Feminism

you do realise it's natural to rebel against things?

imo feminism isnt a byproduct of "patriarchy", it's simply a byproduct of economic prosperity

Please counter with facts instead of insults.
Thank you.

Even "liberalism" is a byproduct of prosperity. There has never been a time in history when such a large percentage of young people are over-educated yet completely unskilled at the same time, unemployment is rampant among youth yet access to cheap credit creates an environment where one can survive for a long period of time without having to participate in the labor market. Studies have shown that those who work will lose leftist ideas for more fiscally conservative policies but these days more people want to be unemployed "leaders of tomorrow" instead of the "workers of today"

It isn't insult to state truth

if you mean liberalism to mean classical liberalism i.e. bourgeois control then yes

Europenises used to

See: Roman families.

Living with your family is a sign of an old world way of thinking, in the new world a man is expected to go out and make his own place in the world. Back in the old world (Europe/Asia) people do not have the same entrepreneurial spirit and with follow the path that their families and socio-economic class lay out for them

>socially irrelevant
I find it interesting you think socially excluding these people is as justified as denying them sex when the reason they reject your liberal feminist society (and can't get laid) is because they are so socially alienated by it.

LOL, so you think a patrilineal, patrilocal society like Russia where daughters had to leave the household and go to live with their husbands, receiving little or nothing of their parent's heritage, was more gender-egalitarian than a society like the US where women were on equal terms with men or even favored in family matters? Are you kidding me?

And you use the argument that Russian women could vote before American women, forgetting that Russian elections mattered NOTHING before 1917 and free elections after 1917 only lasted for a couple of years before the Communists took over... LOOOOL.

Is insulting me your only argument? because if that's so, then you are demonstrating I am right. :-)

I don't want to read to much from that pic, but people on Veeky Forums aren't unironically comparing themselves to people who reject material luxuriates of their free will?

Society will always have winners and losers, its human nature to blame others for personal shortcomings. Even if you take these fedora's to the 1950's, they still would not be able to fit into male hierarchy and would not be seen as potential mates. They just have the 21st century luxury to blame it on feminism/liberals/multiculturalism/blacks with bigger penises etc

Thank you for defending me, some people around here are fiercely intolerant.

LOL, who has said nothing about "material luxriates"? My lifestyle isn't bad for a 26-years-old guy who doesn't work. People like you may work so hard to alienate me from society, but I'm not some beggar yet. ;-)

Do you realise you are saying nonsense? If those people were so socially inadequate during the 1950s, then they wouldn't have been born twenty or thirty years ago, since their grandparents (who carried the same genes) wouldn't have been able to reproduce.

That pic is showing two men who both seem to lack any material luxuriates in their life, who both are nearby women ((Not that I understand how those are related as the ones to the left seems to be ridiculing him while those ot the right don't seem to be.))
Considering that the pic was posted with someone talking about hoe socially alienated certain men are, I suppose he is trying to claim those ones on Veeky Forums are in any way similar to those two guys on the pic.

Except majority of "the west" still practices patriarchal families with the only differences being that the "big family" thing went to shitter when the conservatives' holy nuclear family became a thing.

With the exceptions being France and, surprisingly enough - Poland where it's more egalitarian.

Feminism and marxist currently fight agaibst western values like liberty and equality, so yes. They are at their core subversive movements, so it's obvious the most radical sects take over.

t. Former lefty

I am saying that the people complaining about "muh feminism" are the type of people who would be socially irrelevant regardless of whatever time period or society you could put them in. Their problem lies not with women, but their failure as men

Forgive for repeating myself, but then: how could have thir genes survived into this day? How could their ancestors reproduce for many generations?

>social success or failure is determined by genetics

yup back to /pol/ with you

Then, what determines a person'ts success or failure?

Please enlighten me. X-D

Btw I couldn't be farthest from the guy of the picture, please stop using that as an argument because you are ridiculing yourself.

He's probably talking about how homelessness and crime disproportionately affect dudes, (and yet high class white women will complain about their non-existent pay disparity).

Also complaining about rape culture when recently a feminist here made an allegation that she had been raped near a certain poor neighborhood, that ended with an innocent man lynched and stabbed. Later it was discovered there was no rape, she was hust making it up as social commentary. And yet the white feminists keep going about how there is a rape culture and women are being violated, but providing no proof of it, meanwhile a man was factually stabbed and beaten for mere allegations.
(I can provide source but it's in portuguese, if you want just ask, it happened near the slum I live next to, I don't like saying in because I'm at the entrance of it)

Mistaken for "rapist", beaten and stabbed:
g1.globo.com/rs/rio-grande-do-sul/noticia/2016/06/homem-e-espancado-no-rs-apos-ser-confundido-com-suspeito-de-estupro.html

Woman admits fake allegation:
radioguaiba.com.br/noticia/estuprador-do-t1-jovem-admite-que-inventou-o-crime-na-capital/

Female privilege in the "rape culture" that is a third world nation.

Though the entire post isn't about unfair treatment or homelessness, it's just about "Can't get laid" and people not wanting to associate with them.
Or am I reading it incorrectly?

Why don't you enlighten us on your nonsensical theory instead of trying to misconstrue the argument

Did you look at the pic?
Did you read his comments?
Social alienation could refer to social ostracism that also disproportionately affects men, but it probably is relating to his two mentions of homeless people, and other than that other problems that affect males and yet are ridiculed and ignored by feminists.
Maybe, just maybe the label and the focus on one side does cause an imbalance eh?

Did you just discover that the world is full of shitty people?

Looks like lefties aren't the only ones to have "safe zones"

Or maybe they dislike idiotic ideologies that turn people into whiners?
Even old guard leftists began diverging when this whole identity politics stuff started.

No, the entire thread is about feminism as a consequence of Western culture being historically less patriarchal than most cultures around the world. You have turned this into an argument between feminists and non-feminists because you are so desperate to throw a fight with anyone whom you perceive to be your "enemy", but the entire thread doesn't have anything to do with your little war. X-D

What "theory"? I'm not writing down any "theory" here, I'm just saying that genes play an important part in a person's success or falire, and you say it doesn't. So I ask you: then, what determines a person's success or failure? It's your turn.

>but providing no proof of it,

they do provide proof for it though

"Hurr"
Do you have an argument or do you not?
Feminism is a whiny ideology that complains about made up problems, and people cater to it.
Why is it wrong to criticize something like that? Why is it wrong to point out that the logic of feminism is convoluted and equality between genders doesn't depend on it?

>Hurr you need a safespace
Considering I am a third worlder with half my family below the poverty line and the other very well off, I can safely say I am exposed to more realities than you.
You seem to believe I "fear" something, you confuse dislike for it I assume.
Let me clarify, you're a cunt if your only argument to invalidate complaints is "you're just some failure :^)".

>fat ugly women who can't get laid, will never marry, will never have kids and will never be taken seriously in the workplace because they are ugly don't exist

Socially irrelevant people exist across all races, genders, ethnicities, and cultures. You are just projecting your inability to get laid into a social commentary that is really all about you

Yeah, and most often when people talk about socially aligeniation around here it comes down to women not wanting to have sex with them hence the "beta rebellion" meme.
>Homeless people
The guy to the left is Diogenes of Sinope though.

Like what? Studies based on crappy methodology? Guess work of social theorists? The personal experience of high class white women?

I heard people complain about a gap when that is illegal here, and within the same company no two people exercising the exact same function could earn differently, and when you point that out they refuse to admit that maybe just maybe they have no idea what the shit they are talking about, and insist that there is no way the fictional pay gap is represented by a gap in choices (pro tip: history majors do usually earn less than engineers, as sad as that might be)

At least he should know to take off his hat when inside.

not the other user but:

>made up problems

no they're real problems

>people cater to it.

because they're real problems. the 'people' that cater to it are made up of the same people who face these problems.

>Why is it wrong to criticize something like that?

there's nothing wrong with criticising it but there is something wrong in straight lying about why you dislike it. your arguments come from a place of ressentiment rather than logic

At least it's an objective standard to measure success by. Anyway, a large part of the perception of millennials in general as a failed generation is due to the education/career system they inherited, I dont think of myself or my peers as hard work averse or mercurial any more than baby boomers, we just dont have it as butt-fuck easy as they did.

He probably took it outta google images so you have to take it out of context to get the point.

What evidence do you have of thst exactly? None. You're trying to erase the point I am trying to make with an attack to an assumption about my character.
This is beyond silly.

oh you mean statistical evidence about cultural factors that are hard to measure in the first place since there is no open discussion about these subjects... because there is no statistical evidence

>Studies based on crappy methodology?

on good methodology

>Guess work of social theorists?

guess work?

>The personal experience of high class white women?

as well as of poc, low class women, etc.

I already addressed ivory tower politics in an earlier post

Your inability to get ahead isn't because of some diabolical plot against men, its because you're a loser and even in a world where women had no rights you would still be a loser. All your "problems" are yours alone and your inability to find companionship isn't a flaw of society, its because of your unwillingness to adapt to the world.

Ideals are for boys, men take care of business

>Nono they are real problems
Evidence please?
Women in Africa, the ME or certain parts of Latin America do suffer institutional oppression.
What proof is there of women in the western world suffering such?
Where is it, seriously?
They are made up problems you buy into because it's how you frame your world view, good vs bad. Men aren't bad, women aren't good, women aren't bad, men aren't good.
People are people, this means you can't just make shit up to pretend your problems are bigger than they really are, and then ignore the problems of the "bad" people.

Prime example:
Brazil created a feminicide law for female victims of homicide (they made a moronic definition where it's basically "if they are women", in which they can fit in anything), but didn't do anything for the 50 thousand male victims or murder, many of which are poor people.

(Female homicides are less than 1/10 of male homicides in BR/)

The boomers didn't have it easier either. There have been multiple recessions, bank failures, stock market shocks, rise in commodities etc since the end of WWII. The difference between past generations and millennials is that people in the past sucked in up and dealt with the issues as they came. Millennials think that a middle class life is default and that the "American dream" would be handed down to them

>Hurr we take care of business
>It's idiotic to argue against an ideology thar actively defends negative actions and ideas for society!
Are you retarded or some shit?
You're arguing against my ideas on the basis that arguing against ideas is not a manly thing, then calling me a loser.
More importantly, you keep making assumptions about me and it's hilarious when you miss every single shot.

Oh and again, I never said anyone is holding anyone back. If anything feminism holds women back.

Dont you think the you-dont-agree-with-feminizim-you-must-be-an-autistic-virgin meme is getting a little bit hackneyed there, ol' chum? Maybe you should provide a substantive rebuttal instead, it would be good for you to think through your ideas.

not him btw

>Close-knit Arabic & Jewish communities don't have entrepreneurial spirit.
>Chinese clans don't have entrepreneurial spirit.
>German merchant families don't have entrepreneurial spirit.

Yeah, its not as if familial interest did not establish German colonies all over Europe nor Chinese trading posts in Southeast Asia/South Asia. No sir.

>On good methodology
Do you know what good methodology is? Have you ever taken a stastics class by the way?
Do you know how making false allegations about poorly obtained data is poor methodology? Guess not since you're defending mainly ideologically biased studies, or even ill-intentioned misinterpretations of data.

Your argument lies on "this is my world view" and that is fine, I have a test to study for and I'm not about to write a twenty page evaluation of 'feminist proof'

Feminism makes women hate men, kill their children, and destroy the family unit.

Really makes you think.

You know, you cant just "suck up" $50,000 in student debt. It used to be a degree in law or engineering or whatever WAS a ticket to the upper-middle class. Yes there is an element of degeneracy amongst us, but it is largely the flower of seeds planted by previous generations. I see millenials as late bloomers who are beginning to see the system their parents bequeathed them is fucked.

>They are made up problems you buy into because it's how you frame your world view, good vs bad. Men aren't bad, women aren't good, women aren't bad, men aren't good.

you seem to be coming to a number of conclusions based on zero evidence. again, something wrong with criticising it by lying. you are saying they are made up problems because that is how you frame your world view, etc.

like i said, people cater to it because they recognise these things as real problems.

>Evidence please?

lack of media representation, glass ceiling, male entitlement to women's bodies. i'm sure you've heard of these things before and seen the evidence.

>People are people, this means you can't just make shit up to pretend your problems are bigger than they really are, and then ignore the problems of the "bad" people.

you're really describing your own approach.

Okay, you seem to be going off the assumption that everyone is you.

Look pal, people have problems, in the west you'll probably find none or few instances of any institutional discrimination, if anything poor people and racial minorities are more likely to be affected, sometimes you'll find "positive discrimination" too.
Nobody is saying the world is stacked against them, the point is that men and women in the west are in the same positions so one-sided gender politics detract more than they add.
Anyway, peace out I need to go to the library before I miss my time, tests to study, shit to do, life of a scholarshipfag.

yes every single piece of evidence that feminists have ever cited is based on poor methodology. what a neutral, unideological view you have here

now please advance the conversation

>Your argument lies on "this is my world view"

no it doesn't

But this gem before I leave...
>You seem to
No. The point is and has always been that problems also affect men disproportionately and thus the basis for feminism is bullshit. As a society we should strive to fix the problems of our fellow citizens from the most severe to the least, without bias.
Feminism is a bias, just like mensrights and MGTOW are

>No.

quite obviously yes. you have no evidence of what i believe. you've placed me as a 'feminist' even though i told you i was questioning the basis of your argument, not telling you you can't have the argument

>As a society we should strive to fix the problems of our fellow citizens from the most severe to the least, without bias.

sure, but that doesn't mean saying women have no problems.

feminism isn't homogeneous. it's not fundamentally biased

>implying you are entitled to an upper middle class life with the most common degrees in an over saturated market

>implying a high paying white collar job was the "american dream"

Did you know an elevator repair tech can make 100k a year?

>Mocks reactionaries
>Talk about """Real Men"""
Gender Roles are only bad when forced on Women amirite?

Not that user but which studies are you thinking of?

none. my argument is that the user is disingenuously misrepresenting the feminist side of the argument. i'm questioning how he builds his argument and waiting for him to support his position with evidence. "i haven't seen evidence" actually doesn't say much and isn't something on which to base a conclusion. i can't account for his character, but it seems like he is describing his own approach to argumentation when he tells me i am blinded by my world-view despite me purposely and clearly adopting a neutral position from the beginning. i would rather have an open and honest discussion about these issues rather than another us vs them shitfest

but have you ever read one of these studies start to finish, or even just a metastudy?

But youre no better, worse even, by taking a side of any kind without knowing anything from either side of the argument. Get your head checked mate, you just want to argue for no reason other than to feel smart.

what studies?

i'm not taking a side. that's the point. i'm arguing to encourage 'open and honest discussion about these issues rather than another us vs them shitfest' like i said previously

income inequality ones f.i.

>"""open and honest discussion about these issues rather than another us vs them shitfest"""

>proceeds to provide no real counter argument but wants to argue with a random user anyways

Heres one example from what i assume is your post,

What good methodology did you mean? Lets start there if you dont want this to be an us vs them argument. You provided the user with nothing other than the equivalent of "nuh-uh" when replying. Granted he didnt provide the best argument either but if you really want to argue on the behalf of feminist start with this.

Glad to see that this is the first reply.

i don't doubt that there are studies with poor methodology but it would be dishonest to suggest either that they are exclusive to feminism or make up even the majority of feminist arguments

i don't think it's a coincidence that anti-feminists use the income inequality one as the major example of poor methodology, since that seems to be the only one they've been convinced is actually unequivocally poor. smoke and mirrors

>yes every single piece of evidence that feminists have ever cited is based on poor methodology

No, but the studies done on pay between men and women is.

You don't conflate the terms "earnings" and "wages" in statistics, unless you have an ideological reason to do so.

Anyone with IQ above 80, and a fleeting knowledge statistics know that men earn more than women, but earning more, doesn't mean you get paid more because that's illegal. It just means you work more, or have a better job.

What about the one in three women are raped?

>provide no real counter argument

it wasn't the point

>Granted he didnt provide the best argument either

this is my point really.

>if you really want to argue on the behalf of feminist

do i?

>or have a better job.

this goes into another feminist argument

i've heard 1 in 4 are victims of sexual assault

Do you want an open and honest discussion by contributing to the thread by backing up claims you make or just saying youre wrong to someone without adding anything else to it? Again, how are you any better or making this thread less of a shitfest?

>this goes into another feminist argument

Which is what?

Women dont push themselves in the workforce like men do, men ask for raises more often, and choose degrees with higher earnings.

How can this even be blamed on men when women are stunting themselves? How can you spin that in any way?

collegeatlas.org/top-degrees-by-gender.html

payscale.com/career-news/2015/02/why-women-don't-negotiate-salary-and-what-to-do-about-it

Is bogus. There's an infographic going around that traces the progression of that myth back to a flawed study.

A quick google search of "one in three women are raped is bullshit" got me this:

reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2fv1s8/1_in_5_women_have_been_raped_is_bullshit_and_you/

Albeit he's talking about the statistic of "1 in 5 women have been/will be raped". But the sheer fact that there's two "official" statistics on this should sound fishy to anyone.

>inb4 "b-but that's a thoughtcrimeplace! looking at it will make me feel double plus unbellyfeel!"
He's got citations.

read the post again

Your worthless post means nothing.

You said you want this to be an honest discussion not another us vs them shitfest, yet, hypocritically, you enter the thread making claims(they provide good methodology) without backing that bullshit up or even having any idea on feminist studies because you've never read any. Youre the shittier shitposter by far by trying to break a hivemind with non arguments.

You're the guy who linked reddit, your credibility is gone

you keep saying things i've already addressed in the post i've directed you to. it doesn't "mean nothing" you just for some reason can't understand what i'm getting at. there's no point in you replying to me

No the guy who linked reddit replied to me. I think youre not only mad but confused shitposter

>waaaaah, what do you mean I have to actually READ statistics, data, methodology, and criticisms of methods?!
lol

What are you even talking about.

What do you want user? Did you want to just make a shitpost to another shitpost?

>reddit pretending they're welcome here

Nigga, if you can't prove a simple factual point without resorting back to the old safe space, you really shouldn't be here.

Like, just post actual studies.

i've already mentioned on multiple occasions what i want in this thread but for some reason you keep ignoring what i'm literally telling you to keep trying to convince me that i'm a feminist arguing on behalf of feminists. you're wrong, just stop. nothing of what you're asking of me has anything to do with my point

His link has citations, are you actually dense enough not to understand what it means?

I posted this earlier, happy? I think you dont know who is who anymore user.

The source has citations anyways fag. Who even gives a literal fuck about reddit?

The problem is that there is a poster from reddit on my Veeky Forums, which would explain the abysmal post quality in general.

If there wasn't a dog fucking, shitposting reddit subhuman on my Veeky Forums, then the guy would have just posted the cited sources.

Veeky Forums is full of ledditors, dont even kid yourself.

>waaaah, what do you mean i have to read something i disagree with, waaaaah
Shoo shoo, back to plebbit you go.

But you can save a lot of money living together because it's cheaper to share common fixed living expenses. Everyone has more discretionary income and you can throw fun parties!

T. Girlfriend

(Kidding aside, communal living can help adult families build equity)

They see society for what it is and reject it. Obviously they will never be as virtuous or insightful as Diogenes.

>there will always be winners and losers
>Even if you take these fedora's to the 1950's, they still would not be able to fit into male hierarchy and would not be seen as potential mates.
Women were also losers in the 50s male hierarchy.

If liberals and feminists had done away with hierarchies and pecking orders in their entirety they would have found social acceptance (among liberals if not the rest of society) long before they put on a fedora. Instead liberals are self-serving and just trying to impose a new hierarchy where they continue to be ostracized, they neither have a stake in society nor any moral obligation to support it.

ywfam

I seriously consider buying a plot of land, a big library then just spend the rest of my life in seclusion reading, surviving, and exercising.