edfd64 No.86
I got banned from /gg/ for posting basic facts about female nature. unfortunately, a lot of those guys seem like they're one blowjob away from becoming feminists.
I've never understood this craving to shoehorn women into the industry. they clearly don't have the capability to handle the work, hence their lack of desire to enter STEM fields. hey, I suck at math too, but you don't see me screaming at people to accept me as some kind of computer programming genius.
it seems like that shit about "not pressuring" people to do something they don't want to do goes out the window when it comes to gender relations. women are expected to get careers they can't handle, and men are expected to walk into the frivorce/family court meat grinder and accept their role as a walking ATM until they blow their brains out or set themselves on fire on the court house steps (I definitely know which one I would PREFER to be pressured into, btw).
it's possible that some of these people who haven't accepted the truth yet are just kids, but I think there's also heavy amounts of feminist brainwashing at play.
I'm always up for some informed debate. key words: informed, and debate. we don't ban people here just because they don't see things the way we do. I highly doubt we would end up banning anyone for any reason (posting cp?). it's this kind of integrity that has earned us so many enemies over the course of our lives, and the entire run of the swc blog. argue all you want, but I'm already starting off with a 50,000 point advantage.
edfd64 No.87
I should add one other potential reason why people have a hard time accepting my points.
I don't differentiate between feminism and female nature.
a lot of people aren't used to seeing that stated without apology. they automatically assume that all the problems women cause are just the result of feminism, or "radfems" or "SJWs" or whatever label is being applied to the far left in whatever era we reside. but none of this shit would have been possible if not for average women who accepted it without complaint.
824867 No.88
>>86That infographic always annoyed me in that it makes it sound like feminism's influence has moved in a constant straight line since the 20's. It overlooks the rather important bits about how once western society got tripled fucked by economic depression and wars, there was a resurgence of traditional family values that lasted during the 30's through 50's and feminism only started to regain it's foothold once the economic boom of the 60's started.
f856f1 No.89
>I've never understood this craving to shoehorn women into the industry.It's similar to the PR shills/mobile investors claiming Nintendo is somehow destitute, because they won't license out to iOS and Android on a silver platter. They are outsiders presenting a non-existent problem that ~*only they*~ are the savior of. Those who shout down the loudest about supposed inequality actually believe in heavy segregation, and all-in for an incomprehensible caste system - One that they can directly profit from, of course.
Overall, there are a lot of women, both historically, and contemporarily in the industry. They just aren't typically programmers/engineers.
Scammers noticed a ton of money untapped by them, especially with Kickstarter opening publicly, and gamers were just "soft targets" to trample over. Technically that does hold some truth when you look at the "journos" bending over backwards to show how they are totally more progressive than those other white male nerds (or whatever the daily boogeyman is). I think even the meek tech nerd folk can see through that BS, and it's not working as well as the histrionic twitterati hoped. At the end of the day nerds can still create, and hipsters are stuck working the cash register prattling on about how great they are. Their self-anointed role as the purveyors of taste is loooong since over with them failing to notice. The free money is running out.
>>88I've been thinking about it a lot too, and usually economic depressions or wartime wipes those people out. A product of the fat of the land. Once it's time to lean they are fucked. On the other hand, you could also end up with the radicals winning out to install the totalitarian state nightmare that gets them wet.
Unfortunately, we all suffer. When Rome falls - it falls for all.
edfd64 No.100
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sexodus-Part-1-The-Men-Giving-Up-On-Women-And-Checking-Out-Of-Society/welp, now milo is saying what we've already been saying. I guess he would get banned from /gg/ now, if he posted his actual views.
>Donovan has views on why it has been so easy for feminists to triumph in media battles. "Because men instinctively want to protect women and play the hero, if a man writes even a tentative criticism of women or feminism, he's denounced by men and women alike as some kind of extremist scoundrel. The majority of "men's studies" and "men's rights" books and blogs that aren't explicitly pro-feminist are littered with apologies to women. "Books like The Myth of Male Power and sites like A Voice for Men are favourite boogeymen of feminists, but only because they call out feminists' one-sided hypocrisy when it comes to pursing 'equality.'">Unlike modern feminists, who are driving a wedge between the sexes, Men's Rights Activists "actually seem to want sexual equality," he says. But men's studies authors and male academics are constantly tip-toeing around and making sure they don't appear too radical. Their feminine counterparts have no such forbearance, of course, with what he calls "hipster feminists," such as the Guardian's Jessica Valenti parading around in t-shirts that read: "I BATHE IN MALE TEARS.">"I'm a critic of feminism," says Donovan. "But I would never walk around wearing a shirt that says, "I MAKE WOMEN CRY." I'd just look like a jerk and a bully."see, I'm not a monster.
dcc1e5 No.101
No wonder even gg didn't want anything to do with you- you people are literally insane. The first infographic quotes "MRA"'s from 1927, when the movement didn't even exist as such back then, chastising women for wanting rights. At that point the Equal Pay act had yet to be passed for decades, so of course women needed to fight further for their rights. And these are the people you're painting as not going far enough- what do you want, for women to be legally allowed to be paid less for the exact same job? (Ignoring the modern wage gap which is more complicated than it was then.) Even if you assume the Equal pay act did resolve everything in terms of equal pay, to this day, many women do not have access to proper health care- I mean there are states where abortion clinics are more than a day's drive away, and conservatives are doing their best to chip away at reproductive rights. And this is ignoring the whole "women are inherently inferior" attitude throughout these stupid infographics- I don't even know where to start with that.
edfd64 No.102
File: 1417736280208.gif (672.02 KB, 255x224, 255:224, tumblr_inline_mhwa3hVgUe1r….gif)
>>101A RAPE IN CYBERSPACE
359b18 No.103
>>101>when the movement didn't even exist as such back then, chastising women for wanting rightsDid you read as far as "1926" and immediately fill the rest of the image with your own mad rambling assumptions?
dcc1e5 No.104
>>103Nah, that was just the most glaringly ridiculous bit there, past that the infographic kinda loses steam in terms of insanity. I mean, saying people from the 20's (in an unsourced quote attributed to a group that didn't exist yet) who opposed women's rights still weren't going far enough? Really? You want to regress that far? Do you even want women to be able to vote?
dcc1e5 No.105
>>104Actually, my mistake. MRA's, if you count that "Federation for Men's Rights" group existed for an entire year at the time they complained women were asking for too many rights. I see not much has changed since then, even from the name. Though I know you guys want to take it even further with your MGTOWOWBBQ or whatever. So, you're saying "MRA's" in the 20's, when women still lacked many basic rights, weren't going far enough? The were outright condemning feminism just barely after women got the right to vote, and still lacked numerous rights and protections, and they're not extreme enough for you.
359b18 No.106
>>105apparently wanting fairer alimony laws and parental rights means 1920's MRAs all hated women and didn't want them to have any rights?
You get points for admitting to being utterly wrong but you're still a fuck up.
>MGTOWOWBBQThe irony of this kills me
dcc1e5 No.107
>>106I don't claim to have any grasp of the alimony laws or parental rights of men in the 20's. But you have the group quoted as being against "modern women, who demand all rights and refuse all duties" just seven years after women got the right to vote, and still had not guarantee to equal pay, or any kind or reproductive rights as we know them today (which we still aren't doing to hot on as a country.) And perhaps, in a kind of catch-22, women "refused all duties" as the MRA's put it because they women paid less for work, still lacking the right to equal pay. This quote frames MRA's as being contrarian and explicitly anti-feminist from day one. And you not only agree with the outdated, 20's era sentiment, but think MRA's didn't go far enough with it. I don't even know what to say if you're living that far in the past. In that case, I advise you to invest in sliced bread, it's gonna be the hip new thing.
edfd64 No.110
>>101>not a single point of relevance, just a spew of bullshit and asspained cryingfaggot.
edfd64 No.111
news flash:
the old /gg/ board was shut down. GUESS WHY
one of the faggot ass mods was an SJW, banning people for posting antifeminist/pro MRA/truth.
so I guess we all know who this ass aggrieved faggot is posting their confused scribblings in this thread. I'm not saying it's that mod, but it is totally that mod.
edfd64 No.112
ef33d8 No.113
Huh. I thought OP specifically asked for debate. All I've gotten are insults and memes (and one fact check, thank you to whoever that was.) Let me know when the rest of you guys are up to being rational and using logic instead of your precious feelings.
edfd64 No.114
>>113Debates are for gaywads.
e762e2 No.116
>>107they got a right to vote than even men did not (and still do not) have. You forget that back then men had to be drafted to have the right to vote, and suffragettes hopped right past that.
There hasn't really been a single time in history where women were not privileged, because unlike male privilege, which is made through law and society, female privilege comes from pure human and animal instinct.
A man can be born into a society that lets him acquire privilege.
A woman is born with privilege, put into her very DNA.
edfd64 No.117
>>116Ew are you using facts? You are a savage creature and I no longer permit you in my domicile!!!!!!!!!
One thing that doesn't get mentioned about sufragettes and their right to vote is how after getting the right to vote, they went around with axes and started smashing bars, because they said that alcohol was evil. Basically shaming men for enjoying themselves. Then they got alcohol prohibited in the USA. Which led to the rise of the mafia and gangs, which led to shitloads of murders, and the majority of governments being purchased by criminal gangs.
That's the result of female privilege: tons of murders and corruption and the rise of the mafia.
cd8b61 No.119
>>116Interesting. Of course, at the time women couldn't fight in the army, so there was no draft for them. Today women can serve in the military but still don't have to sign up for selective service. Of course, the draft hasn't been instated in over 40 years, and god willing won't be again, but that doesn't make this okay. There's some nuance.
>>117Now, you're straight-up talking out of your ass. The prohibition was the 18th amendment, and women got the right to vote in the 19th, ratified months later.
edfd64 No.125
File: 1417989219797.gif (156.42 KB, 500x281, 500:281, tumblr_inline_n9jsmn7fWC1q….gif)
>>119Okay then before getting the right to vote they went around smashing bars.
There, now I'm right and you're wrong, that was easy. 8)
203a91 No.126
>>125And men riot after sports games. That doesn't mean they don't deserve equal rights. Where are you even getting the women smashing bars thing from anyway? Given how completely wrong you were about the prohibition, I'm not inclined to believe this one either.
edfd64 No.127
>>126>"completely wrong">mixed up two events from about 100 years ago that I heard about in a video onceYou're just setting yourself up to get completely bitchfucked on this one, because if you want me to look up the facts to prove you wrong, you're going to become embarrassed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Nation
>She described herself as "a bulldog running along at the feet of Jesus, barking at what He doesn't like",[2] and claimed a divine ordination to promote temperance by destroying bars."And yet men riot after sports games."
But those men aren't trying to enact laws making it mandatory to riot after sports games, but nice attempt at a false equivalence there. Thanks for just bending over and pulling your asshole open for me. 8)
203a91 No.128
>>127Carrie Nation died in 1911, before women got the right to vote. Were you even trying? Whatever she did, this woman's actions had nothing to do with suffrage.
And with regards to the temperance movement: of course there were women involved. There were men too. And it was men in the senate who enacted the 18th amendment. I don't see what this has to do with men's vs. women's rights beyond you using it as some sort of illogical and made-up dig at women.
So, women did were not responsible for prohibition, and you cannot even prove any women actually "went around with axes and started smashing bars" after getting the right to vote. In fact, none of this has anything to do with women's rights, which you seem so keen to attack.
Also, "those men aren't trying to enact laws making it mandatory to riot after sports games." Where did I even say that men wanted to enact laws making riots mandatory? Where did you even get that, that's insane. I was just saying that men riot as a counterpoint to the supposed women's riots you mentioned and have yet to prove even happened. And if they did, it still means nothing because, as I pointed out, men riot too, it's not about gender or women's rights.
edfd64 No.129
>>128>this woman's actions had nothing to do with suffrageWhy not? Because you don't want them to? Because you say so?
You're unserious. You just lost, thanks for handing me the victory. Welp, that's over. 8)
2e6f1e No.130
>>129Nice try, trying to claim it's over. As I clearly stated, Carrie Nation died in 1911, 9 years before the 19th amendment passed. She never saw women get the right to vote, and could not have been a decisive player in that. Yes, Carrie nation was a supporter of the women's suffrage movement as it existed at the time, but that has nothing to do with her rabid abolitionism. Her wikipedia article only lists her as being a suffragist, but does not offer further details, so clearly, it wasn't a huge aspect of her life.
Your last action was to ask me to prove her saloon bashing had nothing to do with women's rights, and I did. Claiming it's over without addressing my key points means you're out of options. You've given up. You have no facts, only feels.
ee0386 No.132
>>131The 19th amendment, passed in 1920, gave women the right to vote. Carrie Nation died in 1911. 1911 came before 1920. Or is counting too hard for you?
edfd64 No.133
File: 1418094000735.jpg (21.79 KB, 500x666, 250:333, tumblr_mc7gccvtdS1rjunpmo1….jpg)
>>132False cause, special pleading, personal incredulity, composition/division, black or white, begging the question, and to top it all off a big fat fucking Texas sharpshooter.
You got almost every single logical fallacy packed into one argument.
You proved YOURSELF incorrect before any of us said a word. We humor you because we're trolls and laugh at faggots.
So you see, you never had a chance. 8)
ee0386 No.134
>>133That sure is a bunch of words you wrote there. Too bad they don't mean anything I guess that's it then. I win. It's good you gave up now, I honestly should be studying for finals, but I admit it was kind of fun until you chickened out. It was neat getting a glimpse into your deluded little psyche.
edfd64 No.135
>>134And now they're trying to parrot us, that clinches it, we're the dominant ones here. This was a good thread everyone, time to pack in this rape festival. 8)
ee0386 No.136
>>135I'd never parrot you. I don't use slurs and edginess as a crutch like you do. Plus, as I said, I'm studying for finals. If this is the same level of discourse you brought to your studies, I'd be surprised if you even finished high school. And I know how much you hate college, claiming it's "indoctrination" and "brainwashing," but I'm detecting just a hint of sour grapes there.
edfd64 No.137
it's like arguing with a child. they just don't know anything, and now we have to go and teach them a lifetime of knowledge in the hope that maybe they won't put their hand on the hot stove before they realize that fire burns.
not my problem.
edfd64 No.138
>>137Yeah it's not easy squeezing a lifetime of knowledge into only a few posts and trying to teach a petulant angry child about what life is really like.
I'm no debater anyway. I'm not a teacher, I don't inform people, and I'm not really interested in it. They're beneath me and beneath me having to put in work to make them a better person, when I had to learn all this shit myself, which is why I'm already a better person, because I do the work while others sit around just demanding the work be done for them like entitled little shitlib niglets that want to live off of welfare for the rest of their lives. 8)
20d37c No.139
>>138I'm just curious at this point, do you realized how absolutely whacked out you sound to most people? Leaving behind value judgement of who's right or wrong, you do realize most people would find your views on the fringe, unacceptable and disgusting, right? I mean you know people generally don't take kindly to rape jokes or people who go around screaming "whore" or "cunt" right? I'm assuming you at least have that level of self-awareness.
edfd64 No.140
>>139I'm quite aware, I just don't give a shit. Especially not about whiny faggots.
edfd64 No.141
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
PS:
>>139>people generally don't take kindly to rape jokesSays who? Whiny faggots with no sense of humor, that's who.
>people generallyWeasel words right out of the gate. How about this:
People generally think rape jokes are funny.
And who's to say that's wrong? After all, it is an unsourced claim.
Are you attempting to appeal to popularity to say what's wrong or right? Then that's a social construct. Are social constructs a good thing? If so, then women being housewives and girls playing with dolls and boys playing with toy guns are a good thing as well (although those aren't social constructs anyway, those are just inherent biological behaviors).
WHORE CUNT WHORE CUNT WHORE CUNT
edfd64 No.142
>>139a society that accepts the mutilation and torture of male children probably would consider us to be the crazy ones.
so fucking what?
a9d157 No.143
>>140Well I guess that confirms my assessment of you.
>>141This does bring up an interesting point- social constructs can be both good and bad. I'm sure our opinions on which are which are completely opposite though. Oh well. Since you won't be changing your minds any time soon I'll just keep hoping society as a whole does not shift your way, and doing what I can to keep it from degenerating into the mgtow hellhole that seems to be your utopia.
edfd64 No.144
>>143>" I'll just keep hoping society as a whole does not shift your way">behaves in a way that forces society to keep shifting my wayGood job with that so far. It's too late, the damage is done. Your ideology is only creating more people who agree with us, and it's doing a better job than I could ever hope to do.
You had already dug your own grave, and then climbed on in and started screeching and whining and complaining about "WHO DUG THIS GRAVE AND PUT ME IN IT?" 8)
edfd64 No.148
on the subject of ways we have already been objectively proven right before this thread was started:
http://www.angryharry.com/es-Curse-of-the-NSPCC.htm a9d157 No.149
>>148Okay, so a charity is shitty. What does that have to do with feminism?
edfd64 No.151
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2014/12/feminists-are-talking-about-you/
>When feminists talk about men being rapists, being privileged, or all around being evil, they’re talking about YOU. They’re not talking about some other guy. They’re talking about YOU. 6f1558 No.152
>>151I'm just happy at least someone's talking about me.
3a148c No.344
"One thing that doesn't get mentioned about sufragettes and their right to vote is how after getting the right to vote, they went around with axes and started smashing bars, because they said that alcohol was evil. Basically shaming men for enjoying themselves. Then they got alcohol prohibited in the USA. Which led to the rise of the mafia and gangs, which led to shitloads of murders, and the majority of governments being purchased by criminal gangs.
That's the result of female privilege: tons of murders and corruption and the rise of the mafia."
Never mind that a lot of men supported the Temperance movement as well. So it was just a fight to see whether the idiots with the cocks of the idiots with the cunts would be teh ones in charge.
edfd64 No.346
>>344Women were still the ones burning down and blowing up bars.
edfd64 No.347
>>344men managed to go thousands of years without a temperance movement.
looks like someone's trying to hand off the blame of women's actions to men again.
3a148c No.348
No, I'm just saying that men can be just as retarded as women, with or without their help. I'll agree, however, that women do need to take more responsibility for their bullshit.