All women want to get married and take care of children

>If they are, why aren't they going back to the kitchen?
Societal pressure and social instability, depressed wages after the emergence of a whole new workforce, etc

>Societal pressure

What societal pressure? It's still well and legal to be a housewife, society in fact pressures you to be one because that's allegedly what men want. Not staying home to look after the kids makes you a bad mother, etc.

>social instability

What social instability? You mean men pumping and dumping? The problem is men there.

>depressed wages

Which would lift considerably if women decided to leave the workforce in mass. So why aren't they doing it?

>It's still well and legal to b
I said societal you fuck
>What social instability?
The fact that the entire institution of marriage has been altered
>Which would lift considerably if women decided to leave the workforce in mass
You can't be this stupid

>If they are, why aren't they going back to the kitchen?
They haven't left the kitchen, bud. There's a strong undercurrent of feminist dogma out there that's pushing young indecisive women into other roles, but it hasn't been around long enough to see the ramifications of a portion of a generation of women pushed into gender studies roles play out.

>Why aren't all women regretting their choices? Why are others happy with them years later?
Because women are NOT a monolith. There ARE women who are happy to pursue competitive roles, they're just outliers. And again, the current generation of women raised on seditious feminist dogma (the first that has been largely enough affected by such for it to have a real effect on the statistics of education and jobs) haven't actually got old enough to get out into the real world and experience said regret.
>Because as you said, women aren't a monolith, therefore you shouldn't push on a woman what other women wanted, you should let her do and be as she wants.
This is exactly my stance. This is the opposite of a feminist stance. And anybody with a shred of sociological or psychological education will tell you that womens' judgement has always influenced other women more than mens'
>Do see a woman having a job to support herself as competition?
A job no. A career which demands huge investments of time and energy is inherently competitive though, and disallows other interests to be pursued.
>They don't a natural drive to swim against the current, they want to do their own thing.
user, the THING that most women want to do is have a steady, stable family life and a family. This is actually the thing most men want as well, but they can't spirit a fucking baby out of their cocks and women hold mate selection power (and have since the second hominids split off from chimpanzees). Men must COMPETE (for example, have a career) for that goal, women do not need to, or at least, not in the same way.

>I said societal

Yeah and society has no power to stop a woman from becoming a housewife if she wants to.

>the entire institution of marriage has been altered

I don't see them women asking for a return to marriage without women's rights.

>You can't be this stupid

You people said this so same to you, user.

Personally I think women don't become housewives and keep their jobs because they want to.

This is why the State should be the one that nurtures children from birth, alongside careful in vitro analysis. Once people get richer they just don't want the hassle of raising kids. Meanwhile, single motherhood is evidently insufficient. The State again is the only entity that can save children from their retarded neglectful parents. Good thing now everything is about to be automated

>I don't see them women asking for a return to marriage without women's rights.
Marriage without Women's Rights has never existed you absolute moron. Actually read a fucking history book. Marriage has ALWAYS benefited the woman. The entire reason women were treated as physical objects by various historical societies was to PROTECT them from being hurt, abused, raped, etc. and ensure safety and stability for child rearing.

>Personally I think women don't become housewives and keep their jobs because they want to.
If this is the case then why hasn't every single woman become a career-focused individual? Why does society still function on the basis of a monogamous, multi-child 2-parent household with typically one career parent (the father)?
If society doesn't have the power to prevent women from becoming housewives, surely it can't have the power to prevent them from holding jobs?

Or
or
OR
Society itself works to preserve the societal systems that subsidized the two-parent household, without direct state interventionism (for example, by casting out proponents of seditious social policy)

she definitely wanted to fuck pilot boys. or was she butch?

>"medieval" concept of monogamy
She was polyamorous for sure

nice bait

>They haven't left the kitchen

So all the /pol/-tier crying about women in the workforce is baseless?

>There ARE women who are happy to pursue competitive roles, they're just outliers.

Doesn't mean they should be unfairly hindered in their pursuits in any way. They have the same rights as anyone else.

>the current generation of women raised on seditious feminist dogma (the first that has been largely enough affected by such for it to have a real effect on the statistics of education and jobs) haven't actually got old enough to get out into the real world and experience said regret

But a large enough percentage of adult women out there is feminist (as in they like their rights) and as they show they don't experience regret. Why should all these women do? Some might of course, but others will not. Those don't regret have every right to it to live as they see fit.

>This is the opposite of a feminist stance

That's exactly the feminist stance though. Which started because men were harassing women who didn't want to become housewives and stay-at-home mothers, claiming they were weird, not real women, had forgotten their gender, and other such crap.

>womens' judgement has always influenced other women more than mens'

Yet feminists were able to go their way even though other women, who didn't like them acting out of the norm, judged them negatively.

>A career which demands huge investments of time and energy is inherently competitive though, and disallows other interests to be pursued

That's something few people pursue even among men.

>the THING that most women want to do is have a steady, stable family life and a family

Depends on whether they can reconcile said family with their passions. If family precludes personal fulfillment, many women choose the latter.

>step one: be born rich

The problem I have with a lot of feminist ideology is that it seems almost solely focused on the lifestyles of the wealthy and privileged. Of course, if you are born into opportunity and stimulating environments, you will not be too inclined to abandon that. Unfortunately, many people simply do not have this luxury, yet their struggles seem but an afterthought. I feel similarly about the glass ceiling and such, who cares about these positions unavailable to practically everyone?

>So all the /pol/-tier crying about women in the workforce is baseless?
All /pol/ crying is worthless. Unless specific individual women are being actively seditious or promoting seditious ideology/policy, they can do whatever the hell they want.
>They have the same rights as anyone else.
I'll let you provide evidence of this not being upheld, and I'll also let you call the police and notify the attorneys.
>But a large enough percentage of adult women out there is feminist (as in they like their rights)
Hohoho lemme just switch around some definitions and now EVERY EGALITARIAN IS ACTUALLY AN INTERSECTIONAL FEMINIST.
Stop doing this. You know it's intellectually dishonest. Go see the voting statistics of pro-Trump women and the ensuing feminist shaming of those women who enacted their voting rights the way they wanted to.
>That's exactly the feminist stance though.
Again, you're switching around definitions and being intellectually dishonest. Egalitarianism is not Feminism.
>Yet feminists were able to go their way even though other women, who didn't like them acting out of the norm, judged them negatively.
Right, because women aren't actually slaves to the judgment of other women, the number 1 reason why women are not monolithically feminist. They're just more prone to that judgment than they are to mens'.
>That's something few people pursue even among men.
Wrong and I'd love to see you try and explain what the fuck you're talking about here without redefining 'career'
>If family precludes personal fulfillment, many women choose the latter.
Family is the SOURCE of personal fulfillment for a significant portion of men, and nearly all women. That's the point I'm trying to get through your head. Women experience that desire increasingly as they age due to their biological clocks, which is a primary reason why young women are easily exploited (by other women's judgment) into pursuing careers or education pursuits that run contrary to their inner desires.

>The problem I have with a lot of feminist ideology is that it seems almost solely focused on the lifestyles of the wealthy and privileged
>Champagne socialist """humanitarian""" ideology sold by manipulative individuals for profit to elitist self-affected morons turns out to be a bourgeoisie fart-huffing party
YOU DON'T FUCKING SAY

>Marriage without Women's Rights has never existed

>Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband. A feme covert was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman's existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own. As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.

>Marriage has ALWAYS benefited the woman

See above.

>The entire reason women were treated as physical objects by various historical societies was to PROTECT them

That's some bullshit excuse. You are not protecting them, you are hindering them and keeping them forcefully away from what's good.

>why hasn't every single woman become a career-focused individual?

>If society doesn't have the power to prevent women from becoming housewives, surely it can't have the power to prevent them from holding jobs?

It can't as long as oppressive ideologies that restrict women's rights don't get into power.

See, you are already calling for banning thought that you don't like.

Couverture subsumed a woman's LEGAL rights, not the rights granted her by society. Again, Marriage has always benefited women by providing shelter, stability, caretaking, etc, all things necessary in childrearing and all things which align along the axiom of childrearing with MOST women's natural desires.
There's a reason why marriage has existed as an institution since prehistory straight up to the modern day. If marriage actually destroyed womens' rights like, say, chattel slavery did to the enslaved, it'd have been violently cast off in the same way. It has not been - instead, the societal systems which hampered women's LEGAL rights have been, but those are tertiary to marriage itself.

>You are not protecting them
Yes you fucking are you absolute mongoloid. It benefits NOBODY - not the women, the men, the children or society as a whole - for women to be exposed to warfare, physical or environmental adversity, hunger, etc. When given the option between direct competition and the protections afforded by marriage, women nearly unanimously choose marriage, especially the older they get BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MOST BENEFITS THEM AND THEIR INTERESTS.
There's nothing wrong with that, it isn't a value judgment. The notion that choosing marriage over competition is a value judgment is entirely a female creation and seditious rhetorical tool.

>See, you are already calling for banning thought that you don't like.
Society reacting to the seditious by opposing their views is not banning. I have not called for deplatforming of seditious individuals on an institutional level; I'm calling for individuals to, as a group, challenge or at least ignore the seditious and their garbage ideology, which has been happening increasingly over the past few years.

Intersectional Feminism is trashcan ideology.

>specific individual women are being actively seditious or promoting seditious ideology/policy, they can do whatever the hell they want

And what would these "seditious" ideology/policy be? Wanting rights for themselves? Wanting to exercise agency and control over their own lives?

>I'll let you provide evidence of this not being upheld

Historically speaking, it happened with fascist regimes, where the propaganda was that the woman was to be the homemaker and laws were enacted to restrict women in the workforce. This board admires nazis for that and spouts the same slogans and the same propaganda.

>Stop doing this

Why?
Women's rights (vote, own property, enter contracts, education, employment, reproductive rights etc.) were won by feminists. If a woman is a not a feminist, she should not want those rights.

>Egalitarianism is not Feminism

It is though when it comes to women's rights.

>women aren't actually slaves to the judgment of other women

So I don't see why you brought up women's judgement of other women as having any substantial impact on what women do. If it has, why were feminists able to overcome it? If it hasn't, why did you bring it up in the first place?

>Wrong

CEOs are a small minority among the male population user.

>Family is the SOURCE of personal fulfillment for a significant portion of men, and nearly all women

Yet I see plenty of women do willingly without it, especially those with a good, fulfilling job, and only be willing to consider it when it accomodates around their passion.

>why young women are easily exploited (by other women's judgment)

That doesn't make sense. Feminists have shown other women's judgement doesn't impact women as much as you claim, and feminists are and have been young women too. Wouldn't seeing older women being miserable turn young women away if that were the case? Older women followed their desires that you here are denying to exist and they're not miserable, that's what young women are seeing.

>And what would these "seditious" ideology/policy be? Wanting rights for themselves? Wanting to exercise agency and control over their own lives?
And again, demonstrate that this isn't already the case. It is. Women have full equal rights to men in every western democratic country I can fucking think of and if that's not being upheld, call the fucking cops.
>Historically speaking, it happened with fascist regimes, where the propaganda was that the woman was to be the homemaker and laws were enacted to restrict women in the workforce. This board admires nazis for that and spouts the same slogans and the same propaganda.
Okay and that's relevant to anything how? Unless you think modern countries are being run by underground nazis, this problem has been solved by the eradification of those ideologies.
>Women's rights (vote, own property, enter contracts, education, employment, reproductive rights etc.) were won by feminists. If a woman is a not a feminist, she should not want those rights.
Feminists of past eras whose ideas have already been incorporated into Western Democracy. A person calling themselves a feminist today does not mean a fucking Suffragist because that fight has already been won, you absolute mong. Stop lying through your teeth about what you think Feminist means in a modern context.
>So I don't see why you brought up women's judgement of other women as having any substantial impact on what women do.
You understand that a force can have impact, without completely dominating an entire population, right? Stop pretending to be stupid.
>CEOs are a small minority among the male population user.
CEO is not the definition of 'career'. Stop redefining terms.
>Yet I see plenty of women do willingly without it, especially those with a good, fulfilling job, and only be willing to consider it when it accomodates around their passion.
Nice anecdotes buddy but we're talking about the statistical facts of entire populations not your pals

>Couverture subsumed a woman's LEGAL rights

So the only existing rights?

>rights granted her by society

That don't exist? Only the law grants you rights. Society isn't bound to respect customs as law is bound to respect recognized rights.

>Marriage has always benefited women by providing shelter, stability, caretaking

What shelter, stability and caretaking if your husband was allowed to abuse you if you were not happy with his choices and you were not allowed to make your own?

>all things necessary in childrearing

Not all women care for childrearing or desire it at any cost. The birthrate should show that.

>If marriage actually destroyed womens' rights like, say, chattel slavery did to the enslaved, it'd have been violently cast off in the same way

But you just said marriage has been altered to the point of not being the same anymore, and now it includes women's right to divorce an abusive partner which makes you hate it?

>It benefits NOBODY - not the women, the men, the children or society as a whole - for women to be exposed to warfare, physical or environmental adversity, hunger

Women have shown they're faring decently in the workplace user, and they're not exposed to any of that there.

>When given the option between direct competition and the protections afforded by marriage

When being forced between starving and surviving you mean. Look what happened when feminists made it possible to live well without having to get married, the marriage rate plummeted.

>The notion that choosing marriage over competition is a value judgment

??? Women merely criticized marriage for being an oppressive institution (as it was) and changed it into something one could have if she wanted, but couldn't be forced into if she wasn't willing.

>Society reacting to the seditious by opposing their views is not banning

But casting people out in an effort to censor their views is.

>I have not called for deplatforming of seditious individuals on an institutional level

Not yet. What guarantee is there you won't? Many individuals like you ahve already sent rape and murder threats to women who speak out.

>Society isn't bound to respect customs as law is bound to respect recognized rights.
Ridiculous
>if your husband was allowed to abuse you if you were not happy with his choices and you were not allowed to make your own?
IF. Big fucking IF. Again, read a history book. Men have almost universally been prevented and outright punished for mistreating women in societies where monogamous marriage has existed. Existing law codes from thousands of years of society point to a universal attitude against mistreatment of women.
There's also a big question here about why you assume, baselessly, that men tend towards abuse of women.
As far as marriage disallowing women to make their own choices, this has almost never been the case. That's an effect of other customs (which in your mind don't exist) such as arranged marriages, kidnapping of wives, and the like that are secondary or even tertiary to marriage as an institution itself. Notice how these concepts have been largely eradicated in the west, while marriage remains?
>Not all women care for childrearing or desire it at any cost.
And I've never argued that they do. But the privilege of catering to every individual interest, rather than working in broad strokes for the good of the population as a whole, has only been feasible in the last few decades. I've never argued that all women MUST be married.
>But you just said marriage has been altered
I think you're confusing another user's posts with mine, I haven't commented on divorce.
>Women have shown they're faring decently in the workplace user
By almost no metrics in (again, barring healthcare, education and the like), which is why seditious feminists support quotas and artificial pay equality.
And thank you for admitting that women do tremendously well (not really) when 99% of adversity is handled for them by the innate structure of modern society.

>Look what happened when feminists made it possible to live well without having to get married, the marriage rate plummeted.
Women were never required to marry as a pretext to EATING you fucking cretin

>But casting people out in an effort to censor their views is.
No, you define opposing viewpoints as censorship because you understand implicitly that these are failed ideas.

>Not yet. What guarantee is there you won't? Many individuals like you ahve already sent rape and murder threats to women who speak out.
Ridiculous feminist rhetoric. I've received thousands of death threats and assault threats from just being on this website for a few years; none of them have happened (just like none have happened to feminists in a way that statistically matters or is even verifiable), nor will they. Again, you're resorting to this kind of crap because you KNOW your arguments are failed ideas.
Even if every single feminist was beaten to death, it wouldn't actually validate your arguments.

>demonstrate that this isn't already the case

No, I'm asking you, since you brought up the whole thing. Does your idea of "seditious" ideology/policy include women protesting for and claiming their individual rights?

>this problem has been solved by the eradification of those ideologies

Nope. With the alt-right glorifying these ideologies, the problem is returning, it hasn't been eradicate.

>Feminists of past eras whose ideas have already been incorporated into Western Democracy

And you'd love to see it destroyed, eh? Degenerate West and all that.

>A person calling themselves a feminist today does not mean a fucking Suffragist because that fight has already been won

The fight had already been won in the Weimar Republic too, and then the Nazi Party happened.

>Stop lying through your teeth

I'm not lying. This is what feminism means.

>You understand that a force can have impact, without completely dominating an entire population

Then it's not the society-destroying boogeyman you people make it out to be.

>CEO is not the definition of 'career'

Of course not. It's only the best example of such concept.

>we're talking about the statistical facts of entire populations

The statistical facts that show women are largely choosing to live life alone or get married later in life?

>No, I'm asking you, since you brought up the whole thing. Does your idea of "seditious" ideology/policy include women protesting for and claiming their individual rights?
Women already have their individual rights. This is codified in law, and if it weren't being upheld, you'd see vast amounts of legal action in response (which we do see some of, because obviously society does not follow its own rules perfectly). Seditious feminists are those seeking the unfair, unilateral expansion of rights in ways that damage either one element of society (commonly female supremacy at the expense of equality) or society as a whole (neo-Marxists).
>Nope. With the alt-right glorifying these ideologies, the problem is returning, it hasn't been eradicate.
The alt-right is a ridiculous and tiny minority whose ideas should be thrown out with the rest of the trash. Citing alt-right ideas as a defense for intersectional feminism is tacit admission that your ideas are fucking awful; they're just not quite literally Hitler.
>And you'd love to see it destroyed, eh? Degenerate West and all that.
Nope, and cite a post of mine where I've said such. I'm perfectly happy with egalitarian western democracies and I wish self-labelled progressives would stop trying to undermine it and making people miserable of both genders.
>The fight had already been won in the Weimar Republic too, and then the Nazi Party happened.
Fucking relevant HOW. America is not run by a coalition of Nazis
1/2

>I'm not lying. This is what feminism means.
Do I need to start typing Intersectional Feminism to communicate with you, or do you understand context like a big boy (stop lying).
>Then it's not the society-destroying boogeyman you people make it out to be.
Political interest groups can go over the heads of the population at large; that's how representative democracy works.
>Of course not. It's only the best example of such concept.
And that's relevant how? Everything that could be considered a career is competitive. There's a variation of course, but I'm not going to pedantically define the threshold at which competition becomes 'enough' to count
>The statistical facts that show women are largely choosing to live life alone or get married later in life?
So you admit that women choose, statistically, to get married AT SOME POINT? How is that counter to my claim at all?
2/2

>Women were never required to marry as a pretext to EATING

Sure they were. How else are you supposed to do that if you aren't allowed to hold a steady, living wage job?

>IF

Extremely serious if there.

>Men have almost universally been prevented and outright punished for mistreating women

Nope.

In 1800 BC, the Code of Hammurabi decreed that a wife was subservient to her husband and that he could inflict punishment on any member of his household for any transgression.

Medieval Canon law encouraged that wifely disobedience be punished publicly, using devices like iron muzzles with spikes which depressed the tongue.

In Renaissance France when it became clear that too many women and children were being beaten to death and their economic contributions lost, lawmakers acted to moderate the effects of domestic chastisement. One statute, considered in its time to be progressive, restricted the chastisement of wives and children to "blows, thumps, kicks or punches on the back...which did not leave any marks," but added, "the man who is not master of his wife is not worthy of being a man." Another law even later, designed to protect women and children stated that, "All the inhabitants have the right to beat their wives so long as death does not follow."

n the U.S., the courts continued to uphold a man's right to punish his wife with violence until 1871. In a case known as Fulgam vs. the State of Alabama, the court ruled that, "The privilege, ancient though it may be, to beat her with a stick, to pull her hair, choke her, spit in her face or kick her about the floor or to inflict upon her other like indignities, is not now acknowledged by our law."

In 1910, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that a wife had no cause for action on an assault and battery charge against her husband because it "would open the doors of the courts to accusations of all sorts of one spouse against the other and bring into public notice complaints for assault, slander and libel."

>Sure they were. How else are you supposed to do that if you aren't allowed to hold a steady, living wage job?
You understand that for 99% of human history, wages as a concept didn't exist and subsistence farming was the norm, right?
How are you on the /history/ board and don't understand history

And I'm not even going to respond to you citing a few (some ridiculous and unenforceable, others vague and transitory) laws as "evidence" that women were treated as slaves for the entirety of human history but then decided that they'd just keep doing the same even though they were never required to do so in order to survive. That's asinine and you know it.

>why you assume, baselessly, that men tend towards abuse of women

Because plenty of men do just that? Not all of course, but you denying a woman's concerns even have right to exist are telling.

>As far as marriage disallowing women to make their own choices, this has almost never been the case

Save for when marriage prevented them from owning their own property, entering their own contracts, separating from a bad spouse, keeping the money they earned, etc. etc., of course.

>That's an effect of other customs

That's an effect of a legal system that denied women their rights and permitted all you mentioned to exist.

>Notice how these concepts have been largely eradicated in the west, while marriage remains?

So you're happy with how marriage is now? You have to thank feminists for it.

>I've never argued that they do

Sure, you just put emphasis on "most" and "nearly all" when the birthrate shows the number of childfree women or women who have specific conditions to marry and have children is quite large.

>working in broad strokes for the good of the population as a whole

is bullshit. People are individuals. Thinking that everything must be the same for everyone, no exceptions allowed is what caused communism to fail.

>I've never argued that all women MUST be married

You'll have no complain at women's choice not to marry or do it later in life then.

>What social instability?
>The fact that the entire institution of marriage has been altered

This not you?

>By almost no metrics

Participation in the workforce is a metric and it's quite positive, been so for decades.

>99% of adversity is handled for them by the innate structure of modern society

That's true for men too though. You don't have to be afraid of someone murdering you at on the street unless you specifically put yourself in a dangerous situation.

>This
Give people the choice for themselves, don't push them one way or another. We are all individuals.

>you define opposing viewpoints as censorship

Casting people out thus preventing them to voice their opposing view to yous is censorship. You've said you aren't fine with debate, you want your opponents physically removed.

>I've received thousands of death threats and assault threats from just being on this website

So have I. Guess what, we're all anonymous here, and that ensures safety. Try being on a site where your name and address are open and visible.

>none have happened to feminists in a way that statistically matters

So some have already happened. Women have every right to be concerned. Statistics don't matter when they concern your personal safety.

>Even if every single feminist was beaten to death, it wouldn't actually validate your arguments

Yes it would. It proves there is a systemic violence against women who want rights for themselves.

>Because plenty of men do just that?
Do you have actual statistics showing this, or are you talking out of your ass
>Save for when marriage prevented
Except marriage itself doesn't DO that. That's the product of secondary or tertiary law/custom which have been thrown out while marriage itself preserved. There's no explanation for this aside from the fact that both parties desire and derive benefit from marriage as an institution.
>That's an effect of a legal system that denied women their rights and permitted all you mentioned to exist.
Okay, but I'm not defending the legal systems of past societies
>You have to thank feminists for it.
No. Its not possible to categorically demonstrate that everyone who played a role in shaping modern marriage identified as feminist, and modern intersectional feminists have not had a hand in it at all, and they're the only ones left alive to thank.
>the birthrate shows the number of childfree women or women who have specific conditions to marry and have children is quite large.
But not a majority, or significant minority. And you know they're not, because you keep including women who do get married and have children in your "outliers" because you know the real number of outliers is irrelevant to the whole.
>is bullshit. People are individuals.
And I've never argued against that, but you keep treating STONE AGE societies like they're equal to Nazis because they had to face practical issues like choosing the good of the whole over the individual. I've never argued it should be this way today or that women SHOULD be married, only that the vast majority of them WANT to.
>You'll have no complain at women's choice not to marry or do it later in life then.
I haven't at any point. Stop misrepresenting me. I have complained at statistical outliers using their political and social capital to push agendas on the greater population, but I don't care about their own individual life choices that don't affect me or society as a whole.

>You've said you aren't fine with debate, you want your opponents physically removed.
That's a hysterical interpretation of 'cast out' and you know it
>Try being on a site where your name and address are open and visible.
Try living in an egalitarian democracy where rule of law both protects your well being AND freedom of speech reigns supreme. You might enjoy it.
If people's safety were actually at risk, we'd expect to see them either stop voicing opinions that would get them hurt or MOVE to anonymous sites, rather than turning that into a victim narrative to profit off of, because they know they're perfectly fucking safe.
>So some have already happened. Women have every right to be concerned. Statistics don't matter when they concern your personal safety.
No, but then you need to actually demonstrate the credible threat to EVERY INDIVIDUAL who wants to claim that threat exists. You choose: are feminists statistically likely to be attacked, or are specific feminist individuals? Either way you have a burden of proof to the claim, which you know you can't satisfy. Attacks that have happened in the past satisfy the statistical claim, but only if the numbers add up (they don't) 1 in 1,000,000 being attacked is not credible claim to say the whole is in danger.
>Yes it would. It proves there is a systemic violence against women who want rights for themselves.
That actually doesn't prove systemic violence at all. What's the root institution of that system? You'd need to them prove that all or a significant number of the attackers of EVERY woman had some kind of joined originating ideology, and THEN demonstrate what that ideology is actually doing to turn all these men into warhounds. You can't.

Why does this thread have so many fucking words

>implying women have any idea what they want

/r9k/ have plenty of time to get angry online

>Political interest groups can go over the heads of the population at large

That doesn't make sense. Western democracies exist in a system of checks and balances to prevent one party from gaining too much power seeing what happened with fascism.

>Everything that could be considered a career is competitive

Any job is competitive if you aren't willing to quantify competition, because you need to compete against other colleagues and candidates to get it and keep it. Still women manage to participate in the job competition in significant number.

>So you admit that women choose, statistically, to get married AT SOME POINT?

Yes, when their conditions for marrying are met. The point is not pushing them into marriage BEFORE their conditions are met.

>You understand that for 99% of human history

You understand that people who worked professions have always existed?

People don't care what "the 99% of" is, people care what impacts THEM.

>I'm not even going to respond to you

You claimed men were punished for mistreating women, laws from history and global geography show that is not true, the complete opposite. You are being completely dishonest in disregarding reality.

>decided that they'd just keep doing the same

Marrying out of choice when your rights are recognized and your husband cannot legally hurt you is the same as being forced to by your family when your rights were not recognized and you can be treated like chattel is the to you?

>Do you have actual statistics showing this

statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/

>marriage itself doesn't DO that

Marriage as a concept is not marriage as a legal institution. Coverture or marriage as the legal institution it was did that. Marriage as an institution now does not entail the same lack of rights marriage as an institution did then. And again, that's thanks to feminism criticizing coverture for depriving women of their rights.

>Women are largely unhappy following the examples of outspoken feminist thinkers who push for parity in lifestyle with men.
Oh please, go on and provide your sources for this.

>healthcare professions
There are more women doctors and nurses. Women dominate the healthcare field.

youtube.com/watch?v=LBVJsAGwQB4

>I'm not defending the legal systems of past societies

All the woman back to the kitchen propaganda would have you think otherwise.

>Its not possible to categorically demonstrate

Yes it is/ After the rise of the women's rights movement in the mid-19th century, coverture came under increasing criticism as oppressive towards women, hindering them from exercising ordinary property rights and entering professions. It was feminists who rightly brought it under criticisms.

>you keep including women who do get married and have children in your "outliers"

Women who get married and have children can still be feminist. An historical example: Alice Vickery (1844 – 12 January 1929) was an English physician, campaigner for women's rights, and the first British woman to qualify as a chemist and pharmacist. She and her life partner, Charles Robert Drysdale, had a son, Charles Vickery Drysdale. Her being in a relationship and having a kid didn't stop her from campaigning for women's rights as other all other feminists did.

>not a majority, or significant minority

Birthrate decline does show a significant minority though.

>you keep including women who do get married and have children in your "outliers"

Women keep holding jobs and being themselves after marriage, they don't stop existing. Having a family is not incompatible with being a feminist provided your husband shares your ideals.

>you keep treating STONE AGE societies

The first wave was in the 19th century and many civil rights were only established in the latter half of the 20th century, retard.

>they had to face practical issues like choosing the good of the whole over the individual

Bullshit excuses that were used to justify any abuse. The good of the whole that oppresses the individual is NOT good.

>I've never argued

You claim women choosing to pursue ambitions is "going contrary to their inner desires" though. Why don't you let women decide for themselves?

thats right, some women want to have kids, some just want to take care of weak cute things, some want to control things, some dont want to even take cock ever and would preffer they had one instead

this isnt just random difference tho, its functional, in a completely free situation these differences would make for structured groups with distributed roles and functions

human beings are calibrated to form organised collectives with multiple paralel hierarchies compiled together into a functional order, no trait is universal, individual differences designate individual beings for alternating subservient and domminating functions, all the way from being a submissive asexual to being a genocidal mass murderer, its not a glitch, its a feature

individualism pressuposes universals, it assumes people are actualy all the same in the sense that 'everione is different lol', so assumedly everione should just 'do their own thing' like the universe is a mmorpg, individualism sucks ass

format your fucking posts correctly redditboy, reading this thread is an eyesore because of your shitty spacing

>[Citation needed]
>Provides no citation for any of his own claims

>I haven't at any point. Stop misrepresenting me
>young women are easily exploited into pursuing careers or education pursuits that run contrary to their inner desires

You are literally ignoring those women's wants and projecting your own here.

> I have complained at statistical outliers using their political and social capital to push agendas

You see women wanting their rights as people and individuals respected and wanting not to be forced into a life they don't want as "agendas"?

>That's a hysterical interpretation of 'cast out'

Only the most obvious and common one.

>If people's safety were actually at risk, we'd expect to see them either stop voicing opinions

Not at all. People have always risked their safety for a cause they believed in. Look at early feminists getting beaten and arrested, that didn't stop them from protesting.

>you need to actually demonstrate the credible threat to EVERY INDIVIDUAL

If one gets attacked for their views, anyone who shares the same views could get attacked also, retard. You are not attacking individuals, you are attacking the ideology, trying to suppress it with the old "punish 1 to teach 100,000" method dictatorship regimes loved and employed against their enemies. It doesn't work.

>That actually doesn't prove systemic violence at all

Yes it does. The reason for attacking is hatred of women becoming emancipated from men and enjoying rights. The root institution is a belief in male supremacy and female oppression.

Do they like women have full equal rights as men, being able to free to choose and control their own life without outside interference, being able to freely reject men like them without consequence? You'll find for a lot of men the common answer to those questions is "No".

>demonstrate what that ideology is actually doing

Preventing them from seeing women as people too, with their own mind and their own wants that aren't necessarily what YOU presumed them to be.

frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp09-11bk.pdf

You would think that Veeky Forums would have the deepest understanding of history and then see retards like OP posting trash about "women liberation".

inb4 go back to /pol/

>Using data from the Eurobarometer we find across the EU happiness has risen for both men and women

Women in the EU work too you know

>we find that teenage girls have attached greater importance to a number of domains both absolutely, and relative to that of
boys. Moreover, they are increasingly dissatisfied with the amount of free time that they have available, perhaps as a result of their increasing desire to excel in their roles in the community, in the labor force, and in their families

Of course if you waste a girl's time telling her she's the one that has to clean just because she's a girl when she wants to play videogames she's going to be unhappy... boys ought to get beaten into doing the cleaning and cooking themselves, the lazy pieces of crap

meant for

the statistical fact that most women don't do this, even generations after obtaining equal rights under the law and living in the era where they are under the most social pressure to do so, is evidence in and of itself

>statisticsbrains source is an online/mail voluntary-response study
Oh gee I trust that implicitly.