Responses to Matriarchy vs. Patriarchy

[Martin Hash]

Everyone has it "better" now than at any time in history. The whole idea that there has been some kind of historical oppression that needs to be rectified stinks of Marxism. Dividing people into groups and handing out oppression points is never going to lead us to a better place. The current race for being the biggest victim is a sickness upon society. When did we start worshiping victimhood? That's not how any of this works.
What is this new foundation that will replace the old bad one? What even was the old bad one? The nuclear family is a pretty recent invention and the jury is still out on whether it's a good idea.
The natural environment for humans seems to be tribes of around 150 individuals. That is what we are designed for.

Progress doesn't = revenge. This is my beef with the current climate of the left; the emphasis on revenge. In reality, we can never make up for it anyway. Revenge is not even possible.

Also I'm not talking about family structure but family dynamics.

"Revenge" is a rough word for it but kind of works. In reality, it's envy & resentment, the binding agent of Collectivism.

As for families, I got a good one. So do my friends. No one's complaining, but if you think your idea of "family" is superior in some way, let's compare lives... How's your kids?

[Speaker to Animals]

How are we supposed to have "progress" with your Marxist program when you obviously do not even view half the population as fully human beings worthy of the same rights as you?

That is not progress for men.

It is not progress for whites

Making classes of people inferior in rights and priveleges is not "progress" for anybody but those who get to benefit at their expense.

You're being irrational again. Remove the emotion and replace it with rational discourse.

Nothing was emotional about that post. You do not see men as fully human. Fife pointed it out by inverting the subject of your misandric post to show you something you'd see as fully hateful if expressed towards your own sex.

You supported depriving a man of basic human rights in that confirmation hearing. You discounted the testimony of men, and took as fact the hysterical allegations of a lying woman that literally no witnesses corroborated.

Just the fact that you want to destroy innocent men to protect women from rape, but could not care less about the other half if rape victims victimized by women speaks volumes.


You don't get to escape this fact by declaring people "emotional".

[Martin Hash]

You don't get to escape this fact by declaring people "emotional".

You can tell she feels women are in a superior position now so will discount any claims otherwise by dismissing their argument with mockery. (Men did the same thing to women for decades. As I stated in another topic, the hypocrisy is lost on her because there is no hypocrisy in war.)

[DBTrek]

Odd, seems that “unhealthy” and imbalanced traditional institution of marriage and nuclear family is consistently the healthiest option when actual data is taken into account. I wonder how all the data got it so wrong?


Even those “authoritarian” arranged marriages imposed on couples from other cultures seem to do well. Puzzling indeed.

I said “authoritarian marriage” and you heard “nuclear family.”

Looks like I said marriage twice, including “authoritarian”, and nuclear family once.

You have evidence that children raised under an “authoritarian marriage” go on to worse outcomes than those raised by single mothers? After all, the proliferation single parent households mark one of the great “advancements” of our time. A great departure from our “unhealthy” past, right?

[Speaker to Animals]

You don't get to escape this fact by declaring people "emotional".

You can tell she feels women are in a superior position now so will discount any claims otherwise by dismissing their argument with mockery. (Men did the same thing to women for decades. As I stated in another topic, the hypocrisy is lost on her because there is no hypocrisy in war.)

The hypocrisy has always been there, though. The problem is that too many men, especially those who tend to gain political power in a democracy, allow for this to happen. It's a similar problem to the original Puritan colonies where simp males catered to all the moral panics of women, ultimately resulting in witch trials.

I assure you that witch trials were not the only horrors to go on in Puritan America. Women sometimes murdered people in packs and got away with it. Quakers were a major target for this. Anybody that threatened their moral tyranny was fair game.

You saw it rear it's ugly head again when women demanded prohibition, the end of prostitution, and other nanny state endeavors. Even now, if you try to legalize prostitution, which I would argue although not a good thing a very necessary thing given the state of women and the fact that they have alienated a substantial number of low-income and low-attractive men from sex, they will come at you with the war on women. It's not a war on women at all. It's just taking away their power.

When that off-the-hook Yankee female hypoagency was employed for good (like ending slavery), it was very effective and many didn't say much about it the dangers because they liked the outcome. That's the danger. When this phenomenon achieves something a man wants, he is likely to overlook the danger. But then it eventually gets turned on him too, or it would eventually be turned on men like him. This is what happened with MeToo. I warned you guys how bad this would get and a lot of you were just gleeful it was destroying liberal men. Now look.

[C-Mag]

Should we destroy the Memphis Belle ?


It's clear these guys stand for demeaning women and toxic masculinity. By the new rules any symbols of this need to be destroyed.

[Speaker to Animals]

Should we destroy the Memphis Belle ?


It's clear these guys stand for demeaning women and toxic masculinity. By the new rules any symbols of this need to be destroyed.

I bet the bombardier was manspreadung when he dropped bombs on German women.

[C-Mag]

It's not trolling, it's a serious question. Because the logical end result of the Social Justice +MeToo movements is these guys are Toxic Male Criminals and all evidence they existed will need to be destroyed.

At a more personal level, can I have this picture on the wall at work ?
I'd like MilSpecs perspective on this, if I had that picture up, would I be sexualizing the workplace?


First of all it's a picture of an white male club meeting, then they are sexualizing women, and promoting war.

[Fife]

I don't know where you work, but I guaran-goddam-tee you that picture would not be allowed in any civilian government office space if a single complaint was made.

[MilSpecs]

Everyone has it "better" now than at any time in history. The whole idea that there has been some kind of historical oppression that needs to be rectified stinks of Marxism. Dividing people into groups and handing out oppression points is never going to lead us to a better place. The current race for being the biggest victim is a sickness upon society. When did we start worshiping victimhood? That's not how any of this works.
What is this new foundation that will replace the old bad one? What even was the old bad one? The nuclear family is a pretty recent invention and the jury is still out on whether it's a good idea.
The natural environment for humans seems to be tribes of around 150 individuals. That is what we are designed for.

Progress doesn't = revenge. This is my beef with the current climate of the left; the emphasis on revenge. In reality, we can never make up for it anyway. Revenge is not even possible.

Also I'm not talking about family structure but family dynamics.

"Revenge" is a rough word for it but kind of works. In reality, it's envy & resentment, the binding agent of Collectivism.

As for families, I got a good one. So do my friends. No one's complaining, but if you think your idea of "family" is superior in some way, let's compare lives... How's your kids?

Are you an authoritarian husband? Does your wife have equal agency?