incels disagree because they've never put their dick into pussy

divorce, marriages, and children born to single mothers are at an all time high. Birth rates are at an all time low. So could this bitch please explain how feminism has been good for families?

>empowering to reach their full economic potential
all thats done is over populate the work force and now look at where we are

>good for our families

Is there a name for the phenomenon of someone speaking an obvious lie which people go along with even though everybody knows it's nonsense?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

Doublethink. Surely you've read 1984?

Wives aren't oppressed by their husbands anymore.

Yeah, I'm gonna go out and bust my ass all day working to keep you and the kids comfortable. I'm gonna deny by natural drive to go out hunting as many women as I can to keep YOU living your life of comfort. But sure, this is "oppression"

>live in iceland
>we need legislation for australian aboriginals
absolute retard brainlet

Can't wait for Hydrogen Hillary 2.0 to run against Donald in 2020 and get shit on.

If they're spending more, it'll help the economy. By having more women in the workforce, there will be more production. The only way wages will be halved is if there aren't enough consumers forcing the company to lay off, give fewer wages, or to shut down. You contradicted yourself; if women spends their money on 'garbage,' salaries would hypothetically go up since there's enough demand to keep up with supply. More consumers = more production = good economy.
What happens if women don't want your protection and work? Maybe they wanted to be independent or something? That's your own definition of comfort.

no woman wants to be the boss, it makes them sick. women want to be with a strong guy they can look up to and depend on. that's their nature. Why do you think no matter how well off a woman gets, she still looks for a guy who is still better than her?

women don't want to win, they want a winner.

Or maybe because she seeks companionship? Yes, there are some women that do that but I am highly sure that not all of them are like that. How do you explain women wanting to join the military? And what about nuns that choose to be celibate and never marry?

Ny is 65% non-white and ~10% of the population is illegals.

>women want companionship
LOL. They also want you to juzt bee urself :)

Attached: 1533244153885.jpg (1504x1445, 987K)

i don't give a fuck what 0.001% of the population do. we're talking about generalities.

There's some men who love to be sat on by a 600lb landwhale but you'd be retarded to even pay this tiny subset any attention when thinking about what men like.

>women make up 51% of the population
And yet somehow a strange "patriarchy" (made up of that other 49%) has consistenty ruled over the world for the last few thousand years. This just goes to show you how useless women can be. They only got the vote because men gave it to them. They only got better jobs because men gave it to them. And they fuck around onn the regular because men allow it. Feminists think men hate women when the case is quite the opposite. Men LOVE women. Why else would the dominant gender just let them do what they want?

>So-called "whites" are a global minority.
Right and she's advocating for the majority.

>And yet somehow a strange "patriarchy" (made up of that other 49%) has consistenty ruled over the world for the last few thousand years
That's true though and possibly due to inherent sexism based on how males are objectively stronger than women.
Women (and all minorities) should have equal freedom to do whatever a majority does it doesn't mean promoting them over the majority or the other way

They don't want you to be yourself. If you're a bad person, then yes, they want you to change.
>no woman wants to be the boss, it makes them sick.
>no woman
You made it seem like every woman is the same. They aren't. My only point is that some prefer for a strong man, others prefer to be strong themselves. Your own definition of comfort doesn't fit for everyone and it shouldn't. Besides, your theory doesn't match with the rise of women in the workforce. If they were so desperate to be reliant, then there'd be more housewives than what we see today.

When I say "every woman is the same", i'm not saying "all 4 billion planet of the women are like this without exception". But I am saying until you can show me otherwise... this is how women work.

Women only join the workforce because they are pressured to. Because that's the normal path everyone goes down these days. Doesn't mean they are happy doing it. Women are shamed for declaring they to be a stay at home mom. Furthermore, they have to join the workforce just in case there's no man that wants to care of them. However their ultimate fantasy, what REALLY makes them happy, is being taken care of by a strong provider.

The purpose of women is to have babies and stay in the house. If they don't do that, they have no potential and will be a dead catlady or coalburner by 35.

Attached: 1534124135561.png (608x983, 713K)

While I do agree with you in some sense, what we are seeing now is the inverse. In ancient Rome, the way society was structured can give you a good idea of how modern society operates. The emperor presides over everything else in these types of societies. Imagine a pyramid with the emperor at the top, diginitaries and noblemen in the middle and your average pleb at the bottom. For many years society operated in this manner (until the advent of democracy in places like France/USA of course). In the space of just over 100 years we've seen this pyramid get turned upside down. But rather than the opposite of what we had, the one presiding over the many, we now have the many presiding over the few (essentially, the collective vs the individual). What I'm getting at is that movements like feminism (or any movement based on the rights of minorities) seek to rearrange the pyramid but want men to move all the slab and stone around till these groups are satisfied (which they'll never be).

I agree that there has been a bias against women who choose to become housewives, and there shouldn't be. If women really wanted equality, then they must accept that some women don't want to aspire for great things and instead rather rely on men. And I also agree that there is pressure for some to work even if they didn't want to. But I genuinely think that at least a good size of them want to work because it's their dream or they have a goal.
>Furthermore, they have to join the workforce just in case there's no man that wants to care of them.
But then why have times changed then? Traditionally, their only purpose is to marry off to another guy and have kids. If they were so content with this though, then there wouldn't have been any feminist march or at least their rights would have been revoked by now because of the massive backlash.

>By having more women in the workforce, there will be more production.
How? There aren't many sectors where growth is stunted by insufficient workers. If you increase the availability of workers, wages logically go down in response. That might in turn stimulate somewhat increased production, but certainly not by a huge margin, what it increases above all is unemployment.

>My only point is that some prefer for a strong man, others prefer to be strong themselves
>in the same post where he responds to a post evidencing that women almost always want a man better than themselves and refuse to marry down
Are you perchance retarded?
>If they were so desperate to be reliant, then there'd be more housewives than what we see today.
Maybe think about why as women's independence increases, their happiness is steadily on the decrease. Women get memed by society to become stronk independent workers, but they instinctively still just want a better man to be the bitch of, then they end up depressed and suicidal in their thirties when they start to realize that nobody wants to settle with an old roast, especially not those few men who are very accomplished that they view as above themselves.

> If they were so content with this though, then there wouldn't have been any feminist march or at least their rights would have been revoked by now because of the massive backlash.
You're assuming that a) people very seriously consider the consequences of supporting one political ideology or another and research the topics in depth b) they are smart enough to arrive at the right conclusions and c) they even know what they want in the first place.

actually women make up for 49% of the population now, thanks china and india

>people sometimes ask me, why focus on women's issues?

she should be focusing on why people keep asking that.
but these political crusaders don't have an end-game, i'm not sure what they're even trying to accomplish anymore.

it's all just bullshit, an egg toss, back and forth, the end game is the egg breaks and everyone goes fucking crazy and nothing is really solved.

She is reducing people to
>economic actors
Want to be a stay at home mom?
Fuck you, go reach your economic potential!
Want to have 5 kids?
Fuck you, Mr. Corporate needs cheap labor to maximize profits!
She is not about women, she is all about *money*

Attached: A9DE10B3-0F1F-437E-A3AD-72A6F1BD8995.jpg (480x380, 167K)