I'm a single father raising a daughter, and she needs a haircut, but she's not old enough to have her own opinion on it...

>I'm egalitarian so I believe both sexes should have short hair by default

You sound like a horrible father. You should be raising your daughter to be a competent girl and woman. I mean with gender roles, instead of against them, so one day she can be a good wife and mother and not a medicated cat lady.
Also, why couldn't being "egalitarian" mean both sexes get long hair by default?

>wanting a person you create and raise to exist only to serve others
wew lad father of the year material right there

Not really when short hair usually requires more effort to look good. Also, why not just let your kids wear what they want? If she wants short hair fine but you shouldn't dictate everything.

if she needs a haircut she's old enough to have her own opinion on it friend

people like you make me want to turn to strident feminism.

Her being a purple haired polyqueer wagecuck would still be her serving others you dumb roast. Studies have shown mothers are happier than "liberated" women

Love the way you justify your bigotry with "Studies have shown" as if there is scientific basis for your need to be mollycoddled by a second class citizen.
Also
>I want to cut my daughters hair short
>purple haired polyqueer wagecuck
impressive mental gymnastics

I dont care what you think. I believe a conservative society is better for everyone. You know, if you dont raise women to be strong wives and have children you will have to import people from cultures that do to make up for the low birthrates :^)

what?
why is low birthrate a problem? is 7 billion not enough?
childbirth is not learned, why would we need to "import" women to do it?
do you actually think immigrants are going to replace housewives?
???
I know you don't care what I think, disregarding opinions of people with opposing views is the only way you can protect the unquantifiable nonsense you believe in. I know you will continue to eat up whatever bullshit you can find that justifies your world view. I know your insecure about your own intelligence because you're too retarded to come up with anything coherent enough to make calling you out even slightly challenging.

>inb4 bait/trolling/I was being retarded on purpose

>muh 7 billion
tell niggers in africa to stop breeding, they do not deserve that population number

>why is low birthrate a problem?
Because 100 years of it and you go extinct? Because low birthrates means an aging population that nobody can take care of? Because for a feminist culture to survive you literally have import non feminist culture or your country depopulates? I bet you think youre smart kek
>I know you will continue to eat up whatever bullshit you can find that justifies your world view.
>disregarding opinions of people with opposing
This level of projection, holy shit

>only to serve others
Doesn't have to be one-sided
Good relationships always have a certain degree of mutual devotion.
I want my wife to be 100% devoted to me just like I'll be 100% devoted to her.
That's how strong long-lasting relationships are.
If one or both parties are selfish and only care about themselves because otherwise they feel like servants, then sooner or later the relationship will fail because there won't be a real bond, but only shallow companionship.

The same goes for friends, family, and all other types of relationships.
If you're not willing to give everything to your loved ones, then you don't really love them and are incapable of having real relationships.

It's vital that this mustn't be one-sided, obviously, because otherwise you'd indeed be a servant.

Low birthrate != no birthrate

>nice projection xd

>what is math xD
If you cant make REPLACEMENT rate, you go extinct. 100 people or 50 couples have 1 kid each so now theres 50 kids, now all those kids have 1 kid, repeat until none are left. now please continue to throw petty insults and refute NONE of my points thus proving me saying this was a projection
>I know you will continue to eat up whatever bullshit you can find that justifies your world view.

Overpopulation is only a problem in third world countries.
In the developed world we have the opposite problem, and our leaders are scrambling to solve it, and the current solution is to import people from poorer countries.
You're making the mistake of looking at numbers of something that happens in the world and averaging them to all of it despite them only being a problem in certain areas.
It's like reading "in the world # children die of starvation every day" and thinking it's a global problem, while actually a lot of the world doesn't have it.

What he means is that if you have a society where being a mother is frowned upon, the birth rate will go down and your leaders will import immigrants to make up for it.

>feminism will drive the human race to extinction
you can't actually believe this.
>what is maths
your mathematical model of people constantly having 1 child and the generation halving has no basis in reality what so ever.
also isn't me

Just don't make your daughter have short hair, dude. Kids will bully her and call her a dyke.

>100 years
where are you getting these numbers
>you probably think you're smart
I just think that boys and girls should be raised more or less the same and don't think that having your daughters hair cut short makes you a terrible father. I didnt realise that you were actually trying to preserve humanity, I just assumed you were being sexist.

It will be better for her in the long run if you DON'T impose current social standards on her. Do you really want her to turn out like most women these days? No. So don't do everything their parents did just because it's expected.

Not a single western country has above replacement rate(except Ireland) and the trend shows no signs of ending. Its only a matter of time before extinction(without mass immigration from non feminist societies). Now please continue to prove me right
>where are you getting these numbers
Missed the point entirely while trying to seem smart again. Plz stop. My point was that cronically low birthrates mean eventually dying out as a nation.

>don't think that having your daughters hair cut short makes you a terrible father.
Not him but it's not the short hair we have a problem with.
It's the reason why he wants to do it.
Raising children with this anti-cis "genders are an opinion and I let them have their own" (as if children are even capable of making important decisions correctly) is what we think is bad. Not the short hair.
If he had only said that it's more practical or it's cuter, then nobody would've had a problem with it.

Unless he didn't mean any ofthat gender stuff (in which case he wouldn't be a bad father). It's not very clear.

having a low birthrate means more women are working rather then sitting around being pregnant, and this is a consequence of living in a modern society where both sexes are expected to contribute. You can't have development if you tell 50% of the population their only purpose is to be good mothers. This was the situation in the 50's, where you had men who worked long hours to support their bored, less educated Housewives who sat around popping Valium, and it was unsustainable enough to cause the most significant social revolution ever.
That time is gone. Now we live in a society where you can be a house wife if you want to.

>This was the situation in the 50's, where you had men who worked long hours to support their bored, less educated Housewives who sat around popping Valium
Good goyim, things where TERRIBLE before we pushed women into the corprate workforce

Let her choose, faggot
Even if it is disastrous, she's just a kid, she's allowed to look dumb

It doesn't have to be black or white.
There aren't only two options where you either have two career-focused parents or you have a working father and housewife mother.
What about everything in the middle?

Almost everyone I knew growing up had two working parents and their mothers, while not as present as a fulltime housewife, were good involved mothers and their fathers were present too.

There are many options to have a good work-life balance if you want to.
The problem is that the current society pushes us to aim for what makes the most money and give us the most prestige or highest status, so nobody wants to have a slightly worse career with less achievements in order to have a better family life, even if it leads to a happier life for them and their kids.

They were bad enough to cause the drug fueled anti conservative hippie mess that was the 60's, so yeah, it must have been pretty bad, else we would all live like that now.

I'm arguing for choice, I think people shouldn't be forced into a lifestyle that doesn't suit them. And I don't think women are naturally better suited to parenthood than men are, and that's why gender-based roles are damaging, no one should be pressured into shitting out a child because apparently that's all their good for.

not fashion related mods pls nuke this shit thread

also short hair is objectively better in every way on young children, anything beyond shoulder length or so can really start to get in the way and become a chore

Why does that matter?

Gender roles aren't forced on us by some ruler who decided that men and women must fit his arbitrary rules.
They come from our nature, as natural selection made us act a certain way throughout the millennia by reinforcing the behavioral tendencies that were most suited for our survival.
This is why we have almost exactly the same type of gender roles across all cultures throughout the ages.
And it's also why all other animals have gender roles too.
It's utterly absurd to think that all animals evolved different bodies and brains depending on gender, but human males and females are the only exception where they only developed a different body and an identical brain.
It goes against the fundamentals of biology and anthropology to say that men and women aren't inherently different, especially when it comes to parenthood, which is such a key part of our survival and natural selection.
There is do much wrong with what you just said that I can do nothing but suggest you go study high-school biology and history, and then move to study a bit of human evolution.
I don't mean to insult you, but you really lack the fundamentals here to even begin approaching the discussion.

That said, I'm notfor forcing anyone either. If a woman wants to be the world's top expert in a male-dominated field like engineering or math, then I'm all for it.
The same goes for a man who wants to be the best nurse in the world or any other female-dominated job.
I just don't like how modern society is all against traditional gender-based wants and behaviors, and is actively pushing children toward the very opposite in the name of choice.
Encouraging such behaviors isn't giving them choice.
Leaving them to choose what they want is.
If they end up wanting what their gender usually wants, then leave them to be like virtually all humans ever.
If they wanted the opposite, then they're an exception and not the norm, but should still be left to walk their way.

No forcing of any kind.

1/2

If anything this modern anti-gender bullshit is forcing them to be something they would've never become without external pressure, and it so happens to be something that studies have proven it leads them to an unhappy life.
2/2

Yeeeaah man why does anything matter man haha do we even exist mannn
We have problems today too. Widespread acoholism, opioid epidemic, etc

>no one should be pressured into shitting out a child because apparently that's all their good for.
Nobody but actual misogynistic retards think that, so arguing like that's what we said is unfair.
We're just saying that for the kids it's much better to grow up with a present mother than without, so a society full of people that had a healthy childhood (like the one they're genetically programmed to need, due to eons of selection that came from kids that weren't attached to their mothers dying, and a plethora of other factors) will be much healthier than one full of people that didn't.

It's also better for the mothers themselves, since we know for a fact that a career life makes women unhappier than with a family life (and statistics show that women are MUCH more likely to abandon the first for the latter, since they're genetically programmed to WANT that).

No word on forcing them to be mothers against their will or them being only good at making children (not sure where you got that).

user here gets it

bumping

stop bumping this you actual fucking moron there is no one even interested in this shit thread except the couple of idiots who are argueing against each other in a meaningless argument because neither side is ever going to accept that the other is right nor will they ever reach a single understanding because both sides are too stobborn. I can't believe i actually read all of that. arguments now a days are pointless and are always dead ends because everyone in today's society is about as stubborn as a braindead mule.

tits are always in season

that fit is Veeky Forums approved

the answer is a pageboy haircut.

Think a little more, my dudes. If I am saying a girl should be raised traditionally it stands to reason I would say a boy should be raised traditionally, right?
Well, is a MAN not there to serve his family?
And think about this, what are you raising a child to be if you are raising them in some "gender neutral" way? You're not really raising them to be good at anything, are you?
Let's say you raise a girl to be a traditional woman and she decides she is FTM.
Well, this transman is good at cooking, cleaning, make-up etc. and he can pass those skills on to his daughters.
Let's say you raise your son to be a man and he decides he is actually MTF.
Well, she is a woman that can change the oil in her car, mow the lawn and so on. She can pass those skills on to her sons.

So what is the benefit of not raising your child with gender roles? You're just making a person that is no good at anything but especially crappy at being the gender they probably are.

Effeminate men that can't attract a good woman or be respected by their peers.
Masculine women that can't attract a good man and either hang out with far-left lunatics or only have male friends AKA being a maladjusted slut.

>why is low birthrate a problem? is 7 billion not enough?

Because we're heading towards the most brutal population "correction" the world has ever seen.
Here's how it works. Africa's population is booming. Why is it booming?
Western nations give Africa aid money. They do not create infrastructure with the money, they use it to buy food from China.
So they eat the food from China and use it to create population growth they could not sustain without aid money because they aren't building agriculture.
Meanwhile in Western countries there is no population growth, their populations are shrinking. Which means they will be less and less able to give Africa aid money.
So eventually there will be a tipping point where Western nations can't give Africa money, Africa can't buy food and there have no agriculture set up to food themselves.
Billions of Africans are going to starve to death and their blood will be on the hands of people that decided we should give them aid money while simultaneously we should stop having kids to be taxed to fund the aid programs.

You are advocating the genocide of billions of Africans.

This is such a shit thread!
>Don't wanna let daughter make her own decisions
>Don't wanna force my beliefs on my daughter
you have to pick one, user, you can't rely on the members of a Cantonese rock climbing website

this is the only correct answer.

bob

>Don't wanna let daughter make her own decisions
how much can it be "her own decision" when probably everything she sees in media is purposefully tailored to influence her opinion

But that goes for literally everything.
No human being has had opinions uninfluenced from the outside.
Even those who grew up in the wilderness a la Tarzan had their "opinions" influenced by the animals they lived with.
It's in our nature to be social and to value the opinions of those that we see as our peers.

Do you think your opinions are entirely your own?
You're as influenced (if not more) as OP's daughter.

The point is, it doesn't matter where your opinions come from (whether it's your friends doing their thing or someone deliberately trying to influence you), and as long as they are what you believe, they are your opinions.

>I'm egalitarian so I believe both sexes should have short hair by default
That's stupid, long hair looks better.

>You're as influenced (if not more) as OP's daughter.
except i have the mental capacity to at least try to discern things on my own

But you didn't when you were a kid. It's not possible to raise a kid free from environmental influence and making every single decision with that goal in mind is going to result in a fucked up adult.

Based on what parameters?
How did you get those parameters?

You can try as much as you want. You're still going to take decisions based on how everything around you influenced you. There is no escaping that.

don't get philosophical on me, next you're going to try to justify pedophilia since no one can ever come to a rational decision apparently

Little children should not be considered to have the agency of an adult. They are children, you may notice that your kid has some considerable brain power but they don't have knowledge, experience, impulse control etc.
So don't think you can just let them make all of their decisions, that's really a terrible thing to do to a kid.
For instance I was a wilful child and my parents didn't make me do all sorts of things, when I said I didn't want to do something because it was hard or boring or stupid they didn't push it. I missed out because they just accepted I somehow knew what was best without them even really explaining to me the fun or benefit I could have from doing a thing.

Then again if you are considering gender neutral parenting you might actually be too retarded to know what is best.

I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite here >it doesn't matter where your opinions come from (whether it's your friends doing their thing or someone deliberately trying to influence you), and as long as they are what you believe, they are your opinions.
Meaning that we're all influenced and it's just part of how our opinions are, and regardless of that, they're still our own opinions.

Your post didn't even contain an argument against mine, and you still managed to strawman it. Good job.

>talking about a philosophical matter
>don't get philosophical on me

>talking about a scientific matter
>don't get scientific on me

This is how stupid you sound.

May I ask you how old are you?

we're talking about a social matter, if i tried to end the argument with
>it doesn't matter since life has no meaning and we can't ever know anything
i would've been told to stop bringing philosophy into it as well

I don't think you understand the post.
It went:
>you said you can discern things on your own, taking decisions with your own brain instead of being manipulated/influenced
>I asked you what parameters are you basing your decisions on, and how you got those (meaning you can still take your own decisions and they'll be based on something that came from outside influence)
>You got defensive and told me to not "get philosophical" on you (whatever that means) despite my post having nothing philosophical, but just being a simple question that meant that your way of deciding what is what, doesn't come entirely from you, but mainly comes from the sum of the knowledge and experiences you've had.
It's a really simple concept, to which you keep replying with strawman arguments for some reason.

Why don't you defend your point instead, and explain to me how your thoughts aren't influenced by outside factors?

>I'm egalitarian so I believe both sexes should have short hair by default

Kill yourself my man

"it doesn't matter since life has no meaning and we can't ever know anything" is just pseudo philosophical nonsense. "what parameters do you base your decisions on? And where do they come from" is not.
It's not even philosophical at all.

Also "don't get philosophical at me wouldn't have been an acceptable answer either because it never is. It's just a bullshit copout for avoiding the argument, against which you have nothing to say.

what a fucking faggot

when you genuinely try to get me to explain to you why adults are more capable of making rational decisions than children, there are two options, you are dumb, or you're trying to get philosophical, i just gave you the benefit of the doubt

Another strawman.

You're either too stupid to understand simple English, or you're purposefully trying to avoid the argument.

I'll explain it to you in simple terms:
>Post says that children can't make their own decisions because the media is unfluencing their minds, so they're not really their decisions
>I said that adults are influenced by outside influences too, but that doesn't make their decisions not their own.
>You said you can decide for yourself (implying your thoughts aren't as influenced as those of a child.
>I challenge that statement
>You avoid answering me

I never said that children can make decisions as well as adults (they obviously can't). Just that adult's decisions aren't anymore "theirs" than children's.
Not sure how you got the opposite of
>adults are more capable of making rational decisions than children
Because I never doubted that adults take better decisions than kids, as it's not the point of the discussion at all.

dude how old are you?

Question: Have you ever been in a relationship?

ITT: I got mine so fuck you

You should only get what looks best on her. How old is she?

Does she cry when you brush it? Cut it to a bob.
Does she need it tied back for sports or something? Keep it long. It's just that fucking simple.

>adult woman
>gets told by the media/society women should have long hair
>uses a combination of education and common sense to realize that historically it doesn't matter and that the fact is purely arbitrary
>cuts hair short to enjoy the practical benefits while accepting the consequences she will experience for going against the grain

>little girl
>gets told by the media/society women should have long hair
>accepts it as a fact of life and internalizes it since she's in a phase where she's still learning about everything and takes things at face value

Seemed pretty obvious to me.

I personally love Aneska's hairstyle. Short bangs that are trimmed all the way to the ears. Its a very cute, yet boyish look

Here's Aneska with a ponytail

More aneska

is this now a mullet thread?

desu when i was younger i hated fact that my parents chose my hair...
i didn't even want anything special just normal medium lengh hair because i looked bad in short but noo my opinion

yo bitches don give a fuck les u weariong these timbs ass boi. these get gurls hella hard.

Being a polyqueer wagecuck is serving others, study or not.

Some people are happier sucking their boss' metaphorical dick. Don't judge the people pushing to get more women in the workforce

>>uses a combination of education and common sense to realize that historically it doesn't matter and that the fact is purely arbitrary
>education and common sense
Which she developed entirely on her own and totally not through external influence, right?

Common sense is developed internally in every person and it tells you things like "cut off arm = bleed to death = bad" and "cut off hair = nothing happens = neutral", and it can also help in deducing things like:
>clothing for women doesn't have pockets in order to promote buying purses = agenda
>biologists and historians throughout the years write about their findings for pitiful compensation = no agenda
And then you use that mostly objective information obtained from education in order to form your own opinions.

traditionally the man "own" his family. He can either serve it or not. He's the one making decisions, the woman stand aside. She can give him her opinion but only as advice. The decision belong to the husband.Traditionally a wife dose a lot more serving than a husband do. Also not conforming to gender roles doesn't mean you don't know how to do anything. A girl can learn how to cook and change the oil, a boy can learn how to properly clean and mow the lawn. How is learning how to cook or clean going to be a disadvantage for a boy?

>traditionally the man "own" his family. He can either serve it or not. He's the one making decisions, the woman stand aside. She can give him her opinion but only as advice. The decision belong to the husband.Traditionally a wife dose a lot more serving than a husband do.
That comes from a culture that saw women as good for nothing except making babies and doing house work.
Society has advanced a lot lately in that regard, and traditional families with normal gender roles are more often than not 50/50 in terms of who's the boss.
The only cases where they aren't is where the male is a piece of shit who would've mistreated her regardless of gender roles or type of family.
Also by "family with gender roles" I mean one where the woman does typical woman things and the man does typical male things, but that doesn't mean they can't take each other's place if needed.

>Also not conforming to gender roles doesn't mean you don't know how to do anything. A girl can learn how to cook and change the oil, a boy can learn how to properly clean and mow the lawn. How is learning how to cook or clean going to be a disadvantage for a boy?
It's not about a boy or a girl suddenly becoming useless once they learn something that's typically done by the other gender.
It's about being against the things that are traditionally done by your gender and doing those of the other one INSTEAD of them.
A woman who can change the oil ON TOP of being able to do "woman things" like knowing how to cook and clean is better than one that can only change the oil but can't do "woman things", because she won't be as desirable as one who can.
The same goes for a man who can cook and clean on top of knowing how to fix things around the house. Nothing wrong with that.
The problem comes when the man can only do woman things but can't do man things, so he won't be as desirable and useful as one who can.
Also will be relatively useless because nobody expects a man to do woman things, but surely he'll find himself needing to do man things, and in which case a normal man would be much more useful than the anti-gender-roles guy.
This is because men and women are usually inherently better at doing things that are traditionally done by their gender.
A woman may not be as good at things that require strength like working with tools and doing heavy stuff, and a man may not be as good at doing things that require a higher social sensibility, or even cleaning the house.

Each gender has strengths and weaknesses.
While we shouldn't force people to live a life that conforms to traditional gender roles against their will, we shouldn't discourage them either, because that would be exactly the same problem on the opposite side (with the added bonus of things being worse due to our nature advantaging us in regular gender roles).

But common sense isn't some universal objective part of our brain that always leads to the same conclusion.
Different cultures have drastically different ideas of what constitutes common sense. Hell, even my neighbor and I have a different idea of it.
Just because it can be used for obvious stuff like avoiding death or pain, it doesn't mean everything your common sense tells you about everything is objective.

For example, your "short hair is better because it's more practical and long hair is just imposed on us by society" isn't an objective statement but an opinion.
Yes, short hair is more practical and yes society pushes for long hair on girls, but it's not objective which one is better.
Longer hair being more attractive is not arbitrary. Humans are genetically inclined to like it more than short hair, so girls (normal girls, not SJWs and feminists who go specifically the opposite way of anything traditional) prefer to have the advantage of being more attractive at the cost of practicality.
The same goes for uncomfortable shoes or impractical clothes, or wearing makeup.
Women consciously decide to do those impractical things because they prefer having the advantages they bring to their lives instead of the adantage of leading a practical but less att6active life.
Some other girls choose the opposite, or some middle ground. Nothing wrong with either of those.
It's just that neither choice is objective or "common sense".

>And then you use that mostly objective information obtained from education in order to form your own opinions.
When it comes to hard sciences, then yes, you can use common sense and logic to reach your conclusions if your model is accurate enough.
When it comes to everything else, you more often than not can't.
For example, children can't properly decide on their own because the media influences their thoughts, and that's true, but adults are influenced too, by the culture they live in, by the subtle angles and agendas in their entertainment, by the books they read, by what websites they visit, by the political alignment of their college professors (who can be directly shilling for their side, or can just subtly give you certain ideas by making you read certain books instead of others), etc.
I guarantee you that everyone (me included) are being influenced and manipulated CONSTANTLY in ways we wouldn't even believe possible. Just check out "Manufacturing consent" by Noam Chomsky.

Believing your decisions are uninfluenced by anything, and that you'd have taken the same decisions had you lived a slightly different life (with different experiences and with different things learned) is just such a ridiculous concept for anybody who's done even the shallowest research on the topic.

>But common sense isn't some universal objective part of our brain that always leads to the same conclusion.
So you ARE trying to argue epistemology.

That said, even if we're influenced into liking certain things instead of others, at the end of the day, we still like those things and shouldn't be forced to like otherwise.

If my daughter likes long hair for whatever reason, I'm not going to force her to have short hair because she "actually doesn't like it, she just thinks she likes it because of media brainwashing".
The same goes for short hair and/or whatever else she likes.

I'm not trying to do anything. Stop arguing against what you think my arguments are called, and argue against the arguments themselves.

I'm just explaining how your view of "common sense" as an objective way to discern absolute truth from lie is wrong because it's actually very subjective, as proven by my simple examples.

I'm wasting su much time arguing with people who keep answering with the most pathetic logical fallacies instad of actual arguments.
I'm strongly considering just stopping answering and leave you believe whatever you want, since you're not even considering my arguments. You're just labeling them and deciding that you don't like them while providing no actual response to them.

I'll ignore you from now on, until you can argue properly like an adult and explain to me why your point is correct, much like I spent a lot of time doing.