Did attractive women benefit most from Feminism?

Define benefit. Riding the cock carousel until drugs, casual sex, and partying ruins their looks and riddles them with STDs and psychological problems before they hit 30 isn't beneficial in my opinion.

Attached: 1533346863066.jpg (500x510, 175K)

women aren't attractive they are whores

nope, you're just a homosexual

That's still a nice ass.

Attached: eat ASS.jpg (720x720, 304K)

*sniff*

This is partially right. Ugly became the new 'hot' so good looking women were baited into making themselves uglier to benefit ugly feminists.

Also, ugly feminists decided that if they could not get a man, no woman should, so dating and marriage are lower than ever.

Attractive women cn't even benefit from being attractive anymore thanks to metoo and other feminist turds floating in he punch bowl.

No.

Attached: 1529366271939.gif (480x360, 3.82M)

Attached: 1523520548.gif (480x270, 682K)

There is nothing feminists hate more than attractive women.

Feminism is recycled Marxism for ugly girls.

Attached: doggof.jpg (900x900, 104K)

Attached: 6ea.png (600x809, 658K)

Outside of a political voice, not really. Women could already own and direct property and capital and, being attractive, have plenty of interpersonal social power over men and other women. Not sure if I'd call the pill a feminist issue desu

BRRBRRRBRRRRBRRRAAAAAAPPPPPFFFFTTT[SQUEAK]

They get the worst of it. If they ride the cocks then they lose their ability to pair bond and become wifes. Thus their offspring will be ruined

NOOOOOOOOO LORD FRIEZAAAAAA!

First wave (1900's) was legal equality (I'm ok with this)
Second wave (1970's) was economic equality (If she can preform equal work I'm ok with her getting equal compensation)
Third wave (2010's) is gender supremacy (I am not ok with this)

Attached: a real femenist.jpg (470x706, 162K)

THIS.

No, the good looking ones have always been able to find men to support them. Feminism is about forcing society to support the ugly and nasty roasties as well.

you need to understand that the slippery slope fallacy isn't exactly a fallacy in an accelerationist society

They benefit least actually

yeah if they use it to their advantage

Someone post the webm of the women doing leg press on a machine and breaking her legs.

It goes both ways, if you start restricting the rights of women you will eventually restrict the rights of everyone.

Attached: What rights don't women have.jpg (782x1200, 86K)

Yes. Which is hilarious because the movement was meant to increase the status of ugly women.

You are a fucking retard.

Alpha men benefited most from feminism.

Attached: 1521641144295.jpg (709x970, 94K)

No, attractive women have always lived life on easy mode. Feminism gives them ego boosts but by and large it's made them more miserable since they waste their lives being token vaginas in dead-end corporate jobs instead of starting families.

At least I'm not an authoritarian.

Attached: 1367282447728.jpg (2200x1877, 712K)

Au contraire. Attractive men benefited from the sexual revolution that was caused by feminism. More women having sex will multiple partners, except they all flock to the attract chads.

It isn't authoritarian to not allow women to vote. It isn't even authoritarian to restrict voting in general. Do you believe the founding fathers were authoritarian in their deliberate restricting of voting rights? Why do you think they restricted voting rights to property-owning males, with the vote representing a successful household? Can you think of any potential scenarios they were trying to avoid by practicing "pure democracy" such as what you're proposing?

Make it a defacto thing, rather than creating sexually discriminating laws. Only let net tax payers or soldiers or complete families vote. The results of such a system would prop up capitalistic, nationalist and family orientated politicians

>Did attractive women benefit most from Feminism?

yes.
proplem is that it inflated thier ego, plain janes which are god-tier waifus got left behind while men ran after narcistic whores.

Attached: pagan5486.jpg (960x909, 87K)

>It isn't authoritarian to not allow women to vote.
and you called me retarded.
and if we told you that you couldn't vote?

Attached: pol tard.png (1000x813, 656K)

by not practicing*
This is what I'm getting at, if a voting-based system is to be preserved. Heinlein, for instance. That other user is a retarded faggot.

>implying anyone aside from business owners benefits from feminism

The tiny minority of women who would prefer to live a childfree career life over starting a family and the tiny minority of attractive men who want to sleep around benefited from feminism, everyone else got shafted. Women are more unhappy than ever, a significant amount of them are on antidepressants and will die alone.

I asked you a very simple question. The US government was originally founded as a minarchist-leaning society, and it deliberately restricted voting rights. Were the founding fathers strictly authoritarian in their desire to restrict voting rights, or did they do it to avoid a certain scenario we now find ourselves in?

>and if we told you that you couldn't vote?
Then I couldn't vote? What kind of question is that? Why should citizenship alone grant you the right to vote for MPs/Senators/etc?

You want to regress society? Regression is never good, progress in moderation.

>Then I couldn't vote
britcuck flag checks out, this is why you country is shit and getting shittier.

Attached: Back to the Future IV Judgement Day.jpg (498x342, 52K)

No, they get the shit-end of the stick. Attractive women piss feminists off the most because they get all the attention and cock that feminists secretly desire.

Well, i do not think so. Women benefit from feminism quite equally, imho. Well, maybe in sooome ways, like attractive women are probably more likely to be harassed and, as a ugly gal, i do not think, that it will ever happen to me, so maybe for them struggle against harassment is more seeminlgy benefitical, like no one would ever harass me, even in some universe, where harassment is completely legal, but struggle against harassment tottaly benefits attractive women. Or something like that, but even in this way, it is cool for me to know, that my attractive friends are probably less likely to be harassed, so it benefits me too.

>You want to regress society? Regression is never good, progress in moderation.
just answer his question

/thread

losers in the game wanting to change the rules.

No because they’re still unable or unwilling to settle down thus they end up old, emotionally broken and alone. Back in the days the cream of women got with the financial elite and settled down trading looks for wealth. Now they’re trading looks for ?????? While the men who should be their peers Drop them for a younger roastie

>britcuck flag checks out, this is why you country is shit and getting shittier.
I'd argue universal voting rights is why my country is shit and getting shittier. People who work or will against the interests of a nation should have no say in it's future. If only complete families could vote, we wouldn't have 50 year old cool wine aunts voting to bring exotic dickings

Compared to today, yes they where. Back in their historical context, no.

Let you better decide you future for you peasant! I bet you're pro-EU.

>just answer his question
>Jow Forums corners a yid for the 432994th time

>regression is never good
And what if you progress too far? If you think regression is "never good", then you're obviously not even considered a basic-boomer-bitch conservative in America. So why are you masquerading as one on an anonymous imageboard?

More importantly, why will you not answer my question?

>Let you better decide you future for you peasant!
I just said families you illiterate subhuman, normal intact blue and white collar households. Also the net tax payer is not the 0.01% alone

Like I said, moderation.

Be silent peasant, know your place!

>Be silent peasant, know your place!
Fuck off retard

> answer my question?
which one?
The US is not a democracy, we are a republic

Peasants arn't allowed to speak that way, off to the tower with you!

What is unabling them to settle down? Is it illegal in US for women to marry?

Now post that again without a memeflag and you made the best post itt

Really? Compared to today, the founding fathers would be considered authoritarian? Even though their original government didn't have a standing military, centralized bank, zero income taxes, and no social-security-esque ponzi schemes to enslave the working class into lining the government's pockets? A government which advocated for next-to-nothing foreign involvement if it didn't directly affect the US, and allowed its citizens to freely own ANY form of weaponry available at the time which they could afford?

How is it that THAT government, is more authoritarian than what we have today?

>moderation
Okay, so things get worse but more slowly and it's harder to make things better again without bloodshed. Sounds great to me, but don't act surprised when someone shoots you. Remember Jefferson's tree of liberty quote.

I swear that's the reason why they shill for big asses on women, ass is literally for homosexuals.

Attached: 08f3fb25ad22fc0df597e57da8bffebb3d797437d7df02c7f2d6a34700eef4d2.png (1196x993, 648K)

Attached: 1520961726153.gif (320x240, 723K)

Did they not teach you about the Whisky rebellion?

If you stand still other will pass you by.

Good job taking a mandatory high school Civics/Government course.
Yes, because every society that doesn't allow everyone who has reached some arbitrary age-limit vote is clearly a bloodthirsty tyrannical monarch out of a with the demeanor of a comicbook villain.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything that I'm saying?

minus the "out of a." I'm in a couple threads right now.

If you advocate some have rights that others do not, be prepared to live in a world where you have a very high probability of not being in the elite aristocracy and getting no say in how you life is run. More liberty is never a bad thing unless you like the idea of being told what you can and cannot do by other who are not of your choosing.

Absolutely not. Attractive women get a lot of benefits just from being attractive. They don't need feminism. It's the ugly women who benefit the most from feminism.

1. I've never stated or projected that I would be in the "elite aristocracy."
2. "More liberty is never a bad thing", yet you believe the Founding Fathers by today's standards are considered authoritarians.

You have a very simplistic view of the world. Tell me, what do you believe is the role of the government?

How do you figure that? Seems to me that betas didn't have a shot before feminism.

All women who are not feminists gain, at the very least, a +1 on the hotness scale. Kindness and being nice has become (basic feminine traits) erotic.

>good feminism exists
lurk more faggot, equality is a myth, women shouldn't be able to vote nor to go to war and the two things shouldn't be separated, women were already able to work they were just discouraged from doing it and rightly so
and fix that picture filename typo

This. Belittling something as a "slippery slope fallacy" presumes incrementalism is not a strategy. That's foolish.

All front holes benefit from feminism but attractive women especially. It gives them sexual agency meaning they can marry or date whoever they want instead of who their male legal guardian wants.

They can keep harems of betas and potential suitors and milk then for money while humiliating it them at the same time. It gives amazing unique power to holes over men

If you think that "only white land owning males can vote" would be considered good in today's world, sure.

not anymore, all the good one are either dead or to old to do anything.

>fix that picture filename typo
no, it annoys some people and that makes me happy

look up who bankrolled the first wave

>look up who bankrolled the first wave
wow you mean jewishness is historically tied to femininity?

Why do you think it wouldn't work in today's world? Do you think it would fail catastrophically due to a scenario created solely as a result of opening up voting rights to begin with?

Attached: tumblr_ky9skwIoVM1qz8rpeo1_500.jpg (500x333, 58K)

everything is a Jewish conspiracy, didn't you know?

It would be declared a violation of human rights and no civilized country in the world would approve and thus the nation would be an embargoed pariah.

Attached: news flash the Japanese are jews.png (1212x985, 2.35M)

people don't tie jewishness to femininity because they're blinded by "muh gurls r good"
it's disgusting.
matriarchy and femininity are cancerous.

Well then, if the United States is civilized, why is it (and the rest of the modern world) not embargoing Israel for severely restricting voting rights within its domain?

Because nobody sees Israel as the moral arbiter of the world. The US tries to be that, though.

You have to remember, most of our anti-discriminatory laws came at a time when the US ascended to a world power and was in strong competition with the USSR. We wanted to look better than them and could not do so if we kept the negroes separate and as second class citizens.

because jews and women do everything they can with the goal of plausible deniability and not being held accountable for their actions.

see
If you cry Jew often enough, no one will believe you when it matters.

Attached: jewbird.jpg (272x479, 30K)

No, pic related is feminism

Attached: 377AC033-F809-4228-B5B4-4249BA526E3F-683-00000163F2BCC18F.jpg (344x619, 33K)

Are we seen as the moral arbiters of the world then? If not, who else? And regardless of which, why are we not embargoing Israel for their restriction of voting rights? Clearly voting rights are a very pressing and important issue to you two, and I just want to make sure everyone has equal opportunity in the world. Anything else would be oppression.

Right?

I think the US often claims to be moral arbiter of the world. This is one thing progressives and conservatives agree on - that we should strive to be the very best, teach the world our ways, etc. Remember Reagan calling us the "shining city on the hill?"

Israelis aren't interested in turning other countries into Israel. That's why they can commit acts that would never fly in the US. The US views itself as moral arbiter, that is why we don't really care whether our allies are racist or sexist. We don't hold the Israelis or Saudis to any standards besides helping us.

Then they shouldn't hold us to a standard that they themselves refuse to follow, as the other user was suggesting.

>Then they shouldn't hold us to a standard that they themselves refuse to follow,
hahahahaha
you've never talked with a woman in your entire life

The Israelis don't hold us to those standards. We hold ourselves to those standards. Do you really think Netanyahu or the Likudniks would give a shit if we segregated blacks? Of course not.

But Americans would, whether progressive or conservative. Racism, sexism, all the -ism are moral wrongs here, not so much in other countries.

Many here blame the Jews and Jews alone, but a lot of the anti-discriminatory laws came about from an America which wanted to be on top of the world. Thus, the need to prove our morality. Not saying I agree with it, but it was a common sentiment among many different kinds of Americans, especially Northeastern WASPS.

Let me get a Hell Yea

>2000 years
>what is the Edict of Milan, yet the much later recognition of Christianity as an official religion despite it
>what is the Northern Crusade
>let us instead just believe that all of pagan Europe just got instantly baptized in 1 AD
>let us reinforce this fact by having 9/10 of the people in the bottom collage having existed from the 1st millenium onward, and the other one left having lived most of his life as a pagan

Is this pic bait? Then congrats, you baited me.