/lit/ - Literature

File: 378 KB, 500x500, persephone.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Mar 23 23:44:31 2014 No.4695140 [DELETED]

/lit/ I have a question concerning the Patriarchy

how did it get started? How did men start the oppression and why was it permitted by women? Was it physical superiority that allowed this? Women being held back by being pregnant all the time?

if you know of any Feminist literature that deals with this, or have read some yourself, please mention it

pic related god rape or something

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 23 23:51:31 2014 No.4695160 I don't want to trip the misogyny sensors, but have you ever been around women? You have to make essentially every decision with them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 23 23:53:30 2014 No.4695167 for an uneducated chimp it's maybe hard to understand why he should listen to something as weak as a woman. and this >>4695160

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 23 23:54:30 2014 No.4695171 >>4695160 >You have to make essentially every decision with them. This. The middle ground usually ends up being "Whatever doesn't piss her off the most".

Anonymous Sun Mar 23 23:54:30 2014 No.4695173

>>4695160
Well we can hardly say how much of that is socialized. I'm not discounting a theory that posits that women don't make decisions as well or take as many risks because of innate psychological reasons, but that would need to be rigorously researched.

I highly doubt the scientific community has even asked the question since psychology became useful, because it would be career suicide.

I was thinking more along the lines of a historical account of how this arose.

Anonymous Sun Mar 23 23:57:30 2014 No.4695181

>>4695140
I personally think there's a biological predisposition in men to dominate in order to spread their genetics and in woman to be allow themselves to be dominated (i.e. taken care of) by the most fit men available.

And I think that as conscious animals we should be able to recognize that these impulses don't need to dictate the way we treat each other, and that we should certainly not structure our society based on them. We already resist many primal urges, and we shouldn't need to deny the existence of this one to say we want nothing to do with it.

The problem being that many people don't wan't to lose this particular instinct, and that perhaps it is too ingrained in our nature because it's so tied to reproduction.

But I haven't read any feminist literature apart from Emma Goldman. I can't offer any real literary insight into it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:01:30 2014 No.4695191

Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State explores it through historical materialism. Engels sees the agricultural turn of society and the shift from property as matrilineal to patrilineal as the decisive moment wherein men gained control of society over a system that previously favored women in regards to property.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:02:30 2014 No.4695195 File: 37 KB, 259x400, 499353[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695140

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:04:31 2014 No.4695201 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:06:30 2014 No.4695207 File: 3 KB, 200x200, 1392916471649.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695201 >dem tits

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:10:30 2014 No.4695216 >>4695195 >>4695191 Thanks

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:11:30 2014 No.4695219 >>4695201 I don't think this answers the OP's question.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:12:30 2014 No.4695221 " The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:13:30 2014 No.4695224 >>4695221 The Second Sex also

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:20:30 2014 No.4695233 File: 9 KB, 261x400, 184597.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] the female "class" as a subject to be "reasoned with" can perhaps be traced at least to ancient Greece >>4695173 an historical materialist account will be of much use to you

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:22:30 2014 No.4695239 Why would you start with a place like 4chan to ask this question?

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:27:30 2014 No.4695246

>the logical inference is that because men were physically stronger than women, they subdued and raped them
>but the idea is anathema to modern feminism
>?

Granted, I'm not actually very familiar with the core feminists or their arguments, but this struck me as rather funny to consider

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:27:30 2014 No.4695249 >>4695233 this is interesting >>4695239 I dont know where else to ask it. Ive asked some feminists in real life and they don't seem to really understand what im asking or they'll just refer vaguely to 'agriculture'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:33:30 2014 No.4695260 Men are smarter and stronger. /thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:38:30 2014 No.4695264 >>4695140 Because men are big babies, and we let you feel important, while you basically can't even feed yourselves or raise your children without us.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:41:30 2014 No.4695272
File: 151 KB, 350x350, 1378360129566.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Marxist feminists tie feminist theory to class struggle. Radical feminists keep this thread in their thinking. If you want a picture of this stuff, read second-wave stuff. They are prone to writing polemics, though.

Third-wave feminism, a response to the second wave, is sometimes accused of ahistoricism because they de-emphasize class-based oppression (e.g. women as a class, the poor as a class) in favorite of postmodernism and queer theory. It's a live issue. Have fun.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:44:30 2014 No.4695277 >>4695272 Postmodern isn't based on emphasizing one struggle over the other. Postmodernism is mainly based on Foucault's three struggles, that's all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:45:30 2014 No.4695284 File: 9 KB, 200x225, Gram_Parsons_promo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695272 >mfw the Louvin brothers

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:48:30 2014 No.4695294 [DELETED]

File: 582 KB, 753x899, tmp_13932246217011761312067.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4695264

Because womyn are insolent bitches, and we let you feel important, while you basically can't even maintain a stable society or contribute any meaningful innovation.

Let's continue generalizing, cunt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:53:30 2014 No.4695305 Well I've been poking around and it looks like nobody really knows, or their theories are highly unsubstantiated. thanks for the recs though, i know i have at least the second sex on my bookshelf and ill check out the others

>>	Xen0m0rpH !QFjgKKsUc6 Mon Mar 24 00:53:30 2014 No.4695308 File: 185 KB, 500x500, 1320466629530.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695140 Holy shit, what the fuck is this? I thought this board was about books and writing. What the shit is this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:54:30 2014 No.4695311 >>4695308 It's SRS board destabilization; it's nothing new.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:55:30 2014 No.4695314

>>4695277
Some radfems accuse the Judith Butlers of the world of engaging in obfuscation. They contend that postmodernism is just word games and makes it harder for the oppressed to name their oppressors.

...I don't buy it, but it's a line I keep hearing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:55:30 2014 No.4695315 >>4695308 Its about literature so I came to ask about literature on a specific topic,. and people recommended said literature.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 00:56:30 2014 No.4695320 Here's a fun experiment you can do at home kids! Step 1: Go to IKEA and buy a desk Step 2: Find a woman Step 3: Make the woman you acquired earlier assemble the desk Step 4: Assemble the desk

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:00:30 2014 No.4695330 >>4695314 Maybe they're just annoyed that Butler et al. have made naive essentialism a less viable position.

>>	Xen0m0rpH !QFjgKKsUc6 Mon Mar 24 01:00:30 2014 No.4695334 File: 82 KB, 304x958, 1366004678076.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695315 Ok, I'll give you a book to read on this subject. It's called 'The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival', by Sir John Glubb

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:02:30 2014 No.4695338 >>4695314 Well to be fair, have you heard the shit they rant about? Microagressions? Triggers? Not to mention Original Sin 2.0 of privilege.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:02:30 2014 No.4695340 >>4695334 dat excerpt dat bit about the lute >women ruled rome My sides doth protest

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:02:30 2014 No.4695342 File: 115 KB, 397x600, Spengler21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695294 >stable society stop right there criminal scum

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Mon Mar 24 01:03:30 2014 No.4695343 >>4695314 The only important feminism is left-wing or pomo.

>>	Xen0m0rpH !QFjgKKsUc6 Mon Mar 24 01:04:30 2014 No.4695346 File: 30 KB, 484x379, 1353215481363.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695343 >The only important feminism is left-wing or pomo Like this person?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:06:31 2014 No.4695353 >>4695334 Looks like this guy has some hot opinions.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Mon Mar 24 01:07:31 2014 No.4695355 >>4695346 I don't know, that's not feminist theory, that's just a slogan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:08:31 2014 No.4695357 >>4695346 filtered

>>	Xen0m0rpH !QFjgKKsUc6 Mon Mar 24 01:10:30 2014 No.4695366 File: 44 KB, 210x263, 1327345267520.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695357 >mfw >>4695355 Then what is feminist theory? I've heard too much spew from /pol/ to even be familiar with anything but egalitarianism anymore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:12:30 2014 No.4695374 >>4695338 >they who are 'they'? the 'some feminists' referred to in the post you're replying to?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:12:30 2014 No.4695375 Men invent and build everything, women go shopping and gossip on the phone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:14:30 2014 No.4695380 >>4695366 I don't know what filtering means sorry feminist theory is a way of seeing the world with regards to gender >>4695375 >4chan

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:14:30 2014 No.4695381 >>4695375 Probably because men are competing with other men to invent things, since there is no intergender invention competition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:15:30 2014 No.4695385 >>4695160 Actually, by making you do the work of making the decisions, she's sort of expressing her own form of power.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:15:30 2014 No.4695386 >>4695380 >way of seeing the world >does not specify the way

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:16:30 2014 No.4695393 >>4695386 >with regards to gender

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Mon Mar 24 01:16:30 2014 No.4695394 >>4695366 >Then what is feminist theory? It varies depending the school, but The Second sex and Gender Trouble are good examples of it, being the "Bibles" of modern and postmodern feminist theory, respectively.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:21:31 2014 No.4695418

OP the answer is simple.

Women are mentally and physically weaker on average. Mentally, they are less stable, physically has already been talked about.

Ever read ayn rand? She argues that a Man is most a man when he dominates a woman. And a woman is most a woman when she is dominated by a worthy male.

However to go further, even sex itself lends males to be the dominators. You are taking the phallus(the sword, the masculine, power, what makes a man a man.) and dominating, crushing and utterly controlling the vagina(the cup, the receptacle of power, what makes a woman a woman.)

Sex by it's very nature places man in power over woman. All feminists women know this secretly, this is why they focus so heavily on sex and rape, it's the natural objection to woman dominating man.

Of course, this problem is dissolved once marriage proper comes in, to the point of them both understanding the other as one and the same, one unit.

OP, many cults and religions saw the phallus as a symbol of God. And the vagina as the universe, the bride of God, man.

Dwelling on the fact and trying to fight nature and it's natural all pervading inertia is a fruitless endeavor.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:21:31 2014 No.4695420 >>4695191 What kind of major would learn of this? It seems like good knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:22:31 2014 No.4695422 >>4695393 good lord i hope you dont think that counts as a clarification

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:25:30 2014 No.4695427 >>4695420 Gender Studies! I'm currently in my third year of this type of program, it's tons of fun!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:26:30 2014 No.4695428 File: 44 KB, 420x289, Is_computer_male_or_female.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695422 maybe you should tell me which gender feminism should concern itself with :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:27:30 2014 No.4695434 >>4695195 >Creation of Patriarchy >Gerda Lerner >Lerner /pol/ was right again...

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:47:30 2014 No.4695500 File: 129 KB, 236x270, 1395640076503.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695427 ishiggy

>>	Xen0m0rpH !QFjgKKsUc6 Mon Mar 24 01:52:30 2014 No.4695513 >>4695500 Over 300 cocks sucked.jpg

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:53:30 2014 No.4695518 File: 272 KB, 601x400, 1395640439230.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695427 >mfw

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 01:57:30 2014 No.4695523 >>4695434 Its always jews, its always been jews and if will continue to be jews until people call them on their shit openly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:01:30 2014 No.4695532 >>4695518 people who are so fascinated about her should feel disgusted with themselves but of course they already are

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:01:30 2014 No.4695533 >>4695523 >Its always jews, its always been jews and if will continue to be jews until people call them on their shit openly. i come to /lit/ to escape /pol/'s shit, and yet it never seems to stop following me. sigh...

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:03:30 2014 No.4695536 >>4695532 Yes, we should feel disgusted for being "fascinated" by an 18-year-old upper middle class girl who gets hardfucked for money. I bet you wash mouth out just thinking of kissing a girl goodnight.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:09:31 2014 No.4695561 >>4695427 So you're saying it's not a well researched book?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:11:30 2014 No.4695569 >>4695536 Your post makes no actual sense. inb4 a reply which makes even less sense

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:19:30 2014 No.4695600 >>4695532 4chan mocking someone is not an autistic obsession you newfag retard. You realize you're defending some cum guzzling hypocritical slut to somehow hoist your already misguided anger against 50% of the population?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:24:30 2014 No.4695620 >>4695569 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:25:30 2014 No.4695624 >>4695600 do you like porn would you like to guzzle my cum you hypothetical slut

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:27:30 2014 No.4695626 >>4695624 >>4695600 cum guzzling hypothetical slut is my new band name

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:32:30 2014 No.4695643 >>4695600 also I think you mean "foist" but we're not talking about that what could be more pleb than scandalizing whoredom

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 02:40:30 2014 No.4695665

>>4695140
the answer is just gender dimorphism

>>4695533
>/pol/
of course, you should've realized as soon as you saw Spengler's distrought face or even earlier. every thread about politics, ideology or politically relevant history will feature something you think is "/pol/" at some point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 03:09:36 2014 No.4695720 File: 514 KB, 467x700, 1394768713880.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The debate doesn't really matter because in a few hundred years the West will belong to 30 billion sandpeople with their own stance on gender equality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 03:18:30 2014 No.4695737 >>4695320 Lolol I actually agree but switch "woman" with "man" and that's pretty much exactly how it went down for me ;)

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Mon Mar 24 03:29:49 2014 No.4695752

>>4695720
No, see... They'll adapt to their western surroundings. If not the first generation, the second generation will definitely become more westernized.
I work with a lot of middle eastern women* of various backgrounds. I think there's only one devout Armenian orthodox in the bunch.

*Yeah, some of em look like this bottomless woman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 03:31:49 2014 No.4695757 >>4695420 I actually read it for a 19th century political philosophy course.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 03:40:49 2014 No.4695765

Patriarchy is natural & good.

Societies tend to become more women dominated as they become more liberal, wealthy, amoral, degenerate, etc.
The Romans complained that "while Rome rules the world, women rule Rome".
And in the Book of Isaiah when the Jews become idolatrous and adulterous the women are depicted as being proud.

Once catastrophe hits the West we will revert back to Patriarchy almost instantly.

inb4 onionring deletes the thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 03:49:25 2014 No.4695777 >>4695140 it didn't "start" anytime other than human beings or sexual reproduction "started." i.e. it is a construct purporting to describe a system existicng in reality; whereas there are no "systems" in reality, only reality-in-itslef exists

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 03:50:24 2014 No.4695779 >>4695752 >muslims in london >ever adapting to western surroundings pick one m8

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 03:54:24 2014 No.4695784 >>4695779 Please just don't reply.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 03:57:24 2014 No.4695791 >>4695737 OMG are you a grill? Pls be in Jaén

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 04:00:25 2014 No.4695797 >>4695523 >until people call them on their shit openly. Last time we did that it turned out badly and they became mainstream instead. Some things simply can't be helped.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 04:08:26 2014 No.4695809 >>4695536 >upper middle class what relationship to production is that?

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 04:20:24 2014 No.4695823
File: 144 KB, 500x500, 1351883657911.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4695140
>/lit/ I have a question concerning the Patriarchy

Engels. Then Rowbotham. Then S. James. Then M Dalla Costa. Then Federici.

>how did it get started?

Agriculture and thus Asiatic class society.

>How did men start the oppression and why was it permitted by women?

Idealism. Men and women both started and continuously reproduced the *exploitation*. This was permitted by women because systematised rape is often considered superior to the free range form.

>Was it physical superiority that allowed this?

No. Agriculture.

>Women being held back by being pregnant all the time?

Women in gatherer-hunter societies were too poorly nourished to have constant full-term pregnancies. Agriculture.

>if you know of any Feminist literature that deals with this, or have read some yourself, please mention it

Engels. Rowbotham. S. James. M Dalla Costa. Federici.

>pic related god rape or something

Egyptians do god rape better. Oh yeah, and they're an Asiatic class society.

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Mon Mar 24 04:23:24 2014 No.4695826 >>4695779 Oh. So you're doing it wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 04:23:24 2014 No.4695827 >>4695314 Butler engages in an essentialism of performance. Most post-modernists reproduce the conditions they critique through their critique. p.s.: I speak through my clothes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 04:30:25 2014 No.4695835 >how did it get started? Humans created a system to have a functional and prosperous society, thus culture was born, roles were assigned, and hierarchies were created.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 04:39:24 2014 No.4695850 >>4695191 did engels theorize about 'primitive communism' or was that marx

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 04:41:24 2014 No.4695854 >>4695850 Engels suggested that primitive communism existed at length in Family…. Kropotkin has some useful accounts from late 19th century gathering/hunting communities (Mutual aid…)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 05:40:24 2014 No.4695950 >>4695140 biological superiority

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:13:24 2014 No.4696020

>>4695823

You are forgetting common sense m8.

Men are physically greater on average, this is why men ate more.

And you use the term rape as if it's an unnatural thing.

If they were physically equal they would have eaten more, and therefore would have grown at a more or less equal rate.

Further, if women were truly as high as men on average, why did they not fight the rape and the like at a greater amount and enforce a female centric society at an earlier stage?

It's rather simple m8, they couldn't. They couldn't, they didn't, and they would have if they at large had the mental and physical ability to do so.

Men were stronger, killed more, ate more grew more and grew more "masculine". Divorce the term masculine from male and think of it objectively, it's something which has obviously came from a much blunder, more primordial and tougher background. Compared to the concepts of femininity.

To defeat my points, show that women are/were as physically strong as males on average, or better yet show me a first world country truly dominated by women.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:15:24 2014 No.4696023 >>4695950 /thread Women are designed to be dominated.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:16:25 2014 No.4696025 >>4695826 You need to travel

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:17:25 2014 No.4696028 >>4696020 >Men are physically greater on average, this is why men ate more. Which is why Japan is ruled by a sumo wrestler. I think this sufficiently undermines your "eating" based determinism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:17:25 2014 No.4696029 >>4696023 >teleology >biology >science >facts >having brain cells

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:18:09 2014 No.4696032 >>4696028 that would be cool if it was true tho

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:25:09 2014 No.4696038 >>4696029 Actually Dworkins' argument is that women are designed to be dominated.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:27:09 2014 No.4696041 >>4696038 Actually, expecting feminists to be scientific is really optimistic. Expecting some faggot on /lit/ to realize the logical issue with putting ends before means also is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:29:09 2014 No.4696045 >>4696041 what precisely is the logical issue putting ends before means, if you please

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:30:09 2014 No.4696048 File: 36 KB, 688x400, 1215079551373.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4696041 >scientific >logical issues >ends before means Popper would be disgusted

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:31:09 2014 No.4696050

>>4696028

At the point where obesity in humanity being a common problem, we have firmly passed the time frame for society becoming male centric,

And the time frame for women to become inferior (by majority) and biologically wired to basically be servants to the deserving man.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:35:09 2014 No.4696056

Are you guys retarded. The way you talk about it in a sexist manner just gives feminists the fuel to scream the patriarchy conspiracy

Simply put, think of it this way and explain it in this way the next time you hear someone complain about this patriarchy.

Back in the day everything was done manually and by hand and EVERYTHING was pretty much heavy work which biologically, males were more efficient at because they typically had more strength and muscle. (see if a feminist can debunk this). I mean can you really see a woman working the fields by hand as efficiently as a male on a large scale? Or you know, they need strong males, to fight off other strong male invaders (cos combat was done by hand not with guns and nukes) to prevent other nations taking over and robbing/stealing/raping their women and children and destroying their livelyhoods.

So in turn, women were left with the 'lighter' jobs such as managing the house, weaving, clothes washing raising children and all that shit they complain about. And mind you those stuff for women back then would have been very difficult cos things were done manually too. They didnt have the cooking tech, and house cleaning tech of the modern world to make these a cake walk.

It was all just due to circumstances at the time that had to be managed.

So of course when the male was the one working the fields protecting their women from other nations and doing all that back breaking shit, he would at least expect to come home to rest and have a meal ready for them, and it was reasonable for the wife to provide small comforts like this (you know since she was cooking anyways for the children too)

Theres no conspiracy behind it.

Have times changed....yes of course, we dont use as much physical labor so I dont see why there is no need for a woman in the office.....It funny though how they would like to complain about mens jobs but generally dont want to do the heavy labor jobs.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:38:09 2014 No.4696060

>>4696056
>So in turn, women were left with the 'lighter' jobs such as managing the house, weaving, clothes washing raising children and all that shit they complain about. And mind you those stuff for women back then would have been very difficult cos things were done manually too. They didnt have the cooking tech, and house cleaning tech of the modern world to make these a cake walk.

In a weird way you make it sound like women had the easy time of it.

Which they did.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:41:09 2014 No.4696066 >>4695346 >these synonyms shouldn't be synonymous!

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:43:09 2014 No.4696072

>>4696056

Does it matter if we don't pad the truth?

They'll complain anyways, and will most likely not effect anything.

Funny thing however, there's still women in third world countries suffering horrible injustices and actual problems, like having their heads chopped off.

I wonder why the majority of feminists don't talk or try to help with any of that

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:45:09 2014 No.4696074

>>4696056
>Back in the day everything was done manually and by hand and EVERYTHING was pretty much heavy work which biologically, males were more efficient at because they typically had more strength and muscle. (see if a feminist can debunk this).
Hammond & Hammond, Skilled Labourer, read about coal mining.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 06:49:09 2014 No.4696085 >>4695791 yeah yeah grill here open fire men can't Ikea to save their lives!

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 07:13:09 2014 No.4696134 [DELETED]

File: 17 KB, 250x356, graphics-mr-bean-706282.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mfw in a class discussion i stated I would never marry a woman who didnt know how to cook or clean.
>mfw i triggered all the women and they started saying 'cooking and cleaning isnt a womans job'
>mfw i said i didnt say it was a womans job
>mfw they said why should your wife be expected to to cook and clean for you
>mfw i said that being able to cook and clean is a sign of someones ability to look after another person and thats what marriage is about, to spend your life together with someone with the intent to look after each other. It is also a sign of how well someone can look after a child which is often another reason why people get married, to start familiies
>mfw they say why should it be just the woman who does the cooking and cleaning.
>mfw i say i never said that, a man should also be able to cook and i would like to think that if one of us is sick or injured that the other would be able to look after the other and the children which the ability to cook and clean is a sign of.

lol. why do some get so defensive so easily

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 07:18:09 2014 No.4696139 ''There are none more hopelessly enslaved to the patriachy than those blind to it's shackles'' - Thomas Pynchon

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 07:26:09 2014 No.4696160

>>4695140
Ever had that fear of being manpunched? You walked through the streets with your boyfriend, and for some twisted reason you thought it'd be a good idea to start some shit. Your boyfriend, obviously sick of your shit let you go on for a while. The guy you're starting shit with is now looking at your boyfriend with an obvious 'keep your bitch in line' face.

He doesn't.

The guy starts coming closer, and that's when it hits you. The actions you have chosen to take, have immediate and tangible consequences, you're seconds away from a broken face. Your boyfriend steps in, and you both walk away.

That brief glimpse of fear you felt, the fear that your actions my have consequences, that's the reality of a woman who isn't protected by a man (or men) throughout the ages.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 07:30:09 2014 No.4696172 >>4695434 Not to be that guy but its astonishing how many Marxist literature, or anything leftist in general, was written by Jews... Following Postcolonial Theory course atm, to my great sorrow, and its riddled with jewish females

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 07:42:09 2014 No.4696187 >>4696134 >>4696134 >muh triggers

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 07:46:09 2014 No.4696192 >>4696139 good fiction

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 07:56:09 2014 No.4696205

>>4695823
I'm so sorry, I just cannot wrap my head around this.

Feminists...blame...farming, for an evil and conspiring male-domination world government geared towards oppressing an entire gender and perpetuating something called "rape culture" in which it is okay to rape (a stark contrast to all actual views on the subject).

And I thought Scientology had problems.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:08:08 2014 No.4696227

Women are systematically made weak by society.

This can be observed easily in many african tribes where girls are not fed as well as boys.
Girls are raised to be obedient and weak while boys are raised to be willful and strong.
Which is explained by them as "girls being able to bear hunger while boys would cry until they burst".

At some point this was a necessity because men were hunters/warriors due to being physically stonger while women were gatherers or looked after children and did chores
but in later history it simply became a habit.

Male superiority is merely an outdated mindset.

Feminism is bullshit though.
Egalitarianism is the most civil way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:11:42 2014 No.4696232 >>4696172 That's it, I'm fucking done with /lit/. After 5 years this comment was the straw.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:12:41 2014 No.4696234 >>4696134 you were baiting

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:20:41 2014 No.4696253 File: 205 KB, 450x450, 1390316095660.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4696160 >there's no physical ramifications for being a dick as a woman Reminded me of this: http://youtu.be/_Dybby26QnU?t=3m4s

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:27:42 2014 No.4696276 File: 491 KB, 500x290, thingkenofburningchurches.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4696232

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:30:41 2014 No.4696283 >>4695140 Read http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:34:30 2014 No.4696290 >>4695420 I had to read that for one my core classes in sociology.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:47:16 2014 No.4696338
File: 70 KB, 280x460, Gemma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4696205
X-rights groups are always bullshit because the majority blindly follows these movements without understanding them, feigning equality while actually striving for superiority, meaning that everything that doesn't agree with their cause is against them.

Example:

Gay rights activists accuse Frank Herbert of homophobia for making his villain a homosexual
but at the same time praise Joan K Rowling for retro-actively declaring

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:48:15 2014 No.4696341
File: 200 KB, 731x581, 1395665296837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4695140
Your mistaking protection for oppression. A patriarchal society is to women's benefit as well. Of course, our patriarchy is so successful that people have forgotten all the things they are protected against. People grow up almost never reasonably fearing anything in their life. Therefore the protective qualities of men aren't appreciated, since women are so used to the privilege of not being raped and killed that they start to think this is some sort of natural state.

Feminism, egalitarianism, anarchism, liberalism, pacifism, environmentalism, all these things are essentially luxuries which are only allowed to be even entertained because we have started to believe our artificial shelter is natural. It only takes a tiny bit of of a disruption and we revert to the ways that are most efficient in times of need: Hierarchy, patriarchy and militarism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:53:15 2014 No.4696352

"Always remember that while the sufragettes marched for the right to vote, the men of their generation were marching to their deaths in the First World War. Always remember that the first women to demand the vote were safe at home while men died by the millions, eviscerated by machine guns, choking on gas, drowning in mud and corpses or ripped limb from limb by shell fire. Always remember that these women, who sat at home with tea and crumpets, went around handing out white feathers, the symbol of cowardice, to any man who did not want to die screaming in the mud of Flanders. Always remember what the white feathers really stand for; what women really are and what men are to them. Always remember the white feathers."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:54:15 2014 No.4696357 File: 130 KB, 1300x719, wcpbuymf1-8000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4696232

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:55:15 2014 No.4696358 >>4696341 You're historically oblivious. The protection of women's rights that the state has provided had no precedent and wasn't enforced by manly men. Take of your fedora and read a fucking book.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:57:16 2014 No.4696360 >>4695140 >How did men start the oppression You mean natural control over the weak. >and why was it permitted by women? They're the weak. It's not hard to get.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 08:58:15 2014 No.4696363 >>4696360 Says the guy under the spell of the vagina or virgin. Own up to your disposability. Women are the important part of our species. Be a fucking man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:01:15 2014 No.4696366 >>4696363 This is the shittiest attempt at trolling I've ever seen. Why even bother?

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:04:15 2014 No.4696372

>>4696366
I'm not trolling. Women are biologically the most important factor for reproducing they are the drive of our reproduction. We hunt, for women. We fight, for women, we compete, for women. Unless you want your parents to choose your wife for you, shut the fuck up.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:05:15 2014 No.4696375

>>4696358
But it is enforced by men. The ones protecting the country and keeping order in general. You can declare rights all you want, they have no use if they aren't enforced. My point is that people have become so distanced from their protectors they are taking this protection for granted. This protection is ultimately mostly provided by men.

It's this alienation between people and their benefactors that also allow the other ideas I mentioned. Anarchism, for example, is nothing more than misguided optimism that flourishes only safely behind the bulwark of a powerful state. Its very entertainment is a luxury provided by this bulwark, as is that of feminism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:06:15 2014 No.4696380 >>4696375 Yes men should protect, women should lead and manage.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:07:15 2014 No.4696381

>>4696372
>We hunt, for women. We fight, for women, we compete, for women.
Not all men do this. Some men are actually men and hunt for themselves, fight other men in order to be better than other men, and compete in order to assert their dominance over other men.

The woman game is a piddling one. Real men understand this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:08:15 2014 No.4696385 >>4696381 >Some men are actually men and hunt for themselves, You mean recluses, outcasts, hermits and other biological dead-ends. You have been brainwashed by the liberal ideal of the individual mate.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:11:15 2014 No.4696391

>>4696385
I mean real men. You're the one "under the spell of the vagina" if you think men are meant to service women like that.

Men do what they want for their own goals. Women are secondary in this equation. It has always been this way, and always will be. If few "men" are like this today, it's because there aren't that many real men around anymore.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:16:15 2014 No.4696401

>>4696391
>if you think men are meant to service women like that.

You are either in denial over your own impotence or you are a virgin. The 'irrationality' and 'stupidity' of women are all games to get the upper hand on you. Have you ever listened to girls talk of how they manage their boyfriends?

Get real and deal with it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:17:15 2014 No.4696403

>>4696380
The people who protect have the most leverage to demand a position of power. Of course with the current alienation that position isn't as clear any more. Still, you're always one military coup away from the protectors asserting their dominance. Ultimately it all still comes down to who can unite the most powerful force of warriors behind his or her person. Men generally excel at that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:18:15 2014 No.4696404 >>4696403 Do you let your guard-dog run your house?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:22:15 2014 No.4696406 >>4696401 And you think what, exactly? That this makes women superior? No, it just makes those boyfriends a bunch of pushovers if it actually works on them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:27:16 2014 No.4696415 >>4696404 The person who controls the guard dogs runs the house. That generally isn't one of the chickens.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:27:16 2014 No.4696416

tfw you realise feminism will never end because these systems perpetuate

mfw i don't even know what the goal of feminism is beyond 'equality'

mfw that's such a vague and impossible thing women will be able to use it to justify complaining about everything and anything for thousands of years now

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:28:15 2014 No.4696421

>>4696406
Again with the denial. All men are pushovers look how we heed to have hierarchies to free us from thinking so we can just do what we are told. Look at all the 'men' here on 4chan who has wet dreams about a strong leader. We are like dogs.

Who really has the upper hand the hardworking business magnate or his wife whose every need is tended to and only needs to look good at social gatherings and when she fucks the gardener on the side in passion while her husband must suffice with prostitutes on his business travels?

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:32:15 2014 No.4696424

>>4696421
>All men are pushovers look how we heed to have hierarchies to free us from thinking so we can just do what we are told.
Hierarchies are for swift and functional decision making and execution of said decisions. There's a reason a tank squad doesn't vote during battle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:34:15 2014 No.4696426 >>4696421 You have zero experience with real men. That's the problem here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:34:15 2014 No.4696428 >>4696424 Nice rationalization. So you have no problem subordinating yourself under another man to make his 'swift decisions'? You sound like a little bitch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:35:15 2014 No.4696432 >>4696426 Those on top? That's definitely not you, dog.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:36:15 2014 No.4696433 >>4696432 Never said it was, queer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:36:15 2014 No.4696434 File: 498 KB, 539x589, next level.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4696416 You forgot your face

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:37:15 2014 No.4696436 >>4696433 Who then?

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:39:15 2014 No.4696440

>>4696428
Without hierarchy your group becomes the victim of groups with hierarchy since they are more efficient. It's a necessity.

You're part of a hierarchy right now. You just think you're a free individual because modern society has allowed you a long leash.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:43:15 2014 No.4696447 >>4696440 So you want to be dominated and you rationalize it with necessity. Who is this society that have given me a long leash?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:46:15 2014 No.4696449 >>4696401 >>4696363 >>4696385 >>4696432 I love the constant ad hominem Your feelings are irrelevant, stop acting like they are anything else and participate in the discussion like a mature person.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:46:15 2014 No.4696450 >>4696447 Try overstepping your position in the hierarchy, you'll find out.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:50:15 2014 No.4696460

>>4696436
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_The_Great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Greek_tyrants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clooney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Connery
http://www.returnofkings.com/
http://www.rooshv.com/
http://countcervantes.wordpress.com/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:52:15 2014 No.4696464 >>4696449 >I love the constant ad hominem You're welcome. It's not attacking a person to say they are in denial if it's fact. It's also not an ad hom to say that someone who likes to take cocks in the mouth by other men shares attributes with a dog.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:55:15 2014 No.4696470 >>4696460 They all agree with me on this. Because we real men don't have time for bullshit denial, masked as beating your chest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:55:15 2014 No.4696472 >>4695160 If you don't make all the decision they hate you for it. This has been my experience. They hate wimpy men more than they hate misogynists.

>>	Free individuals Tony Mon Mar 24 09:56:15 2014 No.4696474 If you'd like to find a different view on what a free individual really means, I recommend that you check out Alkuajatus (The Original Thought). If you look up their home page, you can download a really good eBook for free there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 09:56:15 2014 No.4696477 >>4696470 >They all agree with me on this The sad part is, you're the only dog in denial here.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:01:15 2014 No.4696491

>>4696477
Nope, you are. Why do you think you regurgitate manly ideals from society meant to keep you docile.

I know what I want and I'll take what I want that's manliness not all your pathetic excuses for taking it in the ass while thinking you're on top of anything.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:05:15 2014 No.4696499

>>4696491
>I know what I want and I'll take what I want that's manliness
Except when all you want is women, or in your case, servicing them. It's no coincidence either that real women are more attracted to guys who don't see them as the end-all in life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:06:15 2014 No.4696500 File: 99 KB, 600x460, 0428luk2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the Na language has no word for 'jealousy'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:07:15 2014 No.4696501 >>4695246 >the logical inference It's not a logical inference and you can't logically infer that; it's a conversational implicature at best.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:13:15 2014 No.4696515 if men are stronger than women why didn't they have the willpower to avoid this thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:14:15 2014 No.4696517 >>4696515 Men don't exist on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:14:15 2014 No.4696518 >>4696499 >real women If by real woman you mean a housemaid, no thanks. Oh and concerning the dog thing, the trick is to be a dog without a master.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:17:15 2014 No.4696528 >>4696518 Real women as in queens, and real men as in kings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:20:15 2014 No.4696534 >>4696528 That's not real, that's status signifiers dependent on the social customs surrounding them, the labels have no inherent qualities as they don't exist as things in themselves.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:24:15 2014 No.4696541 >>4696534 >the labels have no inherent qualities as they don't exist as things in themselves. Nothing does, you stupid bastard. Get off this board because you don't know your ass from your elbow apparently.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:31:15 2014 No.4696551
File: 337 KB, 681x1024, athena.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Read this
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm
It's a very nice read, also I always questioned why the fuck women were all powerful and badass in the Greek pantheon (like Athena) but shit in real life, and it seems that it was a remnant from the past.

Historical / dialectical materialism is the ultimate red pill.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:31:15 2014 No.4696552 >>4696541 Did I strike a nerve? Can't you be more specific? What I get is that you have to be the sovereign to be real, which is absurd since it could easily be argued that his subjects are just as real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:34:36 2014 No.4696558 >>4696551 I've always found it peculiar why Plato would allow women as guardians, until I read that. Plato was read pilled as fuck. Which is obviously what the allegory of the cave was about; the first red pill.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:40:36 2014 No.4696574

>>4695140

Doesn't patriarchy, like, develop out of the division of labor between the sexes in settled agricultural society? You know, because the responsibility of carrying children places women quite naturally in the domestic sector of production (and reproduction). That would leave any work surrounding the immediate area of the home or within the home itself in the domain of the female work-force. Originally, that would have left simple agriculture on a small scale a quite 'feminine' job, until small scale agriculture gave way to large scale agriculture and slave society. Thus, the first class division modified sex-relations.

Slaves are generally appropriated by men, whose primary role was outside the home. Hunting - the 'man' hunt, in this case - was traditionally the domain of men, unburdened by the labor of carrying children.

Let's summarize. The division of labor between men and women from the perspective of the home is external and local-internal respectively. With the rise of large-scale agriculture and slave-society, the responsibility of agriculture passed to slaves. This latter 'living implement' was appropriated by men, and hence women's appropriation of subsistence (the products of agriculture) was increasingly through the medium of their husbands.

It is quite obvious that when one can only appropriate the means whereby they live through another, they stand in a position of inferiority or servitude vis-à-vis that other.

There are modifying circumstances, such as the role of women as the 'managers' of slaves before this role is delegated to an 'educated' slave; women still playing a large role in the preparation of the productions of agriculture; and women being largely responsible for the sphere of circulation (buying and selling). The general trend, however, put women in an economically inferior position until . . .

Enter capitalism. The system of wages recognizes no distinction between exploitable workers. Laboring power is laboring power, and whatever can be had the most cheaply (all other things being equal) is the most desirable. The subjugation of all previous class or sex relations to the relation between capital and wage-labor destroys the old foundations of the family and 'patriarchy' as such. Women are drawn out of the home and into the workforce, the former place to which they rarely return. The lowering of wages to the assumption of female labor makes it quite impossible for most men to support a domestic economy (the home economy), and so female appropriation no longer can take place through the medium of male appropriation.

In the period of transition which is currently taking place, the double responsibility of traditional home-economics and wage-labor puts women in a particularly undesirable position. More and more, however, home-economics itself becomes subject to capitalist exploitation - childcare and fast-food come to mind. The feminist movement is the expression of this transition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:43:35 2014 No.4696578 The start of agriculture is some people's argument for the start of major hierarchy and men taking control.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:46:35 2014 No.4696584 >>4696574 /thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:46:35 2014 No.4696585 >>4696578 the formalization of agriculture is the formalization of civilization at least in part you have no argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:50:35 2014 No.4696588 >>4696585 Are you seriously saying it couldn't have spawned both?

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:51:35 2014 No.4696590

>>4696558
>What is more, he denied that there is any systematic difference between men and women with respect to the abilities relevant to guardianship—the capacity to understand reality and make reasonable judgments about it. (Republic 454d) Thus, Plato maintained that prospective guardians, both male and female, should receive the same education and be assigned to the same vital functions within the society.

No wonder Athenian "democrats" hated him, they wanted to keep women slaves in their shitty rooms especially designed for them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:56:35 2014 No.4696597 >>4696588 I don't know what you're asking? One informs the other. The class structure of the ancient world (Greece and Rome alone) was largely predicated on the development of farming equipment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:57:35 2014 No.4696600 Why is this board full of fucking worthless feminist and commie shit. I've seen like one good thread in like months. commies please stay out if you don't want to talk about books.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:58:35 2014 No.4696601 >>4696500 They're not a small bitchmade ethnic group for nothing.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 10:59:35 2014 No.4696606

>>4696574
Good post.

I'm going to recommend a site now, in addition to what you said, but which is by no means meant to be affiliated with you. From your post, logically, one eventually reaches what is written on this site:

http://orgyofthewill.net/

The ultimate red pill site.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:00:35 2014 No.4696608 >>4696600 shut the fuck up

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:01:35 2014 No.4696611 File: 371 KB, 500x375, tmp_1395016960234-2023431320.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4695418 /thread

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:02:35 2014 No.4696612

>>4696597

In supplement to your point, it was these developments that made possible large scale agriculture. This in turn made the appropriation of land simultaneous with the appropriation of the surplus of agricultural labor. With that surplus, if was possible to support other men - soldiers, really - and to appropriate slaves and more lands. All of this, however, places women in a lesser social position as a consequence of their inferior economic position, as women can not in any practical sense appropriate land and slaves.

I do not think the person you are responding to is actually disagreeing with you. You seem to be talking past one another.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:02:59 2014 No.4696614 >>4696600 tips trilby

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:03:59 2014 No.4696617 >>4696574 Quality posting, this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:03:59 2014 No.4696618 >>4695418 >>4696611 But that's wrong if one takes a detailed look at the whole of history.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:08:36 2014 No.4696630

>>4696606

I . . . don't really know how to respond to that. That really doesn't seem to have anything to do with that I said. I'm only attempting a material explanation of sex-relations in the past and present, and using this to explain the development of the feminist movement. I was not meaning to criticize that movement as such, but to rather explain feminist consciousness as that the product of real economic developments.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:08:36 2014 No.4696632 >>4696597 I think we're in agreement with each other? I think we just misinterpreted each others posts

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:09:36 2014 No.4696637 >>4696618 Care to elaborate on your thought, anon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:15:36 2014 No.4696657 >>4696632 aw geez I thought you were being sarcastic I basically said what you did but with "formalize" instead of "start" in order to emphasize class consciousness coming to the fore, or something, but moreover to be pretentious and grating

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:15:36 2014 No.4696658

>>4696630
>That really doesn't seem to have anything to do with that I said.
It does, but not directly. See, what you said is spot on. What you didn't say was what that MEANS about the whole thing. That site is one interpretation of what it all means.

The era of capitalism that we're currently experiencing has made all idols collapsed, has made all possibilities for idols obsolete, and has made slave society the ruling and dominant society. Even the "leaders" of such a society, the richest people alive, are no more than wealthy slaves at the end of the day. Of course, the site talks about a LOT more than just this, but overall it should be an interesting and worthwhile read for anyone that agrees.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:19:37 2014 No.4696670 >>4696657 it's all good. you said what I was trying to say but just better well put .

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:26:36 2014 No.4696689 >>4696658 Are you trying to say that if you work you're a slave? Kings have always been slaves to their subjects as they relied on their obedience. Your point seems vague to me. Modern idols are celebrities, that you don't agree doesn't change it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:31:36 2014 No.4696705 >>4695140 I feel the need to applaud this statue and I'm not even American.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:37:37 2014 No.4696718 >>4696574 What will the future hold according to this approach? All people living in their own little apartments and all the children are raised by paid professionals? We're almost there already, actually.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:38:37 2014 No.4696723

>>4696689
>Are you trying to say that if you work you're a slave?
Yes. Kings did not "work" in the same sense that slaves worked, or modern day people work. Modern day people work as the slaves do, slaves to the capitalist system which has its metaphorical hands tied around everything. Moreover, kings and other members of royalty always possessed an ethic which distinguished them greatly from the slaves. That distance has become negligible thanks to the development of capitalism; the ethic of slaves is now the ethic of the so-called masters of our time.

There are no masters, in other words. We're slowly entering into a classless, genderless, gray society. And soon all things which require taste will follow, with our foods becoming blander and our entertainment becoming more subdued. Everything great and terrible will perish into mediocrity. Sounds dramatic, but you can already observe this happening in some parts of the world. And you can definitely see it in modern art, where the majority of movies, books or video games take place in decaying, colorless, dystopian landscapes.

Also, a king is not a slave to his subjects simply because he relies on them for power, much like how my brain is not a slave to my stomach for the same reason. The brain can stop feeding the stomach if it wants to, and even though this may kill the brain, it was the brain's decision. The brain has more control over the stomach than vice versa.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:41:37 2014 No.4696733 >>4696723 Trust me, the masters exist, they just prefer to remain in the shadows and allow the plebs, "the people", believe they are in control.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:42:37 2014 No.4696738 >>4696733 This post was brought to you by Info Wars. Please buy our water filters to support the site.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:45:37 2014 No.4696741

>>4696723
Cool culture criticism bro. Can you show me something 'sublime' from the past that isn't overhyped bullshit anyways in no way better than modern intertainment and in fact usually much worse as they didn't know fuck all back then.

>much like how my brain is not a slave to my stomach for the same reason. The brain can stop feeding the stomach if it wants to, and even though this may kill the brain, it was the brain's decision. The brain has more control over the stomach

Subjects are independent agents so your analogy makes no sense.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:49:37 2014 No.4696750

>>4696723
I agree with most of this, but no services rendered for Aristotelianisms about cultural entropy. Do you play many video games? Our future state of affairs is not one in which all cultures is meaningless as an indiscriminate slurry but rather one in which history itself and the history of all cultures is meaningless as essentially replayable.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:56:38 2014 No.4696768

>>4696741
>bro

[YOU]

Well, I'll hear it, sir: yet you must not think to
fob off our disgrace with a tale: but, an 't please
you, deliver.

MENENIUS

There was a time when all the body's members
Rebell'd against the belly, thus accused it:
That only like a gulf it did remain
I' the midst o' the body, idle and unactive,
Still cupboarding the viand, never bearing
Like labour with the rest, where the other instruments
Did see and hear, devise, instruct, walk, feel,
And, mutually participate, did minister
Unto the appetite and affection common
Of the whole body. The belly answer'd--

[YOU]

Well, sir, what answer made the belly?

MENENIUS

Sir, I shall tell you. With a kind of smile,
Which ne'er came from the lungs, but even thus--
For, look you, I may make the belly smile
As well as speak--it tauntingly replied
To the discontented members, the mutinous parts
That envied his receipt; even so most fitly
As you malign our senators for that
They are not such as you.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 11:58:38 2014 No.4696771

>>4696768
[YOU]

Your belly's answer? What!
The kingly-crowned head, the vigilant eye,
The counsellor heart, the arm our soldier,
Our steed the leg, the tongue our trumpeter.
With other muniments and petty helps
In this our fabric, if that they--

MENENIUS

What then?
'Fore me, this fellow speaks! What then? what then?

[YOU]

Should by the cormorant belly be restrain'd,
Who is the sink o' the body,--

MENENIUS

Well, what then?

[YOU]

The former agents, if they did complain,
What could the belly answer?

MENENIUS

I will tell you
If you'll bestow a small--of what you have little--
Patience awhile, you'll hear the belly's answer.

[YOU]

Ye're long about it.

MENENIUS

Note me this, good friend;
Your most grave belly was deliberate,
Not rash like his accusers, and thus answer'd:
'True is it, my incorporate friends,' quoth he,
'That I receive the general food at first,
Which you do live upon; and fit it is,
Because I am the store-house and the shop
Of the whole body: but, if you do remember,
I send it through the rivers of your blood,
Even to the court, the heart, to the seat o' the brain;
And, through the cranks and offices of man,
The strongest nerves and small inferior veins
From me receive that natural competency
Whereby they live: and though that all at once,
You, my good friends,'--this says the belly, mark me,--

[YOU]

Ay, sir; well, well.

MENENIUS

'Though all at once cannot
See what I do deliver out to each,
Yet I can make my audit up, that all
From me do back receive the flour of all,
And leave me but the bran.' What say you to't?

[YOU]

It was an answer: how apply you this?

MENENIUS

The senators of Rome are this good belly,
And you the mutinous members; for examine
Their counsels and their cares, digest things rightly
Touching the weal o' the common, you shall find
No public benefit which you receive
But it proceeds or comes from them to you
And no way from yourselves. What do you think,
You, the great toe of this assembly?

[YOU]

I the great toe! why the great toe?

MENENIUS

For that, being one o' the lowest, basest, poorest,
Of this most wise rebellion, thou go'st foremost:
Thou rascal, that art worst in blood to run,
Lead'st first to win some vantage.
But make you ready your stiff bats and clubs:
Rome and her rats are at the point of battle;
The one side must have bale.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:01:38 2014 No.4696775

>>4696741
>. Can you show me something 'sublime' from the past that isn't overhyped bullshit anyways in no way better than modern intertainment
Not him, but slaughter, rape and pillage would be a good one. Today we are expected to repress an inseparable part of ourselves 100% of the time.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:04:37 2014 No.4696780

>>4696775
>slaughter, rape and pillage would be a good one. Today we are expected to repress an inseparable part of ourselves 100% of the time.

Yeah, an overweight basement dweller is surely an epic Viking on the inside. He's just repressed. Do you even think before you type?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:08:26 2014 No.4696784 >>4696771 >>4696768 Why is this a valid argument in any way? Society isn't a body in our own image. You can't make up an analogy and then fit reality into it. We don't live in 10000 bc anymore, caveman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:10:26 2014 No.4696790 >>4696780 You think people actually changed biologically in the last 1000 years? You think contemporary men don't have exactly the same instinct as the men back then? Top kek.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:15:26 2014 No.4696798 >>4696790 I think we are far more malleable than we like to admit to ourselves because of our narcissism and hubris.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:19:26 2014 No.4696806 >>4696780 That basement dweller is usually knee-deep in video games. What's your explanation for that? Video games, in a sense, consist of nothing but slaughtering, raping, and pillaging.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:28:42 2014 No.4696818 >god rape or something Pretty much http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Proserpina

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:31:43 2014 No.4696821

>>4695643
It's not really scandalizing whoredom, it's that she is absolutely an idiot and is becoming a defender of feminism. There is a video on efukt that shows exactly how stupid she is. Feminists are constantly contrived when making a decision on pornography; in its current state it feeds the Patriarchy inherently, while it also is sexual liberation for women. This cognitive dissonance is too much for women to think about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:33:43 2014 No.4696823 >>4696784 Hobbes thinks we do http://www.literature.org/authors/hobbes-thomas/leviathan/chapter-29.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:37:43 2014 No.4696825 >>4696806 Ill let Zizek answer that. http://youtu.be/RynFTJdyldg

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:38:43 2014 No.4696827

>>4696798
You don't understand how biology works then. You can teach a dog tricks but you can't turn it into another species. Humans are a warring species. For contemporary society to function we need to repress our nature. Hence all the psychological problems everywhere, which aren't prevalent among hunter-gatherer peoples.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:38:43 2014 No.4696828 >>4696806 b-but I liked Cooking Mama not this though http://features.peta.org/CookingMama/ why does politics ruin everything I like :(

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:40:43 2014 No.4696837 >>4696806 >Video games, in a sense, consist of nothing but slaughtering, raping, and pillaging. I'd love to see the logic behind this. Are all forms of escapism linked to something innately instilled in us from our inception on this earth?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:40:44 2014 No.4696833 >>4696827 >You can teach a dog tricks but you can't turn it into another species. Why is it necessary to invoke a new species? I don't think you understand adaptation as a principle in evolution.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:44:43 2014 No.4696843 >>4695140 Started in nature. males were dominant and spread their seed and were the carriers of life females let babies suck their nips and listened to the master of life, the male.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:45:43 2014 No.4696844 >>4696825 First video of Zizek I've fully watched. Pretty good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:45:43 2014 No.4696845 >>4696825 Based Slavoj. Can't we make him do an analysis of 4chan?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:46:43 2014 No.4696846 >>4696833 I don't think you understand what a slow process evolution is. People today are biologically completely the same as people a thousand years ago, the only thing that has changed is our culture.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:47:43 2014 No.4696847

>Women being held back by being pregnant all the time?

If by that you mean that they were the reproductive labourers, and as such had to be kept from harm even at the cost of their own agency, then yes. Was it ever a conspiracy against women? No, just the result of biological functions.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:49:43 2014 No.4696853

>>4696837
What is slaughter other than the elimination of others by force?
What is rape other than asserting dominance over a thing by force?
What is pillaging other than taking something from others by force?

Look at ANY video game, and you'll notice the player doing at least one of these things to some extent. The player is a force in the game world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:50:43 2014 No.4696855 >>4696847 Oh god, now feminists are going to attack the earth itself. "MOTHER NATURE IS A MISOGYNIST WIFE BEATING RAPIST! KILL HER!"

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:51:44 2014 No.4696863 >>4696853 Tetris?

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:52:43 2014 No.4696865
File: 290 KB, 900x1361, 1_ligotti-reader-front.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4696847
>Was it ever a conspiracy against women? No,
it was a Conspiracy Against the Human Race

>>4696855
maybe you're the one who has trouble accepting reality, buster brown

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:53:43 2014 No.4696867

>>4696863
It's a puzzle game, the brain is asserting dominance over it via successful solutions. I am faced with a challenge, which is a puzzle in regards to Tetris, and I will try to beat that challenge. Keyword: beat, which implies violence in some form.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:54:43 2014 No.4696871
File: 154 KB, 1024x711, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4695140
All this
>BIOLOGY
you people talk about will be rendered irrelevant with the next technological revolution. Modern weaponry's already rendered pure strength less substantial than ever before.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:55:43 2014 No.4696873 >>4696846 Yeah, my contention is that our current culture are fit for us, that it isn't designed for another species. My other contention is of cause that nature isn't good and our nature isn't good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:55:43 2014 No.4696878 >>4696867 but one of the best parts of Tetris is that it's practically unsolvable, a contest of faculties

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:57:43 2014 No.4696881 File: 863 KB, 2064x2838, 1395680241549.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] where the white owmen at

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:58:43 2014 No.4696885 File: 63 KB, 138x161, bort.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4696867 sproligns me?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:58:43 2014 No.4696886 >>4696867 Not your brain, your body is. Your brain is only part of the functions implied.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 12:59:43 2014 No.4696892 >>4696886 You're right, my error.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:01:43 2014 No.4696896

>>4695140
Give a man 50 women, he's hugely successful. Give a woman 50 men, you're wasting 49 of them.

Women are vulnerable during pregnancy and need to be protected by others. Hence society in general sees them as the weaker sex and they look for a strong protecting male.

Women invest more into pregnancy, so they look for the fittest, most successful candidate, and dominance is one such trait. Men can impregnate many women with little cist and the women doesn't have to protect herself, so men are less choosy.

Et cetera, et cetera. One big naturalistic fallacy in the modern age, in short.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:01:43 2014 No.4696898 >>4696865 No, reality is broken. No reason to accept it. Women should be harvested in cages like chickens. They are not fit for anything except for birth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:02:43 2014 No.4696902 File: 17 KB, 198x300, strong franchouillard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] caring about this stupid shit is beta

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:04:44 2014 No.4696903 >>4696873 Culture isn't designed and that our current culture is only a thin veneer becomes evident every time the authorities break down. World War 2 soldiers slaughtered raped and pillaged like their ancestors did. Good has nothing to do with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:05:43 2014 No.4696906 >>4696871 >>BIOLOGY >you people talk about will be rendered irrelevant with the next technological revolution. The whole men/women thing itself will be dissolved.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:06:43 2014 No.4696907 File: 37 KB, 623x483, heidyballs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4696898 you enclose Being in metaphysical cages, but there will be no harvest

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:07:43 2014 No.4696910 >>4696903 WWI was propagandized as a way of protecting pretty Belgian girls (or something), which is quite a bit more cosmopolitan than past cultures

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:08:43 2014 No.4696913 File: 254 KB, 837x1201, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4696906 Only if humanity has the bravery to eve itself through biological technology. I seriously believe we will wipe ourselves out before any type of natural evolution occurs.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:08:43 2014 No.4696914

>>4696853
>Look at ANY video game.

Someone who doesn't play video games detected.

The worse part is that your views are unfounded. A whole generation of people have grown up, not knowing historical, nor gender implications, and their reactionary growth accompanied by video games is not so easily associated with old phenomenon. The argument, 'violent video games makes people violent', seems to be analogous here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:09:43 2014 No.4696916 Quicker than Jackie Chan I stretch out the coochie like a rubber band She wanna be more than the average fan But the ho needs a job and a man and a retirement plan So baby don't cry the blues Cause I know a gang of hoes in your shoes -Aesop Rock

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:09:43 2014 No.4696917 >>4696913 evolve

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:12:43 2014 No.4696922 File: 97 KB, 280x352, warrior life.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4696913 In that case I hope we get a few last decades of anarchy so that I can rape and pillage like my dear ancestors.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:14:44 2014 No.4696924

>>4696914
I do play video games though, all the time. Nearly every day for the past 20 years. So I would know what playing games entails; slaughter, rape, and pillaging, or essentially any derivative of violent action (or action period, because all action is violent) is what video games are fundamentally all about. The fact that 98% of all game players don't view it like this makes no difference. 98% of all people are fairly weak at introspection in my experience.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:14:44 2014 No.4696925

>>4696903
It's not designed in its whole, but the independent institutions are designed by the culture it inhibits. It's made by humans for humans.

“The spider makes operations resembling the operations of the weaver, and the bee creating its waxen cells disgraces some architects. But from the very beginning, the worst architect differs from the best bee in that before building the cell of wax, he already has built it in his head. The result, which is received at the end of the process of work, already exists in the beginning of this process in an ideal form in a representation of a person. The person does not only change the form given by nature, but in what is given by nature he, at the same time, realises his conscious purpose, which as a law determines the way and character of his actions and to which he must subordinate his will.” -Marx

War is a prime example that certain aspects of our nature isn't wished for as dominant values in society.

Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:14:44 2014 No.4696926

>>4696916
I got styles you can't copy bitch, it's the triple six
In the mix, straight from H-E-double-hockey sticks
Every Sunday, a nun lay from my gun spray
Fuck Carlito, we doin' shit the Devil Son's way
Every minute, my style switches up, they said a real man
Won't hit a girl well I ain't real cause I beat bitches up
I use words that's ill, L got nerves of steel
I'm cool, but every now and then I get a urge to kill
I'm takin lives for a great price, I'm the type
To snap in heaven with a Mac-11 and rape Christ
And I'm fast to put a cap in a fag chest
The Big L's mad stressed, cause hell is my address
I'm on some satanic shit, strictly, little kids
Be wakin up cryin, yellin, "Mommy Big L is comin to get me!"

-Big L

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 24 13:15:44 2014 No.4696929 >>4696924 >tfw love the dark brotherhood unconditionally >tfw banal last man life irl

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]