>the patriarchy doesn't exist because men suffer more than women

We must make women suffer more

>>81623383
And that's what's wrong with dude bro culture
Your first thought was how do we make women suffer more and not how do we make men less miserable
It's why I laugh when I see dude bros go
What about mens mental health knowing damn well they don't care
The only time I ever heard these niggas bring it up was when some woman was complaining about her struggles or shit

>muh patriarchy
What the hell is this? 2015? Shut your goofy ass up.

>>81623436
Let's see those mens mental health stats
Patriarchy is why men suffer and it's men keeping it in place while gaslighting like it doesn't exist

>>81623364 (OP)
Reminder that the patriarchy is a conspiracy theory no less absurd than believing the moon landing was fake

>>81623420
Men cannot be less miserable, we are too schizo for that. Men built societies and technological bases that have solved all of a medieval peasant's concerns, yet we keep pushing for more and more because we can't sit still. We have been created by God to suffer by design. So all that can be done is make women suffer more in solidarity. Women are kind, giving angels, so they won't mind

>>81623476
Why hasn't their been a female president
When the choice was qualified political woman or steak salesman?

women are more conservative than men when it comes to kinship

>>81623530
I genuinely feel bad for women it's like theyve been handcrafted for failure and men are punishing them for simply existing in a system of their designing
Macabre shit

>>81623536
Because the male option was better

>>81623364 (OP)
Behead conscription officers inshallah

>>81623562
One was literally a accomplished political woman the other quite literally sold steaks and we aren't really sure has an above 5th grade reading level

>>81623451
No it isn't. "Patriarchy" is such a a bullshit catch all that demonizes mens behavior simply for being men. I'm very well aware of your shitlib debate tactics. You have NOTHING.

>>81623628
One person has years of experience running government and being involved in political machinations who understood how to get shit done
The other sold steaks
Can you guess who Americans thought was better qualified to run the government?

>>81623364 (OP)
>when someone says they support black rights but they're not black

>>81623655
Shut the hell up faggot. Women deserve nothing. After artificial wombs are complete, we will exterminate women and simps.

>>81623655
The one who sold steaks noticably improved my quality of life during both of his terms regardless of his policies, while Hillary, Biden, and Kamala's stated political platforms (on their websites) would have negatively impacted me personally. Why should I support a politicians who reasonably promises to enact policies that are detrimental to me?

>>81623671
And women are called emotional

>>81623671
How would you do that without viable eggs you Indian cow shit slurping moron

>>81623686
>The one who sold steaks noticably improved my quality of life during both of his terms r
Now for the haymaker
What did he do to achieve that

>>81623701
Idk if it was up to me I'd genetically alter all women to have tomboyish inclinations. Not to where they are the same people just to where they're not insufferable
TTD Total Tomboy Domination!

>>81623755
I was mocking you low int kun

>>81623755
You're literally a woman you retarded pooner no amount of larping on this board will EVER make you a man

>>81623660
>Capitalists explaining why they are capitalists but not telling me where their factory is
>People who support Black rights showing me their human empathy
I don't know what logical fallacy your dumb example was but I'm sure it's there

>>81623536
>Why hasn't their been a female president
Lots of places have had those
>When the choice was qualified political woman or steak salesman?
Because the choice was between a charisma void whose policies were unpalatable to a lot of people and a guy who at least promised change.

>>81623783
Cope and seethe sharticaca

>>81623655
>one was an establishment politician, the type of person who has been fucking over this country for decades
>the other was the political equivalent of taking a shit on the establishment's desk
>wtf how did the second candidate win, huh must have been muh soggy knee patriarchy

>>81623364 (OP)
Women will always rely on a certain amount of men for their rights. You can't get rid of the "patriarchy", it's literally impossible. What you're seeing now is the closest thing to getting rid of it because modern men have been dumbed and weakened down into an ineffective state.

>>81623885
Both sides are AIPAC neoconservatives

>>81623885
I used to laugh that that article was retarded but I think it may have actually been right

>>81623798
>Because the choice was between a charisma void whose policies were unpalatable to a lot of people and a guy who at least promised change.
A boring competent person or a charismatic liar
Is that your rationale
Well I guess if I get cancer I'll see out a good shaman man who can cure my cancer with herbs and sap rather than a doctor who has decades of experience fighting cancer

>>81623924
>Women will always rely on a certain amount of men for their rights.
Why is that? Does noone ever stop to think why the most important member of the human species is a second class citizen?

>>81623715
It really doesn't matter. If I he had nothing to do with it, it doesn't affect me. If he did, I gain. If the other party says they will enact policies that in my case explicitly worsen my life, then I should not vote for them. The reason being that one cannot make it a principle to always vote for who promises to do everything that one does not want them to do, because one thinks all politicians are secretly going to do the opposite of what they say.

Besides gaining on an economic front through several policies and grants that Trump signed through EO, ICE deported almost everyone in my entire neighborhood. It's pretty cozy now, and there has been no loud music or crime in months. There are still hispanics here but it's a lot better. I personally called ICE one 3 homes and saw 1 deported, the other two either moved on their own or were deported but I didn't see. If Trump is lying about all other policies and does not deliver, my life has personally been bettered, regardless of if he hurt all other people in the entire nation and I am the single, sole, and only benefactor of his presidency. Why should I vote for someone that promises to enact policy that will harm me?

>>81623364 (OP)
That awkward moment when non capitalist thinks capital means just money. Kek everytime

>>81624029
>>81624029
>It really doesn't matter.
Siigggggghhhhh

>>81623791
Tell me what is logical about your subjective values, imbecile.

>>81624043
I was benefited. Whether Trump is an actual chimpanzee or a tranny lizard demon from space matters 0%. Explain why I should vote for someone who promises as part of their election platform policies that affect me negatively?

>>81624050
Would you want me to rape you?

>>81623953
There's a bit of truth to it. Trump runs laps around Hillary (Kamala too) when it comes to relating to the average voter, speaking on their level and understanding how they feel. People don't like to be lectured to with SAT words because it comes off as condescending, which Democrats are very prone to doing.

I had a political science course in college that was taught by my state's former governor, who was also a Congressman for awhile. He told us you never want to be portrayed as the "smart one" in a race because that loses you more votes than it wins. You could tell he was a smart guy but he never wanted to be depicted that way in elections.

>>81624078
If it benefits you, do it. I will not vote for someone whose platform is to rape me, though, and I will shoot you if you try.

>>81623989
The concept of rights are what you could do if you were alone on a deserted island. Once other people are involved its whoever is strongest decides.
And when it is many people then it is group enforced violence that decides the law and which rights are allowed.
Cry about being a second class citizen all you want, but you are reliant on the stronger sex to ensure your rights exist.

>>81624115
Answer the fucking question you fucking retard. Do you want me to rape you?

>>81624119
I genuinely don't think women would just starve to death if all men vanished I don't see your fucking point

>>81624078
>>81624115
Because you're an imbecilic sort of unconscious sophist, you will now reply
>Well Trump rapes you in the end too!
Yet between the two, one promises to do so and the other only probably will. And of the one who only probably would, he hasn't and has only benefited me. Now why should I vote for someone who promises policy that harms me?
>>81624121
I'm not saying saying good or bad does not exist, I'm just saying I couldn't care less what you think it is. You're not creating an argument that your subjective values are logical, only that you think they're good. Tell me how there is a fallacy in not caring about your values.

>>81624169
>I'm not saying saying good or bad does not exist, I'm just saying I couldn't care less what you think it is. You're not creating an argument that your subjective values are logical, only that you think they're good. Tell me how there is a fallacy in not caring about your values.
Ffs midwits should be put to death

>>81623702
>Anythijg I dislike is Indian
Settle down spic

>>81624138
The point is if you set up a society of only women they would be conquered. Whine about human rights all you want but humanity will just violate them if you aren't well protected enough.

>>81624219
>they would be conquered.
Conquered by who?

>>81624184
You're the midwit that overestimates his intelligence. It is logical for me to not want to be raped in the same way it is logical for me to support Trump. If I owned black slaves, it would be logical to support slavery of blacks in the same way. There is equivalence between one having not having capital yet being a capitalist, and not being black yet supporting their rights through how one desires to affect society.
We could even reduce it to empathy for those who possess capital. This is aside from the fact that the two maintain moral equivalence.

>>81623978
>Is that your rationale
That's not a rationale. You see the same phenomenon in elections between two men. A repulsive guy vs a charismatic guy is not a winning bet, especially in american politics where most people don't vote and the ones who do are nearly split 50/50. Like it or not, getting people on board with your ideas IS a skill in politics and trump was better at it.

>>81624239
So then you should assume THE RIGHT person didn't get elected if it's just some popularity contest

>>81624231
>if women split off from men they would be the only people who exist
They would be conquered by literally any stronger country. Any country that had men.
What's YOUR point?

>>81624238
Midwits unironically are a blight on society Jesus Christ

>>81624265
You're still not answering WHO would be conquering

>>81623989
>Does noone ever stop to think why the most important member of the human species is a second class citizen?
You mean trump? Laws don't apply to rich people.

>>81624274
>Capitalists explaining why they are capitalists but not telling me where their factory is
>People who support Black rights showing me their human empathy
>I don't know what logical fallacy your dumb example was but I'm sure it's there
Tell me where the fallacy in this statement is:
>when someone says they're a capitalist but have no factories (but don't benefit from capitalism)
>when someone says they support black rights but they're not black
You lack an argument. Calling me a midwit is a good way to avoid one, though.

>>81624285
Stop asking your question like a retard then retard. You want me to say
>men
So you could say
>then why would I trust men to protect me
Or some bullshit? Cry. About. It. Might makes right.

>>81624349
See you knew what the answer was and you deliberately avoided saying it.
So women are just peacefully minding their business and men come along and conquer it
I'm starting to see what the problem with society is
And I think you just did too

>>81623364 (OP)
men don't suffer, they pretend they do but it's all imaginary, like autism.

They go to war because they want to and take joy in torturing fellow men
They kill themselves because their megalomaniac delusions of their own making never happen and they get tired of their lame tantrums

Every single one of their issues is self made

>>81623364 (OP)
patriarchy is a retarded term defined by foids. aristotle's definition is rule by old and wise men which doesn't apply to us- though we may be ruled by old men, none of them are wise.

>>81625055
If you had the guess the gender of a leader for a random or you die what gender would you guess

>>81625168
what the hell does that have to do with what i said? i have no idea what your point is

>>81625230
Because you say patriarchy is the incorrect term when it's the CORRECT term for it
So now back to the question if you had to guess the gender of a leader from a random country what gender are you picking?

>>81625245
Jews are so overrepresented in ownership of banks and media that they make up ~70-80% of major shareholders, ceos, or private owners. Should we say the economy and culture is owned and shaped by jews just because we can make a random guess (jews) and be right more than 50% of the time?

I don't really like or trust other men so I have no illusions that the patriarchy isn't kind of shitty for everyone but the bullies

>>81625245
>>81625272
When I say Jew, I mean ethnic Jew. You can read fact checkers debunk the statistic by saying "the majority are actually catholic, protestant, or secular" but we exclusively refer to the biological ethnicity.

>>81625272
Jesus Christ why are you people so allergic to answering questions

>>81625245
ARISTOTLE's definition of patriarchy is a society ruled by OLD and WISE MEN. any other definition is incorrect, especially one where it's just that men are in charge.

>>81625293
The answer is that rule-by-men is only meaningful when the rule is concerted rather than a by-product of natural environment, biology, or sociology. You can point out that Christians and Muslims are discriminated against in hiring due to biases and point out that a majority of leaders are secular and say it's some form of rule-by-seculars, but it would be preposterous to say that this is an enforced governmental system that is designed to oppress the religious and enrich secular people when everyone suffers regardless.

>>81623364 (OP)
Be grateful. The patriarchy is the only thing stopping me from raping (You)

>>81625362
Actually that's Chad
The only reason you don't rape is because you are scared of Chad

>>81624231
>Conquered by who?
>>81624285
>WHO would be conquering

The question is not "who" but "what".
And the answers are: famine, starvtion, natural disasters, wild animals, diseases, etc

Feel free to move to siberia to start your own female utopie though

>>81625351
And its funny you did all that dancing just to reaffirm the patriarchy is infact a real thing

>>81625378
Not chads but cops. ACAB
The fuck chad gonna do anyway ?

>>81625340
The meaning of words change retard what it meant to him is not what society collectively uses it to mean today

>>81625378
Kek so now all the sudden men are good because they protect you ?
Hahahahahah

>>81625385
Kek and now you tried to walk back the other anons answer but saying some
Well if it's not an oven how will women know how to operate it

>why don't you just solve the conflict
>he doesn't get that channel

>>81625393
If you're an imbecile then yes, you would say it's a patriarchy. If it's a patriarchy, the term is meaningless and it has as little use politically as noticing smart people are more likely to be engineers. Is this some sort of systemic oppression of the imbeciles such as yourself, or a natural product of environmental conditions and biology?

>>81625406
>society
A few batshit insane femnazis arent "society"

>>81625406
i'm going to stick with aristotle's definition over one a bunch of dumb sluts all on their periods came up with, purely because i respect aristotle a lot more than (You).

>>81625398
Just admit Thinking about Chad exerting his will on you makes your dick shrink inside your body

>>81625416
I have no idea what your even trying to say. Can you write that in proper english ?

>>81625430
Fujoshis belong in a psychward

>>81625422
YOU.ARE.A.MIDWIT.
>Nowadays when we say we're "down in the dumps," we mean that we're in a gloomy, low-spirited mood. But the original dump from which this derives was actually an old Tudor English word for an absent-minded daydream, or a dazed, puzzled state of mind, not a depressive one. In that sense, it probably has its roots in an earlier old Dutch word, domp, meaning "haze" or "mist."

>>81625449
I'm serious I've never seen you talk to Chad the way you talk to women in general scared Chad would push your shit in? I thought you guys were against men beating up on women

>>81625460
>>Nowadays when we say we're "down in the dumps," we mean that we're in a gloomy, low-spirited mood. But the original dump from which this derives was actually an old Tudor English word for an absent-minded daydream, or a dazed, puzzled state of mind, not a depressive one. In that sense, it probably has its roots in an earlier old Dutch word, domp, meaning "haze" or "mist."
Did you meant to post that in another thread ?
No clue how that relate to feminists being retards

>>81625460
this dumb whore is comparing aristotle's the politics to some hokey saying a bunch of tudor peasants came up with.

>>81624210
Whoa pajeet why are we catching strays. White people are perfectly capable of hating jeets and its not hard to.

>>81625467
>I've never seen you
Well yeah we probably never met. You dont even know anything about me

>>81625460
I think anon doesn't care about your wordgames because, if he is a midwit, you fail even to make it past dimwittedness.
His point is that the term patriarchy is useless because there us no explicit system whereby men are enriched and made to lead and women are plundered and forced into servitude. There is no system of patriarchy as we might have a system of capitalism or democracy.

>>81623451
"Patriarchy" is a god of the gaps and you are a stupid nigger.

>>81625467
Also i didnt even mentioned this "chad" youre talking about. Youre the one who brought this up

Patriarchy doesn't exist. If anything, MATRIARCHY exists these days.

>>81625512
>Patriarchy exists because women are treated like how the Japanese trata their Kobe beef cows

>>81625512
>Patriarchy doesn't exist. If anything, MATRIARCHY exists these days.
TRVTHNVKE

>>81625511
You never bring up Chad because he's scares you

I do have capital, I have lot of crypto which I should probably invest in something sensible

>>81625533
What arouses you so much about male on male?

>>81625522
Life was simple when women had less rights. Just saying.

>>81625525
The japanese cows from Kobe are treated better than any other cows in the world
What happens to them in the end?

>>81625522
>>81625556
nigga nobody is eating you

>>81625544
I just find it humourous noone has ever thought it strange that noone has EVER seen incels talk to Chad the way you talk to women but I'm sure you have an example to prove me wrong

>>81625556
>What happens to them in the end?
Some richfag/capitalists (including many women) (not the average man) eats them.
Your point ?

>>81625579
The critical thinking skills of a rock with low effort rage baiting skills

>>81625580
>If i chose to ignore it, it doesnt happen
ok

>>81625556
The dairy cows in Hokkaido are treated pretty damn well

>>81625589
But isn't the cow being pampered and privileged beyond any animals wildest dream Wouldn't you say that in that area of Japan cows are actually in charge a cowarchy if you will? No you wouldn't because at the end of the day the cow is a still an object to serve his owners whims.

>>81625589
God fucking damn, anon blastin truth NUKE after NUKE

>>81623451
Foids enable le patriarchy more than anyone

>>81625605
Notice you aren't providing any examples hell why don't you go find a Chad and talk to him irl the way you talk to women or did your balls shrink up at the notion of talking to someone who could beat you up?

>>81625635
>why don't you go find a Chad and talk to him irl the way you talk to women
I already do that doe

>>81625622
I have to believe you are replying to your own posts because no way did you just dickride that low effort statement that proves nothing

>>81625648
press x to doubt holy shit there's no way you went to some Chad and talked shit to him in irl
The only people you shit talk are people you know can't beat you up

>>81625594
>>81625617
you're a pedant making a technical point that nobody cares about

>>81625630
CHAD enables the patriarchy so he can get pussy while betas like YOU can slave away to ensure his society is continuously functioning properly

>>81625656
Im the one who wrote what he replied to.
Why dont you dress my point ?
Kobe cows arent by "men" but by richfags, half of them being women

>>81625669
>did you just prove that women who get benefits in a patriarchy are not in fact in charge because they still get slaughtered at the end of the day like the kobe beef cow?

>>81625683
Ah, got it. It's a closet faggot demoralization thread.

>>81625668
>press x to doubt
Geg i predicted this >>81625605
Hahaha

>>81625687
That fact that you just used population statistics proves youre a mid wit noway did you just say half fucking lmao
Next you'll say 13 percent of American Kobe beef buyers are Black

>>81625710
>le heckin' wholesome women would never eat Kobe cows
Ok

>>81625700
You're like that meme where Chad calls the girl a slut and tells her to suck his dick and she says yes and you're off to the side just saying
>Women are all whores
Instead of
>Fuck Chad that piece of shit
Because one your scared and the other you're not

>>81625729
Fucking MIDWIT trying to covering up saying 50 of the Kobe beef eaters are women because women are half the population Jesus youre so low intelligence

>>81625751
Fujoshis need to take their meds

>>81625751
NTA but there's nothing wrong at all with telling a woman something like that if she wants it and agrees. The chad understands it and does it.

>>81625751
>Instead of
>>Fuck Chad that piece of shit
It's consensual on foids' part. As if it isn't more pathetic to keep groveling for the former's approval after they've turned you down.

>>81625778
YES but you are scared of Chad and will never tell him his degenerate behavior should have him beaten to death
But you will tell that to women
I wonder what the difference is

>>81625794
What's wrong with soiling a degenerate whore?

>>81625698
you do not get slaughtered in any sense, real or metaphorical

>>81625784
The point of that meme retard is one guy says that's bizarre behavior for the woman to respond positively to and rather than address that a feminist just calls the man a woman hater I tweak the meme to put the incel in place of the feminist hence you'll shit talk the woman
But get quiet when chads around

>>81625762
>50 of the Kobe beef eaters are women because women are half the population
Thats a fair assumption.
Feel free to prove the opposite

>>81625807
I have to think when you see the word Chad you literally filter that word out because no way did you just respond to that post like that
My god you people really are scared of Chad

>>81625845
Go to /cm/ please. I think they will love you over there

>>81625826
>ESL drivel
Ignored

>>81625845
I have no problem with any male fucking a degenerate whore because I don't care about fucking a degenerate whore. The common sentiment
>All women are whores
isn't a gripe that they won't have sex, it's a complaint that they're degenerate whores.

>>81625870
Im ESL too but based for ignoring that cunt

>>81625895
You still need to go back

If i live in a patriarchy why does my gov drafts males and not females ?

>>81625912
Im in my country doe

>>81625918
Because a male is going to send you to war?

>>81625931
I don't care you need to go back.

>>81625937
>if it were rule by women then it wouldn't be just men being oppressed, it would be both men and women oppressed EQUALLY
thanks. That sheds a lot of light on it.

>>81625937
With female approvale
Zelensky was the feminist candidate btw
Dont you love democracy ?

>>81625959
What do you mean female approval? Did Putin poll his female citizens before sending you to get droned by Zelenksy?

>>81625948
Back where ?
Im in my ancestors country

>>81625956
>Man declares war
>Men decide to obey and go to kill other men
Seems cut and dry to me

>>81625979
>Did Putin poll his female citizens before sending you to get droned by Zelenksy?
Yes literally. In every country woth the draft, whenever theres a poll on whether we should abolish the draft, most men vote to abolish it but the women and boomers oppose it.

>>81625981
Listen I didn't ask all that just know you need to go back

>>81626012
You mean the same poll that has Putin winning 97% percent of votes? I guess his political opponents are just really clumsy around windows.

>>81626015
>you need to go back
I am where ive always been. I cant go "back" to some place ive never been to

>>81625956
Feminists ruined socialism by conflating class with sex. Now instead of going straight to the fact that it's all rich people, and that poor men in modern liberal societies in no way whatsoever benefit from the fact that there happens to be 60% of men in leadership instead of 50%, they and the rest of socialists are stuck blubbering about the patriarchy as if it meaningfully described how hierarchy works at all on modern liberal societies.

Richfags take advantage of this and push feminism and identity politics at every opportunity.

>>81626023
Why are you even still talking to me you need to go be around your own people and not here speaking my language. Go back

>>81626022
We're making progress. Youre about to realise that the world isnt rule by "men" but by a very small minorty of rich people of both sexes

>>81626035
What are the genders of those people?

>>81626034
>be around your own people
I am

>>81626048
You most certainly are not you may be "based" but that doesn't mean I want you around I need you to understand that.

>>81626046
>What are the genders of those people?
About 50% male and 50% female.
Why that question ?

>>81625895
I'm the original poster you replied. The other guy replying is probably OP.

>>81626046
Imagine asking "now what is the race" on murder statistics.
Socio - economic - factors

>>81626059
>You most certainly are not
Im currently in a small rural town in france where lived most of my ancestors for at least 5 generations

>>81626060
Did you just take the gender ratio of the human species?
Well I guess half of us presidents have been female

>>81626075
But what's the gender though?

>>81626078
>French
Some sins are unforgivable

>>81626091
Male. It does not mean it's patriarchy. If you say so, we live in a world where banks are run by an explicit Jewish hegemony and blacks are collectively responsible for crime.

>>81626107
Okay so if we lock up all males what would happen to crime rates?

>>81626083
>Did you just take the gender ratio of the human species?
No. Just the fact that almost every "rich and powerful man" you can point has a wife. And if you tell me the wife has no power, youll have to prove it. And even if that was true, they are still complicite.
>>81626083
>I guess half of us presidents have been female
No but all of them had a wife and many women in their circles.

>>81626116
They would grow dramatically, as in the USA there would be an immediate surge of 150,000,000 wrongful imprisonments.

>>81626116
If you locked up all males you would starve to death lmao

>>81626121
You're very retarded you just tried to use literal gender ratios for your posts age when I mocked you for it you took it seriously
That's not even autism you're just retarded

>>81626139
What would the crime rates be after that though?

>>81626145
>you just tried to use literal gender ratios
I didnt doe.
I gave my reasoning. It seems pretty clear.
Every powerful man has a complicite wife

>>81626142
Oh do you grow food?

>>81626158
Inexistant since you would all starve to death (and thats a good thing)
>>81626174
>do you grow food?
Yes

>>81626172
>Youre about to realise that the world isnt rule by "men" but by a very small minorty of rich people of both sexes
>What are the genders of those people?
>About 50% male and 50% female.
Why that question ?
Not only are you retarded you also have short term memory loss

>>81626185
>Yes
Post proof

>>81626196
Theres no contradiction here.
You told me that i got the 50% number from the ratio of the human specie (>>81626083). This is false and i already explained it twice.

Be a better baiter, the lukers might get bored

>>81626207
Its night time right now but if the thread is still up tomorrow i'll take a pic of the land on which i farm

>>81626229
Alright let's play a game and if you lose (ie can't give me a direct answer) I'll call you a midwit
Who are the small group of people who run things. You said it's 50% male 50% female so it sounds like you are really versed in this information.

>>81626158
To illustrate, the majority of crime is committed by a minority of men. This in no wise means men are the perpetrators of crime. The overwhelming majority of those you imprison will be innocent and further victimized in prison. Your example does not work, because the men in power are not in power because they are men, and they do not work to benefit men, and they do not benefit because they are men.

The crime rates would remain the same, or higher. Innocent men would continue to be imprisoned, and because criminals abuse each other constantly in prison, it would result in much greater victimization of completely innocent men in prison. Crime would be constant and extreme. Outside of the prisons, crime would likely rise. Female on female violence is actually greater in female normative environments like lesbian relationships, as noted by the higher rates of DV:
>https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/12362/cdc_12362_DS1.pdf
>On a survey by the CDC in 2010, it was found that that 43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by an intimate partner on their lifetime. The report notes that, out of those 43.8%, two thirds (67.4%) reported exclusively female perpetrators.
>0.43 * 0.67 = 28% of lesbians abused, stalked, or raped exclusively by female partners.
The reason women commit less crime can be explained in much the same way that whites commit less crime: Because they are privileged and benefit from gender-normative stereotypes, data collection:
>>Taken together, these gender-based stereotypes likely impact the perception of violence that occurs within lesbian relationships. Although researchers have investigated perceptions of battered women in general, little research has examined perceptions of lesbians in violent relationships (Letellier, 1994). In light of pre-existing norms dictating appropriate female behaviors and stereotypical beliefs concerning lesbians, this study examined ...
Etc.

>>81626243
>I'll take a pic
>Singular
Or you could just take a flash picture

>>81626158
>>81626263
This example chooses lesbian relationships because they give an example of how women treat eachother in a purely female oriented personal environment. We know that serious bullying and abuse from female peers is widespread and common.

Your arguments do not prove or evidence patriarchy.

>>81626263
>To illustrate, the majority of crime is committed by a minority of men. This
So what you're saying is if we lock up the group who commit let's say the majority of violent crime that would be a good thing?

>>81626252
>Who are the small group of people who run things.
They dont go by any label but in socialist theory we would call them "capitalists", the owner of almost everything, from the media to corporations, etc

>You said it's 50% male 50% female so it sounds like you are really versed in this information.
Well you claimed it is 100% male (see: OP) so you seem to know as much as me

>>81626285
Nope. Did you think I was a white supremacist?

>>81626297
But you clearly tried to insinuate its the fault of less than the majority for a majority of crimes like that was negatively indicative of the group now you say it's irrelevant? Well if you say so

>>81626288
You are a certifiable midwit

>>81626331
That's because you were aggressively misinterpreting what I was saying and attacking a strawman in your head. You failed to prove a patriarchy exists as a meaningful construct.

>>81625994
But you don't vote or do anything against it. Silence is violence, right? Being a bystander is just as bad as the actual murder itself

>>81626264
Give me a moment and i'll do it. (My phone's battery is too low so the flash wont active)

>>81626344
Ok. Have a nice day/night

>>81626346
No no no
That's
>the majority of crime is committed by a minority of men.
Precisely what you said and so I said
If a less then majority is doing a majority of violent crimes it would be better to just do away with that group and suddenly that's not what you were insinuating. Why else would you go to specify a minority of a group being at fault for a majority of something negative on society?

>>81623420
>Your first thought was how do we make women suffer more
Exactly. Women will never have anything but contempt for men, it's genetic, so might as well adjust to that reality.

>>81626377
So then prior to women being allowed to vote you blame men all dying in wars... On men
Not a women btw but I wouldn't have been allowed to voted until a certain amendment was enacted

>>81626412
It's ironic you posted Chad as your reaction image

>>81626417
The few decades during which men could vote but not women is almost insignificant in history. Throughout most of history, neither men nor women could vote so idk what your point is

>>81626400
I think that's because you're an imbecile.

Minority of men doesn't mean black people. Do you not remember that my example of black people committing the majority of murders was a defense that the minority does not condone action or blame against the innocent majority of blacks? Further, that Jewish overrepresentation does not of necessity prove a Jewish hegemony? The reason being, over representation of men in leadership is not an in-itself proof or even evidence of patriarchy, because the men in power are not in power because they are men, and they do not work to benefit men, and they do not benefit because they are men.

>>81626458
>Throughout most of history, neither men nor women could vote so idk what your point
I don't remember white men needing an amendment to have voting rights must have missed that part in history class

>>81626465
So which gender commits a majority of violent crimes?

>>81626477
>white men needing an amendment to have voting rights
Yeah its called the second amendment. To bad women oppose it

>>81626483
Depends on the crime. For exemple, for child abuse, its mostly women

>>81626497
I'm just going to assume everyone on this board are midwits

>>81626483
Men. This argument doesn't work for you, unless you want to say that ethnic Jews control the banks (>50%), media (>50%), and a large percentage of other shareholder positions, and that other races are economically oppressed by jews. It also moves to agreement that blacks of necessity control crime through over-representation in crime.

The rhetorical strategy you are using is to try to make me contradict myself, but it doesn't work in this case.

>>81626513
The sum total of all violent crimes
semantics is a desperate man's game

>>81626523
Which gender commits a majority of violent crimes?

>>81623536
I could actually believe that patriarchy exists in the absolute top, top positions but this doesn't really matter for most. The median woman is far better off than the median man.

>>81626546
Did you read? I said it in the first word. You are an actual imbecile.

>>81626534
If you want the sum of all crime it would fair to compare it to who precents those crimes right ? So tell me, who arrests the criminals, who builds the prisons, who enforces the law that you love so much ?

>>81626430
>Talks about women having contempt for men
>Posts the one type of man they never feel contempt for ever
Irony indeed.

>>81626555
Kek so it was a bot all along lmao we got played

>>81626571
No, it's an honest, real life actual person with an intellectual disability.

>>81626562
Prevent not precent

>>81626555
Yes so why are you typing all that extra stuff to drown your answer

>>81626579
>real life actual person with an intellectual disability.
So a woman

>>81626564
I guess you and women have something in common then ey

>>81626587
NTA but what's your point? Women being to weak to do physical harm doesn't make them good, it makes them weak.

>>81626587
It's literally the first word with a period at then end.
>Men.
No drowning out, no stipulation, no qualification. Unironic imbecile. Now do tell me how this proves the patriarchy; As I said here >>81626523 it doesn't help your case.

>>81626587
>to drown your answer
Proof that was his intention ?

>>81626609
Typed the answer then buried the response in a bunch of nonsense garble

>>81626613
>buried
Usually you bury stuff UNDER something, not OVER it

>>81626613
It was men with a period. Read literally the first word. Men.
Also fairly interesting that a simple concept was nonsense, that tends to be the case for medical imbeciles and invalids.

>>81626625
And it should have only been men. With a period all that other stuff was to confuse anyone reading it that the answer was anything but that which was the intended purpose.

>>81626643
Not him but alrigh, lets say men are the problem. Whats your solution ?

>>81626593
Why feel contempt for chad though? He's just taking advantage of the opportunities he's given by women. Chad could not do what he does without women's consent.

>>81626643
How does one paragraph of a simple concept confuse you? Can you ask your special person or caretaker for help?

>>81626622
You quite literally answered the question and then tried to use the answer for why it doesn't apply to the question.

>>81625994
>Seems cut and dry to me
Of course it does, female in-group preference or simp wiring be like that. When "doing no harm" is the greatest virtue you can think of, you know you're talking to a cockroach who has no capacity to understand any of finer details.
>warmonger candidate wins with a female majority vote
>females occupying high-ranking decision making posts(Hannah Maliar, Kaja Kallas, Elvira Nabiullina, Ursula von Den Leyer)
>male population who never did anything is now preyed on by a gang of thugs(women happily work for the recruitment office, snitch on people, or even serve as bait like some of them did in Odessa)
>not my problem lol, it's just male on male violence, get drafted incel LOL
>*goes to europe to fuck Chad and spread AIDS*

By the way:
>But apparently, they were. In fact, between 1480 and 1913, Europe's queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, according to a National Bureau of Economics working paper. And like Isabella, queens were also more likely to amass new territory during their reigns, found the paper's authors, economists Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish.

>>81626652
Lock up all men. Congratulations all crime has been cut dramatically. That's what you were hoping for right? A huge reduction of unsafe low trust societies?

>>81626678
Now tell us how it proves patriarchy.

>>81626655
>The answer is X but here's why it's not so simple it's more complex it's actually A b c d e f and g and while it does look like X is the answer you can't really view it that way consider l m n o and p

>>81626685
If I told you your choice for a leader was a qualified experienced person or someone who ran a fake scam university
Who would you think would be a better leader?

>>81626678
>That's what you were hoping for right?
True but i was also hoping to live under a roof, to have food to eat, to not freeze to death.
So tell us:
>Which gender contributes the most to farming, contruction, defense and any other vital field ?

>>81626691
I answered
>Men.
And included the reason that it wouldn't help you as a courtesy to you. Now you will be forced to fail to prove patriarchy and look even more imbecilic than you did before. As I said: >>81626523
>The rhetorical strategy you are using is to try to make me contradict myself, but it doesn't work in this case.
Because the men in power are not in power because they are men, and they do not work to benefit men, and they do not benefit because they are men. It has nothing to do with patriarchy.

>>81626706
>Who would you think would be a better leader?
Neither. Im not a slave. I dont want to be lead.

>>81626707
Ahh but men can do all those amazing contributions from behind prison walls and crime gets to stay drastically reduced.
Win Win

>>81626706
The qualified leader. Is this sentence here burying the previous one?

>>81626723
Jesus if not answering questions resulted in painful death this board would lose a lot of posters.

>>81626725
>men can do all those amazing contributions from behind prison walls
But why would they ?

>>81626729
So why was the Scam university guy picked

>>81626738
>You HAVE TO answer my loaded questions
lol nah

>>81626738
>even doe i answered

>>81626740
I mean you don't have to but if you wanted to that would be fine too give you something fun to do in-between your time in your cell

>>81626738
It's because your questions are irrelevant sophistry. Here is you asking the same "what's the gender" question and getting the same answer:
>>81626091
>Male. It does not mean it's patriarchy. If you say so, we live in a world where banks are run by an explicit Jewish hegemony and blacks are collectively responsible for crime.
And proceeding to fail making a point.
>>81626116
Before getting stuck on a brainlet loop.
>>81626746
Did he enrich men?

>>81626747
See loaded questions imply deception
Who would you prefer a qualified surgeon with decades of experience or a guy who hosted reality TV shows to perform your surgery
What's loaded about an obvious choice?

>>81626746
This fails for the exact same reason in the supposed burial: >>81626523
>Men. This argument doesn't work for you, unless you want to say that ethnic Jews control the banks (>50%), media (>50%), and a large percentage of other shareholder positions, and that other races are economically oppressed by jews.
Representation in leadership argument won't succeed. You also cannot use a post factum rationalization of one circumstance to prove a general.

>>81626773
Hillary was secretary of state before she ran in 2016. How'd she do during her time in that role?

>>81626725
>men can do all those amazing contributions from behind prison walls
https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
>Almost half (44%) of the world's habitable land is used for agriculture
>In total, it is an area of 48 million square kilometers
Its gonna be a big prison ngl

>>81626761
What if all men refused ?

>>81626804
A experienced person or a guy who sold steaks and ran a scam university
Who's more qualified to run the government
This is such a tough decision

>>81626818
>A experienced person
According to who ? You ?

>>81626815
So you mean they would use violence to defy the law? Well I mean it would increase the crime rate but that's not anything new for men

>>81626818
Well, look whose refusing to answer questions now.

>>81626832
So you would support slavery if it was legal ?

>>81626829
According to facts and logic
Former first lady
Senator
Secretary of State
Let's see Trump's qualifications
Bankrupting casinos
The successful trump University
Steak salesman
Man they are neck and neck

>>81623655
>Can you guess who Americans thought was better qualified to run the government?
The one who wasn't a complete cunt and talked down to people
Stop acting like Hillary was a great candidate, she wasn't. She was abrasive, talked down to others, and did not support many policies that would've attracted the working class.
Your attitude is EXACTLY why the democrats lose. You don't debate with policy, you argue with shaming and mockery.

>>81626818
>Jesus if not answering questions resulted in painful death this board would lose a lot of posters.
Hmm...

>>81626832
>they would use violence
Refusing to work isnt violence doe. Its a peaceful protest

>>81626852
Funny how you left of Benghazi from that list

>>81626845
Whos enslaving them? They are not being forced to work against their will they are being imprisoned for the betterment of society. With men in prison violent crimes drop off the face of the earth and now we have high trust societies
Isn't that what you wanted

>>81626852
So i suppose that in 2020 you voted for trump, since he had more experience than Biden in being the president. Right ?

>>81626864
Ah I guess she orchestrating terrorists to raid an embassy I guess the guy who scammed a children's cancer charity is the moral choice

>>81626868
Now prove patriarchy with the statistic
>Men.
Or did you abandon it because as I said it was retarded and purely sophistry.
>The rhetorical strategy you are using is to try to make me contradict myself, but it doesn't work in this case.

>>81626868
>They are not being forced to work against their will
Hence my question, what if they refuse to work ?

>>81626852
>Secretary of state
>>81626804

>>81626852
>Former first lady
how does fucking a president make you qualified?
might as well argue for Monica Lewinsky

>>81626873
Considering he was a senator and a vice president that's two positions in government trump was only ever president one thing
Two is more than one and trump was only a politician for 4 years
Biden been in political office since segregation

>>81626888
Maybe you should reread the post IF they want to do that stuff thats fine if they don't no harm no foul you insinuated society would collapse if men suddenly vanished

>>81626891
Well she's be involved with things you do know first ladies do more than just pose nude for magazines in slavia right?

>>81626907
>being [not president] makes you more experienced at being president than [being president]
Ok man i think you truly showed us the depth of your intellect. I will now bow down to the matriarchy now

>>81626907
Where's the proof of patriarchy? Couldn't do it? I told you in that "burial". Now you're defending a completely irrelevant point. Explain how one circumstantial particular proves that there is a patriarchy? If a Jewish man won, would it be proof of Jewish hegemony?

>>81626944
Well in that regards trump was not a president so he shouldn't have been president but if not being president isn't a disqualifier for not being president then it's other areas such as one person who's been in politics for decades and the other guy ran fake colleges defrauding people

>>81626922
>you insinuated society would collapse if men suddenly vanished
Considering that men are omnipresent in the most vital fields of society (farming, construction, defence...), and that we never saw any stable and developped matriarchy, it seems to be a fair claim

>>81626960
Because two times a woman was more qualified both times they lost a guy who couldn't string together a sentence
And the only time he lost is when his opponent was a white guy proving if his opponent had a dick no person would vote for a guy who sounds like a fifth grader reading in an English class

>>81626964
Punctuation. Use it. Your posts are unreadable

>>81626964
>trump was not a president
He was in 2020 doe. Thats my point

>>81626984
This is one particular case that can be analyzed 1000 different ways. For one, he had roughly the same amount of votes in 2020, meaning he performed at least as expected for his voter base, and he won the popular vote in 2024. He proved his skill already to his voter base, whether your subjective opinion of it is different or not.

This does not prove patriarchy.

>>81627010
But he wasn't in 2016
His pinnacle of achievements was all the graduates at trump University

>>81627028
>But he wasn't in 2016
But he was in 2020. So you voted for him, right ?

>>81626998
"Arguing over semantics means focusing on the precise meanings of words and phrases, often to the point where it detracts from the core issue of a disagreement. It can be a way to avoid addressing the substance of an argument by nitpicking on word choice. "

>>81626984
>democrat complains about democracy

>>81627035
Why would a criteria he didn't have to follow in 2016 be the a deciding factor for why I voted for him in 2020? And I like that you ignore he tried to rig that election because he lost so bad and when his vice president told him he wouldn't rig it for him he replaced him

>>81627054
>Jesus if not answering questions resulted in painful death this board would lose a lot of posters.
Still thinking.

>>81627040
Im not arguing over semantics. I literally dont know what u are saying

>>81627068
". It can be a way to avoid addressing the substance of an argument by nitpicking on word choice. "

>>81627054
>Why would a criteria he didn't have to follow in 2016 be the a deciding factor for why I voted for him in 2020?
Well idk. Youre the one who's pushing for the argument of "experience"
>And I like that you ignore he tried to rig that election because he lost so bad and when his vice president told him he wouldn't rig it for him he replaced him
Idk why thats relevant to the discussion. I didnt voted for him anyway

>>81627054
Where's the proof of patriarchy?

>>81627075
>addressing the substance
To do that i need to understand what is the substance

>>81627109
Xhe's a conspiracy theorist. Xhe doesn't have any proof she just imagine stuff to spice up xer boring life

>>81627139
Sad thing is the dumb fuck chose to try this line of argumentation despite me telling it that it wouldn't work. Retard was too delayed to read and thought it was just "nonsense"

>>81627152
Yeah they really feel like bots. They are predictable and just repeat the same things again and again, even if you answer

Sometimes I wonder if the leftists who are at a complete loss for words, and who recognize that nothing they could think of or say could justify their beliefs, ever begin to reflect or try to understand how this could happen.

Do they ever consider that their beliefs are wrong? Do they ever, even if not that, consider that their prior feelings of superiority over the "ignorant" right were unjustified, and that not even they had any rational reason to believe what they did? I just wonder what they do. Sadly, I believe their brain shuts down and they forget the conversation ever happened.

1. There's no governmentally upheld system of patrisarchy.
2. Patriarchy is nature and is inescapable at the end of the day. To be opposed to partiarchy is to be opposed to nature, history, and all of human developement up until now.

>>81623364 (OP)
Patriarchy still exist its just that the top percent of men are the only ones truly benefiting from it now.

But men, as a collective would rather fight women over this instead of destroying it altogether and instead worship and look up to the dominant men keeping the patriarchy alive. In return they basically deserve to suffer

>>81627966
Toppling "patriarchy" would just mean men would be oppressed more, only by rich women instead of rich men. There would be no alteration in a male's life except negative. There is no point in a male ever caring about "patriarchy". Patriarchy is either limited to rich men, in which case it is simply a class issue, or it benefits all men, in which case a male should not care because it benefits him.

There is no circumstance where a man should rationally oppose patriarchy, even if it did exist. Instead, he should focus purely on the class issue, or if he isn't a socialist of some form, the political issue of people outside of his sphere of social beliefs imposed their values on him. Feminism and feminists solely, and only, and in every way harm both class consciousness and men's health. At no point ever, and under any circumstance ever, is it ever, under any conceivable set of environments, a rational pursuit for any man to ever consider the use of tackling the patriarchy.