Women in America have far too much power

[Regressive Liberal]

Now I know that tagline seems ridiculous considering that feminists these days are likening men holding the door for them to literal rape, but that's the big facade. Women talk about how oppressed and subjugated they are while pretending that they don't also have a large amount of advantages over men.

In many states, the mother gets preferential treatment in divorce/custody trials. The dad could be a successful businessman with no criminal record and a nice house in a good school disctrict but the crack-addicting mother who lives in a ghetto and has convictions for prostitution and armed robbery would still get total custody as well as the father's car, assets, and a large chunk of his income as "child support" until the children turn 18. Why? Because the mother alleges that the father was cruel to the kids because he made them take the trash out one night. Women marry for wealth and status as it is, but the state governments are not helping by basically rewarding them for getting bored of their husbands.

Women don't have to work, they can just pop out a bunch of kids and get a divorce and they're set for life with welfare and child support. If they don't want to have children, they can just take their clothes off on the internet to make an easy six-figures. Men have to slave through 60-hour work-weeks and come home to some ungrateful leach who takes all their money, neglects the children, and cheats on them during the day.

And finally, the criminal justice system as a whole is far too lenient on women. Women serve far less (if any) time than men on the same charges. A woman can assault people and then get off scot-free by agreeing to "counseling." Women can injure themselves and/or cry rape, call the police, and get any man thrown in jail with no questions asked. Even if the man is proven innocent, his reputation (as well as career) are irreparably damaged while the woman gets talk-show gigs and book/movie deals. There's currently no penalty for self-injuring or falsely accusing rape and that's what enables these harpies to keep gaming the system when things don't go their way.

Things need to change badly in this country, but sitting around and giving into the regressive left's systematic emasculation and domination of men will not help anything. We need to get our legislators to push for equal criminal punishments for men and women and to make the custody and divorce process fair and unbiased. Maybe then, we start getting back to actual family life...

 

[Torrid]

stop - fucking - posting

 

[ehtheist]

Meh, one of the greatest disservices that feminism has done for women is, through patriarchy theory, denies the astounding power that women have had through history and continue to have. The domestic sphere is the core of our civilization and it's run by women. They educate our kids, shape their minds, establish their values, run our households... They literally weave the fabric underlying everything else - and feminism denies this power to create a false image of lack of real influence. You want to see a group that marginalizes the *incredible* historical power wielded by women, they accomplishments that are of fundamental importance to our civilization, well, that is what feminism looks like.

That being said, the OP seems like an angry dude. I look forward to seeing what his bait catches.

 

[Snackbar]

So TS Is a rich business man who lost it all when he knocked up a drug addicted prostitute, and now wishes he could be a cam girl?

 

[jrams]

You can find examples of almost any group of people having an advantage. Doesn't mean women have too much power because they get punished less.

 

[dittohead84]

How beta of you

 

[Fatchops]

I like how your last thread was deleted in about 5 minutes.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Men will win this battle by just ending marriage and having kids. Even the biggest sloots want marriage, kids and to be loved. They just get brainwashed by radical feminist propaganda.

Anyhow men should just stop getting married. Screw it. There is no need.

Bring on cloning and robots and let men be real men free of being traped by marriage. Fat wife, getting fat, screaming kids, divorce etc.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Meh, one of the greatest disservices that feminism has done for women is, through patriarchy theory, denies the astounding power that women have had through history and continue to have. The domestic sphere is the core of our civilization and it's run by women. They educate our kids, shape their minds, establish their values, run our households... They literally weave the fabric underlying everything else - and feminism denies this power to create a false image of lack of real influence. You want to see a group that marginalizes the *incredible* historical power wielded by women, they accomplishments that are of fundamental importance to our civilization, well, that is what feminism looks like.

That being said, the OP seems like an angry dude. I look forward to seeing what his bait catches.

I agree that fighting against patriarchy is unnatural. It is against nature and basically all major religions and what we know.

However, let's not pretend that being a woman (2nd class citizen) for most of human history was somehow better than being a man. In most cases being a man (even dying in battle) Gabe more freedom and power than women. Men OWNED women as objects. That is power, women were meant to obey men (3 Abrahamic religions also state this).

I mean I have said it before and will say it again. Being a woman beats being a really short guy, or a guy with a really small penis. Hands down I'd rather be an unattractive girl than come up short in two areas which define manhood. I'd also rather be a beautiful smart woman in the western world than a poor ugly, dumb man in the 3Rd world. But that is another story.

 

[ehtheist]

I agree that fighting against patriarchY is unnatural. It is against nature and basically all major religions and what we know.

However, let's not pretend that being a woman (2nd class citizen) for most of human history was somehow better than being a man.

I mean I have said it before as will say it again. Being a woman beats being a really short guy, or a guy with a really small penis. Hands down I'd rather be an unattractive girl than come up short in two areas which define manhood.

Oh, I'm not going to make that claim. In fact, I didn't - you jumped to it based on what I said. I simply made a statement concerning the fact that patriarchy theory denies the *tremendous* influence women have had historically - it essentially washes the very real power women have had out of history. This act, fundamental to the fabric of feminism itself, is ironically very non-feminist. Ironically, patriarchy theory as the basis for an ideology is an incredible agent of anti-empowerment for women because it takes the tremendous power women have historically wielded and completely devalues it.

Those "second class citizens" are not the passive agents of history that feminism would have you believe. The influence of women on history is hard to measure, but it is incredible, and feminism strips this away from women, creating the fable that women were passive agents being acted upon rather than a class of people wielding some of the most fundamental powers in human history.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Oh, I'm not going to make that claim. In fact, I didn't - you jumped to it based on what I said. I simply made a statement concerning the fact that patriarchy theory denies the *tremendous* influence women have had historically - it essentially washes the very real power women have had out of history. This act, fundamental to the fabric of feminism itself, is ironically very non-feminist.

Those "second class citizens" are not the passive agents of history that feminism would have you believe. The influence of women on history is hard to measure, but it is incredible, and feminism strips this away from women, creating the fable that women were passive agents being acted upon rather than a class of people wielding some of the most fundamental powers in human history.

I am not a 'feminist' by modern standards. But some of their arguments are rather compelling about how women have been mistreated and systematically enslaved in many societies. Religions amplified this. Women had it better in Rome or Greece compared to Modern Saudi Arabia in terms of freedom if you ask me.

I don't think women were entirely passive agents. The elite women next to men in power were not. However, let's be real they did not rule or shape the minds of the male rulers who often excluded women from their inner circles. In other words I don't believe that women were a class of people wielding tons of power. Outside of women's sexual power and power of sexual selection. They have largely been conquered and end up wheeler the ruling conquering male force makes it.

The number of times that an opposing enemy group conquered another then killed the men off and took their women is far too many to count. Womens best power has been via sexual programming and evolutionary defacto eugenics by their sex selection of which men they want to bang and which men end up with them. Of course this relationship also worked because the superior 'alpha males' ensured that the lemmings and trash of society did not rape or have access to the most beautiful and privileged or intelligent women. In any case I believe the influential power that women had was most great in the early years of our specieis. Back when orgies, and communal society existed. Back when women would regularly take lots of penis and then defacto group off with the more superior males.

In many ways Islam for example or making and turning women into property was better for men. As it ended a lot of the more effective competition based of physical and aesthetic sex selection. With the inception of property we got feudalism and women as property and religions. Now men of lesser looks can obtain higher stock women by other means.

 

[ehtheist]

I am not a 'feminist' by modern standards. But some of their arguments are rather compelling about how women have been mistreated and systematically enslaved in many societies. Religions amplified this. Women had it better in Rome or Greece compared to Modern Saudi Arabia in terms of freedom if you ask me.

I don't think women were entirely passive agents. The elite women next to men in power were not. However, let's be real they did not rule or shape the minds of the male rulers who often eluded women from their circles. In other words I don't believe that women were a class of people wielding tons of power. Outside of women's sexual power and power of sexual selection. They have largely been conquered and end up wheeler the ruling conquering male force makes it.

The number of times that an opposing enemy group conquered another than killed the men off and took their women is far too many to count. Womens best power has been via sexual programming and evolurinary defacto eugenics by their sex selection of which men they want to bang and which men end up with them. Of course this relationship also worked because the superior 'alpha males' ensured that the lemmings and trash of society did not rape or have access to the most beautiful and privileged or intelligent women. In any case I believe the influential power that women had was most great in the early years of our specieis. Back when orgies, and communal society existed. Back when women would regularly take lots of penis and then defacto group off with the more superior males.

In many ways Islam for example or making and turning women into property was better for men. As it ended a lot of the more effective competition based of physical and aesthetic sex selection. With the inception of property we got feudalism and women as property and religions. Now men of lesser looks can obtain higher stock women by other means.

A few tangents which I'm not really interested in addressing, but I think you're wildly undervaluing the value and power of education and the domestic sphere. Historically, women have had a far more active role in this and part of that is the rearing of children and, to a great degree, their early education - which allows for, simply put, influence over the formation of early values which go on to be the basis of society's moral fabric. The values of the mothers - of women - have been the formative influence on society's value fabric as a whole. If women believed it, if women taught it, the child carried it through their whole life. You make this the norm for a vast majority of children in a society and all of the sudden the weavers of the values of a society are the women - and what women believe becomes the value fabric of a society. This is deep level social engineering that almost completely saturates human civilization. Hard to quantify, but a veritable tectonic force of civil power - historically in the hands of women.

During the early periods when the brain is the most malleable, where the basis of an individual's, and down the line a civilization's, values are formed, women are the ones instilling those values. It's the values of women are those which are in the door, which are the framework, of values to come. Every value judgement in life that follows finds its origin in that framework. Simply put, historically mothers are the ones who have the greatest control over what a child grows up to value. This is the "good footwork" of society, of civilization - once it's humming along, everything else follows from it. Stripping this power from women is an incredibly un-feminist act, and ironically, it's at the core of modern feminism. Much like good footwork it never gets the credit for the knockout punch but it's where that punch comes from. I think you're skipping working on your footwork and saying "I want to know how to throw the punch that knocks fools out, man!" Modern feminism says "We want to be able to throw a knockout punch. Footwork was never important - work on your punches ladies."

 

[K1levelgrappler]

OP, what can we do to bring these awful cunts down a peg?

 

[sangreporsangre]

OP, what can we do to bring these awful cunts down a peg?

The answer is obvious.....vote Trump!!!

 

[Renard]

How many men abandon their children? Countless. Now think of the minuscule number of women who abandon their children. There's a reason custody courts tilt towards women. It's not discriminatory to accept there are differences between the sexes, the woman is almost always a safe bet. In your hypothetical, the businessman would have no problem getting 50/50 custody. All the healthy couples I know have 50/50 custody after they separated, sometimes mutually-agreed upon weekend custody if it fits their schedule better.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

A few tangents which I'm not really interested in addressing, but I think you're wildly undervaluing the value and power of education and the domestic sphere. Historically, women have had a far more active role in this and part of that is the rearing of children and, to a great degree, their early education - which allows for, simply put, influence over the formation of early values which go on to be the basis of society's moral fabric. The values of the mothers - of women - have been the formative influence on society's value fabric as a whole. If women believed it, if women taught it, the child carried it through their whole life. You make this the norm for a vast majority of children in a society and all of the sudden the weavers of the values of a society are the women - and what women believe becomes the value fabric of a society. This is deep level social engineering that almost completely saturates human civilization. Hard to quantify, but a veritable tectonic force of civil power - historically in the hands of women.

During the early periods when the brain is the most malleable, where the basis of an individual's, and down the line a civilization's, values are formed, women are the ones instilling those values. It's the values of women are those which are in the door, which are the framework, of values to come. Every value judgement in life that follows finds its origin in that framework. Simply put, historically mothers are the ones who have the greatest control over what a child grows up to value. This is the "good footwork" of society, of civilization - once it's humming along, everything else follows from it. Stripping this power from women is an incredibly un-feminist act, and ironically, it's at the core of modern feminism. Much like good footwork it never gets the credit for the knockout punch but it's where that punch comes from. I think you're skipping working on your footwork and saying "I want to know how to throw the punch that knocks fools out, man!" Modern feminism says "We want to be able to throw a knockout punch. Footwork was never important - work on your punches ladies."

1) Well we should get into those tangents because they are relevant and backed by science, and historical records and what reality actually is.

2) Yeah I don't believe that women in the past 2000 years were so deeply instrumental in the development of societies. Women having the role of the mother is VERY important, but most women don't and did not raise their sons to grow up and be warriors who conquer other lands, capture other women, and enslave them. And yet that is what happened. Do you think most women also were responsible for the creation of the major religions or the subjugation of women in societies? Is that something they want to reach their offspring? It was the men who had young boys taken from the homes and trained to be warriors, it was the men who warped and created religions, it was the men who divided society up, it was the men who DECIDED what curriculum was to be taught, and it was the men who kept the women "in check".

So what era and what period of history are you specifically talking about?

3) I think reason people take issue with this and want to inflate the power that women apparently had is because of either two reasons

A) They are a woman who rejects contemporary feminist eternal "victim-hood" ideology stuff for logical reasons. However, are unwilling to believe that women DID in fact hold way less power. Because for whatever reason the idea of women as powerless for a good portion of most recent history (at least) bothers them.

B) They are one of those MRA's, or guys who feel male power over women slipping away in the western world and it scares them. Understandably so, these guys tend to be quite educated and often right in a lot of their assessments of civilization/societies/ etc, and are often correct when they assert that women were not always "passive agents" and victims of history. That much I can agree with, however, I find that these type of guys often have a hard time admitting the inherent 2nd class status of women and how it was the men always ruling and still ruling.

Now, no doubt that being a woman in many cases beats being a man given certain circumstances.

However, when it comes to this topic I pull from both wings. I agree with some of what today's modern feminists have to say, and in particular I think the 2nd wave feminists were actually more legitimate with hitting the nail on the head on what the issues are compared to today's feminists. However, a lot of the MRA's type guys also make some valid points/arguments. I try and take it all in and apply it through an evolutionary lens.

 

[Metusalemi]

Hilldawg isnt even president yet.

 

[ehtheist]

1) Well we should get into those tangents because they are relevant and backed by science, and historical records and what reality actually is.

2) Yeah I don't believe that women in the past 2000 years were so deeply instrumental in the development of societies. Women having the role of the mother is VERY important, but most women don't and did not raise their sons to grow up and be warriors who conquer other lands, capture other women, and enslave them. And yet that is what happened. Do you think most women also were responsible for the creation of the major religions or the subjugation of women in societies? Is that something they want to reach their offspring? It was the men who had young boys taken from the homes and trained to be warriors, it was the men who warped and created religions, it was the men who divided society up, it was the men who DECIDED what curriculum was to be taught, and it was the men who kept the women "in check".

So what era and what period of history are you specifically talking about?

3) I think reason people take issue with this and want to inflate the power that women apparently had is because of either two reasons

A) They are a woman who rejects contemporary feminist eternal "victim-hood" ideology stuff for logical reasons. However, are unwilling to believe that women DID in fact hold way less power. Because for whatever reason the idea of women as powerless bothers for a good portion of most recent history (at least) bothers them.

B) They are one of those MRA's, or guys who feel male power over women slipping away in the western world and it scares them. Understandably so, these guys tend to be quite educated and often right in a lot of their assessments of civilization/societies/ etc, and are often correct when they assert that women were not always "passive agents" and victims of history. That much I can agree with, however, I find that these type of guys often have a hard time admitting the inherent 2nd class status of women and how it was the men always ruling and still ruling.

Now, no doubt that being a woman in many cases beats being a man given certain circumstances.

However, when it comes to this topic I pull from both wings. I agree with some of what today's modern feminists have to say, and in particular I think the 2nd wave feminists were actually more legitimate with hitting the nail on the head on what the issues are compared to today's feminists. However, a lot of the MRA's type guys also make some valid points/arguments. I try and take it all in and apply it through an evolutionary lens.

I'm going to largely lump 1 and 2 together because in one you show that you value science and in two you show that what you believe on this issue flies in the face of what scientists have established fairly conclusively.

"It is clear from anecdotal, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives that human beings basic personality, intellect, and formation of values or character are fundamentally formed by age seven. If you accept this evidence, then you understand that nurturing children during these formative years dictates their future success or failure. My own experience informs me that this is abundantly true and several hundred years of research has underscored that truth; thus, it is beyond me why an effective focus of
community resources on early childhood education still needs to be studied, least of all justified."

http://fwquestclub.com/welcome_files/papers/childhood_education.pdf

And, take your pick - you this information is all over the place, the product of god only knows how many peer reviewed studies. The first seven years - those which have, historically, been when the mother has the most influence results in the formation of a human's "basic personality, intellect... values... character."

You say "but most women don't and did not raise their sons to grow up and be warriors who conquer other lands, capture other women, and enslave them" and I say - really? Where do you think the iron root of their patriotism came from? Their belief in the strength of their religion? Their framework for the belief that it is OK to kill an infidel or a foreigner? Where does xenophobia vs inclusiveness as a way of looking at the world find its root? Where does the belief that one should follow authority or treat it familiarly and question it come from? These basic elements of the soldier, the conviction, the belief in their state, their army's cause, etc etc are all laid during those formative years. Whether a child grows to be a person who feels it's right to protest a war or fight in it finds its root in the mother's influence, at an early age. Fighting the conditioning of the mother during those formative years is a big undertaking because it is *so* important and so powerful.

On top of that you use the example of a conqueror, a soldier, but most people - men included - weren't soldiers. They were farmers, craftsmen, thinkers, religious figures... And whether they were cowards, honest, faithful, devout, rebellious and so on so forth - the influence of the mother, the creation of that "basic character," is so huge you're a fool to treat it as less than - as I said - a virtual tectonic force of social power. Again, this is deep level social engineering and countless cultures have left this job in the hands of mothers as they sit at home and tell stories and scold and reward, give or withhold affection, etc etc, their kids.

Now, you say "Well we should get into those tangents because they are relevant and backed by science, and historical records and what reality actually is." The problem is that at no point have I said that women didn't suffer uniquely through history and that they were in many ways at the mercy of men. I have said that women had control of a *tremendous* power and feminism strips them of that power through patriarchy - it completely devalues them literally weaving the value framework of society. I say "women had power" and you say "yeah, but they were second class citizens at the mercy of men" - and I don't deny it. I also don't get into those tangents because none of them actually show that my point is false. Women A) had this tremendous power, and B) were still at the mercy of men. My issue isn't the notion that women were at the mercy of men, it's that feminism strips women of the *tremendous* power to socially engineer society that they have had for most of history.

And, you ask what period? Well, can you tell me many periods and places where women weren't in charge of the domestic sphere? Where women weren't in charge of the children? I can't think of many. Perhaps you'd care to tell me when the women weren't in charge of those formative years?

Now look - I'm not getting into your tangents because they are tangential to what I'm saying and not really at odds with it. Women have historically controlled these formative years and, in doing so, wielded incredible power. I haven't even said more power - that's an *incredibly* complex debate - I've just said they have wielded tremendous power that feminism doesn't give them credit for.

The only thing I disagree with you about in anything but the details is your assertion that "Yeah I don't believe that women in the past 2000 years were so deeply instrumental in the development of societies." Women have literally been in charge of forming the basic characters of everyone who went out into the world - they established, at the base levels, the values of entire civilizations to follow. As you make this assertion I'll say it again - you're too focused on the knockout punch and you're devaluing the footwork that made it possible. You - and contemporary feminism - are stripping women of the astounding power women have wielded through history to shape the very fabric of civilization and it's a very un-feminist act when you actually consider it.

 

[neverwas]

when did you get divorced ts?

 

[elmo_1968]

OP, what can we do to bring these awful cunts down a peg?

If TS responds to this, it will be some entertaining reading.