Serious Is there a single logical reason to be in favor of women's rights as a man?

[lessthanhuman]

Is there any logical non-emotional reason as to why men should support women's rights?

Supporting women's rights means that they'll drive down the wages of men by entering the workforce. They'll exert political authority and displace male politicians. If your country has democracy, the number of voters will double (meaning your vote will be worth less). They will start consuming material goods at a higher rate than men and make products more expensive to buy. They will buy up homes to live in as single females, making the housing market more expensive and competitive. They will make it more difficult for you to find a job because there will be more job applicants and competition, you will be more likely to get fired, etc.

All of this without even going into female hypergamy, how they will divorce-rape you, how they will shit on you so they can fuck more attractive men. So is there a single logical reason why any man, even Chad, should support women's rights? There isn't any, is there? Even when cucks argue that women's rights is necessary, because what if your sister or daughter got trapped in an abusive relationship and she couldn't leave under a patriarchal system, this is what already happens with foids chasing after thug Chads and getting raped or murdered by them. So there is just no logical reason whatsoever, for a man, to be in favor of women's rights.

That's why I would say even if women treated us nicely and we had girlfriends, we still shouldn't support women's rights. It's just against our self-interest. Just like women wouldn't support patriarchy because it's against their self-interest.

 

[Inceldo]

Economy does better

 

[lessthanhuman]

Economy does better

In what sense? The American economy was booming in the 1950s when women still did not have most of their rights and were not in the workforce. Back then, a single (male) worker could easily support an entire family on just one job, with cars, holidays, a big detached house, etc. Today even a couple working would struggle to afford all that. And most of the economical growth of the last 60 years has been driven by outsourcing to poorer countries for cheaper production and improvements in technology, rather than foids being in the workplace.

So for the average male worker, women's rights greatly reduce the quality of living. Only for maybe business owners and the rich could women being in the workforce have any benefit, but even this is arguable.

 

[Inceldo]

In what sense? The American economy was perfectly fine in the 1950s when women still did not have most of their rights and were not in the workforce. Back then, a single (male) worker could easily support an entire family on just one job, with cars, holidays, a big detached house, etc. Today even a couple working would struggle to afford all that. And most of the economical growth of the last 60 years has been driven by outsourcing to poorer countries for cheaper production and improvements in technology, rather than foids being in the workplace.

So for the average male worker, women's rights greatly reduce the quality of living. Only for maybe business owners and the rich could women being in the workforce have any benefit, but even this is arguable.

More than double the workforce = more production.

 

[lessthanhuman]

More than double the workforce = more production.

That's if women were as competent as men in the workforce, which they aren't (hence the need for affirmative action). So the effect is more limited, and with women's rights, they also consume more of this production. Forbes reported that 70-80% of all consumption is driven by women, which means they are taking the lion's share of society's production output.

On top of this, you also have feminist anti-productivity laws, for example companies being forced to pay pregnant women maternity leave rather than hire a new worker, which arguably would drive down production.

From the perspective of a bachelor male, you would have had a lot more money and spending power before women's rights than after women's rights.

 

[Inceldo]

That's if women were as competent as men in the workforce, which they aren't. So the effect is more limited, and with women's rights, they also consume more of this production. Forbes reported that 70-80% of all consumption is driven by women, which means they are taking the lion's share of society's production output.

From the perspective of a bachelor male, you would have had a lot more money and spending power before women's rights than after women's rights.

Might not be as efficient as men but still has a major effect.

Consumption is what fuels industries. Women not working = women not buying. So that actually proves my point.

If women didn't get rights we'd be stuck in the 50's you were talking about.

Which actually isnt a bad thing imho.

 

[Blacktarpill]

Be a beta for a rich girl and support her rights for her money.

 

[lessthanhuman]

Might not be as efficient as men but still has a major effect.

Consumption is what fuels industries. Women not working = women not buying. So that actually proves my point.

If women didn't get rights we'd be stuck in the 50's you were talking about.

Which actually isnt a bad thing imho.

It fuels the industry to get larger, but if there is more competition/demand for those goods (from women), then it doesn't benefit us (as the average man), only the very richest men. Women entering the workforce and also buying products means that for us as normal males, we get our wages slashed by more than half, and products also become more expensive. Hence, a single male today could not buy anywhere near as many goods as he did in the 1950s.

So for society overall, production has gone up with women's rights, but for us as men, the effect feels the opposite as we cannot afford as much as we used to, nor do we get as much in wage as before. Which means that for men, there is no logical reason to be in favor of women's rights, as it harms our quality of living.

 

[Cuyen]

Be a beta for a rich girl and support her rights for her money.

 

[RodgersSecondAdvent]

There isn't. Women must be property.

 

[ManletHalfCurry]

. Women must be property.

 

[virgin4life]

I dont think they drive down wages... They just increase the total size of the economy. A nation with twice the employees will also have twice the employers. Even if women dont found businesses more men can open up businesses vecause there are more employees and more consumers. I dont think the affect on economy is bad. But I would still prefer women depending on men for money.

 

[Inceldo]

It fuels the industry to get larger, but if there is more competition/demand for those goods (from women), then it doesn't benefit us (as the average man), only the very richest men. Women entering the workforce and also buying products means that for us as normal males, we get our wages slashed by more than half, and products also become more expensive. Hence, a single male today could not buy anywhere near as many goods as he did in the 1950s.

So for society overall, production has gone up with women's rights, but for us as men, the effect feels more like production has gone along with wages. Which means that for men, there is no logical reason to be in favor of women's rights, as it harms our quality of living.

It does benefit us cause the bigger the industry the greater the innovation, research and competition.

Medicine and tech would be really shit if foids hadnt gotten rights. Would have progressed slower.

We'd die suffering from some common ailment

 

[investigatorcel]

Every woman has a cost
Every foid is a bitch

 

[Deleted member 12355]

Those that set the narrative have manipulated the natural instincts of the modern male to think he's pursuing the only viable path of reproduction by catering to the increasingly hysterical demands of foids. The reason Chad tend to be more "woke" than his bugman/failed normie counterpart is because foids will pay attention to him irrespective of how much he chooses to cuck himself. One could argue that adopting the bluepill narrative is only a detriment to one's reproductive success regardless of where on the SMV spectrum one finds himself, and I would be inclined to agree but that's not how most males see it.

 

[lessthanhuman]

I dont think they drive down wages... They just increase the total size of the economy. A nation with twice the employees will also have twice the employers. Even if women dont found businesses more men can open up businesses vecause there are more employees and more consumers. I dont think the affect on economy is bad. But I would still prefer women depending on men for money.

The amount of productive work in a society would stay the same irregardless of how many workers it has. If the workforce doubles, all that happens is that the average wage companies need to pay goes significantly down, because there is more competition/demand for these jobs. It also means companies can treat workers more poorly, fire them and so on, because there is an excess of labor. Think about why companies sponsor immigration, it's because it drives down wages by having more workers in the society.

I think the evidence is quite clear because in the past right before women entered the workforce, a single man could buy a much larger quantity of material goods than we as single men could today. Back in the 1950s, a single man working one job could afford a large detached home, a new car, the latest televisions, radios and other consumer goods, and even the occasional holiday for his family. Today this is unthinkable on one income.

Women also consume a lot more than men, which means the cost of most products goes significantly up. Think about houses for example. Women rarely if ever enter the construction workforce, which means that the rate of construction would be the same, with men having to build the houses. However, at the same time, women will compete with men in order to buy these houses, which means the price of homes goes up. Similarly, for cars, women rarely participate in the labor force which constructs cars, but will compete with men to purchase a new car, meaning the price simply goes up because of higher demand (with supply remaining the same).

It does benefit us cause the bigger the industry the greater the innovation, research and competition.

Medicine and tech would be really shit if foids hadnt gotten rights. Would have progressed slower.

We'd die suffering from some common ailment

The majority of significant medical care and technological advancements happened prior to the 1970s, which is the decade female participation in the workforce really took off. Since then, medical care has gotten better but not by much. Likewise, most women go into easier jobs such as nursing, rather than STEM or doctors, because those are significantly harder. I would also argue that the way universities and hospitals drop their entry requirements for women to enter so they can be more diverse can even be dangerous. Think of how many people die in surgery, how much of that could be from underqualified diversity hires, such as women?

Actually, technological progress has definitely been slower over the last 50 years when foids have gained equal rights and entered the workforce. Think about the difference of 1970-2018, there has not really been much significant technological improvement other than computers and phones. In everything else there has only been incremental gains.

Now imagine the period of time between 1920-1970, we saw the invention of spaceflight, nuclear technology, jet propulsion, antibiotics, first computers, first printers, etc. And this was a primarily misogynistic, patriarchal time that feminists bitch about.

Likewise, almost all impressive scientific figures who push technology forward were and still remain male. If you look at for example NASA, the engineers, scientists and all the other people who make it happen, are all still overwhelmingly male, while foids sit in HR and gossip.

Those that set the narrative have manipulated the natural instincts of the modern male to think he's pursuing the only viable path of reproduction by catering to the increasingly hysterical demands of foids. The reason Chad tend to be more "woke" than his bugman/failed normie counterpart is because foids will pay attention to him irrespective of how much he chooses to cuck himself. One could argue that adopting the bluepill narrative is only a detriment to one's reproductive success regardless of where on the SMV spectrum one finds himself, and I would be inclined to agree but that's not how most males see it.

Spot on. The idea that we need women to work in order to maintain our standards of living are similarly derived from this idea. Foids working actually drives down wages and living quality for men, just as foids having rights hurts the average man greatly by allowing them to divorce-rape and engage in hypergamy.

 

[starystulejarz]

There isn't. Women must be property.

 

[Sparrow's Song]

It's time for BetaBeckys to Betabux sub8 men...

 

[Involuntarily]

In what sense? The American economy was booming in the 1950s when women still did not have most of their rights and were not in the workforce. Back then, a single (male) worker could easily support an entire family on just one job, with cars, holidays, a big detached house, etc. Today even a couple working would struggle to afford all that. And most of the economical growth of the last 60 years has been driven by outsourcing to poorer countries for cheaper production and improvements in technology, rather than foids being in the workplace.

So for the average male worker, women's rights greatly reduce the quality of living. Only for maybe business owners and the rich could women being in the workforce have any benefit, but even this is arguable.

Low IQ post. Can't even remember a simple poster.

 

[lessthanhuman]

Low IQ post. Can't even remember a simple poster. View attachment 72562

No, you fucking retard, the female participation in the US workforce during WW2 was 25% and did not increase substantially overall from the conflict. The only big shift was that foids did more work in factories rather than nursing or childcare. After WW2 ended, that changed back to normal because foids had to go back to their old jobs while men took over the factories again. Now take your retarded ass back to CuckTears with your gay female-worshiping poster.

Only from the 1960s and 1970s forward were a big increase in female participation recorded, as women gained equal rights and entered the workforce enmasse. Previously, what female workforce did exist was mainly segregated in low-paying menial jobs that foids dominated. Men and women did not compete for the same jobs until after women's rights.

Great comment. I believe the other gentleman is still female worshiping. You are High IQ brother, don't waste too much time trying to uncuck him, he has to swallow the Black Pill himself and stop trying to protect females.

We all know that when foids entered the workplace, the economy and the Job dynamics changed for worst.

Females always worked in the past. As farmers, as shoemakers, as singers, as sewers, and many other professions. Feminism and the ones behind it, don't wanted females to have work opportunities. They wanted females to occupy male positions, and cause economic chaos.

Females were brainwashed to enter the workplace en mass, causing instability on the System. Now everyone has to work more and be paid less. Females in the past were paid more, but after they "fought for their rights" they had to compete against men.

I think that in the future there will be a lot less men working, and for society to keep functioning properly females will be obliged to work. In the past they could choose not to work and just stay at home cooking.

Males are being curbed today, they are super stressed, they are unemployed, they are killing themselves, they are using drugs until overdose, going to jail, etc. Every year there is less and less men in the workforce, less and less men willing to participate of society.

Thanks brother. Exactly, it's simply logical that if you double the number of workers, the amount of work doesn't magically increase. All that happens is that living wages go down as companies can afford to pay less to their workers. If you went back 60 years ago, the male unemployment was massively lower, as was male stress and male suicide rates.

Look at Japan, which has some of the highest male suicide rates in the world. The massive decrease in male employment is correlated with an increase in female workers.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...ent-rate-21-year-lows-hidden-problem-revealed

"For every male loser, there is a female winner, because the surging prime, male unemployment rate contrasts with increasing employment rates for Japanese women."

 

[Involuntarily]

No, you fucking retard, the female participation in the US workforce during WW2 was 25% and did not increase substantially overall from the conflict. The only big shift was that foids did more work in factories rather than nursing or childcare. Now take your retarded ass back to CuckTears with your gay female-worshiping poster.

Only from the 1960s and 1970s forward were a big increase in female participation recorded, as women gained equal rights and entered the workforce enmasse..

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean that I "worship women". Take your retarded false equivalence back! Things are better in terms of prices, and rights now more than ever, even for you.

>neetbux
>cheap products
>free gov aid and healthcare

Just because some roasties are too busy to pay attention to you doesn't mean they don't deserve equal rights. Being subhuman, you are simply less deserving of respect than a cherished vagina. Look at the shit holes that have less respect for women: the men are treated significantly worse. Want to erode your own rights? Just fuck someone else over and it'll come back to bite you on the ass.

Thats logic.

 

[lessthanhuman]

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean that I "worship women". Take your retarded false equivalence back! Things are better in terms of prices, and rights now more than ever, even for you.

>neetbux
>cheap products
>free gov aid and healthcare

Just because some roasties are too busy to pay attention to you doesn't mean they don't deserve equal rights. Being subhuman, you are simply less deserving of respect than a cherished vagina. Look at the shit holes that have less respect for women: the men are treated significantly worse. Want to erode your own rights? Just fuck someone else over and it'll come back to bite you on the ass.

Thats logic.

You don't have any statistics or evidence to prove your point, so you are wrong. Female participation was massively lower even during WW2 than it is today. And likewise, there was lower male suicide rate, lower male unhappiness, and everything else was better during that time too, because we had more of a patriarchy.

I don't claim NEETbux and cheap products are mostly thanks to outsourcing and having third-world workers make them for dirt cheap. Some fat feminist roastie sitting in HR does not contribute to my living standards.

Also your final comment is mega fucking cucked. "Muh women deserve equal rights, they are more worthy of respect than us, we are subhumans that must worship them." You would fit in a lot more at IT, now fuck off there.

 

[Involuntarily]

You don't have any statistics or evidence to prove your point, so you are wrong. Female participation was massively lower even during WW2 than it is today. And likewise, there was lower male suicide rate, lower male unhappiness, and everything else was better during that time too, because we had more of a patriarchy.

I don't claim NEETbux and cheap products are mostly thanks to outsourcing and having third-world workers make them for dirt cheap. Some fat feminist roastie sitting in HR does not contribute to my living standards.

Also your final comment is mega fucking cucked. "Muh women deserve equal rights, they are more worthy of respect than us, we are subhumans that must worship them." You would fit in a lot more at IT, just saying.

>I don't take advantage of situations, I sure am not retarded
No, you are subhuman, your name and description confirms it. You also can't detect sarcasm, another subhuman trait.
>Blaming fat women in HR
Why not blame HR? Is the fat man in HR doing you any good, retard? Is the chad in HR helping you? Do women not work in 3rd world countries? Not only do you have sub par genetic physical features but your brain is affected by fetal alcohol syndrome and severe mental retardation.

 

[Inceldo]

But half the payment.
Men were paid like 100. After woman entered the workforce he now was paid 50.

Sheeeit

 

[lessthanhuman]

>I don't take advantage of situations, I sure am not retarded
No, you are subhuman, your name and description confirms it. You also can't detect sarcasm, another subhuman trait.
>Blaming fat women in HR
Why not blame HR? Is the fat man in HR doing you any good, retard? Is the chad in HR helping you? Do women not work in 3rd world countries? Not only do you have sub par genetic physical features but your brain is affected by fetal alcohol syndrome and severe mental retardation.

Yes, I like most other users here understand that as part of the blackpill, we are seen as subhuman by foids. But that's also why I don't pussyworship foids unlike you, fucking cucked faggot. Why worship people that see you as less than human?

I don't claim NEETbux because it's not available/near impossible to get it in my country you dumb bluepilled faggot. And yes, foids being in HR is worse than men, because women shouldn't have rights. Go cry about that over at CuckTears bitch.

 

[Involuntarily]

Yes, I like most other users here understand that as part of the blackpill, we are seen as subhuman by foids. But that's also why I don't pussyworship foids unlike you, fucking cucked faggot. Why worship people that see you as less than human?

I don't claim NEETbux because it's not available/near impossible to get it in my country you dumb bluepilled faggot. And yes, foids being in HR is worse than men, because women shouldn't have rights. Go cry about that over at CuckTears bitch.

>getting this buttmad at logic

women getting equal rights is good because it means men get the same rights. Fact: title xi is being used against women harassing men.

 

[lessthanhuman]

>getting this buttmad at logic

I raped you with my chart proving your dumb pussy-worshipping poster was meaningless. Now you are crying about how women need to have rights otherwise you will feel bad. Poor faggot, GTFO to CuckTears, or better yet kill yourself and let your filthy body rot you worthless cuck.

Maybe if you KYS, a virtue-signalling foid will take pity on you and shit on your unmarked grave.

 

[Involuntarily]

I raped you with my chart proving your dumb pussy-worshipping poster was meaningless. Now you are crying about how women need to have rights otherwise you will feel bad. Poor faggot, GTFO to CuckTears, or better yet kill yourself and let your filthy body rot you worthless cuck.

How many more NPC buzzwords can your buttmad smooth brain fit?

 

[lessthanhuman]

How many more NPC buzzwords can your buttmad smooth brain fit?

How much more pussy-worshiping can you do, cuck? Do you think women will like you for white-knighting for them on an incel forum? Fucking lmao. Not only do you have sub-50 moutbreather IQ, you also are a fucking white knight. How more pathetic can you get?

 

[Involuntarily]

How much more pussy-worshiping can you do, cuck? Do you think women will like you for white-knighting for them on an incel forum? Fucking lmao. Not only do you have sub-50 IQ, you also are a fucking white knight. How more pathetic can you get?

 

[lessthanhuman]

View attachment 72572

Keep going, I hope you get banned for spamming low-IQ bluepilled white knight faggot.

 

[Involuntarily]

Keep going, I hope you get banned for spamming low-IQ bluepilled white knight faggot.

>Thinking I respect women
>Thinking taking away women's rights will give subhumans more power over beautiful women
Not really thinking are we?

 

[lessthanhuman]

>Thinking I respect women
>Thinking taking away women's rights will give subhumans more power over beautiful women
Not really thinking are we?

Gay volcel. All I want is my looksmatch which ugly men like me could get under patriarchy. If you only want to fuck 8+ beautiful Stacies then that's your problem. Most of us here would be content with our ugly looksmatches, the problem is they are engaging in female hypergamy and fucking Chads instead.

And yes, all that could be solved under patriarchy if women's rights to fuck and work freely were removed, as they were in the past. If you don't respect women, you should absolutely want them to lose their rights. Aren't feminists doing the same to us, as they push false rape allegations and curfew laws for men?

 

[Involuntarily]

And yes, all that could be solved under patriarchy if women's rights to fuck and work freely were removed, as they were in the past. If you don't respect women, you should absolutely want them to lose their rights. Aren't feminists doing the same to us, as they push false rape allegations and curfew laws for men?

Parriarchy didn't work for subhuman then, only chads. Look up the lords right or how cucked men were back then. Feminists are being BTFO by title xi which was designed to fuck men, but instead used against feminists. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html

The best part is that they can't say it was unfair, and they get BTFO. Shit holes like the middle east have little boys being raped along with women by rich men with no consequences. There is no doubt that men will suffer more than women. Women and children first is not "equality". Giving women less rights means shit like "no hitting women" is allowed, paradoxically giving men less rights.

 

[lessthanhuman]

Parriarchy didn't work for subhuman then, only chads. Look up the lords right or how cucked men were back then. Feminists are being BTFO by title xi which was designed to fuck men, but instead used against feminists. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html

I'm aware there was some cuck shit going on back then as well, but most of it had to do with rich vs poor rather than the way you looked. There were some absolutely hideous nobles and kings back then who got laid with ease. The same is happening today as well, look at sugar daddies, foids are fucking greasy fat old men just because they have money while we rot with no one because of our "personalities".

That said you do have a point that equality laws can be used to fuck over women as well, which is good. But the courts and laws will always go softer on women than men under "equality". Look at how female pedos get off so lightly compared to male pedos.

"The Title IX report concluded that there was not enough evidence to find Professor Ronell responsible for sexual assault, partly because no one else observed the interactions in his apartment or her room in Paris.2

Although the foid got punished, you can still see how the foid is getting off easy again, compared to people like Bill Cosby that did get charged with sexual assault. The problem is that everything is biased in their favor, so even under equality, they can abuse it and twist for their favor.

The best part is that they can't say it was unfair, and they get BTFO. Shit holes like the middle east have little boys being raped along with women by rich men with no consequences. There is no doubt that men will suffer more than women. Women and children first is not "equality". Giving women less rights means shit like "no hitting women" is allowed, paradoxically giving men less rights.

You are right I don't sympathize with tradcucks and cuckservatives who tell men to man up and protect used up spoiled whores. But in the past you did not have cucked laws about not hitting women, wife-beating and other abuse of women was more common, today women have the best of both worlds with both legal equality and social favor (e.g women and children first).

 

[Involuntarily]

I'm aware there was some cuck shit going on back then as well, but most of it had to do with rich vs poor rather than the way you looked. There were some absolutely hideous nobles and kings back then who got laid with ease. The same is happening today as well, look at sugar daddies, foids are fucking greasy fat old men just because they have money while we rot with no one.

That said you do have a point that equality laws can be used to fuck over women as well, which is good. But the courts and laws will always go softer on women than men under "equality". Look at how female pedos get off so lightly compared to male pedos.

Therefore chads and rich people do well regardless of their country, while the poor (us in social and economic systems) do not.

There was a study in which they used dem vs rep judges. I can't find it (it was on truereddit) but summed up the ones that held traditional roles fucked the men more and let FOIDs get away. Traditional roles therefore do not favor men, they think of men like boomer times as "more powerful" and capable than women who are fine fending on their own now. This hurts men. I am not in favor of helping women, I am in a favor of giving them equal rights to fend for themselves, not because I am a cuck, but because I don't want to be cucked by them. We live in a world that is not traditional so we should not treat them with kiddy gloves. A lot of the unfairness you see is from the boomer days, not today where it would not be tolerated, such as female pedophiles.

Equality doesn't mean that women get more rights, it's to prevent HUMAN rights from going away. The law doesn't always reflect that.

 

[lessthanhuman]

Therefore chads and rich people do well regardless of their country, while the poor (us in social and economic systems) do not.

There was a study in which they used dem vs rep judges. I can't find it (it was on truereddit) but summed up the ones that held traditional roles fucked the men more. Traditional roles therefore do not favor men, they think of men like boomer times as "more powerful" and capable than women who are fine fending on their own now. This hurts men. I am not in favor of helping women, I am in a favor of giving them equal rights to fend for themselves, not because I am a cuck, but because I don't want to be cucked by them. We live in a world that is not traditional so we should not treat them with kiddy gloves. A lot of the unfairness you see is from the boomer days, not today where it would not be tolerated, such as female pedophiles.

Equality doesn't mean that women get more rights, it's to prevent HUMAN rights from going away. The law doesn't always reflect that.

I absolutely agree with you that the modern right-wing in the West is all about putting women first. There's very little difference between the modern left and right today. Republicans vs Democrats to me is just two different flavors of shit. And yes, agreed that the poor always get fucked over while the wealthy and Chads have done well in any system.

I still think that if possible removing women's rights (without giving into cucked social expectations like putting women first or treating them like pretty flowers) would help us. But otherwise I agree, if we can't have women's rights removed, we need to hold them to the same standard as men. They should not get special treatment in any way. That's why at the moment we absolutely need proper equality and for women to no longer have their special rights. This is possibly an argument that could actually gain mass traction in the current society.

And yes, boomers have absolutely fucked us over. My bad that I wrongly assumed you were white-knighting for foids, I thought you wanted to them have better treatment over us, as that's what most cucks say when they call for equality.

 

[Involuntarily]

I absolutely agree with you that the modern right-wing in the West is all about putting women first. There's very little difference between the modern left and right today. Republicans vs Democrats to me is just two different flavors of shit. And yes, agreed that the poor always get fucked over while the wealthy and Chads have done well in any system.

I still think that if possible removing women's rights (without giving into cucked social expectations like putting women first or treating them like pretty flowers) would help us. But otherwise I agree, if we can't have women's rights removed, we need to hold them to the same standard as men. They should not get special treatment in any way. That's why at the moment we absolutely need proper equality and for women to no longer have their special rights. This is possibly an argument that could actually gain mass traction in the current society.

And yes, boomers have absolutely fucked us over. My bad that I wrongly assumed you were white-knighting for foids, I thought you wanted to them have better treatment over us, as that's what most cucks say when they call for equality.

Thank you. I am sorry I was rude to you too. I don't see us sub humans getting better rights if women get less. Even in redpilled societies this is evident. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne_before_the_Areopagus

We can fondly look at to the boomer times and hope for similar treatment but sadly the world is not the same anymore. By removing their rights us subhuman will be treated even worse. Look at that case with the FOID's skull bashed in. Not guilty to the raping murderer. Would you see such treatment elsewhere? Only in lawless areas would your views be true, but then laws and rights wouldn't matter (like India where rapes are recorded on camera).

Support equal rights for humans including women, not special rights for women.

 

[lessthanhuman]

Thank you. I am sorry I was rude to you too. I don't see us sub humans getting better rights if women get less. Even in redpilled societies this is evident. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne_before_the_Areopagus

We can fondly look at to the boomer times and hope for similar treatment but sadly the world is not the same anymore. By removing their rights us subhuman will be treated even worse. Look at that case with the FOID's skull bashed in. Not guilty to the raping murderer. Would you see such treatment elsewhere? Only in lawless areas would your views be true, but then laws and rights wouldn't matter (like India where rapes are recorded on camera).

Support equal rights for humans including women, not special rights for women.

No problem bro, I'm sorry as well for any rude comments. And yeah, you are very right that many past redpilled societies also had cuckoldry. The best course of current action now, since society will not accept anything else, would indeed be to call for full equality. Your assertion is high IQ to hold women to their own argument. Since women are biologically inferior to men, they will greatly struggle in a system of proper equality. My only fear is that cucked men will always give women a helping hand to make sure they don't fail, but that will always be a problem.

True equality where women have to perform the same as men is the best bet at the moment. No more government-mandated affirmative action or women-only scholarships/welfare programs for them is what we need, the end of female privilege (which is real unlike male privilege).

 

[Michael15651]

No, unless you are a white knight seeking female validation.

 

[Involuntarily]

No problem bro, I'm sorry as well for any rude comments. And yeah, you are very right that many past redpilled societies also had cuckoldry. The best course of current action now, since society will not accept anything else, would indeed be to call for full equality. Your assertion is high IQ to hold women to their own argument. Since women are biologically inferior to men, they will greatly struggle in a system of proper equality. My only fear is that cucked men will always give women a helping hand to make sure they don't fail, but that will always be a problem.

True equality where women have to perform the same as men is the best bet at the moment. No more government-mandated affirmative action or women-only scholarships/welfare programs for them is what we need, the end of female privilege (which is real unlike male privilege).

that's correct. Full equality means that WNBA is never heard of. That women will actually have to be good to get anywhere. There are instances where women are better (AMD's CEO) and we uncucked ourselves from ((Intel's)) processors. Men are better at women at nearly everything, except a few, one specific thing is teaching in academia, which is a huge problem. They trick children (my mother brainwashed me) because they have the patience and like children. This creates a society of cucks, many like the liberals in academia are an example of this. That is one of the biggest problems with true equality, the politics of that nature. Women are also better at convincing guys especially hot ones like the wiki I sent.

That is my main concern with equality, that they brainwash kids and colleges simply because women are more sly and tricky.

 

[Remyx]

Of course there isn't