The women problem

A monarchy with a strict constitution in regards to civi/individual liberties.

The female only initiates & prolongs a relationship if there is a perceived advantage.

This is the case in all animal species.

Human beings are maladapted for a technological world. There's no Marxist conspiracy.

It is better to understand the root differences between the genders than to pretend men were never objectified for their resource provision.

>monarchy offers more freedom
please step away from the computer

How can you have freedom under hereditary rule that stems from divine right?

only americans think that freedom is not having too many bosses

Easy, place a constitution above them and breed and train the rulers to be good statesmen. Obviously the people would also be involved in the assembly but not democratically, rather by virtue of their output and land ownership.

Tradition. Monarchies were bound by an umpteenth number of traditions, written and unwritten, city and province charters, regional and municipal parliaments, etc... which restricted central royal power to, a degree unimaginable nowadays. Even so-called absolute monarchs like Louis the 14th of France had comparatively ridiculously limited powers compared to a modern chief of state.

>Even so-called absolute monarchs like Louis the 14th of France had comparatively ridiculously limited powers compared to a modern chief of state.
Oh come on.

>Monarchies were bound by an umpteenth number of traditions, written and unwritten, city and province charters, regional and municipal parliaments, etc...
Yup, it sure worked great for countries like Poland or HRE.

All married women's income should be the sole property of the husband.

>Women are traditionally not raised with either the values that lead to more sound, rational voting

There's no such thing as "sound, rational voting".

Read the book "The Myth of the Rational Voter".

women have the same IQs as men
jerk off to your pseudoscience though

>countries
>HRE
Opinion digarded. Holy shit you're an idiot.

Yes it does you sperg. The whole myth of gender equality when it comes to intelligence is modern femenist pseudo science.

Codify those traditions. Good, now you have constitutional limitations on power that are applicable in systems other than monarchy.

Thanks for implying I'm american but kindly fuck off cunt

If you train the rulers to be good statesmen why even have hereditary rule? What you basically want is roman empire with a constitution

This still doesn't explain how freedom exists in such a regime

On average yes but how does that matter in this context? They are not fit to act as independant agents in a society without damaging it.

Because there would be no mechanism in place to expand centralized authority like in democracies.

Pleb here

>Aristotle explains in the Politics the great disadvantages which the Spartans brought upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing them the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta

How?

>May it not be that the influence of women in France, which has been increasing since Louis XIII.‘s time, was to blame for that gradual corruption of the court and government which led to the first Revolution, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the result?

Also how?

>Because there would be no mechanism in place to expand centralized authority like in democracies.
Can a monarch not decide to break the numerous traditions?

Monarchies also usually had lots of restrictions on trade which stifles economic freedom. How would you work around that?

Women are more risk averse and will vote as a fifth column for statism and socialism. They perceive the state as a provider and who needs a man when you have the collective of men known as a state? Whereas men see the welfare state as a scab to their role as husband, father and provider.

Women think that acting like egotistical teenagers after age 18 is normal, this is insane behavior and proof they are uncivilized wild animals compared to men who are more tame and refined in their actions where as women pride in acting like stupid animals watch as they show all of their skin, gladly take photos of themselves near nude to show to strangers, and randomly remove their clothing because showing your boobs or genitalia with friends to random people or flashing is fun in the screwed up animal brain of human women.

As much as my dick hates this women are shit and should completley removed from human society all together and reduced to rape toys to create new humans, the females will stay in the wilderness while the males will enter society.

Basically: Pleb was right. Banter is meaningless without proper context

>ask girl out
>get rejected
>become butthurt
>go on Veeky Forums and complain about woman

It's not only a "women problem", the problem also lies with their beta enablers, those who can't overcome their biological urge to see any woman as a potential mate and bend over backwards for them - which is exactly what women want. Giving women even more power, such that in some cases they're already better off than men, will tip the societal balance in their favor, but since most modern women have the mindsets of egotistical teenage girls, it really doesn't seem like a good thing. Not a misogynist, in fact it's more the way society treats people (especially this nu-feminism bullshit) that changes potentially decent women into attention-seeking cunts.

tl;dr womens suffrage isn't necessarily a bad thing, but modern society makes it so by producing shit-tier women.

>Give women voting rights
>A hundred years later lauded as one of the most modern and successful states in the world

Abstract kind of feel desu

source on graph?

>There are more stupid men than there are stupid women

Due to men not women, women have contributed jack fucking shit even after getting human rights.

I think, sadly, that it's mostly the fault od female biology. See the play Assemblywomen by Aristophanes, same shit more than 2k years ago.

I don't think the problem is the intelligence of women but their emotional cycles.

women being supposedly more emotional on average doesn't mean they shouldn't get the right to vote if men do
men are emotional too, just in other ways

if you are going to limit voting rights you just can't base it on gender, but on other individual characteristics

Most men don't need to vote either, tbqf.

we pretty much have that, it's the parliament where actual decisions on issues are made
votes don't matter that much

Just came here to say soe is a cute.

Yes that would be the ideal way to tackle the problem but I doubt that during Ancient Times they had the means to do that so they just went with the odds.

No he can not as the Monarch is ultimately the defender of the constitution and answers only to it and not what some random prole wants.

The economy is a seperate issue.

this

Cripplechan is leaking hard with this thread.

You're confising who rules with how he rules. Common mistake for brainlets.

>The economy is a seperate(sic) issue.
you can't have actual freedom without economic freedom

>No he can not as the Monarch is ultimately the defender of the constitution
What if a particular monarch wants more power for himself?
What if he is about to be guillotined?
There's going to be some amendments there for sure

The capacity for good statemanship is there in every system of government. The same argument can be made for oligarchy, autocracy and democracy. Also, having a hardon for monarchy is not an argument

>Is there a way we can fix this problem or do we just watch it all go down?
Just strip them off their "rights".

Problem solved.

So this is the power of """""""""humanities"""""""""". Whoa.

Not at all. They didn't have rights at some point but they gained them through emotional blackmail and pandering, they'll do the same again. Women have to physically cease to exist as a species.

>> Aristotle explains in the Politics the great disadvantages which the Spartans brought upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing them the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta

what's the correlation between all of that?

Nothing. Men in patriarchal societies were misogynists.

women and men belong to the same biological species sperglord

You're the asperger here.

>One ancient nation didn't do too well because they gave women rights, according to a history written by a philosopher who lived in a society who perpetually made fun of how absurd it would be to give women rights.
>t. a guy who beat up an old lady and cheated his mother and sister out of money

>Therefore it's ok to think that I can't find a job, have no friends and can't get a gf because we gave women equal rights

>On an unrelated note, why don't we go back to the time where I could just pay some dude for his daughters? I mean, it worked in the past, right?

/r9k/ is leaking hard.

I want /r9k/ to leave

>missing the point this hard

Exactly what I expected from a woman desu

No self-insight whatsoever

Artificial womb soon.

Womeh have to suffer.

Back to rabbit

Way too project. And in fact it would be better if women/potential wifes were bought and sold or exchanged since for a male to put effort in modern social dynamics is time consuming and unproductive.

>modern social dynamics are time consuming
Yes.
>unproductive.
No.

Wouldn't it be better to just buy a wife and use the time more wisely such as a productive hobby or socio-cultural gathering?

Freedom is nothing but a meme.

But the Spartans BTFO'd Athens just 20 years before Aristotle was born.

says man lived an affluent life in the western world

I was thinking the same thing.

Men think that acting like egotistical teenagers after age 18 is normal, this is insane behavior and proof they are uncivilized wild animals compared to women who are more tame and refined in their actions where as men pride in acting like stupid animals watch as they fart loudly, gladly take photos of their dick to show to strangers, and randomly remove their clothing because showing your cock with friends to random people or pissing in the street is fun in the screwed up animal brain of human men.

Yes. Where pure freedom doesn't exist.

Op you say women are now only interested in cock "carasel rides" until they are used up and unfit for marriage. can you please tell me how many cocks a women has to have before she is unfit, and what being unfit for marriage actually means in the case of population decline when marriage is not an inherent necessity in reproduction?

t. butthurt slut

not butthurt just confused as to the metric their using for this, since in my 25 years on this earth I have never heard that to much sex can actually make a women unfit for marriage until i started reading this site.

>how many cocks a women has to have before she is unfit

it's not so much the number of cocks, as even more than one cock is too many desu.

It's about the amount of time some women spend riding this "cock carousel". Some of them ride for so long they pass their reproductive prime and LITERALLY cannot produce the same number of quality children as she could have if she had gotten married earlier.

Zero. A female should be prevented from taking any cock because all cocks should belong to other men, females should be farmed and artificially inseminated like cattle until we develop artificial wombs and can finally off them for good.

I guess the idea is that men find it hard to accept that a woman who has ridden the "cock carousel" or whatever and suddenly decides to stop for some arbitrary reason won't actually be a faithful wife or a good mother since she'll always be inclined to go back to her old ways. There's no solid number, it's more a general guide. Would you want to marry a man who has been extremely promiscuous but suddenly decides to stop and wants to marry you?

In that case shouldn't we take this one step further and only allow men to reproduce until the age of 35 when the chance of their sperm containing some deficiency (down syndrome, dyslexia, etc) goes up dramatically?

Oh course not and that why im saving myself for my wedding nigh with my perfect virgin bride

Its the worn out eggs that cause birth defects, in denial women.

>age of 35 when the chance of their sperm containing some deficiency (down syndrome, dyslexia, etc) goes up dramatically?

this effect is more severely pronounced in females

but honestly this might not be a bad policy, maybe people would actually get their shit together.

3.bp.blogspot.com/-QPnsHoU2Pzk/T3GylzESIiI/AAAAAAAAAYI/4USMzLGzm-A/s640/Heritage.jpg

statistics bear out the fact if you ride the cock carousel you don't make a good wife

If you don't like something don't do it.
One night stands can be magical and beneficiall stress relief.
Kys

True but we cant forget that the male sperm has some effect in this process, therefore we need to eliminate all but the most alpha male. this sadly will exclude myself and most men on this board from ever being able to procreate, but i suppose if its for the betterment of human kind who am I to argue.

>and how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta
Really now? It was the women who caused the fall of Sparta?

Not say their horrendous cast system and treatment of slaves?

> one night stands can be magical

t. shallow slut

Where is this data taken from? any country in particular, without proper citations i have to assume its fake.

>therefore we need to eliminate all but the most alpha male

so you want your lineage to die out in three generations because everybody would be marrying their siblings?

It doesn't follow, and you're reaching really hard to justify dangerous and childish promiscuity.

clearly you've never tried one

So what you're saying is you'd rather seek temporary and sinful distractions from life's problems instead of working to change them? Yeah, I know, say hello to 99% of the human race, including me. Fuck it. But it still doesn't mean you'd be a good long-term partner, let alone husband/wife.

Ok, fair enough it is a little bit of a reach, but where is the cut off line then, how long before a man or women reaches the point where they no longer can produce the optimal child and should be thrown out like the trash they are?

livescience.com/55104-sex-partners-and-divorce.html
family-studies.org/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
too lazy to go find the actual case study atm so have two articles about it
of course not, I'm not a hedonist

For you not. Us discussing here is a temporary and sinful distraction.
+They are needed. You'll see when you grow up.

MUH 1%

>where is the cut off line
>how long before a man or women reaches the point where they no longer can produce the optimal child

what if I told you it's different depending on environmental and genetic factors?

What if I told you ""race"" matters in these kinds of calculations?

Thank you for the links. the first is concerning as it only seems to pull data from the first 5 years of these marriages and neglects to mention divorce rates past that. I would be interested in seeing rates following this as ive always read that most marriages dissolve past the 5 year mark anyway, and since the best way to stop premarital sex among women (according to your second link) is to have strong family dynamics which emphasize this.

I would ask for some studies from acknowledged sources that I could look at that would prove the dominance of one race over another in these particular factors.

"blacks" generally reach sexual maturity faster than "whites" for example.

shh dont ruin the r9k circlejerk

Considering those things never cause the fall of anything, but the relaxing of those things, and the fact that caste societies are extremely stable makes me think no.