Clarifying my stance on women's rights:
Negotiable:
Property rights
Working (with their man's permission)
Abortion (This is a tough one)
Arranged marraige
Non-negotiable:
Voting
Holding political office, press
College
Passports
Did I miss anything?
@basedbagel as for work and education, I'd advocate that they should be allowed to do both.
but with college, they are only allowed to go to women only colleges, and discouraged from attaining higher education (they have to meet a much higher standard). Though, honestly, most people shouldn't be going to college.
Academia should be reserved for those who think objectively.
Also when women go to school they think they are better than men who don't and then they don't have kids. And then we're back at square 1.
Can small minority of women handle it? Yes, but it's not worth risking demographic collapse IMO
@basedbagel that's why it should be discouraged. made difficult to accomplish and have high standards for doing so.
Academia should be reserved for those who are qualified, which most people, men or women, are not. the problem is lax standards and the government guaranteeing college for all.
most people should not be attending college. if a woman can pay her own way and has enough merit, then she should be allowed.
Big Government is a direct cause of female empowerment. They have a BIOLOGICAL imperative to be taken care of.
Your views make sense in principle. The problem is women don't understand/care about principle and they degrade the quality of any institution they inhabit.
This is pure survival, If you send a critical mass of women to school, kiss your birthrate goodbye.
@basedbagel big government is a direct result of female voting. if women cannot vote, then it doesn't matter.
and again, it'd be minimal women only in fields approved for women
We tried that, the women will just cry segregation and play the victim to get in boys schools.
Then they will distract the men, degrade the intuition and not have kids and we're SCREWED!
@basedbagel if women crying is enough, then your whole plan falls apart anyway. if you take away women's votes, then that's all there is to it
I disagree. Women can cry all they want but if men just SAY NO than we're all good.😎
Taking the vote is just the 1st step so we can fix everything.
Our birthrates are DOGSHIT because women are in college, frolicking around the world wasting time.
I didn't disagree with myself.
There are more than 1 cause for a problem.
Welfare is the biggest problem but it's not the only one. Women being able to go to college and provide for themselves without a man WILL NOT GET MARRIED OR HAVE KIDS.
Then we are fucked because someone will have to take care of these women when they get older.
Women lack the foresight/fiscal responsibility for long term thinking like retirement.
@basedbagel
women voting is the only real problem. this leads to welfare, welfare leads to all the problems.
most women cannot provide for themselves, even with college. they are heavily supported by welfare. welfare also gives them a free ride to go to college. without welfare, very few women will be able to attend college. very vew women will not get married or have kids.
and no, no one has to take care of them, that's called welfare, and charities can take care of that anyway.
You say voting is the only problem, but I say it's just the tip of the iceberg.
NO WOMAN can provide for himself without indirect/direct support from a man. Live with a woman and you will quickly find this out.
They can't maintain things like cars/houses alone when they are older and will cry for someone to take care of them.
Women MUST be taken care of. This is the way the world is.
@basedbagel
no, I'd say it's the base of the iceberg, and everything above water, that you see, is a consequence of women voting.
women voting is the source of every problem you've touched on. if women were never able to vote, they'd never have been issues.
and a few women who go to college won't be able to take care of themselves in old age? what about barren women? who will take care of them?
there's plenty of charities for that kind of thing. most women will be married with kids.
The exception proves the rule. Just because a few autistic lesbians can go to college does not justify the risk of opening the floodgates to demographic collapse.
What do you think will happen when women see other women living freely w/o a man while they are dependent.
Your ideas are sound but fail to take human nature into account.
Idk what a barren woman is but I agrees churches and charities can take care of the outliers.
With patriarchy you have strong communities which can handle this sort of thing.
@basedbagel
barren women are women who for whatever reason cannot have children.
i see barren women the same way women see incels, not my problem.
But in all seriousness, they have options as well.
1. Become a Nun
2.Find a man who wants a woman but not the kids.
TBH I already 80% agree with you as long as you don't think women should vote. We can work out the details later.
women tend to outlive men, so even if she finds a man, she'll probably outlive him, and then needs someone to take care of her in her old age.
ponit is, they provide the same "needs someone to take care of them" issue that the few women that go to college would have, and they'd be slightly less common.
That's not true. We have a solution for that already, it's called life insurance.
@basedbagel
"NO WOMAN can provide for himself without indirect/direct support from a man. Live with a woman and you will quickly find this out.
They can't maintain things like cars/houses alone when they are older and will cry for someone to take care of them.
Women MUST be taken care of. This is the way the world is."
the point is to address this, and life insurance doesn't provide a man.
I don't see how what I said doesn't apply. Seems simple to me:
1. Man marries woman.
2. Man takes care of woman.
3. Man gets life insurance policy to pay other men to take care of her/children in his absence.
Man still supports her indirectly so my point still stands.
NO WOMAN can provide for himself without indirect/direct support from a man.
I know its hard to accept but that is just nature.
@basedbagel
"Then we are fucked because someone will have to take care of these women when they get older.
Women lack the foresight/fiscal responsibility for long term thinking like retirement."
so, why wouldn't they blow that life insurance money right away?
This is where you and me differ.
I don't actually give a shit about the welfare of unlucky, low iq women. I was just giving you an example of something that works to prove my point
If she wants to blow through her money and starve to death, that's her prerogative.
However, there are systems you can put in place like trusts to protect from that. But that's her mans problem, not mine. 🤷♂️
@basedbagel
"Women being able to go to college and provide for themselves without a man WILL NOT GET MARRIED OR HAVE KIDS.
Then we are fucked because someone will have to take care of these women when they get older. " -you
but your whole complaint was that the women that goes and works wouldn't be able to take care of herself later in life.
"and no, no one has to take care of them, that's called welfare, and charities can take care of that anyway." - me
and I'm the one that didn't care.
I care about women as a whole on a conceptual level.
A bunch of women that aren't taken care of makes for an unstable society.
Unstable society give way to tyranny.
Tyranny = I lose my freedom.
You came with all this whataboutism.
"What about nurses?
What about barren women?
What about women outlive their husbands?"
Well what about the 1-eyed orphan girl with a peg leg and halitosis?
Just admit women losing their rights makes you uncomfortable.
It's so tiresome.
where'd you get that impression?
I just think some of your ideas aren't exactly all that practical. I'm more a fan of TFM's kind of system, like a net tax payer. it's gender blind and anyone who can make it can make it.
nature takes care of the rest, as most women cannot make it on their own.
you're just exaggerating the role of college, and downplaying welfare and women voting. women had college in the 1800s, but it wasn't until they got the vote that things went bad.
@basedbagel though, yes, there is always a risk when allowing women to be educated. the first feminist writers resulted from that.
BUT, so long as they aren't allowed to vote, then there's no problem. they can wine about inequality all they want, but won't get anywhere.
the problem is when simps give in to women, in which case, nothing matters, because the simps would let them get educated anyway.
It's not a risk worth taking because
Avoiding demographic collapse >>>>>>>>>>>> Autistic lesbians in college.
I don't know why you keep skipping over this point. There are more than 1 issue at play here.
Women must be moderated at all times like a child or your society collapses.
@basedbagel and simps are male "losers", as in the weak of society. they ought not to have political power either, which is why a net tax payer system is better than just "women can't vote", because losers will always outnumber winners, so losers who have no skin in the game ought not to have a say.
this would naturally exclude the vast majority of women, as they can't survive without welfare.
I'm trying to be patient with you but you're missing the point because you reply to 1 message with 10 different points lol
No worries I will respond to each one.
1. TFM is with ME on this. He literally said kudos to the FUCKING TALIBAN for kicking women out of college. He knows the danger there.
2. Women shouldn1t because they have an instinct to be taken care of, can't think logically, etc.
3 Trust me you CANNOT have nuanced rules for people who don't have nuanced thinking.
This one is easy.
Women aren't net taxpayers.
But even if they were they shouldn't vote because they are BIOLOGICALLY INCABABLE of valuing freedom/ thinking rationally.
Most losers in society are a byproduct of single-motherhood.
Welfare is'nt the last step, it's the 1st thing to take away.
@basedbagel
you just disagreed with yourself. you say that women will cry to get in boys' schools, but then men can just say no.
our birthrates are dogshit because women don't need men. why don't women need men? because of college? no. it's because of wellfare. so many women are in college also because of wellfare.
without wellfare, women couldn't afford to go to college, and even if they did, they couldn't support themselves afterwards.