The cia created and destroyed feminism

I hope you mean "former" or that is an impressive display of mental gymnastics, because they were always useful idiots from day zero, as you pointed out. Most women have no honor or ability for free thought, they just try to fit in socially and bend over for the strongest man. Their brains unfuck themselves a bit after they have kids, hence enslaving them well into their 20s through school and work that they truly have no business being involved in, so they can be good little Marxist soldiers for longer while collapsing our birthrate simultaneously and destroying the male's prospects for both a job and a cunt-free workplace, as birth control pills fuck their brains up even more. This was always the plan.

Note that I don't blame women and MGTOW is bullshit, it's mens fault for ever letting things get this way, in particular the Worst Generation that fought the World Wars.

Op it all has to do with two things.

Satanism and reducing the birth rate. aka population control.

The movement was infiltrated, that doesn't mean they didn't have a point. For example, I think it's pretty good that it's not legal to rape your wife. I understand you likely think the opposite.

Yes exactly this. Educating women is by far the most efficient way to control the birthrate without legislating it e.g. one child policy or, I guess, mass forced sterilization e.g. native Americans. Just because I think it's good to educate women doesn't mean I don't accept it can be used for nefarious purposes.

(checked)
In an ideal world where the majority of women wouldn't simply lie about it out of spite or greed, or police would investigate it worth a shit, or juries weren't comprised of peers aka idiots, I agree. Again, no honor.

No ((they)) didn't have a point. What they created is the world you now live in. If ((they)) had such a great point then why are women fucking miserable now? At a time when we are so progressive you women have to engage in the same horseshit that men always had to engage in?

I am detecting feminine style typing so I am just gonna go ahead and assume you are a woman. One that is unmarried and has no children.

So you believe that
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AKA freedom, created a giant problem so that when the pendulum would swing the other way it would record in it's history how to destroy the issues that bring nations down so as to create an indestructible nation by providing real life examples of how to solve such issues?

The rate of false allegations of rape is the same as other felonies, friend. Reals before feels.

Yes, and I think the world we now live in is better than it was fifty years ago. I understand why white men may disagree.

No.

Feel free to defund the CIA already though.

You mean the rate of DECLARED false allegations where the male in question was actually given a chance to fight back and prove it after destroying his pocketbook.

How do I redpill the masses on trannies?

Nice not addressing the fact that women on the whole are miserable compared to past.

This is the problem with women. You would rather have a conversation centered around your feelings instead of dealing with the actual reality you live in.

I disagree because currently my wife and I struggle to make a way for ourselves in a nation that would rather prop up others over their own kind. And we get to attempt to raise our family in a nation that is controlled by a minority that has the power to ruin our lives if our belief in Folk, Faith, and Family ever got out into the public sphere.

About you saying white men…if you aren't white good. Please talk more openly about that so you can show everyone here that your priorities are not in line with white ones. And if you are a white woman, the fact that you have been brainwashed into hating your own men is evident that the whole psy-op worked like gangbusters.

How many fucking groups have the CIA created? Aren't motorcycle gangs one of the many?

I'd assume the FBI and CIA have a hand in more or less every single counter-culture or sub-culture that exists in the USA, maybe even beyond. The feds have sticky fingers.

Nice not addressing the fact that women on the whole are miserable compared to past.

Everyone's more miserable than they were in the past. Rampant consumerism and social isolation are the problems, not women having legal rights.

That's interesting, that's how I feel about men like you. In the reality we live in, women are not voluntarily going to return to being second class citizens. Would you?

White men burned white women who were unmarried or provided abortions at the stake. The punishment for killing one's abusive husband was the same as for treason - being disemboweled and burnt while still alive. White men are responsible for scold's bridles and wife auctions. They raped children with impunity until first wave feminists kicked up a fuss about it, and their wives with impunity until the late 20th century. If white men had their way, white women would still be slaves.

Educating women reduces the birthrate for educated women. Intelligence and low time preference, traits which will make people succeed in education and in life, are mostly genetic. Educating women is dysgenic and anti-civilization.

You are simple.

No, it's anti-patriarchy. Other forms of civilization are possible.

CUCKCHANNERS NOT WELCOME
CUCKCHANNERS NOT WELCOME
CUCKCHANNERS NOT WELCOME

This is you

Yes, there are nigger matriarchies. They're shit. Patriarchy is a prerequisite for civilization. Again, educating women is dysgenic. If you want there to be fewer smart people in a given society, you educate the women.

You are currently worse than a second class citizen. Do you realize where you are? Fascists and NatSocs live in these parts.

The idea that not having legal rights means you are less of a person is the stupidest shit you have ever been told. Consumerism is rampant because the largest spenders, women, are miserable. You have been sold a load of bullshit and you think democracy will save you?

There is one only one path to happiness. A return to traditional values, class cooperation, and a social contract with the state that allows for the militarization of our ideology.

One gender has to be a slave gender, that's the only option. Men are the slave gender in the current climate. Men pay the majority of taxes and receive the least benefits from those taxes. Men can have their rights stripped away at the drop of a hat if a woman just accuses him of something without even a shred of evidence. Women are the most powerful spenders and the most powerful voting bloc, essentially controlling the media we are shown and those who govern us with their almost zombie-like desire to be exactly like everyone else and do as they are told by Big Daddy Government.

People are more miserable than ever, women just consume, consume, consume and pop pills that ruin their hormonal balance so that they can get railed from behind in a dirty club bathroom by a line of men they can hardly look in the eyes without seeing the face of their father, who never gave them any love or affection because their mothers got divorces to get back to riding the cock carousel and claiming child support. We live in a goddamn cultural and spiritual wasteland, and it's all to accommodate women. Take away the rights of others so you can feel "safe" and feel like you're somehow "equal", even though at any moment a random man on the street could beat you to a bloody pulp without even trying.

"Equality" has never existed, and the only way it can be enforced is with extreme economic and physical coercion.

Would you prefer I was ''complicated"?

This

Holy fuck, why did it take so long for someone to point out a blatant copy/paste from cuckchan? This place is dead.

Pure hyperbole. Feminism has always been acting beyond legal rights, into the realm of redefining social roles. Feminism is anti-family. Consumerism is the result, used to fill the gap.

If men weren't raping kids why was it a focus of first wave feminism? Raping and beating women was commonplace and accepted, they didn't have the right to vote, don't you think they would've focused exclusively on those issues unless child abuse was actually a problem?

Explain exactly how only educating half the population maximizes human resources when the other half has the same average intelligence? That's an interesting theory.

I don't think it makes anyone less of a person, I think it makes them a person with fewer rights.
Housewives consume more non-essentials than working women, your points are invalid.

Thank you for your honesty.
Fuck equality, liberation or bust.

feminism was just a means to an end OP
the CIA had more sinister intentionsand as most of Holla Forums knows they weren't the only ones behind those intentions

All the good posters left a very, very long time ago.

I know you're baiting, but that's damn good bait right there. "Women's liberation" has to be enforced by a higher power with access to extreme authority and violence. Women simply cannot compete with men in anything, not even child-rearing. Men are literally better at everything than women.

The entirety of "feminism" and "women's liberation" is based around the government, hallowed be its name, punishing men for not bending the knee to women and the government.

I agree that turning western females into un-marriageable garbage is probably to control the birth rate.
I think the rich at the top see a side benefit of allowing them access to unlimited females. A no divorce christian country would be much slimmer pickings.

I disagree with this. What force?
I would say a prerequisite for being good at child rearing is actually doing it. If you have the capacity to be the world's best dad but you abandon your kids, then you're still a shit dad. Women are clearly the superior parents.

Even the faggots on the fag board of cuckchan hated trannies.

I miss back on old Holla Forums the niggest guy that always reminded us daily the truth about trannies.

Waving your hand and crying invalid doesn't make it so.

The dual income household is a travesty. You realize this, that's why you have now just moved your goal posts bringing up married women as opposed to talking about the initial problem of consumerism.

You are all over the place and have no real argument. Good luck with baiting the rest of your thread.

Women received legal rights without corresponding obligations. They are using the state in a tyrannical way to rule and oppress male leadership. Its unnatural and only propagated because the state has so many people with vested interests in participating in it.

what's your major?

That's force, and only one example. Refusal to participate in the absolute farce that is women being "equal" to men can result in seizure of property and capital, incarceration, or denial of property and capital, all of which require force to accomplish, thus making the farce of women's "equality" based entirely on force. You're really good at roleplaying a mentally challenged woman, OP.

Studies have shown that single mother households produce more criminals, depressives, suicides and drug addicts than single father households. Women suck at raising kids without a man around.

Having lots of high-quality white children is more important than your 401(k).

also ban copypasta shit threads

women having legal rights is part of the problem
they make the workplace worse for men and they drive the wages down by inflating the workforce and they don't raise their children as much

also, they're part of the rampant consumerism problem
women are made to submit more than men are, so men are more resistant to impulse-buying than women are, for example
also, entire TV shows are made just for middle-age women to feel empowered so that they're more likely to go out and SPEND MONEY, an example being the big bang theory, which is a pile of trash
if someone has the relevant screencap about that part please post it ITT

furthermore, the possibilities of false rape accusations and gold-digging via alimony AND usually getting the kidif she wants the kid makes it even worse for men, AND women having rights got obama into office TWICE

also don't forget that as soon as women got the right to vote they voted for prohibition which as a result created organized fucking crime kek

The economy had trouble adjusting to two-income households - this is a nonissue anyway as basic income is clearly the only way forward with the advent of automation.
No, the facts that people who are bored shitless doing nothing but domestic drudgery all day resort to living vicariously through consumerism is very relevant to the discussion of whether returning to single-income households would curb consumerism.

Working women, just like housewives, do signifcantly more domestic labour. Even women who earn more than their husbands or whose husbands don't work at all do more domestic labour. We take care of children more, in relationships and when they dissolve. We commit less crime. We pay the same taxes. I'd say women are fulfilling their obligations pretty well.
That's a convenient position to have on a social hierarchy in which you're dominant.

Doing a masters in STEM.
That force is wielded by government, which is still overwhelmingly controlled by men. All women do is vote (sometimes, hopefully) in their own interests, which is not force.
Of course children in single parent households have worse outcomes. Unless the father is dead, in every one of those situations where there was a mother keeping shit together but not doing quite as good a job as two people together could, there's a father who's abdicated his responsibility as a parent. When men and women both seek custody, men are just as likely to get it. So really it's men being irresponsible and selfish that's responsible for those statistics.

Children with working mothers have better life outcomes.

women cook, raise children, and do housework
men do the other stuff, such as going to work to pay the bills
do you think that it was possible back in the 50s and/or 60s for one man to support his family with a single mid-wage job?

well thats not happening now without some other source of income because women drove the wages down, though outsourcing is a big problem there too, as they drive wages down even more

That's how it was, sure. Since the industrial revolution that hasn't been true. These days it's clear that children with working mothers have better life outcomes.
There's no going back to the 60s, not after globalization and automation. The economy will have to radically readjust, feminism or no, and kids whose mothers work perform better in this society.

Hypothetical: I have a goon with a gun, and I tell him to shoot your kneecaps out, piss in your wounds, then finish you off with a razor blade and a handful of hot chili peppers. In your worldview, I am exempt from responsibility, as I am not the one actually doing the act. Genius.

You really are a champ at pretending to be a mentally retarded leftist, OP. Your entire schtick is looking at things purely on the surface level and not understanding simple knock-on effects, it's impressive.

a masters in Science, Technology, Engineering AND Mathematics?

Quite a lady

but are the children with working mothers raised better or worse?
if the children are raised worse, is it a part of why so many are miserable?

It's called comparative advantage. Members of a family unit which specialize roles out-compete rival families that do not.
The male hits the workforce 9h a day for the $$ and the female becomes the master of running the family. This unit is more efficient than both members being jack-of-all-trades. The kids get more love and attention because mum is always around.

good little goys

that got me to recall

egg cells deteriorate with age, causing the children to have many differences that they wouldn't have had if they were born of a younger mother
notable among them is down syndrome, the chances of which raises to notable levels after the age of 28
and theres a slew of other stuff too, some minor, some not, and some of it might go unnoticedand maybe one of them is autism

that sort of stuff also contributes to why so many people are miserable; women are having their children later in life, causing them to often have defect(s)
if women weren't working or going to college, maybe they'd have children around 25 years of age or less

I never said we weren't responsible, just that none of our gains were made through use of force.

Better. They do better in school, have fewer behavioural problems and make more money.

Comparative advantage does not apply as it ignores childcare, school and the fact that there are important nonfinancial outcomes. When the mother works families are better of financially AND their kids turn out smarter, better adjusted and richer. Where the disadvantage?

how many sexual partners have you had?

No women leave the workforce and let men do it. Work is mostly horrid shit anyway.

The deal is essentially this; all men earn more so catching a well paid husband is easy, and you get to spend unlimited time with your family.
Or stick with the current setup, work your tedious wageslave job for no family.

Infant mortality is lowest in the 30-34 maternal age range, equal between 20-29 and 35-44 and higher 15-19 than 44-49. Basically no one births a down syndrome baby these days with the routine screening that gets done.

If work is horrid shit, why do you want to do all of it? Why shouldn't we have to share? I don't want to sit on my fat ass and put all the pressure on my husband to provide for us both, that seems like a real dick move.

Look if you want a nation of latchkey kids in dual-income families earning dogshit paychecks eating TV dinners fine.
I don't, not every family is comprised of STEM degree holding individuals. Even
*if* you can be the women who dose it all, asking ordinary people to do that is just unfair. I want happy families and children and accept that the best way to do that is to a return to gender norms.

When reality doesn't line up with your worldview, it must be Jews!

what's your relationship with your father like?

Are you a white girl? or half a can?

Men cant give birth or even care and affection to the same extent females can. Providing $$$ is their 'sacrifice', no-one wants to work their shit job but men do it for their families.

or just the fact that "perform better in society" is only relevant to said society. if we live in a consumer society your idea of "perform better" is literally to be a better consumer and participate in a capitalist system which is wholly amoral

Who's paying for your STEM degree?

I'd like a source for that; I don't think its just attributed to the parents having more money to spend on the kids
who instills character into the children?

how do they get smarter by learning facts? knowledge is not intelligence
I'd like you to explain this better; does school function as a daycare? or does the kid just teach him or herself good character on his or her own when his or her parents aren't around?

infant mortality isn't what I was getting at, but its also an issue
id rather have a kid with a lower chance of physical/mental disorders than a kid with a lower chance of being stillborn or dying before turning 2, but I don't like the infant mortality thing myself

but you prefer sitting on your fat ass as a diversity hire in somebody's office playing pretend all day

you do realize the only reason why you were accepted into your supposed STEM masters is because they lower the bar for you, right?

(((THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)))
ftfy

Worth noting is the fact that the US gave niggers the right to vote before they gave it to women.

You're really clutching at straws now, aren't you?

Look, Trump won; the Republicans one even more seats in congress; America is finally so sick of your bullshit that they're no longer willing to ignore the fact that you are a problem.

I'll give you credit for having the balls or, more likely, the sheer naivete to think you would beat ANYONE on this site in a debate, but you really need to stop deluding yourself.

This women is pretending that she is going to be a supermom and business success when the reality is she got into her stem degree because a more intelligent male got held back. She will get hired as a diversity hire and her cuck husband will be a stay at home dad and she will hate him for it.
This sort of bullshit is the reason the west is so fucked up. Just be a fucking female, have 3.5 kids and raise them, fuck and feed your husband.

That doesn't sound like a very good life. I think you're selling men short. Given that it's better for kids to have a working mother, and some men are capable of care and affection for their kids every bit as good as a woman's, doesn't it seem better for everybody that they get a chance at both? Certainly better for the kids on both fronts.

I agree capitalism is bullshit, still think success correlates with objectively good parenting. Even if traditional education is bullshit and brainwashing, performance still correlates with intelligence. What measure would you use?

University is free in my country, got my bachelor, then a scholarship for my masters in the US.

Meta-analysis of 69 studies from 2010:
apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-6-915.pdf

I really don't think you'd feel that way if you understood how much having a kid and having it die before 2 would fuck you and your wife up.

I'm not a diversity hire my friend, I run my own business and make the hires.
Actually I graduated with the highest possible grades and qualified for immediate acceptance on those grounds (open to men and women)

> Smoking, drinking alcohol, or taking certain “street” drugs during pregnancy.
> Having certain medical conditions, such as being obese or having uncontrolled diabetes before and during pregnancy.
>Taking certain medications, such as isotretinoin (a drug used to treat severe acne).
> Having someone in your family with a birth defect. To learn more about your risk of having a baby with a birth defect, you can talk with a clinical geneticist or a genetic counselor.
> Being an older mother, typically over the age of 34 years.

this is a troll.

sauce: cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/facts.html

So, you are a Swedish woman, majoring in STEM for free, not working and have had over 10 sexual partners and are either half Swedish/Lapplander or Albanian?

and again, what's your relationship with your father like?

ah, yeah, "qualified for immediate acceptance"

pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

really good, which is why i don't agree with the poster above that men aren't capable of giving kids love and affection like women are

what has faculty hiring preference got to do with me getting accepted to a degree? i'm a student, i don't work there. plenty of dudes with less impressive applications (less prestigious undergrad university, worse grades, less experience) in my course. i didn't keep any more qualified men out.

WAIT YO HOL UP

real life Mary Sue here, jesus.

that good, I'm glad your father was a stand up man.

how many sexual partners have you had and what ethnicity are you?

Exactly. Its trolling nonsense. Everything I've argued is for the greater good, the common man and the common woman. And especially for the children.
But no we have to have this fucked up society so that all the Mary Sue women can show us how fucking great she is.

44-49 years of age and 34 years of age aren't just points where it suddenly gets alot worse
its just where they decided to draw lines; it gets bad before those ages too, just a little less per year

she might not be perfect yet, she still hasn't told us how many sexual partners she's had, what ethnicity she is. Maybe "she'll" surprise us.

I also won numerous national math prizes and medals and a couple of national essay competitions in hs, u mad?

White, 5, married now.

Whether or not you believe my backstory has no bearing on the statistics. Families where both parents work are better off financially and their children have better life outcomes. What's your angle on "the greater good" here?

Yes, just as it's worse to have children in the teen years and then gets better with age through the twenties. What's a bell curve?

i didnt say anything about having children in the teens

though i did mistakenly imply it

so, you are Swedish then? Help me out darlin'. And no, I'm not mad, I don't hate on other accomplishments. If you truly did, than good for you, honey.

And, just so I'm getting it all right:

quite a lady

I think you are full of shit. I think you are a middle aged dyke who has found this Chinese cartoon board and is arguing in favor of the current organization of society (Cultural destruction of gender norms in all spheres especially the family) because you would be less 'accepted' in the world most polacks envision.

28 not exactly, but risk definitely increases with age.

Slut.
No Hymen, No Diamond

I am not middle aged or a dyke. But you can think that if you want, doesn't really have any bearing on my points.

Everybody knows ahead of time if their baby has down syndrome, basically everybody aborts. Don't marry an evangelical nutcase and it's not an issue.

I know, I know. Is my husband a cuck?

You're implication was that teenage, pubescent/post-pubescent women have as high of risk of birth defects as women who give birth in their fucking 40s.

That argument would have had weight if the 15-19 and 44-49 birth rates were anywhere close to equal. But the 15-19 birthrate in the US, this year, almost reached 250,000. Compare that to the 44-49 birthrate of barely 700.

Mind explaining to me how in the fuck that proves, in any way, that older mothers have healthier children? Please do, because I'm actually starting to enjoy your STRONK INDUHPENDUNT SVEDISH WOMYN larping.

Well, he married you which is a strong indication he is one.

tits or get the fuck out.

What fucking points?

I just have one more question for you:

Since you are a married, currently a STEM major, while owning your own business, living in a foreign land yet you have time to shitpost on a New Guinea pastel manga forum, with an extensive knowledge of both biology and genetics and of course, the science of second wave feminism

Why aren't you studying?

ok two questions: You're Swedish aren't you?

Your points are garbage. I am arguing for gender norms because it is beneficial for society at large. Both sexes make sacrifices for the society, for each other and for the children.
Your argument is essentially: I'm Mary Sue and can do whatever I want.

so you'd rather have an abortion than have the baby die before turning 2?
you don't view abortion as a bad thing though, so I don't think that argument will affect you

Males work and sacrifice for the society.
Women give up a few legal rights and gain others for the society.
Children get cared for by the society.

IM MARY SUE. I CAN DO ANYTHING. LALALA SOCIETY IS BURNING DOWN BECAUSE OF WOMENS LIBERATION BUT I DONT CARE.

I didn't say older mothers have healthier children. I gave a babby friendly explanation of infant survival by maternal age being normally distributed with the mean at 30-34 and a slight negative skew.

I do all my studying pretty last minute, just got over a hump of shit due early this week. I founded the business, before I left I hired two stooges on modest but reasonable pay with a small commission on net profits to take over my role while I'm away. I go home twice a year. I am half owner of the business and my partner oversees the technical side while I'm here. I retain 50% ownership of the company. I am not Swedish.

Why do you deny statistics? If making a sacrifice leads to your children being less intelligent and productive, then how is it a sacrifice "for society"? Does society benefit from stupid, unproductive citizens?

No you're conflating two different things. The question I think you want to ask is, would I abort a downy fetus? Yes, probably. I would need to have a good hard think about that before conceiving at an advanced age.

See above. Women are not giving up anything "for the society" if making those concessions leads to worse net societal outcome. It's just stupidity and worse for everyone.

What type of business do you run?

How long have you been married?

How old are you?

What color is your hair (currently and naturally)?

What brand of glasses do you wear?

What medication do you currently take?

How do you squeeze in time to learn about biology, genetics, feminism while being a STEM major and married?

How often do you see your husband?

Then men are no longer going to make sacrifices for the society either.
Good luck policing and defending the place.

I'm not answering all those but I'll answer a few. We sell a tech product, mid twenties, no meds, being married doesn't take up much time, we live together.

Why would I want anyone to make sacrifices that lead to a worse outcome for society? That's not making a sacrifice, it's just being a dipshit.

but why not?

is child-rearing and housework unproductive?

i was going ahead and assuming you're an actual mary sue, but now i think you're just a liar
but that in particular doesn't invalidate your arguments

i think you're going overboard at this point user

And I think I'm just trying to get a picture of whom I'm speaking with. We're on an anonymous image board, I'm not asking for your name and address here.

You're currently Sir Issac Newton's long lost relative, I don't think I'm going overboard at all, It's not often you get to talk to wonder womyn, user.

ah forget it
about time for me to go to bed, there'll still be the rest of Holla Forums to debate OP

No, that's very productive labour, and women do the vast majority of it even when their husbands are unemployed or working less.
Yeah my classmates were pretty gracious about it but I could tell they didn't think it was fair either. Welcome to real life, where some people have a natural advantage. Again, bell curve.

and there it is. thanks sweetheart, you take care too!

where LARPing on the internet as a Mary Sue is pretty obvious. Your story is complete bullshit, us grown ups have more important shit to do.
Tits or get the fuck out

The wars won't be over until there is a repeal and/or reform of anti-discrimination laws. This will all continue so long as they can sue you.