Does anyone else find it so strange that women (~half the population at any given time) have such a small role in a non-feminist reading of history? I don't mean to sound like an SJW or something, but it borders on the unnatural
Of course maybe it's because we focus too much on Great Men, but even from a broader perspective, you don't get many females. Can anyone hazard a guess as to why this is the case?
![[caffeine] Koufuku Graffiti - 07 [720p][92FA6D7F].mkv_snapshot_18.13_[2015.12.27_22.59.11].png](https://i.imgur.com/vDlN5BL.png "[caffeine] Koufuku Graffiti - 07 [720p][92FA6D7F].mkv_snapshot_18.13_[2015.12.27_22.59.11].png")
>>483410
Because women weren't pressured to pursue greatness. There weren't any expectations for women throughout history to achieve something big. All such pressures must come from within, and therefore any female that has attained greatness are all excellent, such as Noether and Mirzakhani.
Feminism thus must encourage women to introspect such that they can realize and actualize their own greatness, instead of extrospect and blame the lack of female representation in industry on the strawman that is patriarchy.
Historically, women haven't exactly had the most praiseworthy of roles in society. Until the development of modern Western civilizations, women have generally been viewed as child-bearers and housekeepers.
Historically, women haven't exactly had the most praiseworthy of roles in society. Until the development of modern Western civilizations, women have generally been viewed as child-bearers and housekeepers. There shouldn't be any excuse going forward.
>>483410
History is the history of things that happen outside the home.
At every single point, what was happening inside the home was just as important, and certainly more basic, and this has traditionally been dominated by female decision makers.
>>483410
History is written by the people who write history.
Women, ethnic minorities, poor people, slaves, defeated foes and cultures without written tradition all disappeared from our historiography.
They have become a huge focus of study in academia: the history of the forgotten of History. It's a simple progress from the Great Men schools to the Class studies to today. It's becoming more and more common to study and put value on the roles of - among others - women. If it's of interest to you, search for more recent books.
>>483410
Women have been rendered powerless and voiceless through most of recorded history. So the phenomenon you're noticing is in fact one of the primary drivers of feminist thought.
>>483410
It's because women are not naturally leaders. It's funny that you use the phrase "unnatural", as if it's a product of outside meddling and not our genetics.
>>483510
This makes no sense. If men & women are equal, how could men have so easily overpowered women, and done so for tens of thousands of years?
>>483547
Men are physically stronger than women and can easily overpower them.
>>483464
Not to mention feminine traits have always been disparaged even by the people who extoll them.
>>483410
I don't find it strange at all; women are capable of bearing children while men are not and as such it makes sense that when possible they'd stay well away from any of the the nastier (and more interesting and thus more historical) parts of life in order to fulfill their biological purpose more effectively. Men get the more glamorous parts of history, to be sure, but they also die like flies during most of it so from a genetic perspective I'd say that being a woman is probably much better in the long run. Women have also been largely responsible for keeping civilization on an even keel as well, and that's not to be discounted; being a wife, mother, household accountant, seamstress and/or cook might not afford much limelight but without the domestic labor of women throughout all of recorded history I seriously doubt that we'd even have gotten to recorded history.
>>483451
Excellent post I fully agree, as a feminist, that feminism should be about empowerment of an excellent self, far more than about victimization. It's important to realize too that a lack of expectation to pursue greatness in the past does not make for a bad life for women.
>>483410
For most of history, before the development of modern medicine, women weren't anything close to half the adult population. Death in childbirth was widespread, far more so than things that disproportionately got men, like war or working accidents.
Then you add in the social/economic aspects. Who are you going to pay for a serious education for? The woman who will almost certainly be dead by 25, or the man who might make it to 60? Man's probably a better bet, so you start to align your society to cater to men.
>>483510
>have been rendered powerless and voiceless
A lack of interest and pursuit isn't an external influence "rendering" them powerless/voiceless.
Please don't tell me other /his/torians actually believe "The Patriarchy" is a thing?
>>483410
i dont even choose a female character when i play RPG games like Fallout or Elder Scrolls...etc.
>>483657
Sure I do, following Engels.
>>483626
I hate to go there, but it is primarily because of natural differences.
Women give birth. For 99.999% of human existence, this was an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do, and virtually guaranteed a death before thirty of a fertile, sexually active woman.
It has profound societal impacts, and I'm not really sure why people are so quick to discount it.
>>483626
> men are just naturally superior.
>>483671
Fair enough, I'll bow out of the conversation then.
It is too early in the morning for rage. Enjoy the rest of your day, anon.
>>483693
Read Family, private property and the state. You'll enjoy it.
>>483490
>cultures without written tradition all disappeared from our historiography.
So much was lost. It's a real shame.
>>483626
do you not think primitive superiority and subjugation are the products of males being able to over power women? And that this would in turn impact society even as we see it today?
>>483972
Not him, but if modern day hunter-gatherer societies are anything to go by (and I realize this is a big if) then you generally have more egalitarian social structures until the development of agriculture.
And male physical superiority would be equally present and probably more important than in an agricultural society.
Which again, feeds into my theory upthread, that the agriculture leading to higher populations leading to more infections leading to greater death from birthing infections is what led to the big social stratification, not women being physically weaker or any sort of differential in the brain.
>>483410
>reading of history
What reading? You'll easily find books that go in depth and there are often subtle mentions of their roles. Contrary to what SJW's would have you imagine women had a very crucial role in history, not a glorious or outright one, but still a dominant one.
Maybe women are more interested in doing other readings of history. Focusing on a specific lens as being the best or right way to do history is a bad idea and is probably one of the worst things to happen to intellectualism in the history of Western civilization.
Uh, women were generally far more socially restricted than men. When a man got married, he became master of his own house. When a woman got married, she went to a new master.
It's not rocket science.
Now that western women have been emancipated from the chains of a thousand year long patriarchy, and in many universities women make up the majority of the student population, we should be seeing women making breakthrough discoveries left and right, winning nobel prizes and utilizing the full potential of their inherent wisdom.
So far I'm not impressed
The reason mankind rules the world is adolescence. Which, incidentally, is also the reason why women are going to stay irrelevant in the development of our species. Well, except for catastrophic events. They can trigger those like can any man.
Women have always been relevant in history, it's just that teachers and lecturers don't give enough of a shit to teach about them. There are plenty of examples of relevant women in history, it's not like they were ignored by the history writers.
Men is superior to women, discussing about it is retarded.
The correct question isn't why don't women achieve things, but why do men?
Men achieve things in order to compete for women.
>>484487
>Men achieve things in order to compete for women.
I don't think that's true. I think men achieve things in order to be remembered after they die.
>>484487
I really doubt Alexander and Napoleon conquered the world just to get bitches
I am far more interested in how much subtle power women have actually had in history.
I.e, how many wars or other duplicitous statecraft has come about because a woman manipulated her husband into to doing it?
Hard to prove, but would still be fascinating to study.
>>484511
>>484513
But they did.
I don't know exactly about Alexander, but Napoleon was a socially awkward probable virgin until he met his older wife who kept cucking him. Later he fucked bitches left and right.
But even when men dedicate themselves entirely to some pursuit without seemingly even thinking of women, that is just a perversion of their desire for power. And the reason why that desire exists in men but not in women is because men need it in order to acquire women. In human social dynamics, men are subjects and women are objects.
>women give birth and nurture the species in its infancy
>small role
Sure
>>483451
Based post is Based
>>484588
Look, your Freudian analysis is absolute pseudo-science.
Not everything is about fucking, and Alexander most certainly did not conquer the known world at that time to impress some primate with a gash between her legs.
>>484603
It's not Freudian in the least. And yes everything literally is about fucking, it's the entire basis of life. And sexual differentiation sure as fucking fuck is about fucking.
>>484610
>And yes everything literally is about fucking, it's the entire basis of life.
Just because fucking is needed to create life does not mean everything is about fucking you retard.
>What is a naturalistic fallacy
Read a book fag.
>>484610
No it's not you broken faggot.
>>484288
It's everyone elses fault. Why succeed when you can bitch and moan?
>>484288
There are plenty of successful women though.
There's just a difference between success and outright genius.
>>484618
Yes it does. It's literally the purpose of life. Natural selection favours the traits most favourable to successful reproduction, and the most important and immediate aspect of that is fucking.
>>484657
>gets BTFO
>starts to virgin shame
Sure is crusty and asspained vagina in here.
>>484669
>Yes it does.
No it doesn't. Stop committing is-ought fallacies.
>>484672
>you retard
>Read a book fag
>you broken faggot
Be honest, are you literally crying right now?
>>484669
Nah get your head straight nigga and stop projecting your shit onto everyone else
>le the purpose of life is to just reproduce maaan
When high school biology goes too far
>>484674
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to say that life shouldn't be about fucking, even though it is? Who gives a shit about what you think it "should be about"?
>>484687
Life is about life you dipshit fucking is just how we get here. What a barren inner life you must have.
>>484679
Do you have anything halfway constructive to say at all?
>>484694
>fucking is just how we get here
>just
>literally the engine of life, and this is somehow secondary
>>484679
Do you like not believe in evolution or what's your deal?
>>484704
So fucking what dude? We evolved and sex is how life continues, why should it occupy literally everything I do? Why would you believe everything is unconsciously motivated by wanting to fuck a tight hole? That's fucking degenerate, grow up and get some principles and live for something higher than muh libido you dip
>>484702
No the engine of life are the laws of nature themselves. I guess everything we do is about them then
Dear God, when did this board become a bunch of limp-wristed marxist feminists? These answers look like something straight out of tumblr.
Women and men think very differently. There is a reason why men have essentially always been on top, in every single society. We are the head of the family, we are naturally stronger and more capable of logical thinking. Women are naturally better at kindness, they even have an entire different emotion that no man can ever have, mother love. Women take care of the youth, nurture the children, while men lead the family by working and organizing it. Women's brains are different from men's brains. Women's bodies are different from men's bodies. We are different, so of course, we excel in different areas. Men are better at deep thinking then women, hence, more male authors. Women are better at taking care of the needy than men, hence, more women nurses and charity workers.
>>484712
I don't know how much I need to explain to you here, maybe you should read up on Darwinism.
Basically what life does is reproduce. The traits of living organisms are coded genetically and thus get passed on to offspring. The process of natural selection selects traits that most favour reproduction, since those are by definition the traits that will spread the most. This is the only trend in evolution, increasing success in reproduction. It's the basis for absolutely all traits that ever appear and survive in any living beings.
>>484720
The only law of nature is natural selection.
>>484747
Now prove how this relates to human behavior in any way, and also for kicks, how it relates to monks being celibate their entire life.
I'll wait.
>>484747
Yeah thanks for the summary on evolution dude, I didn't think there were still bozos who think explaining the mechanism of evolution constitutes an argument but here we are
Seriously what the fuck does evolution have to do with the purpose of life? Why should I limit myself to a biological purpose I share with insects? How much of a nihilist fedora drone do you have to be discount the entire human experience in favor of the bits of biological code that gave these minds and bodies in the first place? Get outta here with this twaddle
>>484756
>evolution is acausal
Tips fedora
>>484760
I don't even need to. I have established that reproduction is the one goal that shapes all of life. The burden of proof is on you if you think there is some other natural goal, and to explain through which process it would affect life.
>>484770
That's the point, you have just explained the natural processes of evolution, you have no explained how this relates to human behavior, hence you are committing an is-ought fallacy.
>>484770
So is eating food, sleeping, and expelling waste.
Are you really trying to argue the only thing that exists and is worth living for is our biological programming? Because you watched le black science man explain evolution once and you've seen the light?
>>484764
Nobody in the world gives a shit what you do. I just explained the single origin of all characteristics of all living organisms. You're free to make up any fictitious goals for yourself that you like in order to deal with your existential angst.
>>484784
>evolution is nihilism
What a fucking mental midget you are
>>484773
>is-ought fallacy
Please stop with the reddit shit, you obviously don't know what that means.
Human behaviour, like all possible traits of all living organisms, relate to reproduction since that is the only natural goal there is. Human behaviour is a product of genetics and culture, but culture too is in fine always a product of genetics. Though usually the path is even more direct since social structures are built on their most fundamental level around the organisation of reproduction.
>>484779
None of those are goals, they're functions that enable us to reach the goal which is reproduction.
> worth living for
Again, nobody gives a shit. I'm talking about reality, not whatever motivational philosophy you decide to subscribe to.
>>484789
What are you some first year philosophy major? Nobody gives a shit about your circle-jerking nonsense.
>>484803
>Human behaviour, like all possible traits of all living organisms, relate to reproduction since that is the only natural goal there is.
Prove it Mr. Social Darwinism.
>>484813
Again, it's up to you to prove that there is some other natural goal or engine that could affect the course of life.
For a board full of mindless materialists you're having an oddly hard time understanding causality.
>>484808
>Nobody gives a shit about your circle-jerking nonsense.
Right back at ya buddy
What makes you think your opinion matters more than his?
>>484823
>Again, it's up to you to prove that there is some other natural goal or engine that could affect the course of life.
No it's not. Because you haven't proven anything, you've just made a claim.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
>>484803
Whoa whoa time out dude, I take a shit so I can get laid in the future? No action is done for its own sake but is just really covert biological programming?
Lol like I'm gonna listen to that heh motivational philosophy heh shit from a clown who takes his metaphysics (or lack thereof) from a fucking description of a natural process. Tell me, where do you get nihilism out of evolution you tard? Why do my genes get ontological primacy, what, because they make me up? What makes them up? Atoms and molecules, why not just go all the way and say all people secretly want is the right amount of electrons in their orbitals?
Fucking idiot, you're missing the forest for the trees. Of course life evolves and is determined by its genetic code, but evolution also gives us consciousness and art and the human experience. I'm going to throw that away because it doesn't sound as cool and dark as muh selfish genes? These genes make up and express higher order processes, they are links in a chain that begin with atoms and end in consciousness, why the fuck would I stop at genes?
Literally arguing with a guy whose extrapolated a whole philosophical nihilism out of evolution, and we're the suckers lmao
>>484824
Because mine relates to the subject at hand? We're talking about the causes for an observable reality, not looking to define our personal philosophies of morality.
He's the one committing an is-ought fallacy actually. The subject here is what is, and he keeps talking about what ought to be.
>>484808
>guy who thinks science confirms nihilism is calling others first year philosophy majors
Please go back to school, I mean this sincerely
>>484831
I made a very quick demonstration. For more details I'll refer you to Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
>>484839
> I take a shit so I can get laid in the future?
Yes. You take a shit because you need to expel waste after eating. You eat to survive long enough to reproduce.
>all people secretly want is the right amount of electrons in their orbitals?
I don't think you understand natural selection at all.
>nihilism
>I'm going to throw that away
Why would you do that? Maybe you should continue that conversation with your strawman in private, he sounds almost as insufferable as you.
>>484845
You're the one who keeps talking about nihilism. If you want to talk about nihilism go make (yet another) thread about nihilism, this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
>>484854
You know evolution is an expression of lower-order physical processes right?
You know the atoms and molecules in your body are doing nothing more than "obeying" very simple laws that, collectively, contribute to making you up as a physical organism with a mental life?
Your argument is "genes do this, therefore everything is meaningless". It's a big leap. Why stop at genes? Why not just say we're just atoms looking to bond with other atoms, as automatically reductive and pointless a statement as that would be?
Please don't reply to this post until you get that spitballing descriptions of evolution at anyone who disagrees with you isn't an argument for anything except evolution, thanks
>>484854
>Maybe you should continue that conversation with your strawman in private, he sounds almost as insufferable as you.
I don't really agree with your argument, but this was actually brilliant
>>484874
>therefore everything is meaningless
You're the only one making this argument. I have no idea what you're on about.
>Why not just say we're just atoms looking to bond with other atoms
Reproduction happens through chemical processes sure. But that's not a goal. The reason reproduction becomes a natural goal is that traits are inherited and that, by what is almost a tautology, the traits that give the best chances of reproduction have the highest chances of spreading.
>>484888
>everything that doesn't explicitly propagate our genetic material is either a lie or trying to produce the conditions to do just that
Sounds like a kind of naturalistic nihilism to me. You keep posting about evolution calling it an argument. Great, we are biologically wired to do certain things. No one contests this. Some of just don't think that's all there is, given the fact evolution gave us the resources to question the process in the first place. You can keep taking a whole reductivist worldview on faith because natural selection is a thing or you can stop making evolution your god and join the rest of us at the big boy table
>>484915
Everything in life, including human behaviour, is an effect (including what you might want to call side-effect) of the quest for reproduction.
If you believe this is false yet can't name any other possible natural cause, you're saying you believe in effects arising without causes. That's fine except at that point you have abandoned causality which is the foundation of all reasoning, and you really shouldn't be participating in such a discussion in the first place.
>>484945
>Everything in life, including human behaviour, is an effect (including what you might want to call side-effect) of the quest for reproduction.
[citation needed]
>>484949
We agree that it is a natural cause, yes? Name another possible natural cause and we'll talk.
Until then Occam's razor indicates that it's the only one, especially since it's sufficient. Not to mention that Darwinian evolution is a complete system which doesn't leave room for additional causes.
>>483410
I would assume it's because women were pregnant 24/7 from ages 16 to 40, didn't have the physical strength to be trained as soldiers (and thus made it hard to become great generals), were denied access to what little education there was (making it hard to be a great scientist, poet, doctor etc.), and so forth. Hard to be an Alexander the Great when you're shitting out and breastfeeding babies every year or so.
>>484966
And dying. Don't forget the dying young part in human reproduction.
One of the reason's for humanity's success was dual gender roles. Men, who evolved brawn/size/objectivity, were natural hunters, fighters, leaders, and innovators. Women were more inclined towards nurturing and subjectivity and were primary child-rears, gatherers, farmers, etc.
This is postulated as one of the reasons why Homo Sapiens beat out the Neanderthals in Europe (who were more egalitarian as a species) and undoubtedly one of our strengths over the years.
It is only recently that the narrative has shifted first to "women deserve the opportunity to do what men do" and then further and more radically to "women should be doing all of the things men are doing in nearly the same capacity" (which it gets ridiculous in my mind).
The thing is, men and women are not inherently the same, at all, or else we would have naturally developed an egalitarian society and men wouldn't have to "empower" women up to positions they otherwise would not have managed.
>>484966
Women have had equal access to education for at least a century. This doesn't explain shit.
>>484640
That reminds me, weren't there studies done on this? The IQ distribution can be displayed as a bell curve. If you compare women to men, men have a larger share on both ends of the bell curve, while women are more often of average intelligence. That means that there are more male geniuses, but more mentally retarded and deficient men as well.
Could be an answer to the OP's question.
>>484945
>all thoughts and actions are casually connected to reproduction
is this real life
What are you even mumbling about
If you think I'm subliminally thinking about sex looking at a sunset because something something natural selection something something you're high as a motherfucker. Onus is on you, buddy. You'd have to casually connect every action potential to the last time I thought about sex, and even then there would conceivably be times when the sex part of my brain would be quiet. Good luck from there
If you're trying to say all action is just the product of a will to live force that only exists to propagate it's existence then drop the evolution jargon. I'd also point you to the many thousands of ascetics, monks, and saints who have identified this phenomenon in them and succeeded in mortifying it. If you can burn alive and not make a sound you're on another level
>>484975
There's also genetics at work. There are far more male outliers than female outliers- many more geniuses and many more louts. Women are tend to cluster more around the average.
I don't know why anyone in academia seem to avoid fundamental, biological differences like the plague, but I remember 'oh fuck is he actually talking about this' vibe from when we were discussing this question back in uni.
I feel like this whole bullshit dogma of equality, i.e. everyone is exactly equal in every single way other than outward appearance is fucking up academia pretty badly. If there's even a whiff of 'what if we're just *different*' people start getting edgy and nervous, like they're afraid someone will accuse them of sexism or racism and they'll lose their job.
>>483510
This is so dumb. Women like Queen Victoria were so influential there's an entire period of history that bears her name.
>>483410
>Does anyone else find it so strange that women
Only people who have been indoctrinated into egalitarianism would find the natural course of history (in which women are subordinate to men) strange. I find your belief that 99.9% of human history must be wrong because it does not conform to your false ideas about women being just as capable as men to be strange.
>>483626
I'm not allowed to be a feminist on 4chan eh?
>>483451
Solid as fuck post.
>>483410
The role of women is to bring children into the world. Period.
Why should women waste their time doing something men can do, and do better, when they're the only ones with a womb and should be using that to have children?
They weren't given wombs to be CEO's, or lawyers, or doctors, and there's a LOT of barren women in the west that realize that fact later in life, when it's too late.
>>484733
>Women are naturally better at kindness
that's not even true though
>>484971
Division of labor is a thing.
>>484979
Yes.
Men are just superior in basically every regard.
>>485176
>in basically every regard
When it comes to physical fights between people of somewhat equal skill, yeah. Too bad that to actually benefit from that one would have to be fighting regularly and if you find yourself in physical fights all the time, that's not a necessarily good sign in a modern society.
>>485079
The role of men is to bring children into the world. Period.
Why should men waste their time doing something women can do, and do better, when they're the only ones with a penis and should be using that to have children?
They weren't given penises to be CEO's, or lawyers, or doctors, and there's a LOT of barren men in the west that realize that fact later in life, when it's too late.
>>485202
There was a lot of fighting for the last 100,000 years or so
>>483707
Von Mises was closer to the mark with "Socialism".
>>485203
that doesn't work
>>483451
Best answer.
That reply shouldve ended the thread
>>485203
Men can accomplish their task in 9 seconds, not 9 months.
Failed, bitter analogy, based on an emotional response rather than logic, which is exactly what I would expect from a female, and clear evidence that supports my assertion.
>>483451
>Because women weren't pressured to pursue greatness. There weren't any expectations for women throughout history to achieve something big. All such pressures must come from within, and therefore any female that has attained greatness are all excellent, such as Noether and Mirzakhani.
All pressure comes from within for men too. Curiosity is the driving force of male intellect and is present in all who have exceptional Intelligence. Women aren't curious because they aren't intelligent. Women were not barred from intellectual fields; that's a myth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_scientists_before_the_21st_century
Women were allowed to participate, they just never achieved anything due to smaller brain mass and less efficient wiring.
Nice samefag, by the way. Very nice, indeed.
Also, Emmy Noether is Jewish. They lie about their scientific achievements all the time and attempt to make them more profound. I'm half Jewish myself (biologically, anyhow), but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't getting sick of this shit.
>>483464
>Until the development of modern Western civilizations, women have generally been viewed as child-bearers and housekeepers.
And that is still their evolutionary proclivity. You aren't going to go millions of years being selected for looks and nurturing ability, turn around, and achieve intellectual feats that are not in alignment with your nature. Men have always had selection pressures towards athletic and intellectual ability.
So in summary, men do all the doing. Anything that has to be done will be done by men. If you want something fixed, it will be a man, if you want a bodyguard, it will be a man, if you want a top-level mathematician, it will be a man.
>>483510
No they haven't. There were weebs in antiquity that made shieldmaidens and other myths lionizing women. There have always been men who have wanted to see strong independent women. (I think they are all faggots, personally, but that's another story.) The only problem is, when it came to actually being a strong or intelligent woman in real life, they fell flat every time—just like today. Get the fuck back into the kitchen.
>>485328
KEK, top KEK my m8, my sides m8 lel kek
>>483559
Bigger brain mass (even with height factored) and can easily overpower them intellectually, too ... but, we'll ignore that, because that doesn't align with your agenda.
>>485422
Truth and facts are the fastest way to wreck any feminist argument.
>>485046
I would strongly dissuade you from associating with feminism in any form, even taking the name. Helping women with actual problems (genital mutilation, ACTUAL rape)/doing shit is one thing, but femenists now, especially here in the U.S., are just insane and do nothing except whine about 'privilege' and other debunked inane shit like the wage gap and blame men for everything. I'm at the point now where I nearly immediately dismiss anything feminism related, as when I do pay attention there's almost nothing of substance. They've cried wolf so many times I just don't give a shit anymore
![[caffeine] Koufuku Graffiti - 07 [720p][92FA6D7F].mkv_snapshot_24.01_[2015.12.27_23.08.24].png](https://i.imgur.com/TH3bq18.png "[caffeine] Koufuku Graffiti - 07 [720p][92FA6D7F].mkv_snapshot_24.01_[2015.12.27_23.08.24].png")
>>485328
Thank you for revealing to us that you have no knowledge of Noether's contributions. She was widely respected by very well-known mathematicians such as Hilbert and Dedekind.
Von Neumann is also Jewish, are you going to deprecate his achivements as well?
>>485726
>I would strongly dissuade you from associating with feminism in any form, even taking the name.
Having this kind of attitude will get you the exact opposite of what you hope to achieve.
>>483451
/thread
First post best post
This thread isn't very politically correct...
