Is this true?

This is one of the dumbest remarks I've seen here. Congratulations

this guy gets it

the irony is, foucault and deleuze are pretty much the most /pol/ philosophers out there, but the only thing more pleb than /pol/ are american universities

lacan, lyotard and derrida can all go into the trash though, nothing of value lost

yes, but

>get your ass handed to you in ww2 by nazi mega-meme
>realize you have fucked up people all over the world. it was fun while it lasted but what the fuck some of it was p. shitty
>realize nothing is left in postwar europe anyways except capitalism & sexual liberation anyways

it wasn't a fucking conspiracy against white men, it was what people were thinking. modern sjw stuff?it sucks. postwar sjw stuff? not so much

and there is a difference between those guys and academics today: all of those guys in that picture were fucking geniuses. yes even derrida. i know Veeky Forums hates him and he posed for photos looking like a fucking planeswalker from m:tg but it's true. the problem is that there's nothing left today to deconstruct because these faggots were so goddamn good at their jobs, which was thinking

it's the modern disciples that are the problem. and for that that's the redpill. but the french are not the problem. france is the fucking tits and there is no modern redpill without french culture that isn't ignorant redneck garbage

final point, but it's a big one. you know who every one of these guys read? fucking pic related. so before you get your knickers twisted remember who the godfather of poststructuralism is: Veeky Forums's own favourite guy

>anti white anti male
>all notable writers are European biological males
j e j

Whence the possibility of an ideological analysis of Disneyland (L. Marin did it very well in Utopiques, jeux d'espace [Utopias, play of space]): digest of the American way of life, panegyric of American values, idealized transposition of a contradictory reality. Certainly. But this masks something else and this "ideological" blanket functions as a cover for a simulation of the third order: Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the "real" country, all of "real" America that is Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence, that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.

Ay shut the fuck about Lacan

That man had plenty of interesting stuff to say (amongst a lot of complete bullshit).

Agree with the rest of your post though

> That man had plenty of interesting stuff to say

false

youtube.com/watch?v=mImbHxmMmdE

WHENCE THE POSSIBILITY OF AN IDEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF DISNEYLAND...

Murricans overrated the worst and conveniently misinterpret the best french philosophers.

I don't know how the meme of Foucault being an SJW got out, because he LITERALLY and CLEARLY rails against people talking about identities and humanitarianism.

Whatever, /pol/ and /int/ are filled with 16 year olds and it's pretty depressing to witness their stupidity.

is that a voice-over?

Lmao is that pic real or a troll

Thats really a stretch

This has always been the case. The major drivers of multiculturalism are all white or at least (((white))).

nietzsche AND heidegger

and heidegger was a nazi who didnt like any contemporary philosophers except derrida (heidegger wanted to meet derrida that's how much he loved him), the germans are the real post-structuralist devils setting the world back hundreds of years

What is it with conservatives making these huge leaps in conclusions

>poststructrualists questioned whether certain accepted norms were for the benefit of society

>THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SJWS WHO LURK OUR STREETS AND DESTROY OUR FAMILIES

i never realized how much lacan reminds me of michael corleone giving a sort of muted & infinite They Pulled Me Back In speech

>
When you go to a costume party you do not decry the person dressed as Dracula as a fraud. You do not insist that he has intended to deceive you. The costume is merely an act that is meant to be seen through, a playful “what if” scenario but one that makes no claims to reality. America is a costume party. The nature of the American media’s relation to the people is such that, with the increasing sophistication and ubiquity of our advertisements and marketing campaigns, we have, in direct relation, grown more adept at sniffing them out. The people’s ability to identify a sale has outpaced the market’s ability to create them. Even the dullest consumer is now at least partially aware of the predatory nature of American capitalism. And yet we continue to reward mass marketing. We continue to allow ourselves to be had. And it seems to me as if this has always been the case – the costumes have simply become more elaborate. The sale-of-wealth (what a joke) and the sale-of-happiness have always been the masks worn by products, and they have always been transparent. There is nothing fake about them because they make no claims to truly be the characters that they portray. The disturbing cynicism of American capitalism isn’t that it is deceptive. Indeed, the mission to deceive would imply at least a modicum of respect for the consumer – it would be that America does not expect its consumers to go willingly, it expects even an ounce of fight. No, the cynicism of American capitalism is that it does not feel the need to be deceptive. That it dons its masks cheaply and that no one seems to care. That we have left our dignity at the door. S, pretty Croatian film student, pardon my insincerity, but America is not fake. It is starkly, crushingly real.

I'll just leave this instructive image here.

/pol/ will blindly follow this like sjws will blindly follow whatever dumb twatter shit they follow

just go

>he posed for photos looking like a fucking planeswalker from m:tg

kek, thanks, I needed the laugh

>trying to make a serious meme
>spelling their/there wrong
>not having read any of the philosophers or even watched something like this:
youtube.com/watch?v=BBJTeNTZtGU

please achieve intellectual autonomy and read a book

i like heidegger but hes no angel either

>the germans are the real post-structuralist devils setting the world back hundreds of years

meh, i don't think so. the problem is that the germans are the ones who think it's all on them to hold the world together. they're not holding it back, they're afraid of letting it go. also they didn't like being mocked by more sophisticated & elegant parisian aesthetes & they never really got over napoleon facerolling them, which is why hegel says

>I saw the Emperor – this world-soul – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it

germans love napoleon b/c they love authoritarianism. it's in their cultural dna i think. french romanticism is essentially liberal & german romanticism is essentially conservative. therein lies the rub for me i think. don't quote me on that tho. not like you would anyways, it's too vague to mean much.

but pic related was the one guy that the french and the germans both agreed they liked in crazy ways they couldn't even really articulate i don't think. napoleon fucked up the french in some ways while fucking up the germans in others. but in the end they both loved him. he belongs to both of them and yet neither also.

and all that goes through hegel i think and down into marx & so on. marxist stuff was the one thing that postwar 20C euros could agree on

anyways heidegger went over the dark side and stuck to it like an intractable jackass. dasein &c has nothing to do with social progress or capitalism or revolution or anything. his thing was technology & Being. he was one of the last big european universalists but he joined the wrong team and then that team lost. basically he went big and when he lost he stayed home too ('the turn')

the germans didn't fuck europe. europe fucked itself, just like the peloponnesian war fucked greece & the cold war nearly fucked the world. people seem to enjoy fucking themselves for some reason. i don't really know why

do you seriously think modernity can be summed up in an organizational chart?
don't you realize capitalist society produces inherent struggles and doesn't need an external influence like jews/marxists/immigrants to corrupt it?
don't you realize immigrants are coming because of capitalism?

Undoubtedly so, because those of the less advanced societies are primarily concerned with usurping the benefits of Western society and supplanting the authority therein - this being the course of action within their own bests interests en masse

The difference therein is that while the causal link between the main points of this chart are tenuous, the major events are factual. The inverse progressive ideologies are instead based on factually incorrect accounts linked with childishly simple unfalsifiable logic.

This. Progressivism was a natural outcome of modernity. The issue with conservatives is that they want to be industrial capitalists and traditionalists at the same time, but it doesn't work that way. And Adorno was basically proto-/pol/ in a lot of his viewpoints

>being a slave in china or starving in africa to extract natural recources for western corporations
>literally consuming the left over garbage of the west
>travelling to US or europe because of poverty or war to be exploited as cheap labor
>working in cleaning, construction or ass-wiping

>>>"usurping the benefits of western society"

Progressivism itself may be a natural extension of contented altruism, but the twisted regressive ideologies that have sprung up from it come from decidedly different sources.

Are you pretending that mass immigration does not factually depress the country with the higher economy?
Any scenario that creates a population willing to accept substandard wages and conditions.

Why exactly do you think a starving African deserves a position in a separate, more beneficial society over those indigenous to said society?

>implying Marxism wasn't always hugely politically divisive

heidegger is the creator of deconstruction, derrida is simply heidegger translated into french, heidegger's de-struktion of metaphysics becomes derrida's deconstruction of phallogocentricism

and for two dudes talking about how there's no totality and no perfect interpretation they never contradict each other, ever. it's pathetic

as far as I know it was Simone de Beauvoir who started the sjw trans movement and the philosophers in pic related just talked about sexuality, the mind, society etc

can anyone tell me if I'm wrong about this

Beauvoir was a second wave feminist who wrote a book called The Second Sex

She argued that women are referred to as the second sex, the one after men, and thus are not on equal footing.
She advocated for equal footing.

There is nothing wrong with this.

and beauvoir is founded on sartre who is founded on heidegger

heidegger = anti-white sjws more than anyone else

Tbqh it would be kind of amusing if /pol/tards and and related conservatives replaced their obsession with the Frankfurt School and Jewish Critical Theory with an obsession with French post-structuralists.

In fact, they probably have more reason to hate on the post-structuralists than on critical theorists. After all, post-structuralists put more emphasis or relativism and subjectivity, while in many cases the Critical Theorists analyzed and criticized exactly the sort of degenerate pop-culture and materialism that conservatives (especially on the alt-right) claim to hate.

Sounds somewhat asinine though, it's a convention of language that necessitates one gender being listed "before" the other

>There is nothing wrong with this.
Wrong.

Maybe if you are a nu-male libtard

yeah but she was a rapist who didnt live by her philosophy and felt morally wedded to sartre

she turned down some dude's marriage proposal because she felt "owed it" to sartre to stay with him

she went against everything she wrote in the second sex

>Heidegger the literal Nazi
>anti-white sjw

That is what she argues against. Maybe read the book

I agree, you're not a true feminist unless you're a slut

Doesnt detract from the work

Explain why that is wrong.
Buzzwords from an 18 year old

her primary argument though was there exists no differences between males and females before puberty (something nobody has proven scientifically, and her definition of difference remains unclear)
It seems like this argument is the basis for the trans movement, since it justifies modifying the course of one's sexuality

Yep. That's the hardest redpill to swallow.

I'm not even joking. Heidegger unleashed all of this sjw relativism. Heidegger IS postmodernism. Even if he personally lived a very traditional lifestyle, his entire philosophy allows for this. He invited Derrida to his cabin but Derrida bailed at the last minute.

Take the redpill.

1. No it doesn't depress the economy, especially not in an ageing society like europe. you right wingers should be the first to state, that keeping the wages and thereby inflation low should increase competitiveness visavis other countries.
2. If your job gets replaced by someone with little or no education, who doesnt even speak the lingua franca, im sorry to tell you: you are a lazy ass faggot, who cant cout to 3.
3. lets just assume i was a starving african.
i work as hard as i can, picking cotton, extracting coltan, coal, gold, sometimes with my bare hands. however 95% of the wealth gets drained off to the west and with the remaining 5% i buy filthy subsidised food no european would touch. theres no prospect of improvement as wto keeps our tarriffs down, if we would raise tarriffs to protect local economy we'd be punished by credit crunch and/or inflation. what do i do?

Yes, because it's no longer women being the second sex, when she's clearly an oppressor herself.

When people think "Beauvoir is good/right" they're actually confused and thinking of Foucault's analysis of power relations without knowing it.

On top of that, if you take The Second Sex seriously, you need to believe in Sartrean ontology (which is a load of crap). Muh authenticity etc.

You're interpreting it as such because of the current climate.

People's interpretation of a work doesn't reflect on the actual work. It never specifically advocated trans people

>Explain why that is wrong.
Men and women are biologically distinct due to the fact that women bear children. Because of this, women are less ambitious and weaker than men, while men are more intelligent and risk-taking. Women are submissive, men are dominant, and this is a truth in ALL human societies, in ALL species, it's pretty much fundamental to life as a mammal.

What happens in feminism is it fucks up the delicate gender balance. Women have more intrinsic worth than men, so giving them more rights doesn't make them more "equal", it elevates their positions to godesses on earth and leads to collapse of the family unit, societal dysfunction, single mothers, etc

What I'm saying is that this is a non-issue and doesn't deserve an argument

>because it's no longer women being the second sex

That has nothing to do with the work itself

I'll agree with that, but nevertheless the modern trans movement can be traced back to her, despite it not being her primary intention

The book claims otherwise, so read it to understand the position instead of making vague rhetorical claims?

So you agree with me it's not her fault it is other people's interpretation that led to it

yes it does, it debunks her entire analysis

but beauvoir is for people too dumb to read foucault, like nietzsche is for people too dumb to read hegel

if men are really dominant then fucking DOMINATE you fucking faggot and
don't whine and bitch about feminism.
you weak pussy

1. You assume I'm big business oriented. I am a moderate nationalist and populist with no interest in corporate bottom lines. You are also speaking against widely recognized economic models
2. Your assertion that those whose jobs are replaced are lazy and undeserving of work is totally contrary to your logic that those from less beneficial societies deserve advancement
3. I am not going to assume shit, your model of African economics is wrong and you have no real evidence for it to stand on

>Because of this, women are less ambitious and weaker than men

That's quite the claim there. Got any sort of measurable evidence to back that up outside anecdotal claims?

>and this is a truth in ALL human societies, in ALL species, it's pretty much fundamental to life as a mammal.

Appeal to nature fallacy

I remain unconvinced of the basic value of the thesis, why then should I bother entertaining the argument?
Alder's Law

It's not like you read any of them though

>muh feelings
Women are great at subversion and manipulation. The issue is most men unironically think that gender equality is a good thing and almost nothing would be able to break the conditioning.
>That's quite the claim there. Got any sort of measurable evidence to back that up outside anecdotal claims?
How many ambitious female politicans, artists, and scientists are there compared to males? Almost none. Most women who have the burning desire to be great that men tend to have are lesbians. Women are mothers, and thus CANNOT take the risk of actually doing things other than raising children. Careers are a pointless sidequest for the modern women, her children will always come first.
>Appeal to nature fallacy
Not a fallacy when we're fucking natural beings ourselves

No it doesn't. The current climate has nothing to do with the arguments and claims she proposes.

I guarantee you haven't read the work.

There is no logic linking this to anti-whiteness and anti-maleness, it's just thrown in there as an assumed fact.

>How many ambitious female politicans, artists, and scientists are there compared to males? Almost none

Where is the evidence for that?

>Most women who have the burning desire to be great that men tend to have are lesbians

Where is the evidence for that?

>Women are mothers, and thus CANNOT take the risk of actually doing things other than raising children

Appeal to nature fallacy

>Careers are a pointless sidequest for the modern women, her children will always come first.

Appeal to nature fallacy

>Not a fallacy when we're fucking natural beings ourselves

It is a fallacy, actually.

>How many ambitious female politicans, artists, and scientists are there compared to males?
This ignores the deterministic historical reasons for male superiority in these fields and is hugely fueled by your own confirmation bias
I don't even disagree with the basics of your assertions, but your argumentation is fucking backwards

>If I ignore the evidence, it will go away!
Argue against my claims or go away roastie, you know it's true
But that doesn't make sense. Male superiority is rooted in biology, it's not social. Even in the most primitive hunter-gatherer societies, males hunted food and invented the wheel while women had children and picked berries. You can't undo these truths because you feel they're unfair.

>implying that implication

that's not what i'm saying. marxism is one of the most politically divisive theories ever invented, and that is a part of postmodernism, which in turn is about (not fully!) divisiveness at infinitum in the name of difference

*of course* marxism is politically divisive. not only in practice but in theory. zizek knows the deal too, that's why he reads freud & lacan. because he understands the the big other through stalinism. it's why he likes democracy

marxism is super-divisive. division is baked into it. and marx is fucking horribly fascinated by this thing called capital which reproduces itself. the worst part is exactly what we have today, when marxists go to war with each other, aka social justice memery. marxism has completely interpenetrated into academia humanities, and universities want to go on being marxist in the right way, but once you start getting paid by the system for being marxist things get complicated & people know this.

baudrillard intimated all of this. deleuze is by far the more revolutionary thinker but baudrilllard was the guy who most clearly saw what happens when theory/image/sign goes ahead of 'reality.' its why his own writing became so wonky & recursive & he went back to nietzsche to look for answers. but nietzsche doesn't have answers and he can never be squared with marx. nietzsche + marx = postmodern hijinx 4ever

marx took the least fucking interesting parts of hegel to write what he wrote. the closer marx is to hegel the more i find him interesting. the further he gets the more he loses me

>oh no i lost some random tryhard in 2017, etc

it's why i'm not a marxist. i've read all those guys in op's pic b/c i was hoping they would have answers. some of them do, or partly. there are no answers i don't think, or at least not in the terms that they describe them. i would say baudrillard is still worth reading, lyotard peaked, foucault peaked, derrida extra-peaked, lacan is relevant b/c the sniffler. of all those guys deleuze is the most important today but they're all worth reading

these are just my own fuckface opinions tho

the 20C was all about mass social movements & they all failed. capitalism succeeded. it's why capital & tech & so on are what's up today i think, and why meme social justice is so ridiculous. if you want anti-western meme social justice in the 21C just fucking join islam, they won't disappoint. lefty prog memers need to grow up & realize they spawned the redpill and the redpill doesn't gaf about any of those dudes and they got trump elected too. and trump won't fix anything either, he'll just show how insane unbridled hero-capitalism really is. its going to be wild times ahead tho i think

sorry about the long post tho

I want to SEE the evidence.

Burden of proof is on you. You're the one proposing that the sexual order that has been in place for tens of thousands of years should, and can, be undone.

Hahaha the mental image of Derrida strolling up to Heidegger's cabin on a cold winter night, a little nervous but exited to meet his idol, but just as he's about to knock on the door he notices the Zyklon B canisters piled up round underneath the firewood and bolts away as Heidegger bursts out into the wintry weihnachtlich wood, shaking his palsied nazi fists in the cold air, in anger, realizing his cunning plan has been foiled, is the funniest thing that's come into my skull all night, so thanks for the kek man

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim.

Show me evidence of your claim so we can continue the argument.

She didn't intend it perhaps, but she is the one responsible for it

1. even if you are not big business oriented there is lots of empirical data, that the industrious part of the immigrants easily compensates the benefits, that some lazy ass faggots receive, by paying taxes.
also it is not contested by any economic theory, that inflation is measured as change of price per good over time and the price of a good is dependent on demand. rising wages for underclass->more demand for consumer products. do the math or get into economics
2. i am saying that those, who work hard and are skilled, should receive more then lazy faggots.
3. i am not saying, that africa itself is not to blame at all for its misery. however we have constructed and are maintaining the framework of their misery.
btw i am a lawyer specialized in international law focused on wto and international investment law

You originally made the claim, cuck

Anyway, it should be self-evident that there aren't as many great female artists, politicians, and scientists.

The lesbian thing was a speculation, but if you look at history most great female writers were at least bisexual. Sappho, Woolf, etc. Because a straight women feels the biological impulse to have children and care for them, while a great artist's first love must always be art.

>Male superiority is rooted in biology, it's not social.
Only in the regard that men on average are capable of higher degrees of physical growth than women, all else equal
>but primitive societies-
Are primitive and therefor the least comparable to the modern day. How do you see this as solid reasoning?
>but babies-
Are irrelevant as women have, for many periods of history and contemporarily, been the primary mate selectors. It has been the choice of individual women to submit to biological compulsions over societal advancement at least since the introduction of birth control. This is a controlled variable and not a uniform cieling to the potential of women.

>Tfw to smart for French psychoanalytic/post-structuralist/post-modernist hacks and their obscurantist garbage

can you explain why low skill immigration is good in countries that already have employment problems?

I never made any claim.

> cuck

buzzword

>Anyway, it should be self-evident that there aren't as many great female artists, politicians, and scientists.

No, that is anecdotal evidence that is falsifiable with evidence, but you have provided none.

>The lesbian thing was a speculation

So it is ungrounded and thus irrelevant for this discussion

>at least bisexual

That is not the same thing and is also specuiation.

>Sappho, Woolf,

2 artists. You are using 2 to make such a broad claim

>Because a straight women feels the biological impulse to have children and care for them, while a great artist's first love must always be art.

Appeal to nature fallacy

No she is not, for the reasons I stated

>there is lots of empirical data
Post it
>those, who work hard and are skilled, should receive more
Then the mexicans and africans who recieve less are lazy and unskilled? Neat logic there
>we have constructed and are maintaining the framework of their misery
Colonialist white guilt argument, even more neato.
>btw i am a lawyer
And I'm the prince of Nigeria

>Only in the regard that men on average are capable of higher degrees of physical growth than women, all else equal
So men and women only evolved different bodies and their minds are exactly the same? Pure ideology
>Are primitive and therefor the least comparable to the modern day. How do you see this as solid reasoning?
The same drives of primitive societies still exist today, especially something so base and essential as sexual dimorphism.
>Are irrelevant as women have, for many periods of history and contemporarily, been the primary mate selectors. It has been the choice of individual women to submit to biological compulsions over societal advancement at least since the introduction of birth control. This is a controlled variable and not a uniform cieling to the potential of women.
And? Until recently birth control wasn't a thing, and in any case the biological impulse still lingers. WOMEN HAVE BABIES. It's their main goal in life. This causes the sexual differences you see in humans. Do you deny sexual differences in behavior in other animals? Do you think they can just undo their instincts?
this isn't reddit, you don't need to double space your posts
>No, that is anecdotal evidence that is falsifiable with evidence, but you have provided none.
Neither have you.
>So it is ungrounded and thus irrelevant for this discussion
>That is not the same thing and is also specuiation.
It's a discussion retard, not a peer reviewed study
>2 artists. You are using 2 to make such a broad claim
they were examples, autist
>Appeal to nature fallacy
not an argument

>scientism

You lost the argument here.

>derrida is simply heidegger translated into french,
nothing simple about that tho

>heidegger's de-struktion of metaphysics becomes derrida's deconstruction of phallogocentricism
i agree. but i prefer that first one

>and for two dudes talking about how there's no totality and no perfect interpretation they never contradict each other, ever. it's pathetic
agree here also

to me the real conversation is about theology rather than philosophy. heidegger's logos is part greek, part catholic. derrida's logos is hebraic. heidegger's anti-semitism is a known thing and he doesn't apologize for the holocaust. derrida is all about levinas and levinas survived that holocaust. heidegger and levinas are not coming from the same place. derrida is between them and partly he wanted to be and partly he felt the squeeze. his way of getting out of it was a kind of vanishing act but Veeky Forums gets steamy about it b/c it's seemingly so vague.

so as much as they didn't seem to not contradict each other, you have to appreciate how unusual that actually is

levinas had his anachronisms as well (he once called the chinese 'the yellow peril'), so it's not like any of these guys don't have their moments of acting like total retards.

Explain how I lost the argument.

hilary clinton, marine le pen, theresa may, angela merkel?
>"natural beings" not realizing humans are overdetermined by language and social interaction.
you are a cuck to intellectuals. your mind is literally enclosed in ours.
you do realize, that women don't have to become mothers? you do realize they even have the potential to abandon their children and not pamper them like you wish your mother had done, because all those blacks, jews and women are taking away your freedom, when in reality its just other white males, that keep you in poverty, bad health and exploit your labor?
protip: its not the social marxists

>this isn't reddit, you don't need to double space your posts

pointless ad hominem

>Neither have you.

I haven't made any claim that requires evidence.

>It's a discussion retard, not a peer reviewed study

You need evidence to back up claims, sorry.

>they were examples, autist

Which you used to back up your broad speculation.

>not an argument

Exactly, you ruin the argument by using fallacies.

>their minds are exactly the same
I never posited that, nice strawman. You would need to present a strong neurological argument as evidence that women are biologically less capable than men on average
>It's their main goal in life
According to you, a male individual. Even a female individual cannot make this claim, that's the crux of why feminism cannot hold a monopoly on female interests.
>Do you deny sexual differences in behavior in other animals
It has been the philosophical pursuit of men and women for thousands of years to prove through introspection that humanity has advanced itself beyond the biological slavery of animals - and it is generally agreed that they succeeded centuries ago. THIS is why appeal to base nature is considered a logical fallacy

>questioning things is bad

They aren't simply questioning things though. They are nihilistic.

Yes? They're the exceptions that prove the rule. And Clinton got brutally raped by a political outsider, I'd hardly call that success
>you do realize, that women don't have to become mothers? you do realize they even have the potential to abandon their children and not pamper them like you wish your mother had done, because all those blacks, jews and women are taking away your freedom, when in reality its just other white males, that keep you in poverty, bad health and exploit your labor?
1) You fucking retard. We want to have children because otherwise our species would go instinct. None of us want this.
2) I never said I was oppressed by women, just that it causes negative societal impacts
>pointless ad hominem
t. reddit
>I haven't made any claim that requires evidence.
Yes you did. You said that gender equality "isn't wrong". I disagreed.
>You need evidence to back up claims, sorry.
Is this really how women argue? Give me an argument sweetie
>Which you used to back up your broad speculation.
It's usually called "thinking"
>Exactly, you ruin the argument by using fallacies.
fallacy fallacy
>I never posited that, nice strawman. You would need to present a strong neurological argument as evidence that women are biologically less capable than men on average
No I don't. I simply need to look at the amount of capable women in history. There are very few.
>According to you, a male individual. Even a female individual cannot make this claim, that's the crux of why feminism cannot hold a monopoly on female interests.
Really? Women dream of the day they will get married and have children. Children are their number one priority, if it were otherwise the species would go extinct. Yet you're correct in seeing that this is changing, but this is for the worse.
>It has been the philosophical pursuit of men and women for thousands of years to prove through introspection that humanity has advanced itself beyond the biological slavery of animals - and it is generally agreed that they succeeded centuries ago. THIS is why appeal to base nature is considered a logical fallacy
"Generally agreed"? You can't transcend the fact that woman give birth.

In any case, I know that I'm arguing against women, and nothing can change their minds. They've been taught that women are just as great as men and should be equal, and they believe it. But deep down, do any of you want to be like the great men? Shakespeare, Caesar, Plato? Or do you want to admire and attach yourselves to one? Women want to be equal to men, but no woman wants to be great. This is in their genes. Women are weaker, so they don't go into war, they don't worry themselves with risks that will only harm them and their ability to raise children.

>There are very few.
Confirmation bias
>Children are their number one priority
You have no statistical evidence that this is uniformly the case. You have only your bias and cultural ignorance to stand on
>You can't transcend the fact that woman give birth
No, but women can. By choosing not to and controlling that variable. Which many do and have done throughout history.

Fucks sake user I'm a traditionalist but your argument is so poorly constructed that you come off as some kind of MGTOW parody