Would an all female adventuring party really be viable?

Harder to pee in the bridge troll's mouth?

BOY DO I HATE WOMEN!

Would an all male adventuring party really be viable?

>In fantasy
It's a world with fucking dragons where "speaking lawful good" is a thing. Competent women aren't the most unrealistic thing here.

>In a "gritty"/realistic campaign
Oi I'm 'avin' a laff

I said it before and I'll say it again: nobody just gets out of bed and decides to hate women.

Although more often than not there is a residual bitterness of having never shared it with one.

All female adventuring party is viable if they're played by men

Do you have a citation? Because if you look at the MGTOW community, more often than not you see burned men or men who have seen others burned.

Right, yeah, burned by one, or maybe a handful of women. Which isn't grounds to then decide that every member of the gender is worth hating. That's called bias. It's easy to fall into, I remember deciding women were fucking garbage after my last breakup for a bit, but after I had regained my composure it was clear that the problems were with my ex, not with all women who have or will ever exist.

probably but i wouldnt want to be a in a group where there are a bunch of sweaty dude RPing women

Then turn on the AC and pass around some cold drinks, there nobody is sweaty.

Would an all [alignment/gender/race/class] adventuring party really be viable? [yes/no/maybe/so].

Probably not, they can't even run a simple TV company

All good until they synchronize
Can't dungeon crawl for a week because the menstruation attracts owlbears

What if the dragon and dog aren't female?

>Which isn't grounds to then decide that every member of the gender is worth hating.
But it is enough to get them to ask questions, and find answers that do justify *at the very least* concluding that the current state of affairs turns female nature against men. Friend, if even CHILDREN are starting to realize men are getting a raw deal in modern society, it's time to stop pretending there isn't a problem.

news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/teens/first-men-now-boys-are-going-their-own-way/news-story/7aa04498e3c2673ecd4f474573258b10

Or are you telling me that these boys barely old enough to piss independently are "bitter" too? That's an awfully nice excuse, isn't it? Everyone who disagrees with you is bitter so the discussion isn't even worth having.

...

Because 15 year olds are bastions of intelligent, well thought out life decisions.

And no way these kids aren't getting their ideas and concepts from the men they're observing, and often related to.

Look, man, the honest answer is that human relationships are hard, at least ones that are worth it. And it takes work from both sides to happen, something more than a few people either aren't willing or aren't ready to put in.

But that doesn't equal "All women are evil whores" any more than it does "All men are dangerous rapists"

If you want to avoid a relationship, that's fine. Shit, I do, for various reasons. But you don't need to demonize half the human population to justify it.

>Because 15 year olds are bastions of intelligent, well thought out life decisions.
When they're 15, they're stupid.
When they're in their 20s, they're bitter.
When they're in their 30s, they just got burned by one bad woman.
When they're in their 40s or older, they're out of touch.

If you put as much effort into debunking their arguments as you did in dismissing them, there'd be no more MGTOW movement.

>human relationships are hard, at least ones that are worth it
Explain to me what exactly a man in the modern West has to gain from marrying a woman, other than sex.

>But that doesn't equal "All women are evil whores"
How about you actually look up some MGTOW? There is some variation in opinion, but quite a few of them don't actively hate women. They simply recognize female nature and recognize that, if it is "liberated", marriage becomes a raw deal for men. They percieve women to be acting in their own interests, even if that's against the interests of men. But why actually read up on the people you disagree with when it's easier to demonize them and declare their beliefs to be wrong a priori?

Children are some of the most bitter, jump-to-conclusions-y people I know. Children aren't the source of un-biased opinions you want them to be.

It'd be nice if the problem in human relationships boiled down to something simple, but it won't. Relationships are complicated, and there are a million billion reasons for them not to work out.

>Explain to me what exactly a man in the modern West has to gain from marrying a woman, other than sex.

This only works if you imply that men are only after sex. Marriage, or any other long-term relationship, gives the man a sense of partnership, companionship and stability.

>How about you actually look up some MGTOW?
You're the one bringing them into this argument, dude. We're just saying that men who do hate women as a rule are usually just bitterly biased.

Yea, I'm on the website now, and I'll be honest, until today I've never heard mansplaining used anything but ironically.

And the problem here is your starting point. You're observing marriage as a contract, a financial decision and result. And you're deciding that all women must observe marriage the same way, solely as a method to earn money and power.

Your jumping off point and your understanding of human interaction are incredibly flawed, so attempting to debunk your arguments is simply doomed to failure, because until you change the core of your perception of human interaction, the counter arguments will never make sense.

I want to fug that dragon.

>Stability
How exactly, when half of marriages end in divorce, 2/3 of those are initiated by women and the state actively rewards female disloyalty? It's quite the opposite: it's a constant risk factor, the constant knife of Damocles hanging over your head.

>Partnership, companionship
Friends and short term flings can achieve this just as easily.

These aren't the 1920s when a man got an obediant de facto live-in servant for his efforts, a woman who would only take out of the marriage what she put into it (nothing) after a divorce, the respect of his peers and the guarantee of cozy golden years (through children, prior to the fuck-up that is the modern retirement system). Fathers and husbands are popularly depicted as idiots, "chained" by their women, disloyalty is rewarded in women, divorce means women can keep demanding men continue fulfilling their marriage obligations while women aren't expected to continue theirs (which were already close to nothing mind you) and the current welfare system turns children from a boon to a burden. So yes, given the status quo all a man can get from marriage is sex. And that "love" buzzword, of course (but isn't it funny that women always seem to "love" up in terms of finances and social status and rarely ever "love" down?).

>You're observing marriage as a contract
If it wasn't, there'd be no need to get courts involved. Marriage would just mean you're going super-steady. Marriage is a contract in close to all cultures that have ever known marriage.

If you're trying to pull a WOLOLO and convert people, you're doing a pretty shit job.

Because, and this may seem really weird, a lot of us guys actually have positive relationships with women. Crazy, right? Of course, that starts with not immediately thinking 'What can I get from her?'.

Literally, the fact that you are asking what 'western man', i.e. you, can get from a woman means that you are fundamentally fucking up the entire thing. And, even if I take your question seriously, here goes: literally anything you can get from a male friend, *plus* sex. And I'm dead fucking serious there, if you stop thinking about what you can extract from someone else and start thinking about having a good time with them, everything else gets way easier.

You're not being demonized, you're just dumb and immature and not recognizing that people are treating you appropriately.

you two are saying completely different things. theyre saying that the institution of marriage and the consequences of divorce are horribly imbalanced in favor of women. youre saying no thats wrong because hanging out with chicks is great.

I've ran a campaign for girls who were not! Lady Death, not! Vampirella, not! Jade and not! Chastity. It was enormously campy fun, but it was far-out even as campaigns went.

You just sort of roll with it. Before you ask the compulsory question, yes, there was a lot of PG-13 sex.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Marriage is developed into a contract for various reasons(which have changed across social norms and cultures, of course), but the core meaning of marriage has nothing to do with contract and everything to do with establishing an official relationship in the eyes of their peers and the world around them.

I'm not interested in your argument about the pratfalls of marriage, because it turns out there's pratfalls in most choices you make. If those choices bother you, don't make them, or change the game. But this website doesn't seem to be interested in changing the game, they just want to quit.

And the issue isn't that they want to quit(which is fine), but that they want to make as much noise and throw as many insults as they can on their way out, just to demonize the other side.

And the worst fucking thing is that they construct their idea that marriage is a contest, which ignores the entire meaning of marriage.

It's about cooperation, not competition. It's the same sort of asshole who has to win D&D night, you're missing the fucking point.

Neck yourself

Only in Greece.

>Author and psychologist Meredith Fuller says, “None of these views surprise me because I hear them all the time — each time it strikes me as incredibly sad. We have a younger generation who are chaotic and rudderless; they have no role models, no mentors and no sense of where they fit into society.

>“It’s crucial that we encourage our children find a mentor — a teacher, a relative or someone who teaches them sport — someone who they can communicate with, talk honestly to and learn skills about healthy relationships,” she says.

>“Both sexes have different challenges; we’ve lost sight of that. We’re stuck in a gender war and it’s harming our children. It’s become very narcissistic, selfish and a sense of entitlement is running rife.

>“We need to get a focus back on having respect for other human beings, for partnerships, loving bonds and trust rather than simply seeing what you can get out of a relationship.

>“Children need to learn that sense of give and take; they need to be taught about delayed gratification. Life is not all about self; it’s not all about making yourself happy instantly and constantly. And it’s not about running away from the opposite sex, it’s about learning to communicate effectively and genuine caring.”

rather eloquently put

Does it count if they're megucas, and therefore have no other choice?

the way i see it theyre trying to make as much noise as they can so that they DO make a change. if an individual man decides not to get married he gets looked down on as a poor lonely man who never had the opportunity for a family. i believe they are trying to point out that the social contract of marriage is uneven towards women. not even bringing up anything upheld by courts, men are still expected to earn for their families. however, if you say that a woman is expected to stay at home and raise the children youre a horrible sexist. right now what we have is not sexual equality, and very few feminists are attempting to get to equal.

I hate nu/tg/.

Well, if he's suggesting that, then he used the wrong website to pitch the idea.

Her views are nice, and they work out really well - for women.

>and everything to do with establishing an official relationship in the eyes of their peers and the world around them.
So effectively a contract? You know that in most cultures marriage is a big deal because of succession, right? Which is why a lot of ancient cultures had some weird-ass rules like unmarried brothers being forced to marry the wives of their dead siblings (shit's still in the Old Testament for example)?

>If those choices bother you, don't make them
And then I get called bitter, weird, a womanhater and what have you. Hell, just look at the plethora of articles (invariably written by older women) complaining about the "manchildren" who "drown" themselves in porn and videogames ie. safer alternatives to women.

>or change the game
That's what MRA are doing. Guess what movement's name has become synonymous for being a fedoratipping neckbeared that hates women!

>And the worst fucking thing is that they construct their idea that marriage is a contest
Never even implied that. I'm only saying marriage works if both sides get something out of the deal. Most cultures managed to do this for millennia, but somewhere in the asscrack of the world a group of people less than a century ago decided that men and women are equal and marriage should reflect that. And SUDDENLY marriages started failing in large numbers, single women slowly became the norm and a significant minority of men gave up on the idea of marriage. What a coinki-dink!

>It's about cooperation, not competition.
Exactly.

>It's the same sort of asshole who has to win D&D night
More like the DM deciding that the wizard can use the fighter's hp instead of spell slots.

>stop being dicks to each other and accept everyone has it hard

how is that exclusively good for women?

ehhh, MGTOW may or may not be right of marraige law, but MGTOW is very much grounded in " all women are evil" once you actually start examining the community so you do have to address that element/core belief of the movement if you're going to talk about mgtow

case in point

>“Truth” as men know it does not exist in the same way for women. Women are “herd creatures” and thus women find “truth” or right and wrong through the consensus of the herd.

>ALL girls are flakey and need to be dumped sooner or later

>Quite obviously, all modern women have gone insane,

>he only thing women are known for is sucking a cock, like seriously what have women achieved? fucking nothing. you always go for a rich dude who worked hard to reach that position and fuck him. that's the nature of the women and you still need preferences? I'm waiting for that day when all men realise this and can save themselves from mental trauma that women create. GO MGTOW

etc etc etc

the IDEA of MGTOW and MRA's in general are very good, but they are plagued by bitter angry people - both inside the groups, and those on the other side attacking said groups

>American daytime hours
>/pol/ crossposting threads either crop out or there is a sudden surge of posts in them

Are you seriously equating the state of marriage solely to shifts in how our culture interprets the right of both genders?

I wouldn't even say that their ideas are very food. Anyone can champion concept of equality and fairness, I mean shit, that's exactly what their ideological opponents are suggesting.

So those ideas don't really mean anything unless there's something deeper to the whole process. And that's when we hit what you just talked about.

i think the problem with MRA and MGTOW is that they see the extreme, let me reiterate, EXTREME, unfairness in divorce and family courts. unfortunately this leads alot of people to demand the opposite extreme, maybe hoping to land somewhere in the middle but maybe not, and all this is doing is causing arguments. what we need is for people to champion the idea of completely ignoring gender during any legal proceeding. it should be illegal for the judge to know the gender of anyone involved in a court case

I somehow got them to survive F.A.T.A.L.
That is all.

It's the current incarnation of "elf slave wat do" crap that getting rid of /qst/ and /wst/ was supposed to fix somehow.