The Original Commie MRA, Ernest Belfort Bax

bump

Holy shit.

I'd argue that a lot of societal muh privileges that women have are often a result of sexism. The idea that women are fragile and need to be protected for example. Many modern feminists push this rhetoric, hence why I don't take them seriously.

Just goes to show that Communism is in no way compatible with liberal mollycoddling. If you want to be a sotcialist, you need to put aside blatant undialectical concepts such as "muh sexual equality"

I heard this bullshit before, pack it up and go back to reddit

You're right. Sexual equality is bullshit, because everyone knows that women are supreme. Heil mein fürher fräulein!

laughed like a retard

Just like trotsky

What? I don't consider myself a feminist or an MRA. I'm just saying that the obnoxious belief that women are delicate flowers who need to be protected from the big mean men is an idiotic approach to gender equality.
Come the revolution, I want libfems and woman haters up against the wall

Where do you think you are?

...

The reason why this will never go away is because it's not an idea but a fact. Humans are sexually dimporhic, women are the weaker sex. Human males will naturally protect and white knight females, it will always be that way. Even if women are 100% legally equal (which I agree with) and 100% intellectual equal, it won't change human survival instincts. Men are big and strong, they want to protect women. Women are weak and small, they will go cowering to their men if another man threatens them. Humans of both sexes are opportunistic. If a woman can simultaneously convince men she should be equal yet be treated special then she will use it to her full advantage.

It's just the way of the world, no matter how much society pretends it doesn't care about gender or sex it will always be a driving issue in society. Now that's not to mean we shouldn't try to make things more fair, but you have to realize we're pushing a rock up an infinite hill.

...

...

Women and Men have the same IQ. One of them has less muscle, who gives a fuck. You give both equal opportunity and let them follow suit.

It's your biology to slowly die, might as well shape your social role on it. You'll have the most to say in your teenage years, any year past that you'll be more and more ignored and given less power.

Just makes sense, no? Biology.

Also, if you're not physically strong, you'll have nothing to say, at all. At any point in your life. Average male isn't strong, only bodybuilders will have a say.

BIOLOGY RIGHT? Idiot.

I never said otherwise. But men having more muscle goes back to when humans needed it for survival. Just because you put humans in a modern setting doesn't mean our primal instincts suddenly vanish. Men where the bread winners and hunters and woman stayed at home at nursed the kids. This mentality continues to this day and it's a natural one that people find hard to shake, despite conditioning to think otherwise. Despite living in a post-feminist society women still like having dinners paid for them and being given expensive jewelry. Men still like holding the door open and fending other guys off who make passes at them. It doesn't matter how much society or an individual wills it, gender is largely hardwired and people like to conform to their gender roles. Hence why, as the original post I responded to, " The idea that women are fragile and need to be protected" persists.

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Stronger comparably to the average woman. I don't understand you're point. I never said men should be the rulers because we're strong, simply that women are the perceived weaker gender in society because they factually are. I think you fucks were actually triggered by my ironic "patriarchy card" image and didn't bother to read what I wrote.

A "natural one" that you don't want anyone to shake, while trying to condition others to accept it. You're saying that it's all conditioning (environmental factors leading to change), yet appeal to nature when you try to defend it in a setting which is no longer relevant to the material conditions you posit existed in the past which shaped these views. Which did not, either, require to take on the specific impression you're insinuating.

In a community setting, it was more common for child rearing to be done by the community as a whole. "Hunter Gatherer" appeals are regional dependant (was there more wild game, what sort, what kind of fruit and vegetables existed, etc. Did they consist of nomads that moved from seasonal harvesting area, to area, or were they as you suppose solely grasping at - in desperation, any and all things they could find to eat instead of starving.)

You for one horribly romanticising the past, for twos completely disregarding your own cognitive dissonance in insisting upon natural behavior coming from material relations that no longer exist, but still trying to appeal to it as natural, and for threes upset that others are not accepting your intent of conditioning people to accept without fail - your view of how people should be and how people should live and how people should coexist in intimate relationships, while railing against any other attempt at conditioning people.

Instead of merely shutting the fuck up, living like you wish in a relationship with someone who wants to live the same way you do, and stop pestering others on how they should live just like you, in a good old traditional relationship where the woman does this and the man does that and everyone just obeys you.

tl;dr: You're an idiot, mate.

You're really citing the fact that gender roles still exist in what you arbitrarily define as a "post-feminist" society as evidence for their eternal inevitability?

...

left my shitposting flag on

Don't put words in my mouth, you're posting with the presumption that I'm arguing society should follow a natural order or I'm trying to convince others that natural is better. I'm not. It's literally what every single one of my posts has been about: I find an equal society more beneficial for everyone but human's natural instincts it pushes back against it.

Ex-fucking-actly. You seem to understand my words but misinterpret my meaning. Human psychology evolved in a primitive state of technology in a world were humans existed in mainly hunter-gatherer tribes. We have moved fair beyond that but we're still the same old humans. You can take humans out of the wild but the wild is still in humans. Again you seem to be conflating the fact that humans have not evolved past our stone-age mindset with thinking that I'm arguing it is the best mindset to have in a modern day world. Again, I'm not.

reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

Not when I'm talking about human evolution. We all came out of the same shithole part of nothern africa.

I'm doing no such thing, as my previous post stated, I think you're being triggered over something and purposely not even trying to understand my point.

Unless you're arguing that human psychology and behavior have evolved fast enough to keep up with a few thousand years of technological advancement, and only a few hundred of women's rights, I fail to see the contradiction.

Case in point: Humans eat fatty unhealthy food because we're biologically hardwired to find sweet and fatty good tasting. We haven't evolved to fit our new food-plentiful environment and now we have an obesity and diabetes epidemic. What worked for us in the past is still hardwired despite that the old "material relations no longer exist" and it creates a ton of problems. For the 99th time, this is what my original post was about: "The idea that women are fragile and need to be protected" is the result of nature not an evil patriarchy.

In other words I'm arguing my point of view and others argue theirs back at me. Also known as a debate. Maybe Oxford Dictionary should hire you.

When the fuck did I ever say anyone should ever do anything. Every single one of my posts has been arguing against enforced traditionalism.

Stay salty.

I think it's you who misunderstand the internal conflicts and contradictions of your own stance.

I'd like to see proof of the change you're talking about. Can you link to any published papers?

le wymyn are dumbt
le men are inteligent

its al in the genes

Am I the only one who imagines these fucktards who spend a whole lot of energy detailing how the sex they belong to is stronker and cleverer than the other sex as people with some kind of severe disadvantage?

I mean, idk, I have an average penis size, I'm not fat, I have a social life, I can have sex when I want to, I have a conscience, I'm empathetic, etc. and somehow it never occurred to me to write pages about the inferiority of females, even back when I was a conservative teenager.

But I guess it comes with the turf of the realization of your superiority to obsessively rant about it on an anonymous board. Because, you know, that is what strong and superior people do: they act weak and pathetic.

I support the MRAs simply to spite feminists, tbh.

you sound like retarded conservatives who say they like Ann Coulter and Milo just because they "annoy liberals"

grow up

Where were you when Holla Forums is a feminist board?

Lol I love it, also in the 60's most americans thought Black's and whites were completely equal, and the CRA was going too far

Makes you think about the 'anti-SJW' types today

Men could be conscripted, women could not. On the other hadn women couldn't enlist. As a socalist make of that what you will
Single mother could get wellfare, single fathers could not

Otherwise, society wasn't rigged in favour of women, but very heavily in favour of men

get the fuck off of Holla Forums you fucking normie

Correct me where I'm wrong here:
>"nuclear family" model established as the standard, tying each man (more or less) to a dependent woman and their dependent children, all of whom are expected to do household chores but not much else in exchange for no expectation of or opportunity for wage labor poor people still have to work regardless of their age or gender.
>Everybody has their "proper" role, and the people who deviate face social stigma and often legal consequences except in poor communities where everyone understands that people do what they need to get by

Pretty much but it's women libbing the place up like a bunch of retards.

Enjoy your asspain.

Enjoy your doubles.

Feminists GTFO REEEEE

w e w

Where do you think you are? This is an anti-sjw leftist board. Fuck off back to reddit.

kys

The only "problem" men have is that their power is threatened. #Killallmen.

Nothing to do with your clear intent to exterminate me, obviously.

#Takeallbait

How much do I have to spell it out when I'm being ironic to make a point?