, only option is adoption. Being raised by two fathers is as bad as being raised by a single mother. Example, a child raised from birth by two fathers instead of father+mother would have to be bottlefed rather than breastfed, this results in dumber children.

Understand that I cannot speak for anyone but myself. With that in mind, I'm going to pick on the one most naive which is not a bad thing, by any means, it simply means you're innocent thing.

>Would the existence of a machine that allowed one to magically change their body to whatever gender they wanted be that bad for society? I cannot think of why this would be a bad thing

The problem isn't my gender roles are being liberated and freely exchanged, it's that the people who go in for these sorts of operations and major changes to their body chemistry and lives are doing so with the false impression that their problems will be solved when they do so.

Those in the low-risk category, both before and after the procedure, have roughly a 35% chance of attempting suicide. You're less likely to have a quarter in your pocket amid ten coins than that. Other studies reveal that up to 70% of them have suicidal thoughts, regardless of whether they're transitioning, already transitioned, or before they begin the process. These are bad, bad things, and there's little evidence that mindfucking everyone into accepting transsexuality will do anything to affect this.

A lot of research into some form of alternative treatment needs to be done, because what we've got now isn't working.

>Would transgenderism be suddenly ok if we could create fertile sex organs?

Maybe it would be. Maybe all it would take for these people to get better would be the ability to reproduce after the fact.

I know I'd feel better if I knew I could still reproduce after being conned into paying thousands of dollars for the privilege of having my genitals mutilated.

>>14677

I'll give you a short answer - the destruction of nuclear family and blurring the lines of morality. To put it even shorter, it's undermining the foundations of the civilization.

>>14677

One word:

Subversion

Feminism all the way from first wave was 1 anti family and 2 anti tradition

Whether it was fully Jewish from the start is also something to consider

>>14683

The foundation of civilization isn't the nuclear family.

>>14708

You seem to be missing the point. Whether that's deliberate or not is unclear.

The nuclear family is part of the foundation of Western civilization. A foundation isn't a single thing, it's a mix of things, similar to the concrete that makes up the foundation of a building.

You don't end up with such a thing by hucking a bunch of crushed rocks on the ground. You combine it with cement and water, and end up with concrete, something that can more readily withstand the elements.

>>14708

Even secular social science consistently shows that it is by far the best environment to raise healthy persons in. Single parenthood is literal cancer for society.

>>14677

>Why is there so much hate from the national self-interest groups society-damaging subversion groups?

lol

OP here.

>>14679

>>14681

Good points, thank you.

A note on the transgender surgery; the first intuitive explanation to a high suicide rate after surgery would be the societal rejection and usually ugly result of the surgery - this would improve with better techniques and/or acceptance . Are there any good reasons to think that the problem is deeper than that?

>>14686

(Referring to the image)

I thought homosexuality was a crime in many western jurisdictions for quite some time. At least wikipedia notes its decriminalization in eg. the UK only between 1967 and 1982, and I wasn't aware that eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Conviction_for_indecency was a rape case or anything similar. This isn't exactly 'No-one cared', and the movements that demolished that were probably justified. I see the point for everything onwards, though; identity politics are a nuisance.

>>14708

>>14711

>>14713

What about large extended-family houses? Didn't those comprise the majority of european households until quite recently?

At least anecdotally, I even had grandparents that lived in such.

Much food for thought, this thread has served its purpose. Thank you all.

>>15081

>the first intuitive explanation to a high suicide rate after surgery would be the societal rejection and usually ugly result of the surgery

Who can say for certain? One could make the argument that these are the only problems, which could be fixed as you describe, but…

The social rejection thing can easily be shown with a quick Google search.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127-story.html

http://www.gires.org.uk/assets/Medpro-Assets/trans_mh_study.pdf

Yes, having a support group helps lessen the chances of post-op suicide. That said, you're still looking at that low-risk category, which is still entirely too high.

These are the people who are surrounded by loving friends and family, have successful jobs, don't have any other prevalent mental illnesses, and are not HIV-positive. These are the people who go in for the surgery and have roughly 35% chance of trying to kill themselves anyway.

So sure, one could chalk it up to rejection, but one could just as easily attribute it to the price of the surgery, the anesthetic involved, or whether insurance companies were required to cover it.

Further, it also comes down to solutions and the feasibility of them. Can you more easily change the minds of entire nations on the subject or stop performing the surgeries until you find a better answer to something that's clearly a problem? Can you, in good conscience, demand an unknown number of families to emotionally support someone who has this problem regardless of how they feel about it?

>>15081

>At least anecdotally, I even had grandparents that lived in such.

It's true. Smaller family houses are profitable for certain types of landowners.

>>15081

>Are there any good reasons to think that the problem is deeper than that?

http://www.cclmaine.org/transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution/

>The transgendered suffer a disorder of “assumption” like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one’s maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

>>14677

Anyone that thinks they need to mutilate themselves to be better is not deserving of respect from me.

You are who you are and if you cannot embrace yourself without bedazzling yourself in whatever chaotic way you see fit, then what is the point? You obviously hate yourself and want to be something else? But why? Either society has made you ashamed of believing yourself and makes you wish to be things your not, or your mental state affects this.

I could never change myself no matter what features I hate in myself. But even the simplicity of my words - people that do these plastic surgeries, sex "changes", and whatever humanity can muster up to make monsters of themselves is the most ludicrous thing I have witnessed on this planet.

tl;dr if you have to physically change yourself through surgery or make inane classifications for yourself then you are truly not being yourself, you're making yourself something else.

>>15123

I will also add onto my post that, if this is not a mental affliction, then I don't know what anything is.

I don't understand why people put so much energy into fighting homosexuals. They are very few in numbers and they do not pose a threat to anyone. There are dozens of more important issues to focus on. Besides, right now gay people can only feel at home with the lefties, which encourages degeneracy and dangerous and promiscuous behaviour. If we were more welcome to gay people in general, but still opposed degeneracy, then I'm certain that the level of degeneracy among homosexual people would drastically decrease. I do not believe that gay people are our enemies.

I also don't hate trans people. I truly believe that they're mentally ill, and that "progressive" people are exploiting them. I have suffered through a temporary psychosis in the past, and I know just how "real" insanity can feel. Hating sick people is wrong, hate the people who are exploiting them instead.

>>15130

I think that gay people are quite bad, but if we wouldn't have ay gay parades, homosexual adoption or gay marriages we could welcome them. Like the american millitary used to don't ask, don't tell. If they wouldn't say publicly that they're gay. I wouldn't be opposed.

>>15138

I should Excuse myself from any spelling or grammar mistakes because I'm quite drunk atm, but I found it quite urgent to reply to these posts.

>>14679

> Example, a child raised from birth by two fathers instead of father+mother would have to be bottlefed rather than breastfed, this results in dumber children.

Excellent post, but do you have a source for this?

>>15138

Since you are probably referring to legal gay marriage (instead of religious one), why do you consider this a problem? Allowing arbitrary legal unions between people seems like a simplification that doesn't really cost anything to me.

>>15141

Not that poster, but it's a problem for example in the sense that many people are uncomfortable being around homosexuals or eg. showering in the same communal shower. So being public about it does complicate things a bit.

>>15123

And what's wrong with that?

Derailing a bit from the subject here, what if the way I am is missing an arm? What if the way I am is with a cloven face? What if the way I am is normal enough to pass, but slightly weaker? What if the way I am is perfectly normal, but I'd like to have 4 arms because that's useful and cool? What if the way I am is perfectly normal, but I know that I can get better social results by having more perfect breasts (as a women)?

Our bodies are far from perfect, if that were even a thing. What's wrong with wanting to fix that?

>>15130

I somewhat agree, with the caveat that determining who is really suffering from gender dysphoria and who is just under social pressure of some kind is hard.

>>15141

>Allowing arbitrary legal unions between people seems like a simplification that doesn't really cost anything to me.

I'd rather remove the gov altogether from marriage.

>>14677

>Why is there so much hate from the natsoc/hardright/pol community on feminism, LGBT and transgenderism?

Because it's all anti-White and Jewish promoted.

Check out sections 18, 25 and 27.

http://pastebin.com/TzZC78cp

Women are the more primitive sex. They mature earlier which is a hallmark of a more primitive organism. They have a more primitive sex drive, poorer mate selection which is why they have been confined to their homes in traditional societies.

As for homosexuality now any close friendship between males is assumed to be sexual when it most likely is platonic and even if it is sexual as long as it not prosmiscious who cares? You can love men without having to adopt a gay identity. The gay identity is a socially constructed ahistorical "pseudo-national identity" with it's own flags and political agenda. Men have loved men forever without turning it into a cultish pseudo-nationality which punishes traitors who do not conform and ostracizes everyone else. Men and women are different no matter what feminists say, the dynamics between male-male relationships and male-female relationships are completely different. Rare intersex conditions do not change that by proving nurture over nature, whether nature or nurture, even if it is all nurture the nurture is so absolutely overwhelming it would take countless centuries to change it.

I have a theory that the war against Afghanistan is a race war against the last traditional people many of whom are ostensibly white and maintain the lifestyle of ancient Greece where women are kept confined and boys are cherished, unlike the dystopian West where boys are demonized for their free-spirited resistance to domination, unlike females who just go along with any old consumerist fashion or fad that is pushed on them.

LGBT and feminism have always been leftist allies. There are a few that want to be our allies now, maybe because they know the new right will win, but more likely because it is a way to be an even more special snowflake.

Also, they are diametrically opposed to the ideals of Natsocs, traditionalists etc.

Finally, they have absolutely nothing we need. They offer us nothing, they bring nothing to the table.

If a homo wants to be a nationalist, the first thing he should do is get deep in the closet.

>>14711

yes, you're right. because every civilization, empire, or technological wonder was built with homosexuality as a basis.

Rome right?

Babylon?

The Chinese Dynasties?

maybe the British Empire?

no.

maybe it was the Egyptians?

What happened to all of these great civilizations?

How did they fall?

Decadence,overabundance, opulence, and degeneracy.

Care to guess which one homosexuality falls under?

>>15141

>Since you are probably referring to legal gay marriage (instead of religious one), why do you consider this a problem?

A month late, I realize, but I'll still entertain the question.

The answer is less about the morality, I think, than it is about the investment. Consider the purpose of the legal benefits of marriage for a moment. Why would anyone get married in this day and age, or at any point? Why not just flit about, free as a bird, and enjoy single life forever?

One possible answer is that there are benefits and special privileges provided for those who marry. For instance, insurances and other such things can be accounted for with a family unit, which one would otherwise have to pay extra for. Tax breaks are another reason, perhaps more relevant to the topic at hand.

Why would such a thing apply to any couple, regardless of the hetero or homosexual nature of the partners? What possible purpose could be served by this? The government is basically sacrificing possible revenue for people who are in love.

The most obvious reason why they would do such a thing would be that such a heterosexual pair of partners would be more likely and able to reproduce, thus allowing for a more populous nation. For all intents and purposes, the homosexual couple cannot provide this without adopting another couple's offspring or otherwise getting a third party to donate some genetic material.

While one might consider these to be equivalent to conceiving, birthing, and raising a child, it's more resource-intensive than the heterosexual marriage option. One must supply paperwork to adopt children, nurseries and other such shenanigans to house and feed the children to be rescued from the orphanages like pets.

Suffice to say that, while it's certainly possible to do all of these things, they are not a desirable alternative to giving a break to a pair of people with a stake in the future that can look them in the eye and ask them questions.

>>15490

There are several benefits through marriage that don't involve the state paying, like right-to-visit-on-deathbed or inheritance issues, or even common finances. Yes, most of these things can be somehow done without a marriage, but doing so is complicated and the whole point of marriage is to have a package of contracts that already deal with 90% of the problems.

Going specific on my country, switzerland, from http://www.familienleben.ch/leben/hochzeit/ehe-vorteile-und-nachteile-40 , almost everything seems to be ways to either arrange inheritance or arrange communal money and legal common representation.

The only tax-related things stem from the fact that a married pair pays their taxes together, as a unit, and hence because nonlinear taxes often pay more than they would individually if both earn money. I'm guessing the tax subsidies you refer to mostly exist to compensate for this, and not to encourage having children (that's usually done by per-child or family subsidies, no?).

>>15503

It's a little different in America, I believe.

I won't get into the details of it, but suffice it to say that there are tax breaks and other assorted benefits on married couples. The practical upshot of this is that it becomes easier, financially, to have a kid.