Are women oppressed?

In the 1st world women have more rights then men, they have affirmative action and workplace quotas. Ever since 3rd wave feminism women have devolved the sexual marketplace into a hierarchy where a 5/10 can ride a dick carousel of chads and then settle down with a beta pay pig. Then when she gets pregnant she can either legally kill the child, or divorce her beta cuck and force him into debt slavery. Being female in the west is like playing life on the difficulty setting right below "very easy".

Systemic violence presents itself as anti-abortion regulations and wage gap.

Social violence resorts to pure idpol and ideology, you don't need to have a law behind you to be a douchebag and get back at wimmin because mommy didn't accept your drug habits and mlp collection.

I do recognize that women are oppressed in countries with archaic cultures, but I'm talking mainly about Europe here. Women have better grades, graduate more in uni now, commit suicide less often etc. What role does feminism play in all of this?

annihilate this board

People in lower classes (e.g. working class) are generally oppressed. Women aren't specifically oppressed. In places where women get treated like shit, men and children also get treated like shit. Feminism's biggest failing is falling into the trap of defining women in terms of men. Women are the reproductive bottleneck and generally spend a lot more time bringing up children. To downplay their power and importance is a tremendous insult to those women and something that generally only comes from bourgeois women who hire nannies to do as much of that labor as possible. Culture follows the base/superstructure dynamic here, meaning culture follows from the material processes of reproduction of humans, which is a form of labor. Culture starts with reproduction and builds outward. Men are adjacent to the center, doing the work of protection or provision in contrast with the primary job of reproduction.

If you want a valuable lesson in dimorphism of human sexuality go watch some videos of female strippers with a male audience and male strippers with a female audience. Hint: Women usually cannot keep their hands to themselves.

The stuff you quoted does happen in Europe though.

But to answer your question - as with all IDPOL if something isn't going well for yourself then its obviously something bigger and sinister at work.

It reenforces the setbacks that men face because feminism still places men as the oppressors, and the oppressor cannot be the oppressed. So men with suicide problems arent helped because they are the tough oppressors and men "already got the power so why do they need help". Men cant be raped because they are the oppressor, education that doesnt fit boys shouldnt be changed because it is inherently male-centric.

This is the cancer of IDpol, you setup two identities against each other, put one of them as the oppressor and the other as the victim, now the victim can do no harm and the oppressor cant have problems. And since its based on identity such as race, gender or ethnicity, you can never actually "solve" the dichotomy like you can solve class conflict.

More like because if the males touched the females they would get their asses beat into the fucking pavement by the bouncers and every other white night in the club. Women have a pussy pass and can basically act like adult children with zero repercussion, get drunk, fuck up their life…. either way its the patriarchies fault.

Men are a lot more content to just look than women are. That's what I was getting at. It's impossible to stop women from touching the men. Male strippers are de facto prostitutes.

Not where I live.

Men are a lot more content to just look than women are.

Yea sure thats why you need a small army of burly bouncers in stripclubs

They oppress muh dick

Go watch some videos of private shows if you don't believe me.

...

Women are opressed by pornography and so called progressive society. Women should be traditional and live close to their husbands.

I opress them all with my dick

I assume you're parodying Holla Forums and their cognitive dissonance when it comes to women

I'm saying go watch videos where there are no bouncers in the equation. People do things because of beliefs as much as because of truth, and that includes beliefs about human behavior. How about look at some empirical evidence.

At the point when women are allowed to be more uninhibited than men the oppression reverses. MGTOW have their point too.

Perhaps among the bourgeoisie men have it better. Among the proletariat and poor people it seems women enjoy all sorts of social and legal advantages that men don't have.

This. Why am I expected to pander to women and provide for them when I have a hard enough time to compete with chad. From the bottom it is easy to see every female as a shallow golddigger.

To clarify your point.

Bourgeois men enjoy most of the kinds of protections that prole women enjoy. Bourgeois women enjoy those protections too, but they also don't enjoy the high status and power to the same degree as the men. There's also a large complex discussion within this about whether it's better to have power (and how much) or stability.

Excepting me to watch male stripper videos for you, how about no.

This is why bisexuals are the only people who can be trusted to even-handedly analyze gender.

No. I'm a proud white nationalist, fuck off nigger

...

all men and women are different from each other you moron

no videos, "empirical evidence" will prove anything because you'd actually need to watch tens of thousands of them to judge anywhere close to how it actually is

For talking about spooks so much, you retards don't seem to be able to easily identify them. Go do a search on "John Money".

Badly astroturfing asspained liberal detected.

The wage gap is equivalent to saying Mussolini wore socks with sandals. It is not based on evidence, the opposition can easily debunk it, and it ignores the far worse things Porky is doing, such as
You're either a troll or a Reddit expat. Either way, please fix yourself or exit.

So what you're saying is a large enough sample size would show close to how it actually is.

That tragedy is not evidence of anything except that child abuse is bad. Money forced the children to engage in simulated sex acts and all sorts of other shit that negates any theoretical scientific value of that incident.

Idpol is bourg cancer. One of us can build a STMOP machine that does what its name implies with the push of a button, and will be ostracized as a "brocialist".

also it's most likely that men and women that go in this kind of shitholes are more prone to touching the strippers than the people who would enter these kind of places involuntarily

u fucking w0t m8? The outcome of the study itself was that even being castrated and forced into a "female gender role" the dude still felt male up until the day David Reimer blew his brains out. Male and female is biology not a a "role".

David Reimer blew his brains out because his life was a relentless torment. John Money added to the torment. None of what happened there indicates anything useful about the nature of sex, gender, gender roles, etc.

...

Thx for the reply. I don't personally identify as a feminist, I'm actually pretty traditional (I like masculinity). I think creepy men need to man up, learn some self-control and treat women with respect. I also think it's good as a man to look critically at your behavior, see if there's something to improve. (Basically just treat women as equal human beings). Now, don't mistake me for someone who says 'all men' or 'most men'. It's just that I notice that men can do things to women because of strength and assertiveness that women cannot do to men. And some then do.

what the fuck does stmop mean

Wtf does r socialism have rape apologists?

back to Holla Forums or learn what science is

Yes they covered up a rape case because "it would be bad image".

Kek I thought only trots did that

Everyone is opressed one way or another under capitalism and a hierarchical system. Some more, some less but still oppressed. In some countries not so much yet it doesnt change the fact that it is not limited to just gender but also class. You can be a woman in Europe, better than being born in the middle east, but if you are poor or failed to get a good education or the wrong race/religion (depending where you are), you could get fucked.

The real question is not if women are oppressed, but the cause of that oppression.

Seems like you don't know much about science.

>>>/tumblr/

/r/socialism are apologists for a whole bunch of bourg stuff.

They banned people for shit talking the CWI and them covering up rape cases. I think a lot of folks on here were banned.

Like?

yeah except all those women who can do the same to men also because of strength and assertiveness because, news flash, not all women are weak and passive

Ugh, that's why I really like leftypol. It may be a shitshow, at least we're not banning people left and right like fucking every left-wing page and forum on the net

I wasn't a part of that discussion nor am I taking part in it.

Just saying that one case doesn't prove anything and is certainly not science. That's all.

They're far weaker physically and thats an inarguable fact.

Still

John Money's position was that gender is purely social, which is not something that is generally taken seriously by the left. The concept of transgenderism depends on gender being fixed biologically. Reimer was male in the sense of both sex and gender, and suffered dysphoria from being treated as the wrong gender, the same way trans people do for being treated as the wrong gender pre-transition. This is on top of having been castrated as a baby and being abused by John Money. Even if the gender issue was removed from the case, it would be unsurprising for someone in his position to kill himself. The gender shit just made things worse. There is nothing about Money's "experiment" that isolated variables or attempted to prove a null hypothesis. Furthermore, the case gets (wrongly) used as often by people in the pro-trans camp as people in your camp use it, but as proof that forcing the wrong gender on someone is traumatic. This should by itself show that it's indicative of nothing.

You literally don't know anything about what you're talking about.

That's literally racial supremacist rhetoric.

None of what you listed would have been possible without feminism? And no, saying that feminism did its job and must now fade into obscurity is the same thing as thanking socialism for the minimum wage, but protesting that it go any further.

Wouldn't be surprised if you're the same lad who complained about generalisation.

With that "women are simply too lazy to work hard enough to get promoted" argument, right? Guess what: women not getting promoted despite demonstrating equal level competence is a real phenomenon and a part of the wage gap.

There's nothing "traditional" about liking natural biological traits of your species.

Depends on country, culture and individual.

Yeah, I do recognize that happens. And the way statistics on male rape are tailored is fucked up (it's often not even called rape). Still, most men are just stronger. Every woman I know has some disturbing story about harrassment. One was told by some guy that he masturbated to her. Another assaulted, another groped, etc. It's just not something I hear often from men (or maybe they don't talk about it).

It's sorta traditional in the political spectrum of our society.

Well be surprised then, because I am not.
Also keep strawmanning me, I just said that feminism put men as the oppressor and women as the oppressed. Its not explicitly anti-men, but the foundation of its ideology hinders them from helping them.

If that's what counts as traditional then hygiene is also traditional.

-ThAt's lItErALly rAciAl SuPreMaCIst rHeToRIc.-

It does not matter how you in interpret the difference when difference in wages is laid bare in statistic and direct comparison

can we stop this bullshit already? in general "they" might be, sure, but there are also women stronger than most men walking on this planet

you're the reason why feminists target males and patriarchy instead of something that is not exclusive to males - masculinity, the actual source of real oppression they talk about

Evidence pls

I'd say the systemic abuse begets social violence though, kinda like how the lowest paid workers are often the ones suffering the most abuse and sadism at the hands of their managers.

fucking kill yourselves you reddit-tier retards.

Great argument.

...

All apples to apples comparisons have demonstrated parity. Please cease before you continue making us a laughingstock.

Hmm… its almost like this is biological and not societal. Take 99% of the male population and try to convince them to play with dolls and put on makeup, not going to work. The other 1% has a mental illness. "Gender roles" aka. a healthy mental state is informed by biology, it's a result of brain chemistry.

You're a retard.

Elite level deadlift for 160lb man: 473lbs
Elite level deadlift for 260lb woman: 422lbs

What? You're both wrong, but you are wrong in ways that don't even make sense. We're talking gender not race, and racial supremacist rhetoric is "we're oppressed despite being better."

Feminism is an ideology. Advocating for women's rights =/= feminism. Feminism loves to take credit for shit it had nothing to do with or even opposed at the time. Look at how capitalist feminism is trying to appropriate the civil rights struggle for an example of this.

Nod an argumend ::DDD
Feminism isn't necessarily opposed to men but it usually is.

The bulk of the wage gap is due to different responses to having kids. Women are more likely to leave work and men are more likely to stay longer to bring home more money. Unmarried women make more money than unmarried men in their age group. The reason the child-rearing gap isn't addressed ever is because it's too much like a "men's issue" and it might actually help fix a problem that is very useful for feminism to complain about.

If you're not him, then take a hint from him and stop generalising.
You what my biggest issue with liberal rhetoric is? Whenever they talk about helping others, be it about class, race, gender, or what ever, it's not "us the people working together", but "us the wise and mighty lending a helping hand to our lesser brethren". Those who do not belong to the group such rhetoric is aimed at instantly recognise the obvious implications and reject the propaganda.
The reason feminists don't like you isn't because they dislike men, but because they see that you yourself do not see them as equals.

Seize the means of production

Seriously, how is acknowledging that men are, in general, stronger and therefore de facto able to do shit to women that they often can't do to men, the same as racial supremacist rhetoric?

Nazis don't say that Black people are stronger and therefore a threat. They say that black people are animals, basically savages. Equating me to them is retarded and I thought that was obvious.

Pre-germ theory hygiene is laughable by today's standards but it existed.

Plenty of boys play with dolls and makeup is and always has been widely used in male higher society and is still used today in many places on earth.
There is nothing inherently feminine about makeup, just like there isnt anything feminine about long hair or skirts. Stop being a fucking faggot.

Obviously.

It's funny how wage gap deniers are absolutely adamant in refusing to consider the implications of there being fewer women in better-paying positions and women generally having less experience and working fewer hours. The only explanation I ever hear is that women are just lazy and don't want to work, which, again, is literally racial supremacist rhetoric.

...

That's a different time and place and was probably a bad example. Lets take 99% of the male population and make them raise children while the women go off to fight a war. How about that one?

You act as if feminism is a monolithic group with a consensus to act in ways you dislike.
This sort of cancer is why I became more open to feminism and then xenofem.

see

Get out

anti-feminism is sectarian pseudo-leftist fantasizing.

I'm sorry to say that but I'm not the one who either didn't understand the point of the post they're replying to or thinks that anything you posted is supposed to prove anything somehow

Oh okay, I get it. Making arguments from biology == the same as being a nazi.

Hol dup, when did this turn into me not being "liked" by feminists? Are you just trying to spin this as me being "a nice guy" and "those damn feminazis dont want to blow me"? Wew.

As for your argument, feminism is a movement for womens rights. Since I am not a women, wouldn't I not be included in "us the people" by your logic?
I really stuggle what you are thinking right now. I just said feminism, as an ideology, is based on a certain worldview that certainly did apply in the past but is counter-productive today, and that a socialist worldview that views society as "we are all in this together as comrades, against the bourgeoisie" is much more helpfull in solving issues such as male suicide and crime rates or sub-par boy graduation rates.

Why would we go to war?

No I don't. Using feminism as the subject of a sentence isn't the same as considering it a monolith. You are making up bullshit that isn't there. In that very post I point out that not all feminists/feminism behave the same.

Feminism is sectarian pseudo-left fantasizing.

Yes you do.
"it isn't necessarily opposed to men but usually it is" sure thing bud.

This is a hypothetical situation the cause of the war doesn't matter.

This is literally the opposite of portraying something as a monolith. There are cases where it is [thing] and cases where it is not.

Meks u thonk

Then I dont get your situation.
What do you mean with "how about that one"?

I think they key point is "usually".

You should get off Twitter and stop reading third wave feminist blogs.

Everybody knows there's more victim cred on the Jewish side of that conflict.

The "wage gap" typically refers to the "for the same job" narrative, and gets conflated with "taking the aggregate of females' compensation and that of males' compensation without taking parity into account", which is what I was referring to. Dealing with the factors that affect sex representation in positions and fields is a worthwhile field of inquiry. Falsifying data is not.

Holla Forums isn't necessarily a fascist board, in all truthfulness, it just usually is.
It's fairly hegemonic because of this informal consensus. It's impossible to have zero exceptions when talking about behaviour in a large group of people.

Now this doesn't make me think.

If they find women useless then they should just not hire them at all. If they hire them for the same position as men they should pay them the same, otherwise it's systemic violence. It's as simple as that.

It was in plain fucking english m8

I meant how about women going to war while men stayed home to raise kids…

Oh it's this chestnut again.
I'm not just talking about those. Marxist feminism too. The feminism that doesn't treat men as somehow inherently bad is uncommon and tends to exist only in the circles of people who are too busy with activism to entertain navel gazing bullshit. Which is probably why they still call themselves feminists - they don't realize what most of the ideology is.

What's the difference? It's all excuses for rightists.
Advocating for workers' rights =/= socialism, then?
I love it when antifeminists acknowledge that there are different kinds of feminism, but still lump them all together.
1. Or be fired under flimsy premises.
2. And that women are encouraged by the society to discard financial independence isn't part of the problem, I take it?
Oh, don't. It's like Holla Forums giving friendly advice to lefties on how to do their own business.

Most of the time, yes, because people who do that are not simply usually completely clueless about biology, but what's worse, are wilfully ignorant.

Are you implying that it isn't? I wouldn't have brought up your personality were it not to play a role in this.
Are you wilfully ignorant or just stupid? I genuinely am confused.
A simple question: do you think that racism is a real problem? If yes, then do you think that is should be addressed together with what you said, or should it just be "shut up, your plebeian problems are irrelevant, focus on what matters to me"?

No. Women not getting as favourable conditions as men do is an integral part of the narrative.
Credibility = lost.

What about it?
Also what kind of extinction-level war are we having when we need 50% of our population to go to the frontline? At this point all cultural shit goes out the window and women should stay home because they are physically the only ones capable of making more soldiers for this invasion-beyond-proportions.

...

Man and women are constructs though. Sure, they're physical, still spooky as fuck, you're treating a collection as a solid whole, not seeing the forest for the trees if I'm using that right.
This is why xenofeminism a best. Try reading up on that, or any other feminist books, you'll see it's not "let's bully men lmao"

Well, you were the one being wilfully ignorant tbf. The wage gap rhetoric is never that women are 'lazy', it's that they tend to have different priorities in life than their career. You misconstrued the argument and then compared all that make it to nazis.

Nice going there.

The wage gap numbers that get thrown around are based on average income across the board. The biggest factor in that is differences in child rearing behaviors. None of what you said refutes that.

All this shows is that you are deliberately reading something into what I said. Feminism is a hell of a lot bigger than fucking Holla Forums.
Feminism is a very diverse set of ideologies and most feminists don't associate with each other. There can be no informal or formal consensus, just trends.
So? Are you just saying things and hoping it has the appearance of making a salient point?

Oppressed depends on the context, there have been some studies showing that women are detrimentally impacted by sexism which manifests in different ways than bourgeoisie idpol would lead you to think.

So, then "gender roles" are the result of a biological imperative and not the result of some societal conspiracy, correct? That's the point I was trying to make… I'm not sure what about that is so hard to understand.

...

Found the SJW

Interesting. Do you have concrete examples?

and that's a good enough excuse to directly fuck them over?

I'm not sure we are thinking the same here. The anti wage-gap argument is that it's based on a confusion between wages and earnings. Women, goes the argument, just work less and therefore earn less on average. Wages are almost the same (as it is illegal to pay someone less for the same work), or so the argument goes.

So, they would not be fucked over at all: they choose themselves to focus on children or work that pays less in the marketplace, like childrearing or whatever.

I'm not sure it convinces me, but I do think it's an interesting argument. Def. not nazi rhetoric.

Derp, childrearing is not a job. I meant work in the hospital sector or stuff like that

I'll repeat myself:
But of course it isn't, there is no such thing as society, there are individual men and women, and there are families. I understand it when rightists say this, but as a nominal leftie, don't you despise yourself even a bit for employing such rhetoric?

No I'm making a comparison to show that you're making silly generalizations saying that feminism is usually against men.

How could you possibly try to ignore that gender roles have changed drastically throughout the course of history, especially in different regions? Using your assumptions and assuming your assumptions are true, this would mean that basic human biology changes drastically every generation, and by continent.

It's not SJW it's what human beings have been doing for millennia. There is a give and take, men do dangerous shit and work hard and the females are submissive and tend to the needs of the family. It's the way things are supposed to work, but in a system where women have all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages of being male, I agree fuck fighting for that.

Stop beating on that straw man, it's going to snap in half.

Hm, you didn't make that argument to me, but to the other guy. As I said above, I'm not convinced by the anti wage-gap argument (partly because I consider what you mentioned, social pressures, can be a decisive pressure)

I'm not a rightist. The difference is genders can't live in isolated and separate groups the way races do almost by definition. Both genders are required for a reproducing community, but multiple races or the concept of race is not necessary.
That is true. It's reformism. Note that "=/=" is not the same thing as "is opposed to". It means "these things are separate concepts that do not equate with each other"
I'm not lumping them together. I'm addressing an example using a specific type. Marxist feminism has problems too, but they're different problems than we were discussing.
Most people can be fired under flimsy premises. The likelihood of someone leaving work (which is a material fact in the case of women and having kids) is not a flimsy premise. It's in the interest of capitalist enterprises to minimize risk, and women are riskier employees. Is the fact that men are encouraged to seek financial independece part of the problem? I say yes, just like it's a problem that women are discouraged from it. But really the bigger problem here is the need to sell one's labor to a capitalist. Putting value on fincancial independence within capitalism is buying into the ideology.

Yes? There isn't really a group of people out there who explicitly identify as feminist. Quite the opposite actually, 80% of the women I know explicitly do the opposite and say they are egalitarian.
No I am confused. You say something about people helping their own group vs people being the benevolent slaveholder helping the slaves, which I dont really understand has anything to do with this. I just tried to follow your weird ass hostile logic and figured that you must not want me to be a feminist because i am not part of the group its trying to help, I am not part of "we the people vs the other".
In america, sure.
???
What the fuck are you going on about. Yes, of course they are problems and should be addressed. I said that using a movement that is explicitly about "x problem is facing our ingroup and the outgroup did it" is retarded if you keep using the same movement for over a hundred years long after the original goal has been completed. Any movement that is based in antagonism cannot fight for the rights of the "enemy", because as the movement achieves more of its original, rightious goals, the movement shrinks in size, the bulk of the population considers it a job well done and move on to the next problem, and the only people who remain are those those who claim that the work isnt done and blame problems on the same antagonist. Just like how national liberation fronts turn into nationalist xenophobes after liberation is achieved, so too do other movements move to more fringe and more radical topics or positions.

Not even sure why I try to explain this to you because all youre going to do is call me names and say in a neckbeard or something.

But that's based on strawman, because evidence indicates that wage gap exists even on the same job position.

First off
no
no, google it

because they haven't

I would be interested in that evidence, if you can link it.

*until the sexual revolution feminist garbage started

Except they have. You can't just say "no history is wrong".

You have the usage backwards.
I have and it's less cancerous in some ways and more cancerous in others. None of what you say ("my feminism is better!") rebuts anything I said.

It's not a silly generalization because it's not a generalization. A generalization would be "feminism is against men". Saying "feminism is usually against men" means that in a majority of cases of feminism, it is against men.

Mate if humanity or whatever is litterally being genocided in some way then I dont give a fuck about your silly politics. Sending fertile women to fight while we are losing more people than we gain in an endless war is plain retarded.

Yes and cannibalism is human nature when you put two humans on an island with only water and no food.
Stop being retarded. Your unrealistic extinction-level ragnarok scenario doesnt prove shit. At such a point what you want or feel like doesnt matter. What matters is preserving humanity.

Okay then, tell me when in the last 100,000 years of history have the men stayed home while the women did the most dangerous jobs and went to war? Name FUCKING ONE

>>implying men do dangerous shit sit atop social hierarchies, despite the large number of neets playing shit vidya right now
This shitty logic can be used the other way too, you fucking retard.

Here you go, comparison by job titles.
payscale.com/wizards/choose.aspx?tk=gpg2016

There are matriarchies but they're all hunter gatherers.

Thanks user, I'll have a look.

Why is it a straw-man? And, again, for clarity, I never said that I support the argument.

I'm not going give up on perfectly legitimate theory just because of the common belief that feminists bully men.

So, basically there are none, correct?

The superstructure changes but the base stays the same. Women rear children and men provide for that process. The work women do allows them to stay close to the kids, while the men are doing work that requires them to go elsewhere.

...

Nobody is asking you to. Stop reading your bullshit into other people's words for just a moment, fucking Christ.

No, they exist. They're just primitive and uncommon.

Yeah, it can be. Which means people can do whatever the fuck they want and it isn't decided by their genitals. You faggot.

This is true, but the material conditions of birth are changing, not everyone can bother with the whole love thing anymore, and not everyone enjoys the pain of childbirth. I honestly am kind of envious of the future where I can only imagine artificial birthing has destroyed the more traditional family structure for a more intentionally designed one.

What exactly do you think arguing against feminism on a leftist board is, if not seeking to change people's minds?

I'll repeat myself again: and social pressure isn't part of the problem, you stupid son of a bitch? Stop with the fucking straw men, you loathsome cunt.

No, you're just incurably stupid. All the points I tried to make went straight over your head. Washing my hands off of you, have a good day.

I wish I lived in an echo chamber. Must be so nice.
Yay, anecdotal evidence!
Try asking those women on whether they ever had unwanted advances done to them, including molestation. If most of them say no, then they don't trust you enough to be honest with you. And yes, even in the West most women do deal with such issues on a systematic basis. No, providing links to research papers is pointless, as you're going to deny everything in any case.
Don't play coy.
See? Proving my point.
I guess commies should go home then, most of Marx's original propositions are reality now.
I really, honestly don't understand if you're really as stupid as you seem to be. Help me out.
Like socialism? We do want to exterminate the ruling class as an entity, after all, or do we not? What all the movements are about are for you to decide, apparently.
Now, I do not disagree with you that outside of the narrative of Marxism and dialectic materialism all societal struggles are ultimately meaningless, it's just that people like you always in the end say that the only real issues are the issues you face yourselves, and nothing that's troubling others matters; if you're an ethnic minority, you acknowledge xenophobia, but disregard women, and if you're a woman, you acknowledge sexism, but hate immigrants, and so on, and so forth. What you don't understand is that you're completely transparent. You have a critical attitude problem. Go fix it.

Where did I say that? It's almost like you don't have an argument.

Wtf I just said, literally, that social pressure is a part of the problem because I said that I -consider- that it is the -decisive- pressure keeping earnings down. And that, therefore, I am not convinced by the anti wage-gap argument (so the argument that would deny there is a wage-gap). Seriously dude, now you're just misreading me.

quoted the wrong user nigga

ONU recomends that women never go to jail, there's hundreds of examples like these i could list but i'm too tired to do so

Women are muh privileged, and at this point, men are oppresed

Legally, women are viewed by society as a physically weaker sex and, therefore, are afforded all sorts of legal leeway in relation to violence. For example a report of domestic abuse by a woman is taken far more seriously by the authorities than one made by a man, and just the report alone carries consequences for the accused party (some states have laws that require the man to be taken into custody and processed just for a report.) There are also several instances of women levying false rape allegations that have destroyed men's lives, accused men are not afforded the same level of leeway that women are. Divorce law often slants in women's favor, affording a divorced woman, often over 50% of her husband's assets (regardless of who initiated the divorce) and, more often than not, custody of the couple's children.

Men are far more often the victims of violent crime than women. Men are also orders of magnitude more likely to be the victims of police violence.

Socially, we find that women are allowed to commit far more violence against men and menace to the society than would be tolerated for a man. The video of the drunk woman destroying an uber driver's car, with little consequence to herself, is a chilling example of this. A man in that situation would have very quickly been arrested or physically assaulted. As far as I know that woman was "placed on leave" as the only consequence. We can see the poor social behavior play out in the street all the time, a woman who tells a man to "fuck off" has far less to fear in terms of physcial retaliation than a man who tells a man to "fuck off". Futhermore, if any physical retaliation is had, the physical retaliation against the woman is prosecuted far more harshly by authorities.

Women of lower social standing or poor material conditions are far more likely to be rewarded with economic benefits by wealthier men than the reverse, thus improving their material conditions. This is not an option for proletarian men except in the rarest of cases, they only have their own labor to trade and no other real source of material economic benefit.

Throughout the 20th century, men have been far more likely to be coerced into military service to fight and die in capitalist wars than women.

The list can go on and on, the general theme is that society views women as a weaker sex requiring more protections and material bonuses than men, and the state often acts in accordance with that.

So let me show that faggot who says "gender roles are 100% biological" that his arguments are shit.

Another example:

Another example:

As you can see here, at no point anywhere does this involve "instinctual preferences", only culture and natural selection.

Because they are jobs that require less effort to work, both studying and working

In science you have to do mental effort
In mines you have to do phisical effort

That's why women don't go anywhere there

He did? (Or you did, if you're the flag guy)? It's no problem, I guess, it was just a bit weird :p. Leftypol arguments always turn into a shitshow over nothing relevant, it's really weird.

anti-abortion regulations are actually good, but the wage gap and general douchiness is a problem.

Genuinely unsure whether serious or shitposting.

That it doesn't count? Here. You said it right here.

Reading through this thread makes me actually sick. How much money would I have to pay each of you faggots on an individual basis to forever go back to reddit?

Religious """"""socialists"""""" should be shot on sight.

I'll take however much you can reasonably give me.

This doesn't debunk that it's biological at all. You assume humans arrived at these gender roles through trial and error which lead to the societies where men were in the roles more suited to their biological strengths thrived. While I agree, in your example of Tribe A and Tribe B, Tribe B certainly would thrive compared to Tribe A, however, there is no proof this is how we got here.

The argument can just as easily be made that it was biological instinct in the first place that led people to perform roles more suited to their own biological advantages, completely skipping the need for a trial and error natural selection process.

Never been there, maybe you should go back to kotakuinaction

Thanks for the explanation, user. It's true that you have to stick to nuance in these types of analyses. I did never agree with the idea that 'only men' oppress 'only women' in relevant ways. However, I would still stick to the idea that women face more problems. Like, yeah, even in patriarchal societies women were 'protected' by men, but also abused more often than not. Still, I'd admit that this is more than a hunch than anything I could use hard evidence to prove, and this is a hunch very much based on anecdotal evidence.

So as an argument my hunch is shit :p

What pisses you off?

I'm serious

women who do hard careers work hard, women who do humanities are useless. When they start getting old and they realize they're going nowhere because all they do is chat with their phones at work, they start whinning "you owe me because vagina"

And that's where feminists come from

ok buddy

Nobody wants this. This doesnt make them a feminist. Women can think for themselves, dickhead, you dont get to dictate what they do or dont call themselves.

????
Dude what. I litterally do not understand what you are trying to say.

Oh no thats too bad it seems those still need to be done.

No I think its just you.

Yes we do. The ruling class as a class must be exterminated. After socialism achieves its goals, there will be no more ruling class, only proletariat. After feminism achieves its goal, there will still be men and women, after the kurds liberate themselves from turkey, turkey and turks will still exist.

Where did you get that idea from.

You have an attitude problem in general, attacking anyone you disagree with and calling them every name under the fun, dismissing their opinions and experiences in different parts of the world as lies and so forth.

>>>/r9k/

Wow, I didn't think you'd do it, but you surpassed my expectations. Go fuck yourself.

No it doesn't, it just debunks your idea that

I am providing an alternative hypothesis of how we got to this point, to show you that just because you have a plausable hypothesis, it doesnt mean youre automatically correct.

Not really no, in western countries. Only to a very small extent, such as the overall, on the whole, there being fewer women in labour aristocracy positions. Yeah, aruing 'cuz women r dumb' is retarded here but what is the reason, anyway? They arent being fucking bullied into not taking engineering by their fathers or their boyfriends. So, they choose not to because they were never as interested in that stuff? Or because they never paid attention in math class, for some reason, maybe not pressured as hard in school as boys, or whatever?
Either way its not up to me to bend the fucking knee to harpy cunts to check my muh privilege and repent for my innate mysoginy, just to be a good parent if I ever have a daughter. Fucking hell.

Not an argument.

Imagine believing this.

That they are bullied or that they aren't? What's your argument?

Which ones do you mean?
Also you cant pay me they banned me thrice over on all major subreddits and all leftist reddits.

...

Lol how

I didn't know it was possible to be this out of touch with reality. Do you actually think its normal or common that men harass women out of career choices?

It's enough to see people with their little children.
My aunt has twins, a girl and a boy, and she'd lose her shit when the boy would take his sister's pink-colored stuff ("No, no, no, BLUE IS FOR BOYS!") or when he'd take the girl doll and play with that instead of a soldier or a car.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430213490212

...

How many women do you know that wanted to take the natural sciences route, but were dissuaded by their families? Hint: there's more of them than you think.

Thanks again user. So the study argues that they unconsciously play less well against male players because they are afraid of being seen as unnatural?

There is cultural preassure to not choose those subjects and from personal experience there can be a heavy creep factor when theres only one girl in an all-male-heavy-autism education such as engineering or CS. You have to be emotionally mature and tough to do so.

Called a kid a retard on minecraft years back because he asked a retarded question that a 5 seconds google search could have solved, and all the answers he got were 100% wrong. A girl threathened to kill herself instead of having an abortion because "taking my babies life is immoral". Got banned for calling her stupid because an abortion and killing yourself would both kill the baby.
Got banned a few times on ask reddit, once for doxxing someone who said "bet you cant doxx me, try to do it", and twice for calling people retarded.
Oh right I also got banned in nottheonion for saying "he dindonuffin" on some non-black people related article and that term was racist somehow, which i didnt knew until that very moment. Probably a few i forgot.
Oh yea all the anarchism and commie subreddits for saying that "pulling a fire alarm on a mens rights activist meeting both is not leftism, it damages the public building and its dangerous regarding fire safety" and being associated with leftypol, of course. Got some cool death threads from the mods too.

It does happen. It's absurd to deny that. Have you people never known any families?

You mean that liberals don't think that stereotyping is a problem? No, sure, they do it themselves all the time, but still?

Anti-abortion regulations border on violence since there is no such piece of paper in the universe that would prevent woman from disposing of fetus as she has the means to do so if she deems it fit. Convincing from the christian standpoint and state punishment are not the same.

Holy fucking shit.

lol leftist internet pages are retarded

Aren't they? Religious people do tend to put their religion above everything else.

Wtf I just asked you to clarify your argument. I actually agree with you that pressure can happen in families (and prob. often does)

Great with jokes huh, y'sjw fuckwad.

-There is cultural preassure to not choose those subjects and from personal experience there can be a heavy creep factor when theres only one girl in an all-male-heavy-autism education such as engineering or CS. You have to be emotionally mature and tough to do so.-

Yeah I would def. say that's true, also anecdotally so so whatever

That's why it matters to point out that all the state can do is to perform institutional penalty, it does not reinforce moral convictions.

You should use a right pointing arrow for quoting people and getting that nice green colour, reddit newfriend.

Thanks user, always wondered how to do that. Not from reddit btw.

u wot
No, it's because they are taught to believe that women ought to underperform in comparison to men.
But seriously, u wot.

Considering that it's only ever not used by racists is when clueless folks like you do it, the kneejerk reaction is perfectly justifiable, though not if you contacted them to clear the issue up and they decided to not unban you.
Are you for fucking real. No, it doesn't make any real difference as it is simply IRL trolling, but are you for fucking real.

Can you read a fucking book?
Take off that flag too.

Well thats exactly what happened.

How the fuck is there? Girls and boys preferring different things because of cultural memes isnt a positive pressure not to do certain things.

Half the girls I know are studying compsci. I find it hard to fucking believe that actually happens, regularly, normally, in the modern day, in america and europe.

I honestly forgot I clicked your post, typed "it does happen", then clicked other posts and added the rest and just kinda assumed everyone was in the same group of type of post.

Well, hey, you seem like kind of a cunt, so I wouldn't be surprised if you approached them in an embarrassing passive-aggressive manner and got what you deserved.
Not saying how it happened, but still.

The kind of silly shit I'd expect from the man afraid of "cultural marxism"

u wot

Right, so they are trying to perform a role they are taught is natural. I don't see the contradiction in what we are saying.

I think you could say that, yeah.

Jesus fuck, SJWism gives you autism, doesnt it.
I wasnt implying garldural margzizm is a real phenomena you raving fucking retard

np user

I will go back to your post.

xenofeminism is cultural marxism but for real now.

Ah, okay. I'm curious what causes it, then. Would it be cultural factors? Is there a biological reason? I'd guess the first, but I'm not sure how you could prove it.

Your position is more specific and has different nuance from what I said. But yes, I just didn't get what you were saying.

I'm aware it's the fucking sterotype of the fake thing cultural marxism.
You're scared of the same effects. The same bullshit end-result that only right-wing faggots are afraid of.

oh okay, np user

Also yes, I fail to see how fighting fringe mens rights activists (10 people all 30+ years old) does anyting to help promote the cause of anarchism. Keep in mind that this was a few years back when le alt right was nothing more than making fun of sjw's and meming about atheism, so they werent affiliated with groups like that.

Yea you too.

There is preassure to not choose certain professions. Even in "the most progressive country on the planet" I regularly heard things like "but isnt engineering for boys?". It wasnt the majority by a longshot, but a vocal minority. Add to that that there was even negative preassure from people our own age on boys who were studying to be primary school teacher or girls who studied to be technicians (ie the boys were gay or pedos and the girls were dykes or ugly autists). There is a fair amount of stigma surrounding this kinda shit still.

Stop this.

And it was an offhanded joke referring to the vaguest possible conception of what they mean by it based soley on the
line, and here you are having spastic mongfits over it. Where is your handler?

The file I attached describes how some factors might be responsible for the proportionally low amount of female chess players.

It was an offhand joke outing you as a faggot afraid of the imagined endgame of cultural marxism, who's only reason for not being against it is you're at least smart enough to realize it doesn't exist.
You're still a faggot shit for being so spooked by the idea of
that it's turning you authoritarian.

While this is certainly interesting I must say… Chess? Really? Isnt mind sports pretty much dead at this time?

Hm so is the conclusion that women become more careful once they have to compete with men, which gives men an edge in the game of chess? Or did I misread?

there are shelters for women while there are no shelters for men, and feminists campaign against them while claiming the mantra of 'equality' and any services available for men in a DV shelter designed by feminists will be something like anger management. you got stabbed by your wife, but be careful not to raise your voice.

there are more beds available for homeless women even though there are four times more homeless men.

there's more services available for women's mental health, no doubt one of the many factors pushing the suicide gap even further. fems will say they want to help men with this issue too, but they shut down conferences on mens' mental health, and can't seem to get through a conversation about mens' issues without calling masculinity in general toxic and suggesting the man act less masculine.

not all states have shared parenting laws and feminist groups (especially the national organization for women) lie about bills to change the laws, literally holding back progression for the sake of womens' superiority.

there are laws like the violence against women act in Canada which mandates the police assume a man is the aggressor when assessing a domestic dispute, which is in part why you may hear horror stories like the one about that guy who was arrested for pushing his wife off of him while he was being stabbed, or the man who was arrested because his wife hurt her hand beating him up even after he did not defend himself.

in America the federal definition of rape requires penetration, so if you're a female rapist you will only be charged with sexual assault even if you force someone to penetrate you with a gun, threats, date rape drugs, or a minor. also women can sue their rape victims for child support like that 14 year old boy from California.

do I even need to talk about the state of sexism against men in the schools? men are the minority in schools and there is still a drive to get solely more women in school, in fact often when a new scholarship for men is formed there is a huge controversy. affirmative action based on sex was banned in sweden after people started realizing it was helping men too much.

i could go on all day, but the biggest reason women are not oppressed in the western world is because people are actually willing to listen to their problems. are you listening now?

So their sexual organ is spooking their will away once they face oppposite sex? Therefore if they are unaware that their opponent is male there would be no difference.

theres no fucking coherent definition of what that is even from right wingers.

No.
But what other circumstance do you imagine someone using this flag under?

I was referring to "damaging the public building". What do you think pulling a fire alarm does?

Of course they are oppressed how else could you justify this kind of reaction.

In this case it set off the sprinklers.

You can't backpedal from the fact that you have right wing biases you just bent over and spread for me. Maybe take off that flag and pick up some books bud.

Why would it be dead?

Yes, playing against a man that is equally-skilled or more skilled than them leads to lower confidence.

And?

I'm sure this would do more to damage the man's confidence.

All the chess clubs have been closed down, chess isnt in the news anymore. The only person i know who plays chess is a super christian dude. Maybe its different in the US but here in europe its dead.

Causes damage to the furniture, electronics and paper.

Never had such an urge to bomb in my life.

Lurk before posting faggot.

Depending on the purpose a building serves and the kind of people who frequent it, it might not be a bad thing at all?

Perception play. All of this amounts to projection and preconceived notions.

you must think really lowly of women if you think they can't handle challenges. or maybe you were just projecting?

i read something a long time ago about the difference between people who look at problems like challenges or obstacles. guess which one you are. fitting flag too lol

As I said, it was a public building, a university building.
Its not like they hold this kind of conference in police stations.

I don't, read the thread.

This seems like bs because there is a difference between a challenge and an obstacle. Challenge is proclaimed, obstacle is encountered.

I fucking hate it when people end sentences in "faggot" and don't put a comma before the word. It was invented for a fucking reason, you useless cunt.

Ah, all right, then.

What was the difference?

Dont be such a, faggot

Tough shit nigger faggot. Stop using the flag, if you want to be a special little flower put on a trip so it's abundantly clear you're a faggot and people don't accidentally read your posts thinking the flag is relevant.

...

But it is. :^)

>:^(

Yeah, that's indeed what the study said. Although, again, not sure it's biological.

Only that's precisely not what happened in the study. Read before you shitpost.

That's not what it said, you idiot.
It's explicitly pointed out to not be biological in the fucking abstract, you stupid cunt.

Women are simply inferior. That's not oppression, that's just life.

Did they ask male chess players "Did losing to a girl hurt your confidence? This will be recorded"?

You seem pretty obsessed with painting people who dont buy your idpol horseshit as right wingers.
I mean, you're implying that what right-wingers vaugely imagine as 'cultur mruxkzm' is actually good, right?
But they say shit like "young boys being given hormone pills and told they're girls because they were seen playing with a doll once" and "black supremacist matriarchy", if they ever say anything concrete about it.
So, delusional and retarded as all that fearmongering is, its right-wing and facist not to long for it to be real, I suppose?
You dont make a lot of sense, you know that.

...

It did not state, in the abstract, that reactions to gender stereotype are not biological. Unless I misread.

By the way, you are a really angry person.

Oh sorry, I thought you meant whether they would lose confidence in playing the game itself, during the chess game. (Since that was what the study was about). Apologies.

I see you fell for the "everybody is equal" meme. Grow up dude.

I'm implying that recognizing spooks as spooks, and not worshiping nature as some sort of almighty authority we must never diverge from, is something only right wingers or primitivsts would oppose.

Not biological. Don't even fucking try to claim that it might be, I'll find you and murder you in your sleep.
Go fuck yourself.

source: my ass

Everyone who isnt a xenofem freak is rightwing, then. I never even brought up 'human nature', you seem to have just latched on to some vague impliation of it you found somewhere. Unless it was just the shitting on xenofemenism in the first place.
Human nature exists and forcing contradictions or subversions of it onto society induces mental illness and makes people miserable.
For example, its in 'human nature' to have long-term relationships with your friends, but capitalism forces people to move around for jobs and school, undermining things like friendship and community by that way.
anyways, I didnt come here to have this argument, and my breakfast is ready, later retard.

thread should have ended here really

>>>/r9k/

Nobody would argue with you if you just took your flag off, you know.

Shitting on xenofeminism as "cultural marxism but for real this time" showing the exact kind of reactionary values you hold close.
kek

wow user i'm impressed, surely pointing out to r9k legitimates your claim.

Yes, it does.

Literally "The Secret" tier self-spooking. This is not why the "human nature" argument in defense of capitalism is wrong.

Not the user you replied to, but there was no content in your post tbqh.
It's like right-wingers who proclaim that whites are superior but at the same time complain about the presumed genocide of whites. It doesn't make any sense.
If superior abilities are natural things, found in the essence of the members of a particular group, then the beings who possess them will simply rise at the top, fatalistically. If you see the world in this way, there is nothing to discuss, nothing to fight for or against, the script is already written

How can human nature be real when humans aren't real?

I'm not claiming anything. I'm just saying that I don't like to rush to judgements before I can back something up with some empirical data. Especially regarding humans. We're complex and contradictory beings that you shouldn't make hard and fast judgements about without the proper data. There might be biological reasons for conforming to group expectations, even if said expectations are culturally fluid: there is evidence we change accents in different language groups to fit in better, I believe. So the languages change culturally, but the conformist biology doesn't.

Or this might just be bullshit, what do I know. Still, it seems dumb to make assumptions, and to substitute death threats for actual arguments.

And before you get pissed at that last part, yeah, I know you were joking.

the mere fact you are asking this question just goes to show how cucked you guys really are

now i could offer an explanation of why this is but i dont think it will do much good

instead il share this gem of information with you

women know the answer to this question, and they use the fact that cucks like you would consider it to extract resources from you

i would sage or something, but i dont give enough of a fuck about your fag enabling board

So edgy

the deterministic egalitarianism modern feminists fight for is just as spooked as deterministic darwinism from the right wingers

On average, men are better than women at damn near everything. This is biology. If you want to "fight against it" then you can only do so through science and technology because women will never rival men without technological augmentation.

Okay so kindly fuck off to a board where your text is not wasting space.

Yeah maybe try to back this up with some actual evidence, and no fucking blogs, if this is so obvious.

But there is proper data, and you completely ignore it. Get fucked and die in a fire, you brainless parasite.

Keep worshiping simplified representations.

how about you blue pilled cuckolds vacate this fucking site so i dont how to see your feminist threads on the Holla Forums homepage

*have

Okay, I think it might be better on your nerves if we quit this discussion.

luv u 2 bb.

It's edgy if you just blurt some marginally held proposition without actually backing it up to the majority that does not hold said proposition.

There is certainly some truth to this.

I find that most conservatives don't even understand the definition of "egalitarian". They quite literally think it means forcing everyone to be equal through ridiculous measures, like in that satire, "Harrison Bergeron", rather than simply "fair treatment & equal protection under law". I've noticed this trend among almost every conservative IRL, even those at age 40+. Anecdotal, but what does it mean?

Wilful ignorance? Doublethink? Crimestop? Are you really that clueless?

iaaf.org/records/by-category/olympic-games-records

I swear these gender shit threads are from /r/communism or /r/latestagecapitalism faggots, every one of these threads is filled with the same 3 or 4 anons who keep aruging the same stale, quasi-tumblr points and when they get trapped in a corner go for the chewbaca defense as demonstrates

Yeah, western society isn't egalitarian at all by your definition, rather it's biased against men for the reasons pointed out.
But women are oppresed because their boyfriends don't like it when they study math right?

.

Black Flag (now AnNil) has always been a retarded shitposter. They constantly spout "read a book lmao" when you call them out but can never actually offer a book to read.

read gendercummies dawt tumblr dawt kawm

...

The idea of human any one person has is necessarily less complex than the physical reality of any one human. We're (as individuals) a collective entity, and I think its better to see us mainly as a collection of smaller pieces and maybe throw out the whole completely since the concept of a correct form for humanity ignores our power to change our form.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/aragorn-nihilism-anarchy-and-the-21st-century
laboriacuboniks.net/

Right
Holla Forumsack-tier """common sense""" > real theory
How could I ever forget.

...

Actually maybe you should start here and work your way up.
theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/petr-kropotkin

In some ways, yes.

I can't help but feel like feminism would be a-ok with the status quo as long as women were the ones perpetuating the oppression though. Movement needs more anarchy.

Anarchist-feminism is, according to Holla Forums, tumblr sjwism and against nature.
oh well.

Pic related.

And learn how to reply to more than one post at once, retard.

Then, if men are so superior, why do more women have a college degree than men, for example ? Why do unmarried women earn more than unmarried men ? Why men commit suicide more often than women ?
And if you say "affirmative action" or "society is currently shaped to be better for women than men", why would superior beings would create conditions that handicap them ? It would be absurd, no ?

Or, maybe, "superiority" is a relative thing and both men and women should strive to help each other by using their best individual abilities.
Stephen Hawking wouldn't be able to help a woman being aggressed in front of him because he is a man. His job is rather to work on astrophysics because that's the thing he is good at.

Biological aspect seems to not be dominant, without social enforcing and rational self-consciousness about it the effect might be negligible.

A good amount are but women as a whole no. Depends entirely upon the region, economy, culture, etc.

Under socialism we have seen women advance massively while under capitalism we see women fall prey to liberal lies and capitalist consumerism.

Thanks for explaining, but I don't agree with your logic, tbh. Every human is different, yes, but so is every rock. That does not mean rocks don't exist. It just means there are lots of different rocks. And ofc words are hard to define precisely: that's not why words were invented. They are a tool for communication based on vague impressions, not a scientific measurement scheme.

It seems like you are using a Stirnerite argument, only Stirner never claimed humans don't exist, just that there is no essential human essence that we should strive to. The group could never cover the individual completely, was the argument, afaik.

user, you're just posting something everyone agrees with, even feminists (usually). This proves that men can reach higher physical peaks.

It says nothing about mental capacity or the average man or woman. Give me some real sources about mental capacity, not the Olympic Games.

pic related

I mean, the building blocks of rocks and of humans are essentially the same shit. I guess it's less "there are no humans" as it is there should be no true humans, every iteration of the species is different and temporary, evolution can't be stopped so it may as well be influenced with intention.
I'm only part way through the ego book, I don't intend to be using his ideas actively.

Okay this sounds wrong. I don't intend to advocate alchemy or anything like that.

Not that it's even really related to the argument I was even having, actually I guess I was just shitposting when I said that.

But, again, we are true humans in the sense that we overlap in a bunch of characteristics that makes our unconscious deem us human.

I am really against that since that thinking leads you straight to eugenics if you don't watch out

I'm sorry reality doesn't fit your libtardism

you're the definition of a liberal, I only ever hear this 'lol wimmunz are weak and stupid' shit from T_D tier retards. kill yourself in real life.

We won't forever though.
And eugenics just isn't something that works.

no

You're conflating two "nature" arguments:
1. Human nature in the ideological sense, as if there's some sort of grand plan or defined path that must be taken due to biology. This is the typical Holla Forumsack argument that whites are "superior" (though ironically not in a biological definition of reproductive success) because muh genetics said so.

2. Human nature in the gerneral sense: although each induvidual person is different and can buck trends, that as an aggregate behavior becomes consistant and smoothed out. For example while your dog might not for whatever reason, it's pretty non-controversal to say that "its dog nature to wag their tail". (even wild ones with no human trainers or puppies that haven't been around other dogs to learn from)

Every one of these fucking threads anons argue for the 2nd, but you keep insisting on getting angry at the 1st.

Only if we follow your xenofem and alienate ourselves on purpose by becoming incomprehensible to one another >:(.

Oh, why doesn't eugenics work? Maybe this is retarded, but it doesn't seem theoretically unviable to me. What am I missing?

Yeah I def. agree with the kind user here.

I've never heard that. I have heard that women aren't as interested in those jobs, and not lazy, but less ambitious.

I've also heard that if women went into STEM fields instead of gender studies they'd be paid as much as men who go into STEM fields.

As for the wage gap, the whole "apples to apples parity" comparison is dying, Because to try and combat the fake wage gap, women are being paid more than men, so equal pay laws would benefit men if anything.

I mean I'm for getting over the 2nd, maybe not completely and right now but, as much as possible.

I don't know the science of why eugenics doesn't work. I had heard a good argument, changed my mind, then forgot it, it seems.

There's nothing wrong with soft eugenics: not the slaughter of those that exist but the active prevention of more. If we discover a mutation that we know leads to a negative trait there's no reason we shouldn't select against. If you knew that you were a carrier for a mutation that would cause mental retardation, wouldn't you want to make sure your child doesn't have that mutation?

1. More women go to college in the first place, because they have more scholarships, grants, etc. open to them.
2. Fewer men go to college because the "rape culture" witchhunt has made campuses exceedingly unsafe places for men in general, and the advent of politically-correct intersectionality bullshit has driven out white men in particular
3. Women are more likely to choose easier (and relatively worthless) degrees than men. Various soft "social sciences" degrees that amount to little more than cultish indoctrination rather than education are popular with women.
Employers have been more or less bullied into paying women more just because they are women. Women work fewer hours, fewer overtime hours, take more breaks and are nowhere near as adept at negotiating raises as male counterparts, but HR departments (to which women flock in droves) are known for extreme nepotism and favoritism. Combine that last part with the fact that a lot of employers are desperate not to be seen as "horrible sexist woman haters" and you find that employers usually roll over for feminist ideologues and give single women better salaries than their male counterparts. Also entirely possible that some degree of consumerist capitalist conspiracy is at play - women SPEND more money than men do when single.
Because men are actively discouraged by both other men and women from being openly feeling creatures and from seeking help from mental health professionals, because while women ATTEMPT suicide more often, they are also more likely to do a terrible job of it or chicken out than men (who are more prone to using "no second chances" methods like firearms and are more likely to actually MEAN it when they say they want to die). Combine with a society that has made a pastime out of driving men to the BREAKING POINT for shiggles, as opposed to women who are far more likely to elicit sympathy and so on.
A number of reasons.
1. Men have been convinced by people who do not have their best interests in mind that they are invincible or nearly so, and what is a handicap to an invincible man, really?
2. Men love women desperately, more than you can fucking imagine, and want to please them, keep them happy, shield them from hardship, etc. so they either directly contribute to this handicapping, or accept the handicapping placed upon them.
3. Much of the handicapping of men is done by either men who think pulling the rug out from under other men (and giving it to women) is an acceptable way to compete for the affections and loyalty of said women, or by women who are intensely jealous of men (read: FEMINIST WOMEN. Not to say that the men who do this are not feminists, but they are not always so.)

In practise soft eugenics has meant mandatory sterilization, you know that, right?

To address the subject of the OP more directly:

Nearly everyone suffers some degree of "oppression". It could be said that life itself is notorious for inflicting oppressions of one sort or another. That having been said, are women more oppressed than men? No. A society that categorically treats its women worse than its men finds itself being steamrolled, subsumed and otherwise driven out of existence by its nearest neighbors before long.

In the West, under NO circumstances are women being treated worse than men. Individual cases of oppression of a woman by a man exist, but by and large these cases, when discovered, end up with the man being punished severely. In the converse situation, where a woman oppresses a man, however, society is extremely likely to shrug its shoulders and if they say anything to the man at all instead of simply IGNORING him, they'll most likely ask him what he did to deserve it, or give him the same kind of "bootstraps"-ish bullshit a bourgeoisie or bourg-sympathizer would give a prole.

The dynamic changes somewhat outside of the Western world, but even in the "notoriously woman hater" Middle East women are actually a protected class. Women are frequently wards of their male relatives or husbands, and while these male relatives or husbands are expected to exert some level of control over their female wives/relatives, they are also expected to PROTECT them and to accept responsibility for these women's actions, much as a parent is expected to play "captain of the ship" for their children. Much is made of things like stoning women for adultery, ignoring the fact that the male who abetted the adultery is usually stoned to death as well. Middle Eastern countries occasionally execute women, but the amount of women they execute is DWARFED by the number of men they execute. This is not simply because women are less prone to breaking their laws - they are MUCH more likely to use non-capital punishment against women in the first place. The Middle East sees most men as being infinitely disposable, and treats them as such, whereas it sees women in much the same way the West sees children, and affords them a number of the same mercies and protections, barring what they see as extremely extenuating circumstances, and are generally loath to actually kill women outright.

Sigh, whatever, you faggots know what I meant

This is a very American-centric perspective. Men have pretty much equal opportunities in Europe to enter in higher education, and yet you can still find this effect.
Is this a joke ?
I don't know, but in Europe we don't have bullshit like women's studies. If someone wants to study this, they have to go in a serious field like sociology, where you need to be comfortable with statistics and epistemology at some point, and it's not an easy thing.

I personally believe women are more successful at school because they are taught at a young age to be more submissive to authority, whereas boys are expected to be more disobedient and freewheeling.

About earnings : the simplest explanation is that people with a higher level of education generally tend to earn more than others. I'm also pretty sure there is a higher disparity of incomes between men than between women. The richest and poorest people in a community (city, country, etc.) are generally men.

About suicide, you are spot on.

Now, the thing is that I didn't expect these questions to be answered. I just wanted to attack the "men are superior to women" thing. Superior at what exactly ?
Women for example are generally better parents. They talk more to babies than men, which help them to learn language. They are more often involved in the education and care of their children.
But most women are also less efficient in physically-demanding activities than the average man, due to their bodies.
Does it means all women should be housewives or nannies then ? I don't think so. For example, I met a cute girl once who hated children, and it weirded me out for obvious reasons (but it was attractive in a way). The point is, not every woman loves stereotypically-feminine things. They should be free to choose what they want to do, and that was one of the initial point of feminism and De Beauvoir's book The Second Sex. In that way, they can be able to cultivate their own personal strengths and abilities, just like men.
In short, it doesn't really matter if you are a man or a woman. What matters is what you do.

It's American-centric because America is one of the places in the world I have significant amounts of experience with. I'm willing to accept that there might be other factors at play, particularly in Europe.
No. Thanks to the abuse of the Title IX laws via the Dear Colleague letter, the protracted campaign to find rape where there is none, and the absolute ABSURDITY that is campus courts/tribunals, colleges and universities are VERY bad places to be if you're male. It's a sad statement that for most men attending a postsecondary institution, it is far, FAR better to simply be UNNOTICED. Interacting with female students in just about any way invites calamity, attracting any attention (deliberately or accidentally) as a male is potentially disastrous. On a number of campuses you will be FORCED to attend certain workshops/classes where you will basically be told what a terrible human being you are SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE MALE. A simple accusation of misconduct leveled against you by a female student stands a VERY good chance of seeing you run off campus. Actively participating in class discussions instead of meekly and passively going with the flow will likely get you singled out for "silencing female/minority voices", and at times you will be told to sit down and shut up for no other reason than your sex and possibly your race, no matter what you are saying or trying to say. The college/uni campus is an EXTREMELY hostile environment for men, and this IS by design.
Sociology varies from being a valid, if boring, field of study to being utter and total cult indoctrination, depending on the professor and curriculum. Many of the social sciences are PERMEATED with idpol and dogma, and are HORRIFICALLY lacking in any sort of real academic rigor.
In school in general, from primary schooling all the way through postsecondary, curricula and teaching methods are being very deliberately altered to heavily favor girls and women and to hinder and pathologize boys and men. It isn't merely a matter of submission to authority - it's a CONSTANT, DRONING message of "SHUT UP, SIT STILL, DON'T ASK QUESTIONS, FOLLOW THE BOOK", a distancing from the idea of "learning by doing" in favor of "learning by rote", and the neverending push by advocates of pharmaceutical megacorporations to medicate the living daylights out of boys.
Many factors play into this, but one of the BIGGEST ones is that men are and always have been more likely to occupy the extremes in nearly any scale - whether it be wealth and social class, or brainpower. Men are more likely to say "I'm willing to risk my physical, mental and emotional well-being to provide for myself and my family, I'm willing to sacrifice being with my loved ones in order to ensure they are as well-accommodated as possible". Men will BREAK THEMSELVES in a horrifically exploitative system for the love of their families, and they have been conditioned to view themselves as simultaneously invulnerable and disposable.

In regards to the matter of "superiority" - I do not like using that term, because it is LOADED AS FUCK. I don't think of men as being superior to women or vice versa. I view them as being DIFFERENT.

>simply

I think we were in full agreement all along on this issue.

What fucking difference does it make, you impossible cretin? It doesn't bloody matter how you justify it, the result is still lesser wages. Do you hear that? The excuse doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Matter, it doesn't. Comprende?
Nobody here uses that comparison, stop with the fucking straw men, you lying liar.

Sounds like they are treated like men but they cant adapt and want men to soften their approach or humor them on their opinions then debating it like their guy friends.
Just by saying creepy doesnt mean what you think it means. She could say that cuz she felt bad or inadequete in a certain situation.

Honestly we can see creepy people a mile away an no way women or men would be within 20ft of them.

Its usually a regular dude that just made her feel uneasy..

Wasn't the major consensus last time that abortion was discussed was that the current abortion movement is mostly a capitalist creation as most abortion is done for financial reasons and the whole bourg push for abortion services is because its easier to just tell poor people to get abortions then actually help them financially?