Why is this?

No it doesn't. Throughout history, those who were regarded as being inferior or of lesser value were treated terribly and as fodder for those believed to be superior. Except when it comes to women, who somehow get a free pass.

Women produce life not men, what a retarded waste of trips.
If you had 100 men and 1 woman humanity would die off, but with 1 man and 100 women humanity could survive because 1 man could impregnate all the women.
How stupid do you have to be to not see that men are the expendable ones and not women? Or are you just so narcissistic that you think you have it figured out better than every other generation before us that decided it was men that should go to war and die en masse or that they should be the last to evacuate in an emergency?

How dare you rape me with your words you transphobic shitlord

ITT people blow things way out of proportion

What the fuck are you even on about? Men are less valuable because you don't need nearly as many men to ensure humanities existence than women.
If your logic is so flawless then tell me why we take the most valuable sex in society according to you and throw them into battlefields to get slaughtered by the thousands and leave them on sinking ships to die in order to ensure the women survive?
You think maybe its because men are the exact fucking opposite of valuable and are actually expendable since it only takes 1 man to ensure the survival of humanity?
Man you're dumb.

That argument holds no water because such a scenario is not, and has never been, a reality. I'm tired of hearing this argument mindlessly parroted in these type of debates. Men are obviously more valuable in procreation for the following two reasons: First, they have the ability to rapidly impregnate multiple women; second, their fertility remains intact even in old age, whereas the woman's fertility inevitably ends in menopause, and many times at a somewhat early age.
Those days are over, mate. We live in a society that is now governed by technology (and increasingly becoming so), not mindless chivalry for a group that is half the population.

If your point was to make a terrible analogy then good job I guess, if not then whats your point exactly?

(((Guess)))

If men are more valuable in reproduction then why don't we send all the women to die in wars and emergencies instead of men?
Oh right because if tons of women died the birth rate would be fucked but if tons of men died the birth rate would be fine because the remaining men would just impregnate all the women anyway.
Women are more valuable in reproduction I don't even understand how this is up for debate.

I just answered that question, retard, by stating that this was how it was in the past before technology. The only reason this policy persists to this day is because of feminist indoctrination and our society's impulse to sacrifice everything to women for no reason. Not to mention, man made artificial wombs may be a viable alternative in the not too distant future.

The question is why don't we send the women to die in wars and emergencies instead of men since men are the more valuable sex in reproduction according to you.
You can't answer the question because it destroys your argument, if women were the ones dying then the birth rate would get fucked up but if men are the ones dying then its no big deal because men are expendable and having a bunch of them die doesn't negatively effect birth rates to the same degree as if women died.
Technology doesn't change the fact that the birth rate would still be far more damaged from women dying en masse because women are more valuable to reproduction which is why we still draft only men into wars, not because the feminist matriarchy is oppressing the modern day man.

Because since the dawn of time, women have been naturally weak, in need of protection. However, due to complete overturn in society, where technology reduced the collective workload of every man, and also made the same jobs easier for women, this protection was no longer needed - but it still continued to thrive subconsciously through our culture.

Making appeals to tradition is no rebuttal against anything. I can't help that this is the direction our culture deliberately took. The Chinese, for example, prefer to abort their females over their males under China's strict reproductive policy, and they remain a superpower. So, don't confuse our culture with every other one. You're incapable of adducing any biological evidence as to why females are of greater reproductive importance, and so you bring up the obvious inequity (that exists because of feminism) of sacrificing men to women, despite men having much more to offer in virtually every facet of life.

We weren't talking about every facet of life we were talking about reproduction and the fact that women are more valuable to reproduction than men shouldn't even be up for debate.
Regardless of where china stands now their birthrate would be higher if parents didn't kill off their daughters because of financial issues tied with having a daughter, but if the situation was reversed the birth rate wouldn't be nearly as effected because those small amount of men could still easily impregnate the larger amount of women.
The other way around can't happen because women have to spend 9 months in between every conception, that fact means that the more women we have the higher the birth rates will be, they are more valuable to reproduction end of story.

The reason they aborted women is because women had no power in the family traditionally, and parents wanted to have a successor.

China reversed the one child policy and they are having issues with their birth rate now.

No. Had the situation been reversed, China would be dramatically less industrious than it is at the present, as a result of having much more women occupying critical positions in their workforce that only men are capable of fulfilling.

Tradition had its role in it, but the main reason is, rightfully, viewing women as less valuable in labor.

Again you're trying to make the argument about something different than reproduction when it was only ever about who is more valuable in terms of reproduction and the answer is women are.

The OP specifies nothing about limiting the value proposition merely to reproduction. That restriction is your own goal-post.
Besides which, successful reproduction doesn't end at the point of conception - it ends with the offspring successfully producing their own spawn. And since statistics show that children with a father figure have more success in life (even in absence of a mother figure), it could be said that men are indeed more important for successful reproduction.

The reason why men are sent to fight in war, rather than women, is that countries want to win.

Men are more valuable, even in terms of reproduction, for the reasons I've already given. They remain fertile for much longer and have the ability to father multiple children to multiple women. But none of this is of any interest to you, because your mind is set on giving the same weak argument that amounts to saying the following: women are more significant in sexual reproduction than males because they can more easily become an endangered gender. In reality, it is precisely this reason that they're inferior in procreation, because once again they're more limited than men, and, even in this regard, one man could have the worth of many of them.

You are arguing that men are more capable than women at reproduction. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
However, a part of determining the value of a resource involves its scarcity. Precisely because men are so capable, sperm is not a scarce resource, and therefore each individual man has in general a lower reproductive value than a woman.

Being able to remain fertile for much longer and father multiple children is irrelevant.
If men had to wait 9 months before they could blow a load and women popped out a baby the second a man blew his load in her THEN men would be more valuable in reproduction, all other factors are irrelevant.

cuz they r less fertile. Did u even go to school?

But I already anticipated this to be said in order to perpetuate the same flawed argument that goes like this: women are more valuable in reproduction because they can more easily become endangered as a gender. That argument makes no sense, because it's men who prevent that from happening in the first place.

Yeah because men are expendable where as women are valuable when it comes to reproduction, everyone else in the world seems to get it and have structured their societies around it but you still seem to be having trouble.
Maybe you just have brain problems.

It's only perverted and creepy if you're ugly.

Too bad I am.

Sucks to suck amigo.

Because equality doesn't exist, retard. Men are stronger than women so it's evidently more serious for a man to hit a woman. Men are more forceful and thirsty when it comes to sex so it makes more sense to believe a man that enters a bathroom is a pervert unlike a woman, unless the woman is really ugly, same applies for "sexual harassment". Lastly, the preservation of a woman chastity is a lot more important than men's chastity. You have to be a faggot to reject sex unless the woman in question is really ugly or the situation is really suspicious.

Basically this:
Women are to be protected.

This post reflects an extremely low IQ. You're making generalizations such as "men are stronger than women," as well as ignorant comments such as "you have to be a faggot to reject sex." And you're calling a stranger that you know nothing about a "retard." We live in a different society these days, and not everybody is a white knight cuck such as yourself, and not everybody shares your simplistic view on life.

You can't give a real reason as to why, can you?

Men are the sole creators of life, not women who just provide a dead clump of cells. That male disposability thing is a huge psyop.

The reptilian queens put in DNA commands for females to attempt to become dominant on this planet, and also to have a poisonous tongue.

I can give 2, actually.
1. They are weaker, dumber, and more fragile.
2. They are the primary determinant factor in the population of the next generation. One man can impregnate hundreds of women a year in principle. But a woman can only be impregnated by one or two men in a year.

There are also DNA commands in the body for male subservience, which explains all the white knight rationalization. Only people with strong Spirits can overcome these limitations.

Treating a woman like you would a child is not subservience. It's self control.

You are stupid and weak if you think that.

.

And with children.
You do have to scold a child if he does something wrong just as you have to do so if a woman does something wrong. Kids aren't the innocent little angels you seem to think they are. That guidance is part of what determines who they will become.

This isn't a logical reason. It's a nonsensical moral reason, and not even a good one at that. There is nothing logical about sacrificing everything to an inferior group at the expense of those who have more to offer society.

Your second reason is just the same flawed argument that keeps getting parroted in these type of threads.

This. One candid visit to a public school would red pill them on that. But what's even more annoying is people's assumption that all women are harmless.

>This isn't a logical reason. It's a nonsensical moral reason
When you're talking in terms of "shoulds" and "should nots," you are invariably talking about morality.
But women DO offer the single most important service to a society: longevity.

notice how you just outright say "it's flawed" without coming up with any flaws.
That's how I know you're emotionally driven. Your belief that you are being oppressed by women is already set in stone. You're just looking for ways to justify this conclusion after it has already been made.

Good thing literally nobody thinks that.

Maybe not, but they act like it. Which is even lamer, user.

I guess you're right to an extent in that people will tend to side with the woman should a conflict between a man and a woman arise. This is conditional though. People do understand that many women are just manipulative cunts. But the benefit of the doubt is always alloted to them until evidence of such tendencies arises.

First of all, I never was talking about morality. You were. You may deny it, but asserting that men have a duty to put women first because "they are weaker, dumber, and more fragile" is, in fact, a moral argument. I say it's a nonsensical one at that, because it's inconsistent even from a moral perspective.

No they don't. Not from a reproductive standpoint, because their fertility inevitably ends in menopause, while the male's fertility remains in older age.

Not true. I have spent half of this thread exhausting my point of view on that skewed argument, and I could refer you back to them.

It sounds like you're describing women, but who knows, maybe you're one yourself and that's the reason reason behind your inability to form an argument based on logic.

right up until we can replace them, also not the ones that rights they didn't earn

You ARE talking about morality though. I never denied I was making a moral argument.
You need to justify things like that when you say them.

So that's yet another limiting factor on reproduction which makes them even MORE important. You do realize this supports my argument, yes?
Men can breed to a near limitless degree, this makes the number of WOMEN the determinant factor.
do it.
My argument is logical though:
The foundational axiom is that we should seek to increase the number of humans in society.
Understanding that women are much more biologically limited than men in terms of reproduction, a scarcity of them is a much bigger problem than a scarcity of women.
The above fact alongside the fact that women are weaker, dumber and more fragile lends itself to the conclusion that women should be a protected class in society.
This doesn't imply we should be subservient, though. I'm advocating for treating them basically like children.

But let me guess, you're one of those idiots who thinks moral arguments are inherently illogical. If that's the case: read a fucking book, nigger.

supposed to be "Understanding that women are much more biologically limited than men in terms of reproduction, a scarcity of them is a much bigger problem than a scarcity of men.

I'm not interested in moral arguments, because they're never realistic. But you told me to justify it, so that's the only reason I'll mention one right here. I said your moral argument was inconsistent because it doesn't take endless things into account, such as the following: Why are those who are deemed as more weak, vulnerable, inferior, or however you wish to express it, owed more rights than those who do not exhibit such characteristics? People of such dispositions could even be immoral, that is, if we were to follow a moral standpoint. Also, who determines which people fit this category, because why would it be limited to women?
You then proceed to give this same skewed argument that seems to be what some people's entire view on this depends on.

And yes I will refer you back to where I exhausted my point as to why I think this argument is flawed.

And these are just a few

Once again, your statements are absurd. Men are capable of producing an endless amount of life, and you already know this but just want to cling to your absurd view.

In case you haven't realized, retard, we don't live in a moral world, and why should we, such a world is only a construct, or else we wouldn't have idiots like you spouting the N word. The main pillar of your irrational argument rests on a stupid, inconsistent moral one.

They aren't. They are owed protected status. Two very different things.
Maybe. That's why the protected status is somewhat conditional. Ie. we have prisons for women.
It's not who, it's what? The answer is logic. If you can provide a good argument for extending this status to another group, I'm wiling to listen.

To address the posts you referred me to:

wrong. I explained that here:
As an analogy: let's say some machine requires iron and oxygen to operate. The two elements exist in the earth to a roughly equal degree. But let's say the oxygen in the machine can be reused many times but the iron gets expended every cycle. Which is a higher priority to the people supplying the machine? That's right: the fucking iron.

this is your ineptitude speaking here. The scenario was simply an example to show you why their limitations is what gives them value. No one thinks the worlds population will die off if we stop treating women as a protected class. But it's demonstrable that population growth will slow down.

This is a repetition of the same shitty argument that has been refuted time and time again.

Back to this post:
you need women to do that. Women are the limiting factor and therefore more valuable.
As I said: if you're talking in terms of "shoulds" and "should nots," you are. You're just in denial of this fact.
If we disregard morality, then you have literally NO reason to complain about women being a protected class.

Rape is how you treat a woman

...

you're the fucking reason 3DPD are so PD now

Why are they owed more protected status? It's just more question begging on your part.

You're simply going to deflect any argument with the "women are the limiting factor" retort. And why wouldn't you? There is no other argument that can be used to validate your shallow, uninformed view on human reproduction. This is why we need to legislate and no longer debate with people like you. No logical person would debate with a vegetable that can only repeat the same simplistic view over and over again; "if you had 100 men and 1 woman we would all die off." None of this explains why women should receive a grossly disproportionate amount of advantages, privileges, protection, etc. And it explains it even less when you take into account the fact that men, on average, are superior to women in nearly every facet of life. It's all used as a diversion tactic from the fact that it makes no logical sense to treat inferiors better than superiors and to elevate them above the rest of society.

If we disregard morality, then you have literally NO reason to complain about women being a protected class
I'm saying it makes no sense to kowtow to the weak. If one does it long enough, they're simply trading places.

*I Forgot to green text the sentence second to the last

You're going to hate this response, you really are.
women are the limiting factor to human reproduction

Because that IS the retort and you have failed to address it. I'm going to continue bringing it up until you attempt to refute it with an ounce of intellectual honesty.
That's a moral argument you just made. Just saying.
Except it does. Now, I do have disagreements with many of the ways our society attempts to uplift women, I don't think everything's all fine and dandy. But why continue the circlejerk on things we agree on when there are points of contention to discuss?
That's not what I'm advocating for. I want women to be treated basically as breeding factories who cook and clean on the side.

Gynocentricism

here's you

...

You haven't shown any intellectual honesty, and it became apparent when you derailed an entire OP subject with the "women are the limiting factor" retort, although you weren't even the first to do that in here. This argument does not account for why they are treated like gods compared to men. They could exist without reaping all of these unnecessary privileges and entitlements. It's a diversion that's particularly conspicuous in this thread, but has been used as a distraction in these type of arguments for longer than I probably realize.

It's not worth pursuing, because those days are long gone. These days, there are so many manifestations of whiteknighting that it's impossible to determine what direction people are coming from.

But… women shouldn't be able to read!

where have I been intellectually dishonest?

I don't think they should. As I have said, I liken the attitude more as how one should treat a child. They are inferior and thus require a bit of self control to deal with. You shouldn't tolerate half as much from a man as with a woman. But this comes with the caveat that women aren't half as capable as men.

That is literally an equal argument to "we can't abolish slavery because those days haven't come yet." The current year has nothing to do with whether a goal is worth pursuing.

Reading the Bible is the responsibility of the Priest and shouldn't be attempted by lesser men.

...

...

Rape rape rape how do I rape?

That man would beat the shit out of any woman not sure if cuntposter or not

Russia decriminalized domestic violence

I explained in that same sentence. You derailed the entire OP subject with the "women are the limiting factor" response, when you fully realize it's not the theme of this thread. This user expressed that point perfectly.

It doesn't matter whether you think they shouldn't. The fact remains, they are.

Perhaps not, but you're going to gradually find yourself alone in this pursuit, because most intelligent men view women as untrustworthy and do not care to associate with them beyond, maybe, sex.

It is the reason why women are treated as a protected class. That IS the theme of the thread: why women are treated as a protected class.
And I disagree with that. So do you. We agree on something, Should we leave it there and feel all warm and fuzzy inside or should we focus on the things we disagree on so we have a chance to learn from each other and exchange ideas? The fact remains that I DO agree with what is in the OP image and don't consider that "being treated like gods compared to men." Women should be protected because they are both fragile and valuable.
Not only is that a false consensus (if not, demonstrate that most intelligent men think this way) but it is also a bandwagon fallacy (if not, demonstrate why I SHOULD think this way).

But that was the premise of this thread. And as you stated, you've seen the OP image and do not regard it as them being treated like gods compared to men. I do, and the truth is it's even an understatement of the double standards that afflict gender in our society. Women use those advantages, depicted in that image, to manipulate and divide this society.

And now you've returned to this sentiment again. Not all men are brutes with exceptional strength and not all women are weak and defenseless. And I know that's not what you want to hear, but it's the truth. Chauvinism only ostensibly appeals to men. In reality, it goes hand in glove with modern day feminism, because it stresses that men should sacrifice themselves to women by virtue of them being the "stronger gender." Feminism might declare women as being equal or better than men, but the end is the same: men are sacrificed to women.

If you want to bring up the subject of logical fallacies, I'm convinced I could find some in your posts. But you did say "if not, demonstrate why I SHOULD think this way." Because they have every advantage over men through gender bias, and they use them for their own pleasures and to get what they want. They never announce their true intentions to men. And you could then say "where is the proof for any of this?" Well, just look at how one-sided society is when it comes to them. Just look at their ability to turn men against one another; and even unattractive ones have the ability to turn random bystanders into white knights. They have every opportunity to become a nightmare for you as they have BECOME for many other men.

...

no, the premise is "why are things like what is in this image?"
The reason is women are a protected class.
Yes, "not all" applies to everything. That's how generalizations work. It shouldn't need to be expressed because literally everyone knows this.
Also, you do realize all the things in OP's image are things feminists are AGAINST?
Do it.
And some I agree with. others I don't.
I don't blame them. I would probably do the same in their position.
This is also a good time to mention how useless the "not all" statement is, because that applies to this as well.
As it should be.

There's no point in talking to you any further. This comment explained everything. Just keep whiteknighting and watch how far it gets you in this society.

I think you have to understand a basic fact about women. You have to look at what they do not what they say, and that also applies to their "philosophies."

Obviously they want the best of both worlds. They are not against chivalry in any way, shape or form. It just has to be completely submissive and forced chivalry.

That's called being willfully ignorant.

As I said, I don't agree with many of the gynocentric biases in today's society. The point of that statement was essentially this:
of fucking course they will use whatever biases exist for their own self interest!"
I want a society which treats them like the children they are, not one which pretends they're equals but maintains said advantages.
Men should retain a dominant position over women. In fact, they should actively discriminate against them in employment. A woman's place is under the wing of a caring man who isn't afraid to keep her on the right path when necessary.

You admitted you would manipulate men and society to achieve your own selfish ends. That's fine, but don't expect others to be ethical with you or women.

No they aren't.
The whole point of feminism, in it's intellectually honest state is that everyone essentially lives their lives the way they want without infringing on the agency of others. This means a woman would be free to be independent or choose to be a housewife while a man can choose to be masculine or a cuck (ie. their whole diatribe on "toxic masculinity infringing on the agency of men") Now yes, There are many women and men (essentially everyone who self identifies as a feminist) who fall sway to postmodern bullshit and utilize the pseudo-logic and sophistry contained within to come to contrived conclusions about what, exactly, this all means. But the bottom line is they don't like the way gender roles are established and you will actually find they agree with you on the surface if you had actually talked to them.

My problem with feminism is that I think the gender roles are valuable.

It's all a matter of the degree of manipulation.
If I was a pretty girl and I could just raise the pitch of my voice a bit and blink real fast at random men I come across while reciting some sob story to get some extra spending money at a gullible cuck's expense, sure I would. But ruining someone's life because they pissed me off is beyond me as well as most women.

Man, what strange world do you live in? Is it nice there? There is no intellectually honest state of feminism. No one even agrees what feminism is. I've actually read some of the actual "philosophy" behind it. It's thousands of thousands of pages about the things women think are interesting, namely social positioning and privilege.

But feminism in itself is in a general sense is a nebulous but actually somewhat simple concept. It's pro everything that takes power away from white men and against everything that retains power with white men. Very simple really.

...

There are many useful idiots who claim they think feminism is about ending gender-bias. But if it was, they wouldn't be using a gender-biased name to describe their ideology. They are inherently sexist and female supremacist. When you talk to them, as I often do, occasionally you'll get one that realizes the term is only hurting their actual goals, and they will disavow it. More often, you'll find they truly are just female supremacists, and will use any amount of doublethink necessary to make sure women are treated better than men in every facet of society.

But you won't sympathize with a man using any advantage he has over a woman, and you expect men to be moral to women? Oh yeah, that's because of double standards. Hence the whole point of the thread.

Yes, many of the "philosophers" are the source of all the bullshit within feminism. But you will have a hard time finding any feminist who disagrees with the definition I provided.
What it comes down to is what, exactly, "agency" means. In the general sense, it is to have control of one's own actions and environment. But by having control of your environment you are necessarily having control over the actions of others which makes it a balancing act.
Much like how you sacrifice your freedom to murder so that you may be free to murder, the feminist conception of agency implies you must sacrifice part of this control over your actions so that you may have control over your environment.

So yes, believe it or not, there is a lot of debate between feminists.

the idea behind that is it presupposes that we live in a patriarchal society so the counter to such a society should necessarily be gynocentric.
Yes, feminists are delusional. I'm not defending them.

See
Women are inferior. There is no problem with the double standard in and of itself because men and women are not equals. I do disagree with many of the double standards which exist though.

so that you may be free from murder

But my argument was "look at what women are doing, not what they are saying." You've just made this into a circular argument.

Anyways, to let that slide, having control of your own or others actions and environments rely purely on force. Either you are the strong part or you are the weak part. There is no equality, the idea is ludicrous.

That's not really sympathizing with them. You're just proceeding with this empty romantic view on the genders. And I'm definitely under the impression that you would, in reality, wig out if you witnessed a man exercising "a dominant position over women."

Excuse me for not considering every single individual case, faggot, but biologically we are built with stronger bone composition and muscles than women under almost any circumstance and we also are programmed to breed with as much women as possible, so rejecting one is simply retarded unless you or her have some very specific problem.
Yeah, but it looks like everyone these day is an spineless faggot blaming everyone else of their problems, whether you're SJW or not, and MGTOW and robots are proof of this.

What about the fact that as for now they are the only way of reproduction, fag?

That's not what a circular argument is.
As far as their actions go, they aren't being intellectually honest. They are women.

Glad to see we're on the same page there.

I don't sympathize with men who abuse their power over women. As I have been saying this whole thread, women should be a protected class.
Depends how you mean that. Public beatings are a no no for sure. Though a half forced smack in private can be justified if done sparingly under extraneous circumstances.
He should be the primary, if not the only, breadwinner of the house, meaning insubordination would leave the woman at risk of losing everything.
Women like being sexually dominated, so that's not remotely an issue.

The long and short of it is that the man should know how to keep her in line without abuse. Again, it's like dealing with a child.

There is simply no way you're not a woman. Tits or gtfo please.

Wow, you used the word "faggot" to a stranger when you're nice and safe behind your monitor screen. You must be a fearful guy. They're weaker because society doesn't mold them into a strong role, retard, because cucks such as yourself would rather they live soft, sheltered lives, and never be held accountable for anything. Men have estrogen levels, and women have testosterone levels. The two genders are not quite as different as many people seem to think, or would rather think.
What about the fact that as for now they are the only way of reproduction, fag?
Wow. You're more retarded than I thought. Ever heard of sperm? Well, it penetrates the woman's egg for fertilization. A woman depends on a man to get pregnant. Seriously, go fuck your mother if you love women this much.

Literally what makes you think I'm a woman?

I forgot to greentext your retarded comment that's the third sentence from the last

Yeah, because testosterone and estrogen are all that separates us. It's not like we have millions of years of divergent evolutionary paths with different goals, drives, properties, strengths and weaknesses. We're like different species and anyone who thinks otherwise has no ability to observe and understand this world.

Your pseudo-mastery of logic. It's very common in high intelligence women. But there's just something about that vague misapplication of logic that you start to recognize after a while.

Would this "misapplication of logic" happen to be "disagreeing with you?"

For the sake of clarity, did you mean to say "we're not like different species"?

No, I meant to say what I said.

Why do you think this? It's unscientific to assert that men and women belong to different species. Do you think a male rabbit belongs to a different species as a female rabbit?

See, there's that problem you got with parsing a concept and logically processing it. I said "we are LIKE different species," not that we actually are different species. Also, tits or gtfo.

Because women never grow up thus it's pedophilia by proxy.

Jesus christ, man. Is everyone who disagrees with you female?
You've already been wrong once in this thread.

I'm wrong because you post your whiteknights blue balls? Timestamp them then and I'll humbly bow my head in shame for being wrong.

Asshole, I'm a male. I'm the fucking OP. I think these double standards are absurd, and men should have the privileges and entitlements as women. Get some reading comprehension before you browse posts.

Also, they are not LIKE different species, and that's a retarded analogy. Fuck off, white knight.

What? How am I a white knight? It's you who's the whiteknight with your muh lady is equal flower.

This. He needs to learn some reading comprehension skills.

Passive aggressive snark. Well played muh lady.

Pathetic, grow some balls.
Well, no shit, faggot, want to know what my fetish is? Muscle women, I know women have the potential to be stronger than men, but here is the thing, not all of them want to or even care, and in their natural state, women are definitively weaker than men, and that's including men who don't exercise.
Sure, is not like men produce way more testosterone than women do and women don't produce way more estrogen than men. There's a reason why transexuals use hormones treatments for their transitions, retard, because the more levels of one of those you have, the more you are like one of the 2 genders, but even then, men who transition to women will have the bone stricture of a man, making him effectively stronger than any woman.
And a man depends of a woman to even have a kid, retard, unless you believe you can inseminate your boyfriend.

I wouldn't say we are a different genre altogether, they are just the female of the specie, and in a lot of species, including ours, that suppose a whole fucking lot of differences. even on levels you can't perceive. The females from some species are usually bigger than men and their brain have different priorities. Why the fuck it can work more or less the same for our specie?

Kill yourself, entitled faggot. These faggots who believe in equality sound like commie scum to me, faggots who whine about muh womyn getting all the good things while not working themselves.

Idiot, saying they're different presupposes us back to the assertion that they need extra protection, privileges, entitlements, etc. Even you should be able to comprehend this.

I haven't said anything about them not needing extra protection. I'm not that other guy. I've only been talking about how your retarded view of feminism is wrong and that you argue like a woman.

>Saying girls are different and therefore needing different treatment than men is giving them privileges

Honestly, don't jump in the middle of conversations if you're unaware of what stance people are taking on the topic. And thinking I'm a woman is absurd. Not sure what women you hang around that give you these silly assumptions.

I never assumed you're a woman, dipship, and I've been discussing with you since yesterday.

In and of itself, no. But that's the direction it took in our society. Or, rather, mine, because I don't know which one you're from.

Right here, idiot

No id's you moron. I'm the guy who thinks you're a woman. That other guy is the guy engaging your hysterical and irrational attempts at discourse.

Bow away

If you think I'm a woman you're a fucking retard. I'm the OP.

Haha ok, I stand corrected. I give up. Feminism is awesome and women are equal special flowers.

That's literally the opposite of what I've been saying.

Why did these assholes jump in?

Well, boohoo, society took a wrong turn because of retarded actions took by out governments after women's liberation. Holla Forums thinking aside, the same happened with niggers. I'm not a faggot that believes either women nor niggers are from a different race altogether, they're still human, although with a lot of difference from men and white men, respectively. That they have certain rights is nice and dandy, but considering how different they usually are from each other, the whole idea of equality fucking ruined everything.

Even though we are from the same specie, our needs are completely different. As a society, you have to threat them FAIRLY, and that isn't always equal, idiot. Say, if a MMA fighter woman beats the shit out of a regular man is completely different than a regular woman hitting a man, in which case you should just let it go, it would be pathetic if said woman even scratch you.

Kys.

I'm this guy

Ok, I'll admit you guys might be guys. But can you really blame me for thinking you are cunts? Completely irrational, only arguments are shaming and now complaining about muh safe space.

Cut back on the gmo soy and bpa plastics or something you homos.

This is what happens when people have gotten used to IDs. People can't handle anonymous discussion anymore.

Yeah I know. I'm the user you were originally debating with before people jumped in.

So what? should I just post a new picture of my balls with every post from now on?

Yes. Please. Or read some books on formal logic.

I'm the original user you were talking to a few hours back. How could men exert true dominance over women under such restrictions? And why do you show more empathy for women than men? Saying they're like children is no plausible retort to my preceding sentence, either - I'll add in advance.

It's not my fault you have a one-dimensional view on men. If you knew me irl you probably wouldn't particularly think I was a homo. I'm just tired of living in a gynocentric society.

I agree with that at least.

What's formal logic have to do with avatarfagging with your balls?

Same way you do with a child. Satisfy them as long as they satisfy you. Scolding in the face of insubordination, progressively increasing punishments upon repeat offenses.
Because they're weaker, dumber, and more fragile of course. I feel a lot more empathy for a housecat than a tiger.
Why? Do you not feel more empathy towards children than adults?

Then what are you arguing about?

Some basic logic will help you not come across as a hysterical female so you don't have to avatarfag with your balls.

I'm arguing about the strange notion that feminism is somehow about equality. It's not, never have been and never will be.

Not sure which user you're confusing me with, but I agree. However, this thread is not so much about feminism as it is the favoritism that women receive in general.

Because gynocentrism.

Nobody is better than anyone. The only difference is capabilities. Were all human. That is a feminazi/BLM/KKK mind set/tactic. Don't be so stupid.

Biologically, this is true.

We've obviously been caught in some sort of ID confusion loop then. I sure wish there was some board where people used to discussing political subjects with IDs could discuss things like feminism without getting instabanned by turkish feminist christcuck hotpockets.

It could be called "not politically correct" or something.

Aside from that, favoritism for women seems pretty much genetically hardcoded in both sexes to me. That's what I suspect feminism was about for the women who bought the line, their blazing anger at seeing whiteknights bend over for quality women. It was sort of the female beta uprising for fat women with unpleasant personalities.

At what point in this thread have I been illogical?
Can you find a single "flaw" that I haven't already BTFO'd you on?

You answered me with a circular argument and then you pretended it wasn't like women do when they are caught in logical fallacies.

But I still like you balls-user. You got balls.

Tell me: How was my argument circular earlier?

You:
Me:
You:
Which leads back to my answer again.

IDs have pros and cons. One con for sure is that people get distracted with people's countries, and people tend to be nationalistic. I agree we need a different board without all of the junk of Holla Forums.
It's definitely hardcoded, but probably through environment as opposed to genetics. But either way men are fucked.
From my own experiences, most cucks are ready to white knight for nearly any women.

Except for the most hideous ones. Which by some strange coincidence the "thinkers" behind feminism often are part of. Look at Andrea Dvorkin. Thus my theory of female beta uprising. They tried to level the playing field in some strange way.

Ah, Ok. I see the confusion now. The "Most feminists would agree with my definition" thing was actually a response to you bringing up your anecdote about reading feminist authors. The "what they say vs what they do" thing was kinda ignored in that post. I later responded with the fact that they're being intellectually dishonest because they're women and cucks.

So you agree that feminism has nothing to do with equality then?

In principle, it is. In practice, of course not.

Not even in principle. For women it's just a vague collection of feelings associated to some concepts that are something like "more privilege and better men for me."

As I said, women don't think like men, and this is one of your big mistakes thinking they do. They are not able to conceptualize "equality" in the way you do, with a network of associations and rational analysis. If she were able to actually conceptualize what "equality" actually means she'd be horrified at the thought. No woman, ever, wants or wanted equality.

So no, the only ones who believe "feminism is about equality" is actually whiteknight numales. And even they don't really believe it, even though at least they can visualize it. Their motive is blue balls, of course.

By "in principle" I mean "what they say."
YYou are right that women, especially feminists, dont actually want equality. Hell, it was women who voted down the equal rights amendment a couple decades ago.
Albeit, it was feminists pushing the amendment and most women are certainly not feminists.

I think first wave feminism deserves respect, but it's devolved into supremacy.

>White Supremacy

You're probably right, but it just seems like people will take a woman's side over any man.

Who else is getting grossed out by these pictures of some user's scrotum?

It's pretty fucking disgusting if i do say so myself
He should spoiler them at least

...

Notice how the common problem in most of these cases is the existence of police. If you didn't get arrested / demerit points for all these things none of them would matter.

There's still white knight bystanders that stick their nose in people's business.

Isn't that the very basis of marriage these days?

Which user were you again? And, please, a picture of your testicles isn't necessary.

my first post ITT was
followed by
clear enough?

So these are also yours, correct.

It's impossible to be certain on this site. But if so, I was the first user you were talking to on here yesterday, before a bunch of people cut in. I think they were trolling us by pretending to think we were women.

looks like it to me

Yes, and I'm the person you're talking to in each post. I don't know about you, but next time I'll ignore when anons do that.

This

he's right tho

The role of man is different from the role of woman, this is reflected in society.

Does that really explain such double standards?