hey /po/, so I just read "on women" by Arthur Schopenhauer from the 1700s.
So why do we let women vote again?
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html
This accurately explains almost all the women that I personally know. Their ideas are incredibly short sighted, it's almost as if they can't look at the past or look into the future what so ever.
>>56760159
If women are allowed to vote, you can easily manipulate them to vote for you so now you're getting the political bucks.
>>56760159
>>56760363
That's the problem. Jews.
Equality
>>56760159
Black males were able to vote before White women, funnily enough. But in the real truth it's because they are weak. They are biologically incapable of making tough decisions. This is why all woman should be gunned down in the streets like the degenerates they are. Praise Islam, religion of peace guise
>>56760800
>>56760930
>>56761639
>mfw I see women say -they- won the right to vote
>They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes.
Nice. White Knights BTFO in one sentence. This should be required reading.
Why are you taking the ideas of some miserable, pathetic 16th century NEET seriously?
>>56762851
Here's your (You).
>>56762851
tits or GTFO desu :^).
>>56762515
And this was also the late 1700s, this guy was so ridiculously right about everything now looking at modern society.
>>56762515
>but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes
>and lowers us in their own eyes
Schopenwhatever confirmed for knowing women.
After reading this I now understand a lot more. It explains their coldness, and frivolousness, and explains their lack of any prospects of loyalty or honor.
I once thought they were the same as man, now I realize we're pretty much a different species.
>hey /po/, so I just read "on women" by Arthur Schopenhauer from the 1700s.
Schopenhauer turned twelve in 1800. I really doubt he wrote it before that age.
>>56763914
You got me.
>>56762851
The guy was a wealthy, womanizing, 19th century philosopher.
>>56763597
They are who they are for good reasons, just like we are. It's only a problem if we expect them to be something else.
>>56764070
That's what I mean. It explains where we have come in society and where we are now.
>>56764070
>It's only a problem if we expect them to be something else.
That's not what's been happening?
