Who suffered more throughout history, men or women?

Btw, is there any SOLID proof that the Holocaust did indeed happen?

KEK ALERT

There's seriously a wordfilter on C U C K here? Damn

Just after this was becoming my favourite board...

This is not op.

This is a liberal yet again trying to derail a thread that pisses her feelings off

>Be a woman
>Be willing and able to integrate into whoever brutally conquers your tribe
>Be able to dance and celebrate like children while your country burns
>Be fed first in times of famine
vs
>Be a man
>Be enslaved or executed if you lose against an invader
>Be unable to continue your lineage if you are defeated/suppressed

Pretty clear

WAAAAA NO NO NO THIS IS A CLASS ISSUE

Well it's like when people try and say women suffered more than men in war.
Yeah sure women had to work all the time and had to worry about their husbands,brothers etc dying in combat.
Meanwhile men were getting their legs blown off, seeing their friends die, had to live in trenches and not have hot food for years.

Men have suffered more.

Make way, make way! Retard coming through!

>WAAAA I HATE GETTING CALLED OUT FOR MY SHIT

Women have always been treated much like children in peacetime, as is expected of their weaker bodies, lack of moral principles beyond the care of children, emotional and lower IQ thought process and intense spite

However, they're also symbolically raped pretty much every time a nation is conquered, but I guess that's better than being enslaved, executed or sent to a gulag like the fighting age males, or butchered like the male children.

This isn’t r/t_d or /pol/, newfriend

Men had to deal with the latter two (and hard labour much, much more) too while adding on the fact that they represented all combat casualties.
Nice meme answer tho.

comparing men and women is gay

The Children.

It’s also sexist as fuck. It’s clearly a class issue.

>I’m going to ignore the question

don't ask such impossibly quantifiable questions then

Objectively men /thread

>asks simple question of which the awnser is known to any rational being
>Suprised people don't pay much attention to his stupid question

Like seriously, how many doses of pseudo-intelectual Aspergers are you on?

This.

Answer the question then
It’s not impossible to answer. Why lie?

it's impossible to come a satisfactory answer, because there is no objective answer.

Men.
They did and do the vast majority of hard work, violent deaths and have a much thougher time finding some one to pass their genes on with.
Men to this day have lower life expectancies and higher rates of suicide.

>satisfactory answer, because there is no objective answer.
No.

> generally men of lower classes fought in wars
No

r9k thread?

While I was walking home from work the other day I saw a gorgeous looking girl holding hands with quite possibly the ugliest motherfucker on the planet. Why do women have such awful taste (why aren't I most womens' taste)?

Shut up spergelord

There isn't even an objective way to quantify a single person's suffering today, much less the suffering of billions of people throughout all of recorded history.

Your question is nothing more than bait to try and start an argument over gender politics, fuck off.

This! SO MUCH FUCKING THIS! A child who drops his ice cream is suffering just as much as a man who lost his job.

>There isn't even an objective way to quantify a single person's suffering today,
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long time

Get out normie!!!

Not an argument, show me an objective way to quantify suffering.

THIS SO MUCH FUCKING THIS!

ALL SUFFERING IS EQUAL MAAAAAAAAN

>moving the goal posts

Assume your brain has the capacity to measure suffering. Answer honestly.

How am I moving the goalposts? My original statement is that there is no objective way to quantify suffering so OP's question is ridiculous, an user replied that my statement was idiotic, I asked them to prove me wrong by showing an objective way to quantify suffering.

>Assume your brain has the capacity to measure suffering. Answer honestly.

I can measure my own suffering in comparison with my own, for example I know personally that my grandfather's death hurt me more than the death of one of my dogs, but I have no way to compare it to the suffering of others. I can't know that the suffering I experienced when my grandfather died is greater or lesser than the suffering someone else experienced when they lost their job or were dumped by a boyfriend or stubbed their toe.

I can compare the outward effects that events cause on others, but that doesn't necessarily mean that person is suffering more or less just because they cope with the suffering better, or do you believe that when a monk is silently and stoically burning himself alive he must be suffering much less than a child crying his eyes out because a cat scratched him?

This. Me not getting an extra chocolate bar makes me just as upset as someone who lost their entire family in a car crash.

PROVE ME WRONG YOU FUCKING CANT SUFFERING IS SUBJECTIVE

The first point you're making, that the question is subjective, is obvious. The question doesn't ask, how do we prove if suffering is quantifiable, that's not even an interesting question. It doesn't ask you to prove anything. If you just want to call the question ridiculous, the first method of capitulation in all philosophical arguments, then you have done so and no longer have anything to contribute to the thread.

For every 100 females there are 107 males born, meaning men have more struggle to survive. For every male ancestor we have two female ancestors, meaning that males historically had a lower chance to reproduce. So if it's about the two most basic struggles of organism to surviving long enough to reproduce, men have it worse

>he thinks women weren't sent to gulags or prison camps

retard alert

>>So if it's about the two most basic struggles of organism to surviving long enough to reproduce, men have it worse

Is it though? It seems to me that quality of life would be much more important measurement of suffering than ability to create life. After all creating life is in itself a form of physical suffering. I see your point, but I raise you that women are equal recipients of physical suffering and, historically, have been subjected to subservient roles in society. I would take the freedom and power of being a man over the subservience and weakness of being a woman every time.

...

I mean the attrition in the male population must be significantly higher than in the female population when nature accounts for it with such a surplus in boys born. And even then men got fucked up enough to not be able to reproduce like women do.
My argument isn't air tight though. The dead don't suffer. And you're right, a man doesn't suffer when he reproduces.

>I would take the freedom and power of being a man over the subservience and weakness of being a woman every time.
If you're a man at the top you get the cream, that's for sure. But women always had their spheres and means of power.

>Who suffered more throughout history, men or women?
What is the starting point of men and women in history?

blessed post and dubs