How prevalent are man hating lesbians? When did you realize that hating men is the only logical choice?
I'm more of a man mourning lesbian. I think the way patriarchy brainwashes men into being unfeeling zombies is tragic above all else. I have no patience for misogynistic discourse and ideals in my personal life, but I truly believe that a core tenet of feminist activism should be unfucking embittered, shitty men.
The way my dad cut me out of his life with such conviction is sad for everyone involved, but him the most. He's so angry at the world and he doesn't really have contact with any of his children anymore because my brothers rightfully sided with me in the breakup, it breaks my heart. But what am I gonna do at this point? He's like 70 years old and feels so entitled to the life he envisioned, not only for himself but for his children too, that he basically threw a tantrum and decided he'd rather never interact with me ever again than give a lesbian daughter a chance.
>>6465777
I was expecting dumb shitposting but I can totally see that. I guess I've just seen men as too belligerent and too unwilling to change to take that view. The mere mention of feminism seems to put men into "belittle women mode" and it's all downhill from there. Add on top how angry and intimidating men like to get when they feel threatened by an idea, and I lose hope that they can be helped at all. At least in theory though, I agree with you.
I honest to god hate women and idk why. They are so annoying and little pussies that are scared of everything.
>>6465808
I truly believe in my heart that people are good and smart at their core, and anyone can get it if they try. The thing I fear most in life is that I'm not strong enough to stand up to the abhorrence of patriarchy, that the things I do in life won't affect change and won't leave a mark. The world could be such a different place if we tried together, and patriarchy will never be dismantled without the consent of men as the dominant social class.
>>6465821
Well the rest of 4chan and the male dominated parts of the internet agree with you, so feel free to leave.
>>6465760
Friendly reminder: you're more likely to be beaten by a female partner than a male one.
>>6465777
It sounds to me like you have had bad personal experiences with men and it has caused you to paint them all with the same brush. Your male equivalent would be a man who thinks that all women are incapable of thinking logically and only capable of making decisions based off of pure emotion.
With testosterone in normal male ranges a person becomes much more in control of the external expression of their emotions, and can have the appearance of being without them, with only things such as anger coming out clearly. Internally I assure you they all do feel quite a range of emotions.
In regards to this part, I have a great explanation and it makes so much sense:
>He's like 70 years old and feels so entitled to the life he envisioned, not only for himself but for his children too
Baby boomer mentality. Most of them are like that. My bf's father is like that. They in general have a hard time imagining that their child is doing the right thing unless they're doing something along the lines of what they did at that age (which thanks to the shit world they've handed us, is impossible).
In contrast, my father, from a younger generation, isn't like that. He became a drunk from whom I cut all contact, but regardless, he certainly wasn't behaving like that, and even before the alcohol he was pretty open and accepting of whatever I wanted to do with life.
There is no reason to hate all men based off of your unfortunate experiences with some of them, just as there is no reason to hate women based off of a negative experience with some of them. My mom is a total cunt, and until she grew up my sister was too, but I don't hate women at all. Pretty much all the females in my life growing up were quite deplorable in their behaviors and actions. But I didn't let that taint my view on the whole.
>>6465777
>I'm more of a man mourning lesbian
>partiarchy
>brainwashes men into unfeeling zombies
>misogyny
>ideals
>shitty men
>The way my dad cut me out of his life with
Oh shit, right in the daddy issues.
>my brothers sided him
You are either baiting or you are a living meme.
>>6465831
Tell me more about this so-called "patriarchy"
I'm not seeing any evidence for its existence. I think you're confusing some common instinctual male behaviors for some sort of tinfoil-tier plot against you.
Reminder that in first world western countries, women are very clearly the most privileged group of people. Privilege is invisible to those who have it. You need to do some reflexive thinking.
>>6465760
After they realized gay boys are superior to them in every way
>>6465760
After spending prolonged periods on both the L chat and r9k, the core personality critiques of men sound exactly the same to me as the critiques and such put against women, and thus aren't really worth my time.
>>6465873
>common instinctual male behaviors for some sort of tinfoil-tier plot against you.
So you admit that being a shitty person is male instinct? Looks like you are the real misandrist here.
And no one claimed it was a shadowy plot. Most systems of control evolve naturally and aren't thought up by cabals in back rooms. They are self reinforcing, decentralized patterns of thought and behavior that benefit a certain group. It creates a system that is hard to imagine an alternative to.
>>6465859
You can't just "flip the genders" and produce a cogent argument.
The world is not mirrors.
>>6465912
>unironically supporting murderous reactionary dictators because your feefees are a bit hurt
Masculinity really is fragile.
>>6465925
If that were true you would have been able to produce a decent counterargument rather than simply naysaying. There is nothing wrong with my metaphor of letting a smaller group of people than the whole influence your opinion on that whole group of individuals.
>>6465934
Nothing wrong, except it's a glib oversimplification.
>>6465873
Any society which permits abortion on demand cannot be characterized as a "patriarchy". Women control reproduction and therefore control society. We can actually see the bulk of them becoming fully conscious of this power and it's being reflected in the predominating state of heterosexual men in this generation - scrawny, spineless, effeminate. Any male, regardless of sexual preference, ought to find this situation unacceptable.
>>6465859
One of the most basic mistakes people make in understanding feminism from the outside is failing to distinguish between the individual and larger societal forces and organizations. I know many men, as individuals, who are wonderful people, like both my brothers who have been amazing and supportive of me since I came out and I know I can always turn to when I need help. But at the same time, I know there are places in their minds that have been poisoned by patriarchy. They're both older than me and were immensely cruel towards me when I was younger, and bludgeoned gender norms and expectations into my head when I was too young to even understand *why* I couldn't play their video games, or go to their sleepovers, or whatever.
>>6465873
This is the second mistake people make. There is no shadowy cabal of Patriarchs who control gender and cackle evilly while doing it. But men are, just statistically speaking, disproportionately likely to be in positions of power, authority, and influence. Men, statistically speaking, make more money than women. Men, as individuals, may not write the rules, because the rules are written into the ways we talk about and think about and act out gender. Like, why do you think that there are only 20 women in the U.S. Senate, which is an all-time high, by the way? You can talk about male instinct all you want but don't tell me there aren't 50 women in the entire U.S. who are both competent and ambitious enough to be Senators, because that's just an outright lie, and plenty of women run for Senate seats and fail to get elected over men. These things are a pattern, and instead of just saying, "oh, well that's just the way it is," feminist theory seeks to understand why and see the world as how it could be and not how it is. I don't think my dad is just a shitty person in his soul and in a vacuum, I think he learned the things he knows to be true about gender from somewhere, that somewhere being diffusive throughout all of society.
>>6465946
Yep, we should just go back to the good old days, where men could force women to be birthing stock and dependent on men, right?
Don't bring lesbians into your this. Decent people don't hate half of humanity just because of their genitals. You should reword your OP to "How prevalent are bitches?" instead.
>>6465905
Nah, you're misunderstanding things. Allow me to clarify.
From this post: >>6465831
>The world could be such a different place if we tried together, and patriarchy will never be dismantled without the consent of men as the dominant social class.
Men are not the dominant social class. Neither sex is dominant. Both have equal rights and opportunities afforded to them in first world western countries. Men only have the power over you that you give them. Same for women. Same for anyone.
What men lack is any sort of social support. They must make their own way and if they don't, then they are shit out of luck. Ever been to a scholarship awarding ceremony? Notice any men's scholarships there (no you didn't)? Notice how many women-specific scholarships there were? A lot. Even 15 years ago. A lot. This is one of many examples illustrating the fact that men don't have some magical lead over women, and in fact women have privilege that they don't even think about. I got a full-ride scholarship based off of my ability alone, as did any male or female in my region who performed about as well as I did or better.
You are confusing men's drive and emotional control for something it is not. Some men can be dicks, some women can be cunts, people in general are shit, particularly in urban areas. Men who are dicks are often going to be dicks in their masculine way. Women who are cunts are often going to be cunts in their feminine way. If you had any belief in equality you'd write off the dicks and the cunts for what they are - assholes.
There is no system of control. There is only equality. If you were capable of objectively viewing the world that is all you could see.
Patriarchy died last century. Women were granted full equal rights. Your vote carries as much weight as anyone else. The population is a 50/50 split between genders. Numerically men have no advantage. Laws make sure that women are afforded equal opportunity. There is no patriarchy. This isn't 1890.
>>6465808
>Add on top how angry and intimidating men like to get when they feel threatened by an idea
Is this literally a meme or what? I have a penis, but I've never felt like a male, and this concept seems so fucking foreign to me.
>>6465834
Of course man-hating lesbians are less likely to be beaten by a male partner, since it's very unlikely that a man-hating lesbian would have a male partner in the first place.
>>6465872
They're totally correct though.
>>6465873
If you're going to toss out the "le privilege is le invisible to those who have it" maymay, maybe you should consider the possibility that YOU are the privileged one but fail to realize it? After all, that sort of thing works both ways.
>>6465939
You should make it your goal in discussion to elaborate on your points and explain why you think they are correct. To simply state something you believe without providing any argument to support it isn't going to convince anybody.
Saying nothing but "it's a glib oversimplification" is on the same tier as the unbacked naysaying from earlier. So I must ask: why is it an oversimplification.
Additional note: if you're going to be a pseudointellectual, instead of just putting in seldom-used words you should also be writing paragraphs. It would be more convincing and through engaging in true discussion you will do nothing but sharpen your mind.
>>6465946
How does abortion make men effeminate? That's way more of a nonsensical conspiracy theory than the belief in a patriarchy. I mean, even without abortion, women would still control reproduction by choosing who to have sex with. So apparently, you think the male gender would only consider a society acceptable if they had the freedom to rape at will. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, who's the real misandrist here?
>>6465962
Yes, please.
>>6465998
If men and women have equal rights in all venues, then why am I not granted autonomy over my reproductive system? Even though Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in all 50 states, there is still a massive legislative and activist effort to restrict abortion access and ultimately move to outlaw it. Why is that?
>>6466006
Yes, cis men tend to yell, posture themselves agressively, make agressive gestures, threaten violence, etc. when an idea threatens them. This is pretty standard male stuff. If you are a trans woman, that's probably why you don't get it. It's one way that men maintain control.
women have smaller amygdalas-- center of the brain regulating emotion--than men do.
that alone.
is everything.
>>6466016
>castrated faggots who can't go in public without getting shit on and ridiculed are privileged
You've got a great point but I'm afraid that I do indeed have no privilege in regards to my gender. Men don't take me seriously, women treat me like a child. I could go on and on. I've got reason to hate both groups, but I don't.
On top of this I don't get the cop-out that females get. Instead I get male expectations placed upon me - and the real bitch about that is that people automatically write me off as unable to fulfill those. So I get all the negatives of a normal male that can't fulfill those expectations, except those males at least get a chance to fulfill them. I am assumed to be shit and must every time prove many times I am not before I begin to get respect.
>>6466032
Men like you is why feminism is still incredibly necessary.
>>6465760
>>6465777
>>6466070
>>The grand patriarchy conspiracy is why I'm not a winner
Kind of funny you say this, when your own argument is basically "The grand feminism conspiracy is why I'm not a winner".
>>6466031
A culture which promoted early marriage and obedience to the husband would not see many women withholding sex for the sake of it. As before, it would be regarded as a duty.
>>6466043
if men and women have equal rights then why does the father have zero control on whether or not he has to be the baby's father?
why does a man have to pay for another person's very EXPENSIVE and lasting choice that he doesn't agree with AT ALL.
at least women get to have a choice no matter how small or hard to acquire it is (Abortion. Adoption.)
Men, if we get a chick baby positive, have to live with her choice for the rest of our lives if she decides to do what her hormones tell her to do, even when flying in the face of rational logic, and choose to keep the baby.
>>6466043
That is a rather complex issue, and ultimately it boils down to this moral issue:
Is the baby inside someone considered a separate human? If so, at which point? It is undeniable that getting an abortion is the same thing as preventing a fellow human - another individual life - from being born. To get an abortion is to say "no, I deny you life" to the unborn child.
Some believe that while that baby is fully dependent on its mothers body to develop and exist, that mother should have the choice to deny that individual life. Others believe that to deny that baby life, once it has been conceived (or various other degrees of development, depending on who is arguing against abortion and to which extent) is the same as murdering someone. Both the for-side and the against-side have valid points, and I won't be giving my opinion on the matter. I can't reproduce anyway, I may as well remain neutral on the issue as it has no bearing in my personal life.
Ultimately the whole abortion issue boils down to this:
Do humans have rights before they are born?
It's not a patriarchy thing. It's not a gender issue. It's not about denying women rights. It's about denying unborn babies rights (or granting them rights). If you look at anti-abortion and pro-abortion groups, you will find plenty of people of both genders, because this is primarily a moral and ethical issue.
>>6465953
Men hold more positions of power and earn more money because they work longer hours on average, and make different career decisions. Why aren't you complaining about the equity of male vs female teachers or nurses?
>>6466090
And if sex is regarded as a duty, there would be no freedom. Do you think it's acceptable for men to be drafted into the military against their will, perhaps even forced to make literal suicide attacks, simply because it's their "duty"?
>>6466101
> if we get a chick baby positive
You always have the choice to not make that happen. Just abstain from sex, that's totally possible and legal. 100% effective.
Equality of opportunity, amirite...
>>6466125
The woman has that choice as well, though. So by giving the woman the choice to abstain from sex AS WELL AS get an abortion, she ultimately has more options than the man. Of course, there isn't really any way around it, since the woman is the one that actually bears children.
>>6466043
You should come to Canada. The U.S. has a strong reputation for its outdated style of thinking. On a side note, I'm sure there are a lot of women who think abortion is evil; I'm pretty sure its a religious problem, not a male problem.
I agree with >>6465998 for the most part but there is a downward trend in the participation rate of males in society. If you take a look at some statistics, you will see that females are going to university more, studying harder, and getting higher grades. They are over achieving their male counterparts. Males more often than not these days are staying at home to play video games, not giving a shit about the future and just in general being idiots. Your wish of women achieving the dominant social class as how you have it framed in your mind will come.
>>6465760
I don't hate men, I hate abrasive, loud, batshit dykes.
I just want to date cute girls.
>>6466125
I think the point he's trying to make is that women have every option men have, and then some of their own. It's like if there was a Venn Diagram of choices, the men-only circle would be empty.
>>6466107
One other point:
Prior to modern medicine, women had no choice but to let nature take its course. It was not post-conception that the choice to have a baby was made, and I think that it's a perfectly valid point that, just as it was back then, it is today: don't fuck if you don't want to have a kid. Without modern technology and modern medicine that is precisely where the choice would be made, barring rape.
Both women and men have the right to not have sex if they don't want to - both have equal control over their reproductive systems. If no sex happens, no baby happens. It is only with modern technology that people are beginning to forget that ultimately, by nature, the choice to have a child occurs when a male and a female decide to get it on.
>>6466141
Another side note:
For men things are as they always have been. Men only have control over their reproduction until they have sex. For men there is only the choice to have sex or not, just as it was for all time. Women now get two chances to decide whether they want a baby or not.
>>6465953
>and bludgeoned gender norms and expectations into my head when I was too young to even understand *why* I couldn't play their video games, or go to their sleepovers, or whatever.
Umm, you know this happens to boys who want to play with girls too, right?
Since this thread has been thoroughly derailed into a discussion of reproductive rights, here's some more bait:
- Mother wants an abortion, but father want to keep the child. What do?
- Father was rape victim, wants nothing to do with child. What do?
>>6466147
>Did you not know about the epidemic of lesbian domestic abuse? They out-perform even straight men at beating their girlfriends.
The point is that a lesbian has a close to 0% chance of being beaten by a male partner. So saying that they're more likely to be beaten by a female partner than a male one isn't really meaningful. It's like saying people born in the 1830s were much more likely to die in a shipwreck than a plane crash.
>>6466159
I'm not sure what the point is that you are trying to make but the point that anon is trying to make is that its not that men are in general shitty, people are in general shitty.
>>6466085
You're on the wrong side of history. Children then Women got their liberation movements in the West and now it's the turn of men feminism acts to shame and restrict that development in order to secure it's power over public life. There's an unchampionned range of evidence that confirms the sedentary and plastic strewn prison of daily life is harming men's health as much as kitchen drudgery and restricted reproductive rights hurt women a century ago. Sperm counts are falling, so are testorone levels and education is rigging men for failure, the obvious result of which is the mass suicide epidemic and the societal whinging about manchildren that follows in its wake.
>>6466154
>- Mother wants an abortion, but father want to keep the child. What do?
There's really no ethical way to resolve this through the legal system, they'd basically have to decide for themselves. Obviously, if the woman doesn't want the child she shouldn't be responsible for it after it is born, and possibly the man should compensate her financially for bearing the child.
>- Father was rape victim, wants nothing to do with child. What do?
In that case he obviously shouldn't be expected to pay child support. He didn't consent to sex in the first place, so why should he be held responsible for the consequences of that sex?
>>6466159
>It's like saying people born in the 1830s were much more likely to die in a shipwreck than a plane crash.
Doesn't hat hold true in modern times too though?
>>6466137
But as pointed by >>6466130, both sexes do not have the same burden w/r/t pregnancy. There's no reason to afford the same options.
>>6466141
>>6466148
Prior to modern legal systems, and genetic testing, there was the possiblity to run away with little consequences (especially if you had no capital to lose), or just to not recognize the child. That's not true to say "Men only [had] control over their reproduction until they have sex." in these time.
>>6466174
I'm not sure, kind of doubt it though. Very few people travel by ship any more; most watercraft-related fatalities seem to involve falling off a boat, which doesn't really qualify as a "shipwreck".
>/pol/ antifeminism brigade ruined the thread
More proof that men have to make everything about them
>>6466177
>recognize
Should read 'accept paternity'.
>>6466185
> Posts bait
> Fight happens
> Pretends its men's fault when a woman started the fight
10/10 Top-tier trolling
>>6466125
I love how your argument has been
>"WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO STAY OUT OF THEIR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES AND NOT BE FORCED TO CARE FOR AN UNWANTED BABY"
but when a man says he deserves the right for other people to not make permanent expensive, life-altering reproductive choices for him you're all
>"HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN HAVING SEX ANYWAYS.HAVING SEX MAKES HIM GUILTY AND THEREFORE HE MUST HAVE THAT UNWANTED BABY"
Women are such hypocrites lol
>>6466185
If you saw a women hating thread, would you not be enticed to go in and see what they are talking about? To be honest, this was a lot more civil than I expected.
>>6466191
>everything I disagree with is bait
I think feminism is pretty cool but hating a biological class of humans isn't.
>>6466198
>woman hating thread
There are honestly far too many on this trashcan fire of a site to look at even a small minority of them.
>>6465953
>But at the same time, I know there are places in their minds that have been poisoned by patriarchy
How? You have not explained how or why or in which ways.
>They're both older than me and were immensely cruel towards me when I was younger
Such is life when you have an older sibling. My sister was the same way. Now that we're grown up she is extremely nice to me and I to her, but we had sibling rivalry as kids.
>and bludgeoned gender norms and expectations into my head when I was too young to even understand *why* I couldn't play their video games, or go to their sleepovers, or whatever.
Again, this isn't gender issues, this is sibling issues. They didn't want you playing -their- games, they didn't want you going to -their- sleepovers because you are their younger sibling and they don't want to include you because that would be lame and make them look lame to their friends - and let's be honest here, younger siblings can be quite annoying from the perspective of older siblings. Of course they would want to not include you. It doesn't mean they're doing it because you're a girl.
Here's something that was misconstrued to be sexist, when it really had nothing to do with that. In middle school I was a bit of an asshole. In one gym class we were playing volleyball, and this girl was making our team lose hard, and me being an immature 13 year old, I gave her shit for being weak and afraid of the ball and making us lose. If it were a boy and not a girl doing the same thing, I'd have acted in precisely the same way. Yet because it was a girl I was given a speech about not being sexist, even though her gender had literally zero bearing on things.
The most satisfying part of that? Watching that girl become the most obnoxious and blind-to-reality feminist I've ever seen. She embodies the first mistake many feminists make: assuming things are about their gender, when that actually has nothing to do with it. (cont)
>>6466200
> Makes thread specifically stating that you hate a group of people
> Acts as if that is somehow justifiable
The entire concept is cartoonish. Either it's bait, or you're living through a wretched joke of a life where the closest thing you'll get to a punchline is a sad and lonely death.
>>6466207
My God a reasonable position someone call the internet police
>>6466209
(cont)
So please do consider this: perhaps the shit you've gotten is not because of your gender, but because of your actions.
>>6466212
>or you're living through a wretched joke of a life where the closest thing you'll get to a punchline is a sad and lonely death
Except I'm happier without men in my life, so it's basically the opposite. It's not like I'm agressive about it irl, you wouldn't really know unless you are close to me.
The fact that men assume your life is a wretched and miserable joke without them is a pretty good example of why men are awful. They think they are so special that life without them is suffering.
>>6466204
>shit argument about a time that we no longer live in
so in modern times, where women NOW have a choice to cancel mother mode in many places.
Men must bare the consequences of someone else's reproductive choice that directly impacts them and their future for the next 18 years of his life. ALL because he had sex in an era that has MULTIPLE contraceptives for women but still only one balloon cock-glove for a man?
the question ISN'T about the baby being born or not
it's about the man bearing any responsibility for someone else's reproductive decision.
Men can't abort, and men can't perform childbirth either. That doesn't mean we should pay for unwanted babies in 2016 if we dont want to have them. Just like a woman shouldn't be forced to carry full term if she doesn't want to.
>>6466234
>Life without men
I never said anything about life without men. I just think it's really sad that you're letting your hatred define your life like that. The fact that this instance specifically involves men is irrelevant. See >>6466209
If you're going to respond to what I say, respond to what I say, not some made up read-between-the-lines strawman.
>>6466177
>Prior to modern legal systems, and genetic testing, there was the possiblity to run away with little consequences
That is tangential to the specific discussion. Regardless of the "running away with no consequences" possible in the past, men and women both only had the choice to fuck or not fuck, again, barring rape. If both consented to sex, then both effectively consented to reproduction. It is still the same way, it's just that now it is women who can "run away" (abortion, adoption) rather than men.
This is tangential to the specific discussion because it was not about how things were back when women actually -were- oppressed, but rather about the specific fact that there was no choosing to have a baby or not, after sex happened.
Also while we are going on tangents, don't forget that after birth, a woman could just abandon her baby in the woods with no consequence, with no modern forensics to determine whose baby it was.
>>6466012
Joke of the year.
We live in an age where having sex doesn't need to mean "We commit to baby creation" anymore.
>>6466242
>we dont want to have them
Then don't have sex. Or have homosex©.
It's a fundamentally asymetric situation, why would you be afforded equal right if, as you pointed out, you are not in the same situation.
>>6466159
The point was not about being beaten by men only, it was about beating the female partner. And lesbians beat their female partner more often than straight men do their female partner. I mean... you implied there was statistical data about lesbians with boyfriends...? What?
>>6466278
>you implied there was statistical data about lesbians with boyfriends...?
I'm implying there ISN'T, because lesbians don't have boyfriends, and so cannot be beaten by them.
>>6466285
It is not tangential, because it relates specifically to the ethics of abortion and the reasoning behind anti-abortion arguments.
It is a problem but not in the way you are thinking. It is a problem primarily for the unborn child who had no choice in being created and had its existence robbed from it by being aborted, because a woman regretted having sex and creating this separate human being.
i just don't want men to exist
>>6466300
Sounds like they should find themselves a boyfriend if they want to get beaten less though.
>>6466300
That is what I'm saying, the statistics were NOT about that, you misunderstood the previous post of the other anons. Read my post again or read from the start. As I said, it's about beating the female partner. And lesbians do it more.
>>6466319
But lesbians don't really gain anything from having boyfriends. So really they'd be better off not having a partner at all - then they'd have a 0% chance of being beaten by their partner.
>>6466318
I just don't want city dwellers to exist.
If you live in a population center that has above 7,000 people or so, you need to be exterminated for the benefit of all mankind. My ideal world would have a max of 200 million people.
>>6466329
Quick correction:
If you live in a population center that has a population greater than 7,000 or so, and you actually enjoy it and want to be there, then you need to be exterminated for the benefit of all mankind.
>>6466329
just kill all men instead
>>6466337
Why? The world would still be utter shit and overpopulated by about 3.5 billion people.
>>6466337
Men and women are both 100% shit.
The best solution: all humans have their reproductive organs removed at birth, and machines take care of reproduction for us. Then we would all realize that it's not men or women who are shit, but people.
>>6465777
>daddy issues
Kek, of course
Your post is dripping with as much pain and entitlement as you accuse him of
>>6466324
How about women just stop existing? That would solve everybody's problems.
>>6466318
Same desu
>>6466342
itll go down
we use sperm banks to reproduce at a rate of about 1 in 300
>>6466355
No, it wouldn't. The human race would die off in a matter of decades, and the vast majority of survivors would have no suitable romantic partners.
>>6465833
Why should he leave?
This isn't one of your protected forums
>>6466363
Banked sperm goes bad. Can't keep humanity going without both sexes. On top of this, without men you'd be unable to invent the technology to produce artificial sperm.
>>6466314
>unborn child
It is not a person, but the potential of a person It is consequently not afforded the same rights.
>>6466380
transbians
>>6466380
>On top of this, without men you'd be unable to invent the technology to produce artificial sperm.
Why? Does artificial sperm creation depend on real sperm to "jumpstart" the process?
>>6466366
No one said it was a *good* solution
>>6465925
So then you're saying the genders are not equal
>>6465928
>murderous reactionary
He was a national hero who prevented bloodshed at the hand of leftist dogs and kept chile the heel of south america
>>6466387
Since we don't have artificial sperm down yet, yes. It's very difficult to recreate something like that from scratch.
>>6466380
nor would there be enough qualified technicians and blue collar workers to keep the utilities functions to allow sperm banks from failing.
>>6466385
>thinking that the lesbians who are of the "kill all men" variety believe that transbians aren't men.
Duder, transbians would be the first to go
>>6466385
How would new transbian be "generated" once they die, though ?
>>6466366
>human race would die off in a matter of decades
It's only a matter of time before we have artificial wombs.
>the vast majority of survivors would have no suitable romantic partners
I think a great number of heterosexual men would be much more open to homosexual experimentation when it's the only option for them.
>>6465928
>masculinity is fragile
>womyn need thousands of workshops, blogs, and self affirming posts in their exchange chambers to reinforce their femininity
kek, it's like a toddler throwing a tantrum
>>6466415
brain scans at birth desu
>>6466395
"Free economy" does not neccessarily equate to personal freedom - it means the poor are lacking in de facto freedom. Quality of life indexes (depending on how they're calculated), and GDP per capita can be meaningless with regards to how the average citizen lives - an average tells you nothing about how well off the average citizen is, it's possible to have a small, extremely rich upper class and everyone else be very poor. And "below poverty line" is likewise meaningless without specifying how the poverty line is defined.
>>6466416
>It's only a matter of time before we have artificial wombs.
We have yet to actually develop that technology to a usable level. It would take even longer to produce them in sufficient numbers to prevent a drastically falling population before we all end up dying off.
>>6466433
>Free economy" does not neccessarily equate to personal freedom
Who do you think you're talking to? You don't have to constantly define common phrases like that.
Anyway then, demonstrate to me how quality of life for any class and the personal freedoms in Venezuela is superior to Chile.
Keep in mind that despite the vice grip that the leftist government had on the media, the majority of the population voted them out of power recently.
Also bonus round, name another OPEC exporter that fails to feed its own citizens.
>>6466428
Wasteful cause you have to trash a whole lot of baby before you find one. Brain surgery to trannify all male at birth.
>>6466387
No, men are the only sex with enough natural intelligence and drive to invent such advanced technology. Men built the world. Without men it'd all crumble eventually.
Having been castrated I can tell you, you wouldn't even need to get rid of men for the world to crumble. Just castrate them all and give them no testosterone. The world would eventually degrade and crumble, because, surprise surprise, with no testosterone men lose much of their former drive and ambitiousness. This drive and ambitiousness leads to innovation and improvement. This is partially why you see so many male inventors, entrepreneurs, and so many ambitious people who happen to also be male. Testosterone makes you more ambitious and daring. Sometimes that's not so good, as evidenced by men's shorter lifespans and the fact that cutting off your balls statistically increases that lifespan purely from the drop in risk-taking behavior. But this risk-taking and ambition is what drives human technological progress. The world without men, the world without just testosterone, would eventually degrade and crumble. At best, progress would slow by quite a lot.
I have lost much ambition and ability purely from not being full of testosterone. I'm not as ambitious or passionate about what used to be the interests most important to my life. Many other eunuchs will report the same thing. Adding estrogen doesn't bring that back, only adding testosterone does.
Ambition drives progress and improvement. Decrease the net ambition of the human race, and you decrease its net progress and improvement.
>>6466476
wait i got it
estrogen put into the womb somehow so all male babies are born trans
>>6466385
"Transbians" who could produce sperm would be virtually indistinguishable from men.
>>6466395
So Venezuela is the only socialist country you know if? If you're really so confident in how good capitalism is, wouldn't you say it's better than ANY socialist country? Say, comparing it to some of the Scandinavian countries that have instituted socialist policies? Comparing a highly successful capitalist country to a highly unsuccessful socialist country is basically a strawman argument - you're choosing the best of one side and the worst of others. It's like comparing a 19-year old male bodybuilder to a physically disabled 5 year old girl to conclude that men are stronger than women. Sure, your conclusion may be accurate, but it's basically arrived at through faulty reasoning (and so doesn't PROVE anything).
>>6466477
>Men built the world. Without men it'd all crumble
that's because they had no other choice.
women have meaning in life, just existing. men have to make it for themselves because biologically they are almost worthless, it has nothing to do with ability
>>6466495
sperm bank as soon as they become fertile then start hormones
>>6466462
>Who do you think you're talking to? You don't have to constantly define common phrases like that.
The point is that free economy does not mean it's a good place to live.
>>6466477
Yes, without testosterone there's less drive to be ambitious/passionate, however most likely if all men were eliminated the invention of technology would still be driven by neccessity. You really don't NEED to be ambitious/passionate if you know it's what you have to do to survive.
>>6466509
Like I said, explain how Venezuela or any other socialist regime in South or Centeral America has a higher quality of life.
>>6466519
So socialist regimes outside of South/Central America "don't count?"
>>6466497
Thank you for agreeing with me that without men the world would crumble and the human race would go extinct. No men = no modern tech = no artificial sperm = no more humans.
If men were biologically worthless then the human race would already have gone extinct. Men don't do the things they do because they feel "unfulfilled" or "worthless", they do them because they have natural drive and ambition.
And if you take one look at Africa, you can see that men do indeed have plenty of other choices. They don't have to be inventors. They can exist more idly, much like women can and do naturally. It's just that as a result, the world around them turns to shit.
>>6466395
Venezuela is questionably socialist at best. Cuba would be a far better example, and they have a better quality of life than the vast majority of their regional neighbors.
>>6466505
But trannies are still men regardless of when they start hormones. They're just men who have modified their appearance to look more like a woman.
>>6466524
I would say no, because if you're looking at European nations, they had thousands of years of time to develop that South America did not. The realities of life on that continent are different than say places like East Germany where life would have been at least decent due to the existing infrastructure.
>>6466509
>oh man we really need these artifical sperm machines
>hmm guess someone else will have to take care of that, I really don't have the drive to learn all of this and do all of that.
Without the ambition it's quite easy even in the face of necessity, to put the fulfillment of that need off on other people.
Here's what it'd look like with ambition added:
>wow we really need ______
>I am going to be the one to provide it! I will be the inventor! I am going to be great! I must prove I am the best! I am the best!
>>6466528
But in the case of Cuba we go to the original argument where the poster called Pinochet a repressive dictator. How was the Castro regime any better?
>>6466525
Africa hasn't died out though. And it doesn't look like it's about to, either. And do you think their lack of development is just because Africans are inexplicably lazy, compared to everyone else? More likely it's due to their environment/surroundings/resources. I mean, northern Native Americans never made use of the wheel or built major cities, but that's not because of laziness or lack of ambition, but the resources around them encouraged a nomadic lifestyle - and without permanent settlements, there was no reason to build roads, and without roads wheeled transportation didn't provide much of an advantage.
And in the absence of men, if women really cared about survival of the human race, they would put their effort into developing artificial sperm.
In many modern countries, men are no longer as interested in reproducing. Did cosmic rays somehow scramble their DNA so they no longer have the drive to reproduce? That's obviously nonsensical. The real reason is that society no longer pushes them to reproduce, because high population growth is not beneficial in a society with advanced medicine and an industrial or post-industrial economy. It never really was about "natural drive and ambition", it was because SOCIETY encouraged reproduction because it benefits everyone.
>>6466541
>Without the ambition it's quite easy even in the face of necessity, to put the fulfillment of that need off on other people.
And eventually, someone would have to decide that if no one else will do it, they're the one that has to do it. You're making the mistake of assuming that there is no communication between people, that everyone is free to assume that someone else will do it. But that's not really how it works. If something needs to get done, people will get together and decide who should actually do it. If no one volunteers, someone will be appointed to do it.
>>6466538
To be fair, Marx did think bourgeois society was a prerequisite step to communism.
>>6466545
Castro mostly repressed capitalists and their allies, who are a predatory and violent group who seek to control society.
Under Pinochet, it was mostly workers, women, leftists, LGBT people, etc who suffered. The difference is hopefully clear.
>>6466546
>Africa hasn't died out though.
Remove all the men and it will, guaranteed.
It is through mass reproduction that life is sustained there. It is a successful strategy, for sure. Just one that leads to a lot of needless suffering.
That is the whole point of me bringing up Africa: I am presenting a situation in which, if you removed the men i.e. the sperm, human life would cease to exist. This applies to any group of humans but especially to that situation, where development is at a low enough level that the consequences would be quite fast-acting.
Asians seemed to handle the transition to modern society and technology just fine, and they too were colonized and persecuted by the West. Now we've got some of the greatest economies in the world in Asia, even though they were far behind the Westerners in technology at one point. They've adapted to the world as it is. Africans have yet to do that - not that I'm saying they need to.
Society never encouraged reproduction. Sex drive encourages reproduction. Being more forward-thinking, focusing on the future, having long term goals in mind, having low infant and child mortality rates - these are the things that lower birth rates. Society can only decrease the desire for reproduction. It cannot increase it. Nature dictates its maximum. On top of this, modern first world western countries have very accessible birth control, enabling people to trick their bodies into thinking they're doing lots of reproduction (or rather, trying to) when in fact they are doing none.
>>6466198
No, because they happen all the time. I see them and I don't post in them. Men are free to hate women but it seems the opposite is not true. The men get unbelievably buttblasted. So it's plain to see that men are indeed, oversensitive and whiny.
>>6466562
>And eventually, someone would have to decide that if no one else will do it, they're the one that has to do it.
Making that decision requires ambition. It is an ambitious thing to decide that since nobody else will do it, you will do it. It's an ambitious thing to form a group and have people making decisions. Making decisions for other people is ambitious. Someone has to take the initiative to make that communication happen and to develop it to the fullest extent.
>>6466588
>Women are free to hate men openly in real life but it seems the opposite is not true. The women get unbelievably buttblasted. So it's plain to see that women are indeed, oversensitive and whiny.
See what I did there? Funny thing is it actually makes more sense now that I fixed it.
>>6466337
then watch all of our infrastructure go to shit!
>>6466567
Right, that's why I said in the context of South America
>>6466571
>workers
Not true, their quality of life was considerably higher than their contemporaries in surrounding socialist states
>women
Provide evidence for this claim
>leftists
Good, they were colluding with Allende and preparing a bloody coupe. I support anyone who resists leftists, they have no right to seize the nation.
>LGBT people
Unfortunate if true, but they did not fare any better in the surrounding socialist states.
The Castro regime until recently was against homosexuality, and your crown prince himself Che was a homophobe.
>capitalists and allies
Freedom fighters and heroes who wish for Cuba to enter the 21st century as a social democracy (the best economic system in the real world)
>>6466586
Africa would be hard hit by a loss of reproductive capacity because they're a developing economy and need a high rate of reproduction. Developed countries would fare better.
>Society never encouraged reproduction. Sex drive encourages reproduction.
If that's true, why have reproduction rates fallen in developed countries?
>>6466596
Someone that's completely without ambition would not be able to function. Testosterone gives you MORE ambition, but it's not like women completely lack it. I seriously doubt people would just sit there and let the human race die out because they have less testosterone. On an intellectual level, they would realize what has to be done.
>>6466635
>Africa would be hard hit by a loss of reproductive capacity because they're a developing economy and need a high rate of reproduction. Developed countries would fare better.
Here you are repeating what I said in different words. I explicitly stated the level of development is why shit would go to the worst part so fast.
>If that's true, why have reproduction rates fallen in developed countries?
Did you even read my post? I explain exactly why they have fallen. You need better reading comprehension skills.
>Someone that's completely without ambition would not be able to function
Wrong. Someone without ambition would do only what is necessary for survival and nothing more. By and large women are okay with living a simple and comfortable life.
>I seriously doubt people would just sit there and let the human race die out because they have less testosterone. On an intellectual level, they would realize what has to be done.
You give people far more credit than they are due. People in general are a lot more stupid and lazy than you think. We're already arguing about the details of a scenario that will never, ever happen.
>>6466680
>Did you even read my post? I explain exactly why they have fallen. You need better reading comprehension skills.
Either industrial development causes a reduction of sex drive, or sex drive isn't what determines the rate of reproduction.
>Wrong. Someone without ambition would do only what is necessary for survival and nothing more. By and large women are okay with living a simple and comfortable life.
The desire to survive is a form of ambition. Many women want expensive clothes and jewelry, a sexy boyfriend/husband, etc - all those are a form of ambition.
>>6466604
Just proving my point here. Thread hasn't even been up that long and its got 140+ replies. The he-man woman-haters threads are running on repeat but don't see more than 40 responses. There it's just circle jerking doods because women are sensible and don't take the bait. Switcheroo and look how many men just become so upset. Thanking Allah I'm a lesbian.
>>6466495
>Born a boy
>Raised a girl
>Get hormones at puberty
>World is full of ciswomen and translesbians
>AGP heaven
