WorthlessSlavicShit
There are no happy endings in Eastern Europe.
★★★★★
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2022
- Posts
- 13,621
Title. Also applies to any other ethnicities who have a history of one of them being submissive/slaves to the other, I'm just choosing the best ones to talk about this here given that this is a Murican site filled with Muricans.
Seriously, when you look at the gender dynamics tradcucks idolize and wish to "bring back" (even though they never existed until feminists wanted them, will talk about this at the end of the post) and make them a race thing instead, it becomes the most pathetically cucked thing imaginable.
Like, imagine if you had black tradcucks who believed that whites shouldn't have to work. Instead, it's the blacks' role to work from the moment they come of age, then, after about 10 or 20 years of working every day, they are supposed to search for white teens to live with, and this is supposed to be done by them showing what good nigger workhorses they are to the parents of those teens, hoping that the parents of those teens will decide that they are good enough to take care of their kids for life. After that, the person that wins will have the white teen move in with him, and the guy will then have to go right back to work to support that white teen for the rest of his life and be mocked if he can't do that, while being supposed to take pride in how much he can provide for the white person assigned to be supported their entire life by him.
As I said, this can really work for any other racial combination as well, you could probably do the same with Africans/Europeans and MENAs, given how many foreign slaves there were in the Ottoman Empire, or, since I'm a Slav, I'd mention Slavs and Germans, given how many times to former were attacked and dominated by the latter. The only important thing is that one group is supposed to work their entire lives, show how good workers they are and how much they can provide to "earn the right" to live their entire lives with a member of the other group, and work their entire lives to support that member of the other group.
Sounds like a pretty shitty deal for the provider side, doesn't it? And yet, according to tradcucks, when it comes to gender relations this is supposedly what we should be striving for and the key to make the world better. Men should work as soon as they can, show off how good workers they are to "earn" some woman, and then spend the rest of their lives working to support her while she never works in her life and spends her entire life being supported by him, and men are even supposed to take pride in and be praised on how much they can provide for their woman.
It's the exact same dynamic in both cases, yet curiously, it only ever gets mentioned when it comes to gender. Could it be because, if you ever brought this up in other contexts than the one where people in general agree that one group (women) should be supported by other (men) and is the price the other group has to compete for, it would reveal just how unfair such an arrangement is? f it can solve all gender issues in the world, why couldn't it solve the race ones as well? After all, in the "good old days" you had a lot of ethnicities enslaved to work their entire lives for others, why aren't tradcucks fighting to bring that back as well?
I actually wanted to make this thread for some time, but finally decided to do so after seeing @GeckoBus once again mention this thread of his:
Which nicely ties with what I wanted to say here. There's barely any historical justification for women not working to support either themselves or their families. Tradcuckism is literally just gynocentrism presented as a pro-male ideology. Women were pretty much never barred from working. Instead, they chose to leave the workforce in the 19th and 20th centuries, which the feminists at that point celebrated. Tradcucks completely ignore the hundreds of years of history when women worked, and present the time when women chose to leave work for men while they were just NEETs taken care of by their husbands as something great for men, that men should wish to go back to.
You know all the videos of women complaining about having to work and talking about wanting to be tradwives? Literally what the first wave feminists wanted, not having to work and being taken care of by their husbands. When tradcuck rightwingers push those videos as women "seeing the light" or "regretting feminism", they are literally just doing what the OG feminists were, pushing for women to be pampered and taken care of without having to work for anything, and unironically pretending to be pro-male while doing that.
Seriously, when you look at the gender dynamics tradcucks idolize and wish to "bring back" (even though they never existed until feminists wanted them, will talk about this at the end of the post) and make them a race thing instead, it becomes the most pathetically cucked thing imaginable.
Like, imagine if you had black tradcucks who believed that whites shouldn't have to work. Instead, it's the blacks' role to work from the moment they come of age, then, after about 10 or 20 years of working every day, they are supposed to search for white teens to live with, and this is supposed to be done by them showing what good nigger workhorses they are to the parents of those teens, hoping that the parents of those teens will decide that they are good enough to take care of their kids for life. After that, the person that wins will have the white teen move in with him, and the guy will then have to go right back to work to support that white teen for the rest of his life and be mocked if he can't do that, while being supposed to take pride in how much he can provide for the white person assigned to be supported their entire life by him.
As I said, this can really work for any other racial combination as well, you could probably do the same with Africans/Europeans and MENAs, given how many foreign slaves there were in the Ottoman Empire, or, since I'm a Slav, I'd mention Slavs and Germans, given how many times to former were attacked and dominated by the latter. The only important thing is that one group is supposed to work their entire lives, show how good workers they are and how much they can provide to "earn the right" to live their entire lives with a member of the other group, and work their entire lives to support that member of the other group.
Sounds like a pretty shitty deal for the provider side, doesn't it? And yet, according to tradcucks, when it comes to gender relations this is supposedly what we should be striving for and the key to make the world better. Men should work as soon as they can, show off how good workers they are to "earn" some woman, and then spend the rest of their lives working to support her while she never works in her life and spends her entire life being supported by him, and men are even supposed to take pride in and be praised on how much they can provide for their woman.
It's the exact same dynamic in both cases, yet curiously, it only ever gets mentioned when it comes to gender. Could it be because, if you ever brought this up in other contexts than the one where people in general agree that one group (women) should be supported by other (men) and is the price the other group has to compete for, it would reveal just how unfair such an arrangement is? f it can solve all gender issues in the world, why couldn't it solve the race ones as well? After all, in the "good old days" you had a lot of ethnicities enslaved to work their entire lives for others, why aren't tradcucks fighting to bring that back as well?
I actually wanted to make this thread for some time, but finally decided to do so after seeing @GeckoBus once again mention this thread of his:
EARLY FEMINISTS WANTED WOMEN TO WORK LESS - NOT MORE -> REPLY OR U GAY
"The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10...
incels.is
"The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930.
During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched.
Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure."" --
- Extract from David Thomas' book, "Not Guilty - The Case in Defense of Men"
So women literally wanted to work less, only to demand more workforce participation one generation later
Which nicely ties with what I wanted to say here. There's barely any historical justification for women not working to support either themselves or their families. Tradcuckism is literally just gynocentrism presented as a pro-male ideology. Women were pretty much never barred from working. Instead, they chose to leave the workforce in the 19th and 20th centuries, which the feminists at that point celebrated. Tradcucks completely ignore the hundreds of years of history when women worked, and present the time when women chose to leave work for men while they were just NEETs taken care of by their husbands as something great for men, that men should wish to go back to.
You know all the videos of women complaining about having to work and talking about wanting to be tradwives? Literally what the first wave feminists wanted, not having to work and being taken care of by their husbands. When tradcuck rightwingers push those videos as women "seeing the light" or "regretting feminism", they are literally just doing what the OG feminists were, pushing for women to be pampered and taken care of without having to work for anything, and unironically pretending to be pro-male while doing that.
@OutcompetedByRoomba @Mortis @Orzmund