Woman blames patriarchy for illiteracy

No. Not once in my life. Give proof.

Plus, cooking is related to nationality you racist nigger.

>"DRUM!!!"

I cri every time.
Nabokov and Henson knew what was up.

It seems pretty standard storm-in-a-teacup stuff of the sort that generally gets blogged about. She doesn't even seem to be saying much to disagree with.

So you're the reason this board is so shitty?

Don't cut yourself on that edge.

>shits up the place
>accuses others of shitting up the place

Don't eat your own poop too much

This just sounds like the modern human condition.

I avoid making anyone the butt of a joke (via calling out some aspect of their behavior or over-emphasizing part of their character). Unless I have known them for some time, trying to fool around with anyone simply has no upside due to how closely most people base their self-worth off their outward image.

Experiment: make fun of any woman's lifestyle (who isn't in your immediate circle of friends) in public or private; post results.

t. a fucking white male

No way. I criticize my actual female friends and they do not take it well.

Go post something on /b/ in that regard, or reddit or some other shit show forum. I don't know any coloured people so don't see this sort of thing in reality.

Just thinking about it more, the better title would be "Men disagree with me about Lolita" or even more accurately "Men approach Lolita from a different perspective than I do" and then you just have the d00dz she quoted who expressed their disagreement in fairly obnoxious terms.

I'd say it's probably even money on those guys just being cunts who are dicks to more or less everyone, but there were two of them so the probability she has a point is at least approaching one.

you're out of your fucking mind if you think I care about a woman's opinion on literature.

I hate this subreddit.

I was nodding my head until
>straight white males

Well fuck off back to your /pol/ hugbox then, troglodyte.

Why do people care so much about race and gender? I'm non-white and I couldn't care less if a protagonist was white or not; it shouldn't matter. A protagonist doesn't even need to be a human being. This is a trivial issue, there's no use in such discourse.

is there any group this doesn't apply to?

I don't care.

Discrimination is in vogue.

>implicates them and their universe
To what groups does one tell jokes like that expecting a positive response?

I think it is the absence of role models in general. Probably grates on some people that the hero is never someone like them. Uhura on star trek was by all accounts a big enough deal that MLK talked her in to staying on the show as the only black person/women on TV doing anything of important.

If all you see of black people on telly is the panicking maid in Tom and Jerry, maybe at the back of your head you think that's what blacks amount to, servants and helpers.

I don't know.

Disenfranchised wheels, desperately squeaking in hope of greasing

the irony is that she wrote an entire butthurt because a man had the gall to disagree with her
as someone doing a degree that is heavy on discussion and debate I can tell you it's not worth engaging women in serious matters

In America, people tend to live their lives vicariously through pop culture. Pop culture franchises are the main source of their identity and self worth. IRL political struggles are secondary to fictional ones

I see, so it's just a matter of immature media perception. I hope they grow out of their obsession with escapism and embrace enlightenment.

Good ole cluster b

Sure, you could certainly see it that way and you'd think that if someone has the smarts to be reading or watching something a bit heady they'd be above this sort of thing.

I can't really relate, I came out a useless sack of shit despite everyone on telly and in books being a white dude.

>The rest of us get used to the transgendering and cross-racializing of our identities as we invest in protagonists like Ishmael or Dirty Harry or Holden Caulfield.
>self-insertion

>This is why I had a nice time last month picking on a very male literary canon lined up by Esquire as “80 Books Every Man Should Read,” 79 of them by men.

I remember when that came out. The butthurt was glorious. Esquire was bought out by sjws and they came out with another list that was full of negresses. The first list was pretty good though even if it did cause rage to non-males.

>I coined a term a while ago, privelobliviousness,

kekekekekekekekekekekek

youtube.com/watch?v=5c5Gwi5u68c

Same can be said about BLM activists, intersectional feminists and identity politics talking heads.

plebliviousness TM DO NOT STEAL!!!

I actually think that might have been a rather subtle joke where you're meant to think "Well, if you absolutely must do that, why not 'Oblivilege'?" Like, intentionally ridiculous.

I don't know why someone hasn't even debunked her nonsense yet. You just post memes and shit like poltards

1. In one paragraph she talks about the creator of Dilbert saying that since one gender is controlling all sex, it causes animosity between sexes, and likens it to children not being able to eat other kids sandwiches in the implication that it's perfectly reasonable.

In this same article she complains that white straight males have all the good stuff and that she and all the other non whites are entitled to it, calling us privileged because we have it.

2.
This
This can be applied to anyone effectively. Yes to all you dumb polfags and yes to the sjws and herself for writing this bullshit.

3. She goes on to say that women's stories are taken from them, but neglects the fact that they were written by white males because that would defeat her point.

4.
>Some (white straight males) write just as good as the rest of us

Ive heard of them. Like a handful, just like around most of them not too many though, and even a few write even better historically than anyone else, about 75% of them. Not all though.

5.>a group of black college students doesn't like something and they ask for it to change civilly

Seriously? Violence and over shouting and calling anyone a racist is civil. I admit that the faggots who actively battle feminists are even more insidious, they are just to cowardly to actually act on thier feelings, but come the fuck on.

Feminism is huge hypocrisy which should had just stopped at trying to get equal rights for everyone instead of trying to demonize literally everything.

>complains about feminism
>calls people who actively fight it "faggots"
Interesting

haveyounoticedthatantisjwsarejustasbadassjws.jpg

>Hey guys feminism is bad! Let's attack it and regress to rape threats and saying women are all inferior.

Le if you don't agree with either side you suck and are a libertarian retard meme.

I'm not that either. I dont think I'm better than anyone for what I think anyway. Im just arguing my own points

>In this same article she complains that white straight males have all the good stuff and that she and all the other non whites are entitled to it, calling us privileged because we have it.

This seems really dumb of you. Like, she is interpreting the Scott Adams statement poorly, but only by failing to recognise his implicit premise that men seek sex more frequently than women and are more promiscuous etc and therefore that 'man proposes, woman disposes' and so on.

What you're doing here is like conceding her misconstrual of Adams' statement as women 'possessing' all of the sex and being like stingy with it and then trying to relate that to material wealth as though it's some kind of reductio. Like that's not even a reductio, bro - lots of people agree with redistribution on principle. You're not causing any of her premises or conclusions to conflict with one another.

I didn't even bother with the rest because if that's your standard it ain't worth my time, but Jesus. At least drop the condescending tone.

...

...

Yes, because "white men" haven't been the butt of every joke for the past two or three decades.

They are just as bad because they both feed on a decadent totally repulsive twitter/tumblr/"redpill" culture that doesnt exist in the real world.

I was explaining that her misconception, even as a misconception, was hypocritical. That's because it is.

Are you saying this because

A. You think everyone has to think like you

Or

B. Everyone has to think like you.

>Lots of people agree with redistribution on principle.

Sounds like you are mad that you think I disagree with redistribution, when all I was really saying was that she thinks it's okay for the oppressed to act different than the privileged.

It's the common attitude of the holier than thou to say "if I dont agree with the first part, I'll just ignore the rest." It's the habit of shitty readers though

>If you don't agree with the stormtroopers or the sjws you are a hipster faggot and there is no possibility to be anything else because you agree with us or you die.

Its what you actually believe.

>this is the most quoted post in the thread

My point is proved.

>I was explaining that her misconception, even as a misconception, was hypocritical. That's because it is.

No, it's not, and the way you've phrased this makes it sound like you don't even understand what I was saying.

>Sounds like you are mad that you think I disagree with redistribution

Sounds like you freely invent reasons why people who you feel negatively towards are stupid and wrong. Tell you what, make up some more stuff about me, and I won't bother replying, and that'll mean you were right, OK? Seeya now.

Do these people live in the same universe I do; in what distant alien world does shit like this matter?

Jesus Christ, it's like they've made things up to be angry about, now they're just scraping the barrel though.

Honestly this doesn't even deserve a reply, I guess it's infectious.

>No, it's not.

She thinks that it's wrong to take sex from women because they control it but not to take things from straight males because they control it. Tell me hoe that isn't hypocritical. I think they are both wrong.

>Don't even understand what I was saying.

And you said I was hypocritical.

>Ur so stupid imma stop replying.

You are a genius. If you don't actually argue, you will never have to deal with differing opinion.

*Condescending

Not hypocritical, in my second comment. Sorry.

Mind = Blown

is the list actually good

>But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? Feminists. Not if it implicates them and their universe, and when you see the rage, the pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of female tears of fury, you’re seeing people who really expected to get their own way and be told they’re wonderful all through the days.

I can find you 100 examples for spoiled white women having a tantrum when their princess complex is told 'no.'

No list has ever been good according to all of Lit, so if you are going to form an opinion based on what the first faggot says, you are better off checking for yourself.

>>The rest of us get used to the transgendering and cross-racializing of our identities as we invest in protagonists like Ishmael

w-what

>Why do people care so much about race and gender?

"new left" academic and cultural programs focused on race and gender to the exclusion of class analysis were pushed and funded by money interests to neuter the left.

it worked.

>2016
>Getting tricked by identity politics

i love how you think the academy is that powerful while completely discounting the constant propaganda feed since the ol' torches of freedom.
毋忘在莒

What is this picture trying to say? That there is no in between the two polar extremes?

Why don't you leave the game? I mean, you aren't forced to discuss with these people, or to have an opinion about them, or to bend before the identity policies. If you sincerely believe some universities are leaning to the left and threw away a real, strong education for an ideology—which I think is true—then don't apply to these colleges, don't listen to the professors you know are sharing such a view, don't engage in with the students. Simply ignore them. How is it difficult?

...

...

>a group of black college students doesn't like something and they ask for it to change civilly
>civilly

youtube.com/watch?v=vFEs7Qr1oGg

I hate liberals so fucking much.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

that shit is too long for me babe

Most people, and especially women have awful taste in Veeky Forums so who cares.

People don't want to read past pride and prejudice or brothers k, why would women want to? It's not hip, trendy, fashionable to read pushkin, oprahs book club doesn't talk about turgenev.

What women like reading, are books by women, that's why george eliot is so popular with them even though her books are a step up from your average victorian novel.

I've repeatedly seen my sole female co-worker with Hermann Hesse, Günter Grass, Gustav Meyrink, Luis Sepúlveda, Maurice Maeterlinck, Francisco Coloane, André Gide and such. She's one of the most well-read persons I ever met, and I know she's speaking at least two foreign languages.

Of course they exist, but most men can't even find someone in person who is well read, the whole point is at this stage in history only women are holding women back.from anything, they have all the opportunities, even place better in schooling then boys, A+ in gym class doesn't=masterpieces are going to come out of your ass of course.

Women are still too stuck together, it's hard to be independent as a women when you have to always be thinking about what the others think of you.

What do most women gain from sitting holed up in their house with their nose in a book.

What do most men gain from sitting holed up in their house with their nose on Veeky Forums? Go outside, all the womenyou've met most likely don't represent the majority of women, because you're poor, uneducated and live in a trash part of town. Go back to tumblr you fucking poltard. I bet you lip read too.

nice trips but you're w-r-o-n-g and implying.

It's okay it'll be a few centuries before women wisen up, men didn't just become geniuses overnight either.

> Uneducated

Pretty sure that guy has 2 or 3 times your general culture.

Fucking pleb.

You're either a pathetic samefag or a white knight defending an user with utterly shit opinions.

> Uses anecdotal evidence as a counter argument to a claim that targetted a general population

You're a fucking retard.

Sure, please tell me on which evidences this claim—wise word choice—is based on. Where have you drawn this conclusion from? Where are the data? Where is the mere indicator that could corroborate this “claim”? What you saw? What you heard of? Indeed, anecdotes. Nothing else matters.

I'm not the one who made the claim, ask the other guy.

I'm saying you're retarded for using anecdotal evidence as a counter argument to a claim that targetted a general population, and my point still stands.

What you typed right there is what you should've typed earlier.

>entire thread is salty as fuck

Oh I am laffin

It wasn't an argument, it was an anecdote.

I really don't understand why you get so upset at the idea that women are behind men, especially in things like Veeky Forums

They literally just got freed for the most part and have been given an equal chance at education in the past century.

M8 things take time.

I'm not upset, I'm underlining your fallacies. You still not answered and simply reiterate your baseless assertion. I guess you're a man, aren't you? The burden of proof shouldn't be a new concept to your ears.

The idea is that the claim that /pol/tards are 'just as bad' or 'exactly the same as' SJWs is misinformation spread by SJWs in order to undermine the clear-eyed truthseeking undertaken by the noble denizens of /pol/. Largely because /pol/ is obsessed with false-flags, propaganda etc (cf The Paranoid Style etc). It's part of a wider branch of /pol/tard discourse to the effect that all criticisms of /pol/ are evidence of a conspiracy against /pol/ and therefore evidence of the validity and truth of /pol/'s general tendency.

Yeah, why did it take literally thousands of years for any historically meaningful civilization to ever recognize that women are equal to men? You'd think that, given women are equal to men, there would have already emerged some society, at some point in history, in which this was recognized by the social structure.

It's a thinker, that's for sure.

>She thinks that it's wrong to take sex from women because they control it but not to take things from straight males because they control it. Tell me hoe that isn't hypocritical. I think they are both wrong.

No, she doesn't think that it's morally wrong, she thinks that Adams is misconstruing the state of affairs. It's a different argument from material redistribution, because she's saying that no such gap exists to be bridged when it comes to sex. She is wrong, but only insofar as she's slightly misconstruing Adams' argument by failing to recognise his implicit premise that men seek sex more frequently etc. There's nothing 'hypocritical' about it, it's just a poorly formed rebuttal of a poorly formed argument.

That you need this explained to you - explained to you twice, in fact - says it all.

It's not a matter of fallacies it's simply truth, women are still behind men, really it wasn't up until the last few decades that women have shifted from housewives who spent most their time focusing on children and cleaning, cooking etc and entertaining themselves at homes whether through radio, tv, reading, knitting to going and educating themselves en masse.

Even then it's not education which makes a great man or women, it helps set the foundation but it's up to the individual to go beyond the norm and transfer his being into something great.

You literally have a few decades of women having intellectual freedom vs thousands of years men being able to go about their leisure learning creating, basically filling in all the gaps for women.

Honestly it'd be very difficult to be a women and innovate at this point in time as even men are struggling with innovation in terms of artistic endeavors which are becoming stale and piled up in their own post modern channels.

I don't need to assert statistics and facts as it's just the truth. Why would you need to strive to become something great when you have all the attention you can need from men and women around you, and constant support, on average moreso then your man.

Top kek. Cuckasians really can't handle the bants

> The only people saying white males can't take bantz are usually butthurt SJW

Oh I am laffin'

holy shit my sides

>I actually think that might have been a rather subtle joke where you're meant to think "Well, if you absolutely must do that, why not 'Oblivilege'?" Like, intentionally ridiculous.

hmmm. I took it to mean that she was just batshit insane but ymmv

I'm not as impressed with women's empathy as women seem to be impressed with themselves.
It's like that Sansa rape thing, where men getting killed, tortured or castrated or children getting drowned or burned alive doesn't make them bat an eye, but some ineffectual girly girl gets raped and they're triggered to the point of posting selfies of them crying on instagram.
I think the whole women are more empathetic than men meme is much narrower than they seem to think.

>It's like that Sansa rape thing, where men getting killed, tortured or castrated or children getting drowned or burned alive doesn't make them bat an eye, but some ineffectual girly girl gets raped and they're triggered

Thing is that rape is rather more common than people getting burned alive, and when people get burned alive you don't tend to get big shitstorms about whether they should have dressed differently and if they had maybe they wouldn't have been burned alive etc.

You're talking about something only twitter and the pop press or (those shitty websites crawling with 10 funny pictures and fan theories) reacted to. Stop. It's not a problem on a literature board. Go post some youtube comments or something.

>you don't tend to get big shitstorms about whether they should have dressed differently

meh another meme.
And it had fuck all to do with Sansa.

>You're talking about something only twitter and the pop press

And now you are, too.

'Meme' isn't synonymous with 'falsehood'. I'm just explaining why the difference in response isn't nearly as irrational or hypocritical as you were implying.