Arguments about traditional gender roles

The typical, common way or socially approved way, or lacks yherof of acting of a particular sex (biological)

First post was correct in this case. This is babby's first redpill shit.

You faggots have no idea where you are

Are you claiming it?
Then how about you list every civilisation you consider great and show most of them have/had that society

I don't like the vote system and I think anonymity is actually a pretty good idea

Yeah I'm in the right wing version of a Tumblr hugbox, if you can't back up your point of view online how the fuck do you expect to do so in real life?

I guess because that's how we evolved. Men evolved to be masculine and women evolved to be feminine, going against that would be going against hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Like a fish out of water a man excels at certain things and so do women, switching roles would just be less efficient.

We've been doing this for years you cum guzzling reddit fuck. This notion of debate you believe in doesn't exist which is why you've come here in your own vain attempt to be decisive.

You don't belong here.

You're wasting your time and ours.

And keep kneeling for the anthem, you'll be kneeling for a bullet soon.

Look at countless forums on the Internet, just google a random one you cancer of society

Why does this place even exist?
What good does it do the world apart from giving mentally deficient people a place to feel at home in?

It's how humans a biologically hardwired, of course we will work better with them. The only totally matriarchal society's have been mud hut dwelling savages.

...

...

I sense overwhelming butthurt in this thread.

...

Read Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin; Unwin had studied 5,000 civilizations, from African tribes to Rome and 1930's America. His main points were that a society without monogamous relationships eventually fall into hedonism because A. there is not enough men/women to start families, which causes an apathy towards taking care of said civilization's future due to no long-term investment (i.g. children); B. a lack of women due to polygamy causes men not to have families, which leads to men being more apathetic towards problems and leads to hedonistic lifestyles. This has the effect of having a lack of workers, soldiers, and a productive population: C. crime rates become higher in polygamist societies, crimes such as rape, theft, and murder all increase.

You have guessed poorly.

...

You're painfully new, lurk more. This kind of thing belongs in the QTDDTOT.
Pierced nipples are disgusting and degenerate btw

I was actually referring to the kind of people you quoted in the post above mine who think natural roles are bad but you're too much of a defensive sperg with a guilty conscious.

You disregarded the idea of a society which is centred on neither gender
Also,
Primitive-hut dwelling they may be but savages?
1) List them all
2) point savegry out in every one
3.1) if you can do that, congratulate yourself on almost being a rational being
3.2) if you can't, remove yourself from the voting pool

While that looks interesting, it's not quite what I'm after. Come on I did explain myself didn't I?

Changing IP's doesn't make you new here

What are you after then? Explain yourself so I may explain to you.

It's like ear periceings, but sexy
Even if it is degenerative
It's my thing
:^)

...

Why is it better for society if:
* Men act like traditional head-of-the-household, main-breadwinner etc men
* Women act like traditional coking-and-cleaning stay-at-home sewing women
* boys are taught to grow up to be trad men
* girls are taught to grow up to be trad women
* heterosexuality
* it is always the man who goes after the woman
Etc.. see and

Tired of this offsite retardation.

There are none as successful of Arab, white, or Mongoloid societies.
wew
I'll list every nigger who commits crime too :^)
The fact that there are no large scale matriarchal societies in existence proves my point.

*as successful as *patriarchial Arab, white, or Mongoloid societies.

Because that is how humans are biologically wired, name one successful matriarchal/atypical gendered society.

...

Alright.

Why is it better for society if:
Men are naturally stronger and smarter than women, we are the brains and the bronze of the world - why not let the stronger horse do the work? Besides that, women are naturally more nurturing than men, the reality is that it's better for them to be caretakers and caregivers.
Same as the reasons above and having someone always there to run the household makes a better household; since the man is stronger and out being the breed winner, it's best to let the mother hold down the fort for your offsprings.
So stuff like we have now doesn't happen.
So stuff like we have now doesn't happen.
Whole different topic, but homosexuality helps normalize polygamy.
Because if you know anything about the bellcurve of intelligence, women are the control while men are the variant. The better varient will win over the control.

Learn some statistics, just because the most successful societies are patriarchal, it doesn't mean that patriarchal societies on average are more successful or that a patriarchal society is more likely to be successful

Are they? (Use of third person represents unbiased viewpoint) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence point out exactly why certain studies are better than others if that's what you think
They have nothing to do with each other
or are you talking about gay culture?

So there is a difference.
Also, I'm reading the first source on how it isn't significant, they had to remove information from one of the test because men scored better on the information section. Good sources, Wikipedia.

Right, so if males have greater variance than females then it's still possible for an average female to be more intelligent than a male on the low end. You scored an own goal, good job.
Anyway, I was clearly asking about ought not is
Straw man

Wat. I have no clue what you're saying here.
I told you the reasons why they ought to and why it is.

Well I must have no clue what you're saying here then:
Explain
Rephrase

Literally 3 faggots bumping this…

I've been here on 8/pol/ since the beginning, idk what "notion of debate" you think I believe in but ok… This board is a fucking safespace hugbox and I'm sick of it.

What they said was that the subtest was 'biased' but it is suspicious that they didn't say how
Anyhow, you still ignored all the other studies on the page

Do you want a board with just freedom of opinion or debating standards as well?

because I know of >>>/politics/ which has freedom of opinion but I don't know of an anonymous board with enforced debating standards (it would be great if someone were to make one though)

Explain
Rephrase

Women have a higher average on the distribution chart than men. Men are distributed in intelligence than women.

And you seem to ignore all the studies that counteracted your viewpoint that was also there.
And bias?

"The results indicated that on the level of the subtests, females outperform males on Digit–Symbol Substitution, and males outperform females on Information and Arithmetic."
"With respect to the first order common factors, no sex differences were found with respect to the factor Verbal Comprehension (once Information was effectively removed from the model)"
Noice.

Rirthrates are reduced, and families are torn apart. This happens as other cultures which do not have these problems gain ground on us. Look at the colonization of Europe by Kebab or the colonization of the states by Hispanics. Part of the problem is that whites aren't producing enough kids to do all of the work. Also, the kids we do produce tend to be degenerate numales who would bow to the caliphate before defending his country.

That's what I thought you meant
I don't have a viewpoint. I'm asking you to back up yours
I said it was suspicious.

So, with all those studies there supporting many different views can you show that yours have the better methodology. You already showed one to be a little suspicious