Let's settle this once and for all

Bhagavad Gita:

>"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

Women: reking society since... Forever.

I'm sorry, you gentlemen seem to have congregated on the wrong board. As you may observe at the top of your screen, this is not /pol/, though there is a handy navigational tool readily available so you can find your way back!

You realize you're just justifying feminism's existence rather than its destruction right

Of course they don't.

The OP asked what is our opinion and we said it. Like, only one answer is allowed? I didn't get that part from the OP. Why libshits so triggered by freedom of speech?

Go back to le ddit you limp wristed faggot.

Likewise it doesn't seem you love disagreement, does it?

>advocates freedom of speech
>women shouldn't vote

KEK
E
K

You're not "disagreeing" me. You're saying I shouldn't voice my opinion, and I'm saying fuck you, I'll say whatever I want.

Freedom of speech and voting rights are two entirely different subjects. Congrats for being a retard.

>You're not "disagreeing" me. You're saying I shouldn't voice my opinion, and I'm saying fuck you, I'll say whatever I want.

I wasn't that user, you also still don't like disagreement.

>Freedom of speech and voting rights are two entirely different subjects. Congrats for being a retard.

You're right, voting rights are more important.

>You're right, voting rights are more important.
At last we agree. Hence why women shouldn't have it.

Eh. It's not like most men are smart enough to vote but we let them do it

It was quite possibly the second worst idea in the history of western political thought.

So you don't care about your free speech as much as you care about women voting?

I wouldn't have guessed that, since it makes little sense.

Those are different things.

Nice word twisting, faggot. You've got talent for journalism. But my vote is still no, fuck women's vote.

It isn't called word twisting, but it is called logic. Your argument is pointless, and I believe you know it so.

>Your argument
Kek. Notice I never made an argument. I don't care about convincing you. All I care about is stripping women of their voting rights.

Given the decreasing need for hours of housework spent to keep a household running, yes. The only problem is that we have not completely stopped infantilising women from birth. The current feminazi/SJW movement is a good example of infatilisation gone bad. Feelings are to be set aside when put under pressure by fact. That is something that we not only not teach women enough... but we have stopped teaching it to men as well.

We need more males in primary education.

>Kek. Notice I never made an argument.

You're absolutely right. You never made an argument.

Men of today seem to feel more acutely than ever the paradox of their condition. They know themselves to be the supreme end to which all action should be subordinated, but the exigencies of action force them to treat one another as instruments or obstacles, as means. The more widespread their mastery of the world, the more they find themselves crushed by uncontrollable forces.

And of course, the obligatory thin skin act; where the agitator plays stupid and acts hurt at any allegations of misplay.

How about you qualify your opinion instead of memeing with "no".

One image > thousand words.

good idea for whom? your average woman and man? probably. for those who ensure that your average woman and man stays average? even more so

>Feelings are to be set aside when put under pressure by fact.

Wanna tell us what you don't like about the phrase there, buddy?

I'll bite
What was the first?

Probably emancipation or something similarly contrarian.

This

There a dead space of integrating them, and are easily pandered to with misrepresented women's issues like wage gaps.

Why the first was giving men voting rights!

Neo-constitutional-monarchy when?

Allow me OP

>In the West, the woman, that is to say the “lady,” finds herself in a fausse position; for woman, rightly named by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honour and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same rights as he. The consequences of this fausse position are sufficiently clear. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were assigned her natural position, and the lady-grievance got rid of, which is not only ridiculed by the whole of Asia, but would have been equally ridiculed by Greece and Rome. The result of this would be that the condition of our social, civil, and political affairs would be incalculably improved.

No allow me.

All agree in recognising the fact that females exist in the human species; today as always they make up about one half of humanity. And yet we are told that femininity is in danger; we are exhorted to be women, remain women, become women. It would appear, then, that every female human being is not necessarily a woman; to be so considered she must share in that mysterious and threatened reality known as femininity.

When an individual (or a group of individuals) is kept in a situation of inferiority, the fact is that he is inferior. But the significance of the verb to be must be rightly understood here; it is in bad faith to give it a static value when it really has the dynamic Hegelian sense of "to have become." Yes, women on the whole are today inferior to men; that is, their situation affords them fewer possibilities. The question is: should that state of affairs continue? Many men hope that it will continue; not all have given up the battle.

The present enshrines the past—and in the past all history has been made by men; and yet men in all their arrogance keep complaining about bias of women in critiquing it as if they have no bias. It is doubtless impossible to approach any human problems with a mind free from bias.

Schopenhauer was always a simple minded old fool.

The cartoon clearly displays a woman's role in a negative way. Why would they settle for it if there was a better alternative?

Yes

The former doesn't have much power without the latter.

>It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it.

>This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form.

Identity politics is a mask for existential angst, right or left.`

Letting people vote period.

Yes, and everyone who disagrees is a faggot

Many men would still subscribe to these words of Laforgue; many think that there will always be ‘strife and dispute’, as Montaigne put it, and that fraternity will never be possible. The fact is that today neither men nor women are satisfied with each other. But the question is to know whether there is an original curse that condemns them to rend each other or whether the conflicts in which they are opposed merely mark a transitional moment in human history.

Legends notwithstanding, no physiological destiny imposes an eternal hostility upon Male and Female as such; even the famous praying mantis devours her male only for want of other food and for the good of the species: it is to this, the species, that all individuals are subordinated, from the top to the bottom of the scale of animal life. Moreover, humanity is something more than a mere species: it is a historical development; it is to be defined by the manner in which it deals with its natural, fixed characteristics, its facticité. Indeed, even with the most extreme bad faith, it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of a rivalry between the human male and female of a truly physiological nature.

You ask a question and answer it with a contradiction which is a very old trick. Other than that your argument is strong but you raise transcendental questions and try to answer them in immanent language confined to immanent beings.

Forget women's suffrage, suffrage period was a bad idea. The American and French revolutions were the single worst things that ever happened to western civilization.

>it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of a rivalry between the human male and female of a truly physiological nature.

But he wasn't claiming that there was not a rivalry he was claiming that the female is complementary to the male, and that she must accept this subordinate state as she is unfit to play the other part. The "rivalry" as you called it, is an invention of civilizations that have forgotten their origins in the brutal primal world of millennia before. His claim is that there is indeed a place for man and woman, and that hers is beneath him, not beside him.

Personally I am attentive to women, and I want to meet one who is firm, and reasonable, and wise, and a genuine philosopher, not even to love but simply to remember. I've met so many men like this, but few women I have met whose interests transcend the material world.

Schopenhauer believes this is meant to be, personally I don't want to believe this. I've met girls who meet my interests but they are held back by something, as if their was something that they were not ready to accept.

> I've met girls who meet my interests but they are held back by something, as if their was something that they were not ready to accept.

It's probably your political beliefs. We talk philosophy more amongst ourselves than with men, because our own beliefs outrage you. It's not worth the time or effort.

no. i wasn't going to post but since is a faggot i will

Feel free to substantiate your claim using objective metrics.

>I've met girls who meet my interests but they are held back by something, as if their was something that they were not ready to accept.

Contrary, I am very apolitical. Women seem to be very sentimental towards their beliefs, I am not. That's not the issue though. They usually come from a point of view that accepts that things like justice truly exist, but then cannot bring a reason for its existence. I know what it is, most women I've talked to know how to discuss common points, however they have not developed a unified and complete world view.

nahy

>They usually come from a point of view that accepts that things like justice truly exist, but then cannot bring a reason for its existence

You'd find men hard pressed to agree with you off the internet as well. Maybe the problem is you are expecting women you meet to be any more layman than layman.

> I know what it is, most women I've talked to know how to discuss common points, however they have not developed a unified and complete world view.

Again, see above. Women on the internet intimidate you because of the vast ideological difference we have compared. And there and here we are not laymen, and our ideological difference does not exist due to our lack of intelligence you seem to think is there, it is totally different.

We are always available to talk to you, question being what you want to talk about and who you want to discuss, and if you want to change your mind.

Well duh.
>You realize that your classification of this tumor as cancerous is only justifying the reason that we consider this tumor to be cancerous.
That's essentially what you just said.

I used to dislike women's political opinions but I realized it is mostly a farçe. When you talk with a woman in a group she'll say "oh those poor sand people must be helped" but when youre alone they might aswell say "stop them from coming". They are far more pressured to give a more social answer.

Of course, the amount of true SJWs is higher amongst women. But many others agree only in public.

OP's pic is giving me a boner.

When's the last time a woman breathed near you?

When's the last time you weren't a pretentious cunt?

That terrorist was home grown.

yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/12/germans-attitudes-immigration-harden-following-col/

>That terrorist was home grown
Are people really supposed to buy this shit? They weren't ethnic French killing their fellow countrymen. They were second gen immigrants whose allegiances were to their parents' homeland, religion, and culture.

>pol boogeyma
>If it doesnt fit my ideology it isnt right

How is it related?

>voting rights are more important.

Me too. For some reason they felt the need to make them domineering while still grogeous.

I would marry an anti-suffrage propaganda wife.

>b-but French and Belgian n-nationality...

Le pol boogyman isint real!

Maybe people want to discuss things without having to wade through endless edgy shitposts?
I mean, if I wanted to read retards saying slavery should be brought back and women should not be allowed to vote...I'd probably go to pol with all the other cletuses

>Maybe people want to discuss things without having to wade through endless edgy shitposts?
>I mean, if I wanted to read retards saying slavery should be brought back and women should not be allowed to vote
You just proved my point
>If your ideas dont fit my ideology,they are wrong XD
Not an argument.

If you're posting on Veeky Forums you need to just accept that there are going to be controversial opinions. Many of them will be edgy and contrarian just for the sake of it. That's part of the deal here and always has been. Just be glad we're not in the days of constant gore and goatse spam anymore. In all seriousness, if racism and misogyny deeply disturb you and you're incapable of ignoring opinions that you deem ignorant, this may not be the place for you.

>The level of developmwnt of a subject,is intrinsictly related,to what is trying to please. If scientific knowledge was just targeted to the general populace,the quality of most scientific related topics,would be mediocre.
>This very same principle applies to politics. The very esence of doing politics is meant to fulfill and accomplish some goals. If this goals are determined by the general population,their characteristics would just focused on fulfilling menial things,instead of fulfilling higher goals.
>The very same principle of democracy is based on rights
>Rights are abstractions,that most people cant relate too,as most of those abstractions are not leanrt through tradition,and people just familiarize with the concept later on in their lifes,making its absolute validity inside a society questionable.
>As the right of vote was expanded to fulfill some goals,and it didnt came out gradually through tradition,the people that gain this vary own right,didnt have the wisdom,to exercise their freedoms,as freedom without wisdom is pointless and generally dangerous.
>This expansion of abstraction has made politics,a dubject of the masses,therefore the goals of current democracies tend to mediocrity,and its very own existance os dangerous,as people that shouldn't have as much autonomy as they have,have said autonomy.
>So the obvious conclusion to this,is that woman suffrage,and suffrage in general have watered down polititcs.
>t.Edmund burke.

This whole place, and I mean almost every single board, has been taken over by the trailer park stormfront autismos who think that constantly spamming race bait threads in FUCKING COOKERY, DIY, INTERNATIONAL CULTURE, TELEVISION AND HISTORY BOARDS IS GOING TO "SAVE" THEIR "RACE".
They literally dont let anybody talk about anything else, just look at the state of this shit board, its 24/7 hiter and nigger spam.

Yeah I dont mind "controversial opinions" but this is like a skinhead megaphone party where nothing BUT their pre-progammed agenda can be discussed or you are told to go back to le reddit.
I have some controversial opinions myself but I shitspam the entire internet with it to the point where nothing else is allowed. So in conclusion, fuck you.

*dont shitspam

>This whole place, and I mean almost every single board, has been taken over by the trailer park stormfront autismos who think that constantly spamming race bait threads in FUCKING COOKERY, DIY, INTERNATIONAL CULTURE, TELEVISION AND HISTORY BOARDS IS GOING TO "SAVE" THEIR "RACE".
>They literally dont let anybody talk about anything else, just look at the state of this shit board, its 24/7 hiter and nigger spam.
>Yeah I dont mind "controversial opinions" but this is like a skinhead megaphone party where nothing BUT their pre-progammed agenda can be discussed or you are told to go back to le reddit.
>I have some controversial opinions myself but I shitspam the entire internet with it to the point where nothing else is allowed. So in conclusion, fuck you.
Where is your argument? People have opinions that you dont like,and is more widespreed that you thought at first,just deal with it

Again, this is Veeky Forums. People are fucking assholes and the moderation is lax. It's always been a cesspool. Get the fuck over it or move along, princess.

You sound like a retarded newfag. le stormfront invasion is a shitty meme spouted by people who have both never actually been to /pol/ and are wholly unaware of their surroundings and the sites history.
> its 24/7 hiter and nigger spam.
I bet you can't link more than 10 posts, fuck off

Someone should screencap your buttblast and set it in stone. They're right, you should fuck off to reddit, the people you replied to simply answered the question, you just can't stand the answer. Sometimes I wonder how people like yourself even find and stay on this website, especially this board since you obviously don't enjoy history, but rather a mindless echo of your own decided and unchanging opinions.

>You will never marry a gentle dom qt like this

>"The entire Party and country should wake up, throw into the flames and twist the neck of any one who tramples underfoot the sacred law of the Party in defense of the rights of women."

t. Enver Hoxha

Damn, his wife's out of his league, desu. I mean, look at him. Look at her. He could be her father.

These guys got it right.

>When an individual (or a group of individuals) is kept in a situation of inferiority, the fact is that he is inferior
So, if a bunch of dudes came into your house, used their superior numbers to hold you down, put you in fetters and cuffs, and keep you as a slave, that would mean you're *actually* inferior, and not simply being kept from fulfilling your potential?

Universal suffrage/democracy was a mistake

That schoppy quote comes from a place of multiple assumptions.

A) Men don't practice dissimulation, are regularly thinking abstractly, and always stand by fixed maxims and firm resolutions.

-- and yet I have met many men that cannot think outside of the daily.

B) That these are exclusively good values.

-- While it is useful to think abstractly, adhere to maxims, etc. there comes a point where it is a detriment. It is possible to think too abstractly and lose sight of what's in front of you. It is possible to adhere to stubbornly to some maxim and miss the social cues that it is time for change.

>We are always available to talk to you

youtube.com/watch?v=AXDhvu4P3KA
(I'm sorry, I had to)

Read the archived threads. They're typically good.

Particularly the one about semen

Oh my, oh dear,

You're right, I must have these opinions because I haven't been touched by a woman in years.

Thank you for pointing out my insecurities and problems, I will go see a therapist about it right away. Perhaps I will even try to get in touch with my feminine side and learn to express my feelings.

If you hadn't opened my eyes to my flaws, I would have continued down the road of my former bigoted sexist ways. I now realize that women are just as capable as men if not more capable. In a just world all positions of authority would be held by women in tune with their environment and their feelings and everyone's opinion would be considered equally meritorious.

Perhaps one day if I'm nice enough to women and respect the shit out of them, then perhaps they'll give me the sexual favors and social validation I desperately crave, in the meantime I'll gracefully accept all of women's choices no matter how many people suffer as result of them.

Societies literally ALL AROUND THE WORLD came to the conclusion that women should be kept the fuck away from attaining power. That can't just be coincidence. Women, because men are designed to "protect", never came under much scrutiny when growing up, so because of that, they're less adept to succeed, have little need to face consequences because doing so would be "missogeenist", and can always delegate any job to a man without reprisal.

They raised to be self-centered, avoidant of responsibility, believe that they should also be treated with respect because vagina. Even if the problem of women wasn't gender specific, there is a clear difference in how men and women are raised, and that will never change because women like having higher status and men are desperate for pussy.

This is also why I think a civilization starts to decay when they can't control human sexuality. Not sure if it starts with male or female promiscuity, but when society concedes that its ok for either sex to be promiscuity, this results in beta men doing whatever it takes to "persuade" the woman to give him sex, even if it doesn't work. Society over time will eventually skew in favor of women to the determent of men until society collapses by an outside force.

...

they didn't "come to the conclusion" you retard

No but thats because women are subhuman meaning giving them freedom screws over mankind.

You're right, they succeeded because they understood it to be true. The cultures that didn't understand it, ultimately failed. The same will happen to us.

The reason you no longer see women's opinions here as often is because you've alienated all of them, and then blame them for not being here. In doing such, if you actually believe what you're saying, you drive yourself further into delusion

Technically men are the subhumans

I wish it was possible to drive retards off this hellhole.

No but let's be honest, majority of men shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

>Wah my opinion is not in the majority
You have to go back.

You've alienated the normal man, everyone here is now mentally ill

Back.

I am just saying facts. The normal man is no longer here, it is likely I am now speaking with someone who suffers from autism