[Albert]

I did give you an actual reason for divorcing someone outside of the "traditional faults", i.e., falling out of love with your spouse. But maybe basic reading comprehension isn't really Albert's """thang""".

Oh look at you...... I asked you what could be the reason why would you fall out of this "love" you speak off. What could be the cause? We are back full circle. You could not answer me, and I'm not surprised. And you won't be able to answer me cause you do not have ability to do so. Which proves my general point.

Even if that's true, it means women shouldn't be allowed to vote... why?

We are discussing more then just voting now and this question is out of context with regards to what I wrote.

And I will reiterate this point for the last time. I'm a traditionalist, yet I do support true equality because it will achieve traditional way anyways. It will also expose the unrealistic idealism of feminism. (Hence why women and feminist in practice do not actually aspire to true equality in liberal sense of the word. But only use this philosophy as means to achieve their ends. Which in practice seems to empower women at expense of men.)

Uh no. That's not how evolution works. First of all, nature doesn't give two shits about "balance" between the sexes. All it cares about is relative reproductive fitness. Human females are the way they are mostly because human infants require lots of care for a long time. This is not the default in nature, nor is it some kind of universal reproductive solution. The situation is very different for other species.

This is difficult to understand what you mean here exactly. But nature is interested in balance. And once we mess with it, it will bring forth natural means to restore it.

You could very well argue that we should abolish agriculture because it reduces the need for hunting, hence destroying the traditional hunter-gatherer social structure. That's idiotic, and so is your justification for traditional marriage.

Agricultural revolution did not fundamentally change social structure and family structure. Industrial revolution also did not change that, even though material progress made many to believe so. Right now we are in an era where we are trying to take "evolution" into our own hands. It won't work, people like that are basically trying to play god, it's doomed to failure. Sure we need to adjust, but not play god and social engineer. I think there is a clear visible line between the two if you are not cough up in idealistic thinking.

Even if that's true, that in no way means that it was a bad idea or that things should go back to the way they were. Gasoline engines are not long-term sustainable, yet they were a good idea, and no one argues that we should go back to the horse and buggy. Again, that's just fucking stupid. And when we run out of gasoline, we shouldn't go back to horse and buggy either, we should find alternative sources of energy instead.

Again gasoline did not get rid of family values. Or an airplane did not get rid of social hierarchy; we still have the captain who commands the pilots and the crew of the airplane. So similarly industrial revolution did not change humanities basic social structure.

What's wrong with that?

Oh of coarse you won't see anything wrong with that. It seems to gives women basically no responsibility of motherhood yet being a mother, and now she can go play with boys. It definitely feels empowering. In the end its just illusion and causes suffering.

This leads me to a good point. This is also a power struggle at the core of it. Women are seeking empowerment. But they can only gain this power at expense of men. So this is also human nature, if you don't have power over women they will seek power over you then.

The big irony though even big dady state is run and build by men. This whole feminism is bond to run on the rocks sooner or later, it's just matter of time. Hopefully sooner rather then later, I want to get married someday.

[Decky]

And better able? In what? Uncapping bottles with their teeth?

I can do that.

[Frollein]

By ability I don't mean just physical strength, frollein.

Well, women have better fine motor skills, language acquisition, are better able to read and interpret body language and facial expression, better interpersonal skills (emotional IQ), are better at multitasking and have a wider visual perception (which is why your gf knows when you're ogling other women without having to turn her head). So I'd say they're more able than men, and men shouldn't be allowed to vote on those grounds.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I can do that.

And D of the D.E.N.N.I.S. system nailed.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

By ability I don't mean just physical strength, frollein.

Whatever ability you mean, you'd have to show somehow that it is relevant to political decision making and take into account that certain qualities may also disadvantage men in that respect (e.g. it could be that being more prone to violence leads men to opt for violent solutions more often than necessary).

[Albert]

^
Women are violent as well for crying out laud. Their aggression is just expressed differently.

Well, women have better fine motor skills, language acquisition, are better able to read and interpret body language and facial expression, better interpersonal skills (emotional IQ), are better at multitasking and have a wider visual perception (which is why your gf knows when you're ogling other women without having to turn her head). So I'd say they're more able than men, and men shouldn't be allowed to vote on those grounds.

Indeed nature gave you the tools to survive in men's world. It gave you this so you can be good mothers and wives.


You tried hard though I know.

[Frollein]

*sigh* No Albert, I didn't even try. This whole thread is ridiculous.

So men are naturally adapted to hunt mammoths. You still failed to show how that translates into them being better at making political decisions, or why they should be allowed to dominate women. And you can't, because one has nothing to do with the other. You're just bitter because you don't get laid, and instead of working on your social skills, you come here to whine about the meanness of women and wish back the good old times when you could just own one.

[anasawad]

@Frollein
Not really, 'd say men are more adapted to kill other men.
Killing large animals was for a good while a big trouble, while other men is just anther day in the park.

Now for the political decisions, it depends on the case.
For example if we were to talk about my case, i can make political decisions in my free time, Lina probably wont be able to because she'd be having a headache from a long series of terrible jokes i said.
So you see, in this case i am more capable of political decisions.

[Rich]

*sigh* No Albert, I didn't even try. This whole thread is ridiculous.

This is a special snow flake thread, but potentially illuminating once this fact is realised. This is a special snow flake demand, by a few Trump supporters, who think they should always have their own way. Note Trump himself hasn't suggested that women shouldn't vote. Trumps base is amongst working class men. The very category of people that right wing republicans have been whispering should be excluded from voting. Some Right wing republicans have been saying for a while now that their should be a property allocation for voting.

You see the thing about democracy is accepting the result even when you don't like it. I have no problem with Adolf Hitler and his supporters of his time. Adolf Hitler told it how it was. He and his supporters wanted dictatorship, they didn't want to be subjected to electoral recall and accountability. Adolf Hitler never pretended to be a democrat, unlike the Commies the libertarians and a lot of the modern day neo-facsists. Adolf Hitler might be an enemy. He might be someone you wanted to kill, but unless you were a total retard you knew where you stood with him, unlike the Middle and Upper class Marxist intellectual Commies with their Dictatorship of the Proletariat bollocks.

There's nothing wrong with wanting dictatorship. I would prefer to be dictator over democracy. But if you really want a dictatorship, you need to get off your arse and create it, not expect the suffrage rules can be changed every time democracy starts giving you results you don't like. Universal adult citizen suffrage, with all those adults who have lived with in the polity since birth receiving citizenship is the only game in town when it comes to democracy.

[Albert]

*sigh* No Albert, I didn't even try. This whole thread is ridiculous.

So men are naturally adapted to hunt mammoths. You still failed to show how that translates into them being better at making political decisions, or why they should be allowed to dominate women. And you can't, because one has nothing to do with the other. You're just bitter because you don't get laid, and instead of working on your social skills, you come here to whine about the meanness of women and wish back the good old times when you could just own one.

Okay I had enough of this. I realize now what I thought was true before. There is no point in discussing this with women, it frightens them, then they get angry @ you, then they go vengeful on you.

I see this discussion is more reserved for (((men only))) safe space. Where men can have this dioluge openly and reasonably. Where they can be brought out of darkness and into the light of peace.

I just want to make this point again, what I say is nothing new or bad. What I have been saying had been said by nations since the time of immemorial. So why am I treated like the bad guy? I arrived to my point of view through observation and life experiences. I actually was a feminist before myself.

What you are doing is nothing but shooting the messenger.

We will have now women running the show four years if chips fall into place. Clinton, Britain, maybe France, and Germany is pretty much already a matriarchy. We will observe how that will unfold. I fear nothing good will come out of that, but I will be glad to be proven wrong.

PS. And don't lash out on Motorola in the other thread, the man has done you no wrong. If you are upset about my anti-feminist rhetoric. Don't need to release your anger on the brave solder like Motorola.

[Decky]

You are so much of a strong man you need a safe space free of the same women they you claim are weak and pathetic?

[Albert]

Men are human as well, we need to feel safe from women's aggression that seeks to control men.

It is okay Decky, accept your inner vulnerability as a man. It is okay to come out in this safe space from microaggression from women. You can feel safe here.

We are all victims of feminism but we survivers here.

[Political Interest]

Yes, women should be allowed to vote on an equal basis with men.

They should be allowed to vote.

Feminism is something else entirely. It is a purely cultural movement. Feminists do not have any concrete political programme or vision. All they want to do is shout and make noise. They have taken upon themselves the monumental task of trying to reform culture which is never easy and hardly ever tangible.

[anasawad]

Victims of feminism ? You kidden me ? Feminism gives us better sex and other things too obviously but lets take it step by step . Where exactly is the harm in that ?

[Zionist Nationalist]

Feminism makes woman behave more like man which is unnatural and leading to many problems

[anasawad]

@Zionist Nationalist
No, not really. It rather makes them more free.
Fashion trends makes people act like the other gender, specially idiots who follow them.

[Pants-of-dog]

I like no fault divorce and the fact that women can get good jobs.

This means that the beautiful woman waking up beside me each morning is doing so because she chooses to, not because the law forces her to or out of economic necessity. It makes me feel good about our love. It makes me feel good about myself.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

^
Women are violent as well for crying out laud.

Not as violent as men by a long shot. This is hopefully not in dispute.

Their aggression is just expressed differently.

Quite right, although there may also be a difference in aggression between men and women. The question regarding all these differences is which is more advantageous with respect to political decision making. I don't think we know. It's also possible that it does not matter at all.

My problem with restricting the franchise is that in the vast majority of cases the proposal seems completely self-serving. The person making the suggestion is hardly ever excluded him- or herself. While this doesn't necessarily mean that the idea is worthless, it does raise suspicions.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Victims of feminism ? You kidden me ? Feminism gives us better sex and other things too obviously but lets take it step by step . Where exactly is the harm in that ?

Thank you! Feminism is a great thing. I already find it hard to relate to people on a personable level, I can't imagine if my wife was always trying to please me because she feels inferior. I like equal relationships, not ones where I'm expected to do none of the work and the woman is always trying to please me.

[anasawad]

@LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX
Exactly my point, relationships are only good when both sides want it and work and put the effort for it.
And sex is also the same as included.

Though BTW, that first post was really a joke mocking the stupidity of this thread. But after i wrote it i thought like, shit, now everyone is going to think either 'm sexist for looking at the sex part, or atleast say WTF is he talking about.