According to the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps episodes on Islam and Gender, in Islam, traditionally if the man does not sexually satisfy his wife, she can sue. A muslim man may have many wives, and he has them virtually as slaves.
I do not justify the system but there is something to be learned here. After all, a feminist woman can be made traditional if she is just fucked right. It is on men to be men enough to do so.
Women need an anchor, this will either be a man or a large group of friends, they will either be women or gay men. But a woman cannot reproduce with women or gay men. So when men are not strong and stable they fail society in a way that's not true for women.
Males are naturally polygynous by nature, while the woman’s reproductive needs are satisfied by a single man. This is why polygyny of the most fit elements of society is the way forward in the future. With sterilized unfit elements there will be a surplus of women, all of whom will be impregnated by the polygynous chads
Landon Peterson
Gender is reactionary.
Gabriel Harris
Go take your estrogen, piggy
Jordan Rogers
What does this have to do with communism?
Asher Wilson
This is mega cringe. Why don't you try Zig Forums instead?
Adam Anderson
t. Mom
Justin Taylor
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to clarify. There was post on leftypol about women and communism and I figured this was relevant.
Henry Morgan
You Zig Forumsyps never cease to amuse me
Hunter Russell
lmao do you actually believe this?
Christopher Stewart
I've seen it happen more than once. If her end of the deal satisfies her, then yes. Though perhaps I'm making a hasty generalization.
It is common knowledge, often expressed as a prejudice, for example, in Australia or in Latin America.
It is not a surrender of rights if it is voluntary. She is not being forced into slavery. The second you no longer satisfy her she can jet, she'll probably be shrill while she's at it and maybe the man will be creepy about it.
If you were to be born into a society without knowing what gender you were going to be, would you be arguing for female slavery? Suppose you were a fourteen year old and the slave of some pedo. Not so bad if it's David Bowie. Not so great if it's Jimmy Savile: "Savile got up and moved off to stand in a shaded corner by the top of the stairs. The shorts, which were shorter than I first feared, were becoming alarmingly translucent thanks to the sun pouring through a porthole behind him. I really did not want to see an outline of what lay beneath. This ensemble was completed by white towelling sports socks pulled up to the lower calf and a green knotted handkerchief on his head. It was like a Chapman brothers ' reimagining of a postcard caricature from the golden days of the British seaside. " -Dan Davis, In Plain Sight:The Life and Lies of Jimmy Savile Redist doesn't incl. include romantic partners: youtu.be/falpX1HYLSo
women should be entitled to nothing but beatings. a feminist woman is made traditional through beatings. nothing else.
Asher Jackson
This. Beatings are actually good for women. They are naturally child-like and only violence makes them snap out of it (briefly) and see reason
Xavier Barnes
did your daddy hurt you as a little boy? Did he come home drunk and mommy would tell you to hide?
Dylan Reyes
Behold the leftist in his prime. Only able to mock and act emotional, never able to debunk.
Women are oversized children and require the same discipline as children do. In the past we knew this but sadly we have forgotten
Sebastian Brown
Men and women aren't as different as you think they are. Most noticeable gender differences are socialized. The biological ones barely matter if they matter at all when it comes to social policy and mores.
"Fucked right" is a cringy way of phrasing it, but feminist women absolutely drop their supposed values when they're sufficiently pampered and coddled by a man, even one that embodies the "toxic masculinity" boogieman they cry about.
Bullshit, humans have self-evidently innate compulsions that vary by gender.
Hudson White
...
Liam Richardson
asking for burden of proof is what got the 17th century revolutions in both Europe and the new world rolling forward
how? I'm a bio-essentialist. ahistorical interpretations of female behavior throughout history has wrought consequences since women were born of two, Lilith and Eve, but man only one, Adam. most Stirnerites (Junger aside) can't into the esoteric because they think consciousness and existence are the same thing, ergo "I think therefore I am". not to say Rene Descartes had a load of bad ideas, but the interpretation of the anarch still boils down to two separate entities who act according to their pre-determined sins. some may say women are more oppressed than men due to their bearing of two sins but that's because if God nor Satan can produce a woman who isn't fucked up in one way or another who is to say man himself through the force of technology can do the same as a mere mortal? almost every fuckup in history was because of women down to the fact men fought for the attainment of women or to protect them. they alone cannot do this because they tried that with feminism. and its had disastrous results. hence, women, are children.
Joshua Wright
I'm not reading this block of shit but anybody who uses the Old Testament to do philosophy should be shot.
as opposed to science which is nothing more than calculated experiments that in the modern era are managed by peer groups which all have their own agenda to push because there is no such thing as a person without an opinion. but go ahead, shoot me.
non-argument, technology is why the world revolves around vagina. back in the day muh dik or not you wanted to get revenge there was no red tape or bureaucracy or dumb laws about war crimes and shit so you can suck my cock and so can the horse you rode in on.
