Feminism was never about male/female equality

>How?
Traditionally, a woman's stock in trade was her beauty. She found a good partner and was looked after.
Women that demand equality want to turn everybody into workers, where beauty is no longer important.

>Feminism was never about male/female equality
What you fail to understand is this:

It really was about equality until 3rd Wave feminism came along (or "fake feminism" as my grandma calls it).
Catherine McKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and others turned it into a dishonest power-grabbing, man-hating, intersectional victim competition.

Attached: Louise de Broglie Ingres.jpg (617x880, 118K)

>Such as?
Family, the archetypes of motherhood and male breadwinner, third thing.

Care to elaborate?

>Family, the archetypes of motherhood

Millennials don't reproduce the women are fat and the men are afraid of marriage because it'll fuck up their lives.

>muh only 3rd wave feminism bad
Fuck off nigger
Look through history, any society women gain political power, dies

Attached: 1566566252494.jpg (640x857, 98K)

>Traditionally, a woman's stock in trade was her beauty.
Before there was a middle-class beauty was only for the rich.
A woman's stock-in-trade has traditionally been her ability to manage all the aspects of family life, except being the breadwinner.

Attached: CharmianCarrmfw.jpg (800x1000, 99K)

Give us three examples.

Attached: 3.png (2000x2000, 25K)

>Millennials don't reproduce the women are fat and the men are afraid of marriage because it'll fuck up their lives.
Jewish tricks and boomer greed, feminism and feminism.

Egypt
Rome
West (currently dying)

>A woman's stock-in-trade has traditionally been her ability to manage all the aspects of family life
I believe that beauty is a shorthand for good genes. Good qualities attract attractive men, producing beautiful offspring, rinse and repeat.

Came here for some sort of argument but I'm just going to go ahead and say you're right. How'd I not think of that. Wow! it bears no explanation whatsoever. So obvious. Seriously tho

+Athens

>ugliness is a warning.
It absolutely is. Beauty (inner and outer) is a woman's contribution to progeny, strength is a man's.
An ugly person is a combination of many generations of horrible people hooking up with other horrible people.

I think by now it is very clear that feminism is a cope for ugly women, just as radical political ideologies such as fascism or communism are often (but not always) a refuge for ugly men.

1) All waves of feminism are terrible and indefensible
2) Dworkin and McKinnon were second wave, not third wave.
3) Men and women are not equal, in any aspect whatsoever, and officializing something that does not actually exist is stupid.

I love to call it the "holographic theory". You can use the 2D light emitting from a 3d object to measure the "entropy"=CHAOS emitted from the full 3d structure.

Books really can be read from the cover. You just need enough data.

>Egypt
>Rome
pretty wack reading of history
r u serious

Agree 100%

>2) Dworkin and McKinnon were second wave, not third wave.
I guess that's right, I should have said "radical feminism"
>3) Men and women are not equal, in any aspect whatsoever, and officializing something that does not actually exist is stupid.
You don't think women should have the right to a bank account or the right to vote, etc?

Attached: lisa yuskavge the brood.jpg (903x1024, 87K)

Spoken like the incel that you are

>Books really can be read from the cover. You just need enough data.
the data is on the pages, m8

Attached: John Currin painting.jpg (905x1160, 173K)

Women shouldn't have any rights, period. There is no good reason for it. All justification for women's rights are rooted in emotionalism dressed up as principle. There is no rational basis for it. It doesn't make women better, or happier, or more fulfilled, it doesn't help society, or make it more prosperous or happy or complete. It's a trick. The concept of rights are a conversation between men, for men, in determing the scope of their responsibilities in the context of a civilization and how those responsibilities ought to be balanced by liberties. This conversation, which has been taking place for thousands of years, never included women until a mere century ago. The notion that women can just come along and claim ownership of rights which have been developed as a masculine concept is nothing short of genderbending. Like women in pants.

By turning all women into trash?
I have this crazy idea here: make (so-called) "ugly" girls wife material again, so that way men will view them as more important than girls that are simply beautiful.
Wow that's such a difficult concept. It's almost as if it improves society rather than stabbing it twenty ways to sunday.

I'm 5'7" and I get off every day I want to. Wife knows she has a choice. Do it for me, or I'll take care of it myself (meaning I'll find someone else to take care of it for me). If I cannot depend on you to do it, then why am I here?

Chad life is a state of mind, anons.

Go fuck yourself you daft cunt. Ugliness is a warning about being a horrible person? Jesus fucking christ. Get wrecked.

#3
So, men and women make great teammates (insofar as what they bring to the table in a long term relationship). I don't know many men that didn't allow their women to have an allowance/pool of money to spend how they want (in instances where they are piss poor with money management), or even give them the reins to finances in general (if they are actually trustworthy) as long as they are willing to share the responsibility.

If your woman is comfortable with her lifestyle, financially, and you still "put her first" with showings of affection/adoration, you could literally fuck every other female in the neighborhood, on occassion, and she wouldn't leave you. Yeah, she'll give you shit, but she ain't going anywhere.

You’re close op, but you should know, by the state of your women, it’s actually more about state sponsored desirability instead of working for it, because pretty people make it look effortless

>r u serious
You a woman?

That's not "short".

Attached: ADJUSTED FOR GENDER READ THE IMAGE TEXT.png (480x353, 14K)

Feminism - The human females are useless pieces of shit, who feel entitled to things they did not earn, so they use government to steal from men.

Attached: 1562496530074.jpg (600x600, 59K)

>Jesus fucking christ. Get wrecked.
Uggo detected.

Don't forget to dilate.

>make (so-called) "ugly" girls wife material again
Don't get me wrong. It's only a handful of ugly women who are driving feminism.
The problem with modern partner selection is that there are literally "plenty more fish in the sea" when the entire world is an ocean. In the olden days a man would choose a wife from his local community, now he can swipe left on 90% of the catch.

>state sponsored desirability
That concept makes sense, like income support.

Part of the problem is that we don't have much of a community anymore, men go from home to school to home, then from home to work to home, then more school more home more work, and then finally new home new work, no community.

There is no such thing as ugly women biologically. Women are the limiting factor in evolution. The real redpill is that traditional cultures was about gender equality. Women were held to standards in a manner that is normally only true for men under nature. Average men are likewise given a chance at reproducing in a manner that is normally only true for women (and Chad) under nature. Once traditional culture is removed, things slow requilibrate back to what is true pre-civilization in our evolutionary history. This is why free men on /b/ fap to fatties. The left are correct that standards of beauty for women are socially defined, and much of their game revolves around convincing dumb men that the same is true for them. These men then think that if social standards of beauty are abolished, they will no longer have to meet standards, which is an incorrect conclusion as women have an evolutionary pressure to be selective on an instinctual biological level, which these men ignore as their low IQ leads them to project their own lack of instinctive selectiveness onto women.

>Feminism
Question do normie white girls in the US legit and unironically hate white men like Jow Forums seems to say? As a bong who lives in a 99% white area I find it very hard to imagine desu But with everything I see here, it seems like most white girls are fucking blacks and browns constantly + spend all day talking about how much they hate you online and want you to die. Obviously that cannot be true but what’s actually going on irl? Do they hate you for real? This is so bizarre as someone looking in from the outside. Do zoomer white girls hate you guys?

Attached: C52FA19C-619F-4974-B498-2567B06E8CF0.jpg (750x390, 121K)

This is correct and good insight. Whenever I see a really beautiful women she never seems to be a feminist but rather someone who enjoys being pretty and taking advantage of it.

Thank you. That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me

If she's really good looking, that's a two way street. For awhile. Attractive young women are too often arrogant thinking they can do better, and they might for a while. But their looks are fleeting which is why I think a lot of them settle for a nice safe beta after wasting their youth on vainglorious cock riding.
That's the problem with a society in decay. We used to pick our wives based on shared values, not how good they make us look.

Every so-called "ugly" girl is wife material for most men and always has been. The resson men don't make moves on "ugly" women is not because they're ugly, but because rejection in the current environment literally is rape. If you make the first move and are rejected as a man, you have just made an unwanted sexual advance without her consent, which is literally how rape is now defined and used. Literally look at the state of modern sex culture. The men that women drool over do everything the average woman shits on the average man for.
>Objectifying women
I never here this criticism levied at the hunks actually fucking all the women, only at "society" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Wtf do you think this does to men growing up in such a culture? There is no excuse for "ugly" women unless "ugly" women start taking the initiative. "Ugly" women can't expect men to take the initiative like it's the 1950s if the penalty for making a wrong move as a man in current year is your life being ended, and nobody even knows what the rules are. Meanwhile the worst thing that can happen to a woman is
>I mean, I think you're cute and all ...
>... but I'm looking to have X kids
>... but I've been alone my entire life and you've always been with someone, it's just too difficult to relate
>... but I'll be moving to X for work, and I'm not in a position where I can reconsider
etc. The fact that there are /zero/ penalties for a woman to ask out a guy, means that most guys assume that if a single woman isn't asking them out, it's because she thinks he's unattractive.

Most dorky average guys had crushes on the even dorkier below average girl, the problem is that the dorkier below average girl finds the dorky average guy creepy and gross. The "ugly" girls can't all be wife material if the only eligable husband is Chad, not because muh men only care about looks, but because Chad physically doesn't have enough time and money to marry every single girl on the planet.

>community
>community
This!

>only a handful of ugly women
Dig just under the surface of average girl's beliefs, you'll see she's a radfem in everything but name. I even talked to some "traditional" women online and irl. The moment you get down to real issues - their true nature comes out.

After second wave feminism it's been we need communism because of fake oppression.

I don't get the impression that they "hate" white men, just that they internalize a bunch of vague bullshit the media pushes, without actually thinking about it enough to see the inconsistencies, and they find it extremely uncomfortable having their social context challenged and undermined, while the men find it extremely uncomortable pussyfooting around it.

Feminism started with bored dilettantes bitching about how unfair it was that their male relatives could be white collar professionals while the dilettante couldn't. Instead of trying to use their leisure time to contribute to philosophy or science they just nagged and whinged for status they could not earn. It was only later that man-faced Jewish dykes realised they could weaponise female entitlement to divide and conquer whites and destroy the West.

Symmetry of the body and face in particular are signs of a good immune system. Ugliness might not make you a horrible person, but it makes you an undesirable mate due to unappealing genetics.

Attached: 41hWUblHjnL._AC_SY400_.jpg (500x237, 17K)

>You don't think women should have the right to a bank account or the right to vote, etc?
No, women are passive-aggressive by nature. They should have no direct access to agency outside of the private sphere. Their interaction with politics and finance should be via the male in their life, whether that be father or husband or assigned chaperone. Women's entire mating strategy revolves around manipulating men, they have no need for rights and giving them rights was just failing a shit-test.

they use feminism to destroy the family unit from the inside out and take away the protection from the divine feminine

Attached: feminism.jpg (1600x2812, 530K)

That's the Point Molyneux made in his video about the term "Incel"

Makes sense

Hey take my poll:

strawpoll.com/261br1pc

Will Trump get Greenland?

This

it was always cancer and intended to destroy the family unit

>short men are more likely to be prosecuted
maybe they're more likely to be guilty

>short men
If this was done in the USA it’s probably just a proxy for Hispanics.

>Feminism actually seeks to redress the inequality between attractive women

Also betwin the old women and the teen ones

Even "ugly" women can accentuate their positives by staying in shape, watching their diet, and obtaining useful skills like cooking, interior design, or volunteering with the church.

As you get older, you appreciate those things in women over "tits and ass" as you want to find a mate that will be a partner rather than another childish dependent.

Thank you OP.
I never considered it that way, it’s all the same subversion in the form of the false god of equality.

Attached: 1512757811668.jpg (520x588, 121K)

>short men are more likely to be prosecuted
They just get the short end of the stick

Attached: carlos smug.jpg (164x164, 4K)

It's about making women the ruler of the family unit.
Unfortunately for women, it requires that men surrender resources to fund them and that's something not enough men want to do even if it means they get to raise their kids, which they don't get to under female rule.
You'll probably have heard some women harp on about men and women having to work together again, but that system already exists. It's the patriarchal nuclear family unit with the man on top of the food chain, where the man gets to raise his children and get nooky in exchange for some financial resources and there's no room for feminism here.

You're mistaken.
Even the first-wave wasn't about equality, because women weren't disadvantaged.
The social norm was to be married and have children, so when women demanded the right to vote they were clamouring for something extra.
While one can argue that democratic voting is a bad idea and that universal male representation is a bad idea, the key here is that a subordinate of the family man is given power in a way that puts her on equal footing.
Like an employee telling the boss what to do.

It has always been about using extortion and social shaming to attain more power over men.

(((Feminism))) is about the judenau's endemic lack of recessive genes. Recessive genes stabilize reproductive results. Kike wahmen are dependent on 4-5 generation cycle infusions of Occidental genetics to not extinction of dysgenic weakness. Reproductively, they are on the bio-welfare of whites.

No, it was always about destroying both sexes.