Women and children

Have you ever wondered why, in emergencies, it is always said “women and children first”? Everyone instinctively takes it as a given, even now in our modern egalitarian society. Well, that is because… Women ARE children. Our ancestors have been aware of this the whole time, acting accordingly to it. Think about women for a second:
>they’re just as weak as children: they are inferior to adult men both physically and mentally, with over emotionality being a shared trait
>they’re just as ignorant as children: almost none of them have any knowledge or interest in politics, history, economics, philosophy or science
>they’re just as irresponsible as children: they expect adult men to take the blame and pay for everything, and when things don’t go their way they cry and throw a tantrum (see the women’s marches and all their other protests)
The only real difference between women and children is that women are taller and have tits. You could say that’s the same difference as the one between 8-year-olds and 12-year-olds; a woman may be an upperclassman, a “senpai”, but is still inferior to an adult man. In other words, there is no reason whatsoever to treat women any differently than children. You know what this means for you right?

>continued

Attached: 84760894242341.jpg (900x675, 59K)

>Don’t let women vote
>Don’t let women work
>Don’t let women drive
>Don’t let women into universities
>Don’t let women into the fucking military
>Don’t let women teach
>Don’t let women preach
>Don’t let women drink, smoke or take drugs
>Don’t let women go outside unaccompanied
>Don’t let women around men you don’t trust
>Don’t let women be influenced by degenerates
>Don’t let women on the internet without supervision
>Don’t let women spend your money without asking
To sum it up: DON’T LET WOMEN DO ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULDN’T LET A CHILD DO.

>continued

Now, you’re probably thinking “That’s stupid, you wouldn’t let a child have sex, but you can’t make babies without sex”, and you would be right… But only partially. See, the reason why we don’t have sex with children is not because they can’t “consent” or handle it psychologically (there is no scientific evidence whatsoever behind these claims), but because their bodies are not physically ready for it, which is where the only difference between women and children comes in: the sexual features of women have developed further than a common child in order to better accommodate penetration and pregnancy, removing the risk of tearings and other health complications; they are also taller in order to reach higher shelves and better babysit other children (it is normal for older siblings to take care of the younger ones). Of course, this kind of maturity can be easily found in a 13 or 14-year-old. Our ancestors clearly knew this, as they would start having babies right from that age; our current consent laws are just anti-human garbage created with the purpose of destroying families and inducting women into the workforce. So, how do we revert society back to its old natural state? Well, this is what this thread is for. I already have a few ideas but I’ll let you guys think about possible solutions since you tend to be very good at this kind of thing; what is certain is that humanity has no future as long as women (children) are treated as men (adults).

Actually, Hans, it's because one man can get 100 women pregnant, but a woman can only have one baby per year.

Women are biological filters though? Children on the other hand are just useless. One progresses Humanity, the other doesn't Hans. You sad coping Incel.

Attached: anal enthusiast.png (486x494, 92K)

We aren't all polygamist animals like you, Pajeet. Monogamy is the foundation of civilization and never in history has there been a need for one man to get 100 women pregnant.

>women
>getting impregnated by niggers, drug dealers and other walking trash when left to their own devices
>biological filters

Okay, but you began your post with a retarded argument about "women and children first" and used it as an entry into your pedo rambling.

The reason why that doctrine is used is for repopulating the earth. a man would be a retarded failure if they were monogamous in a scenario where their duty is to continue the human race.

the rest of your autistic generalizations were typically retarded and not worth addressing.

Actually children constitute the future of a species. Women are the vessels for which surviving males would decanter their semen for the purpose of creating more children to survive a lineage. It’s all nature and natural selection at work.

Did your mother beat you son?

Of course they're not worth addressing, it would take you over an hour to read beyond the first line.

She stopped giving me any corporal punishment after I got around 8, I was stronger than her and she would hurt herself more than she would hurt me.

Your argument only works in a scenario which actually threatens extinction. Some regular old disaster has no real effect on pop levels and thus women can't use that as a basis to go first.
Women aren't even the primary caregivers necessarily, so that argument's out.

So men can be finally be leave undisturbed to solve the problem

its just shrieking and random commotion. i thought you men were badasses

Your post is weak and full of logical fallacies. Strawmen "All women are X", and appeals to nature "Our ancestors did Y".

Your empty stereotypes show that you don't spend any time around children, or quality women.

Actually, women and men were made for each other, two halves of one whole, and our ancestors respected women for the strength and fertility she brings to the balance of nature. The seed and the earth.

You will not be a good father if you don't respect the lifegiver.

"No man, even in anger, should ever do anything that is disagreeable to his wife; for happiness, joy, virtue and everything depend on the wife. Wife is the sacred soil in which the husband is born again, even the Rishis cannot create men without women."

"An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels." - Proverbs 3:10

"I believe the children are our future!"

What OP is trying to say, is that we are all pedophiles.

Men are attracted to youth and fertility. Women are attracted to power and money. Men are pedophiles and women are whores.

>drop rock on chad head
>rape
Some natural filter, alright.

After the 30 year war Europe was so drained out of men, the Pope allowed for polygamy to be legal until repopulation occurs. Look it up, men had like 10 wives each.
This was the result of the religious shit your autistic Luther started.

Take this post , change "women" with "children" and it all magically becomes obvious and acceptable. Is that a logical fallacy, an appeal to nature, an empty stereotype?
>You will not be a good father if you don't respect the lifegiver.
Now THAT is a logically fallacy. Does that also mean that you never respect children?

Pajeet dropping the truth

Is being sexually attracted to a 6-year-old the same as being sexually attracted to a 14-year-old? Have all male humans been pedophiles for tens of thousands of years?

Actually, it's a logical fallacy referred to as a false equivalence. Asserting X = Y and basing an argument upon the unproven truth of that statement.

Yes, you should treat your children with respect because that's how you raise respectable adults.

Who hurt you?

actually, why in the fuck are you even posting your worthless streetshitters "opinions", patel?

It's funny cuz I'm not even Indian.

You disappoint all of the german and austrian philosophers who came before you and had more mental fortitude than to jump in with a useless ad hominem.

Not respecting women and understanding their place in the natural order is degeneracy of the worst kind.

Read your bible.

Attached: 345978.png (1232x826, 266K)

You're wasting your time here. These folks are the parts of Jow Forums that have taken an extreme contrarian stance to the modern zeitgeist of feminism and female "empowerment".

Oh easy, no wife so i don't have to do this.

because wombs

and children are the future. There is something wrong about letting them die to safe an adult who has lived his life.

Also you're better off sticking to /lit/ if you want knowledgable philosophy discussion, because they at least pretend to read the classic works of Western thinkers (that ironically people here claim so vehemently to defend)

Attached: 72678286_p0.jpg (2550x3300, 2.59M)

Because women ARE children

at which point should women get married?

Respect is earned.
Women disrespected men by not knowing their place and being submissive to the man.
(Also a strict rule in the bible for women)

So what you are saying is that women belong in the kitchen or the bedroom, should be barefoot and pregnant, that we should lower the age of consent, and engage in a little domestic discipline when required?

That we should vote for far right christian fringe groups that have no chance of winning, so that the mainstream parties (conservative / republicans) politicians will start to represent the above values and people like you? (moving the needle)

stop bitching and do something about it

You're retarded

>Women and children are smaller so they can escape easier
>Men are more likely to find a solution to the problem
>Children are the next generation and women are more important when it comes to parenting

It's not that hard.

Ideally? Around 15-16: young enough to still be pure, old enough to have healthy babies.

>Women and children are smaller so they can escape easier
Men are stronger and faster, they can escape the easiest.
>Men are more likely to find a solution to the problem
So raising their chances to die is better?
>women are more important when it comes to parenting
Explain.

>Women are children
ftfy

one more difference
- you can fuck women
- you cant fuck children unless you are a muslim

It's about weakness you fucking idiot. Would a sinking boat full of men do better than sinking boat full of women and children?

... well then you fucking tard.

Also for any SJW lurking, WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE GENETICALLY WEAKER THAN MEN. It takes a woman to raise a man, and it take a man to provide for a woman and HIS children.

Read

"Not respecting women" - not allowing them to vote isn't disrespectful. It's a mere acceptance of the fact that women are not biologically / mentally conditioned to take political / economic decisions that affect the entire tribe. Why ? because they had never done it except for the past 100 years which is not even 1% of human existence on the time scale.

>Now, you’re probably thinking “That’s stupid, you wouldn’t let a child have sex
... and that's where you'd be wrong.

Thank you based Apache

Women are political tools, only soulless gentiles would think of not using their naivety and group think to their tribes advantage...

>incel
argument in the trash where it belongs, rëdditor

based

>Men and women
>made for each other
The only purpose that sexual dimorphism serves is to keep the human species alive.

Once you get married you can remove about half of that list

I have four kids. My wife is a liability and nothing more. When she goes out of town my life is instantly better. I think of myself as taking care of 5 children, my 4 kids and my wife.

if women are children then you're pedos so democrats are right

Nope, men give them a choice and men take it away. If a man gets a woman pregnant without permission, other men come to punish him. If no other men are there, punishment does not occur.

This abject, groveling faggotry right here is why I have no hope for men to fix anything before major societal collapse.

> retarded failure
This is not a pajeet.

>Senpai

Rethink your life user.

Based and Schopenhauerpilled

>"Women are . . . big children all their life--a kind of intermediary stage between the child and the full-grown man."
Truly one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th century.