Find a flaw

It's an ironic refusal of conforming to standards of beauty or whatever.

yes,... here it is... even when women are superficially trying to be optimistic and empowering they are really agents of their own demoralisation... tearing themselves and eachother down... the rupi kaur poem is a bad example, because it is meant to express a woman's estrangement from her own body, but you know what i am talking about... those tumblr arts of women making change... all designed to be as warped and lovecraftian as possible... freakish. imps. women are the incels of the world. why are incels hated? because they are men acting like women. if all women were turned into men,., they would be incels! deprive them of their BODY!! tear down the wall! SUCK the souls of women out of their EVIL vessels... see their TRUE FORM.. they are RED SOULS, harbouring EVIL. if women were men, you would notice they are EVIL, RAPIST-type men. women are rapists who get away with it becuase they inhabit female bodies. the performative advatnages of femininty are reduced culpabiility for being A PSYCHO INCEL person. women are r9k browsers who lucked out. SNAKE. EVE. APPLE. MIND. CUM. DEMON. LILITH. just like incels enjoy wallowing in their own filth, a dog returning to its own vomit... so the ETERNAL WOMAN likes to fester in the comfort of being second class being... women are on the cusp of emancipation and empowerment, but they feel unworthy.. they need to undertake a revolution of the female soul... the super-woman must emerge to replace the old woman manufactured out of the slavish former existence of the human xx. then they may take their place... if the woman can be abolished, and the womyn can take her place, then we may see a breed of human superior to anytthing before... i doubt it though lol

Sex really is 100% a transaction for women, isn't it?

Attached: SN_Bronte_home.jpg (923x596, 321K)

Even when it's not they usually feel guilty for having not took the opportunity.

is this the buzzfeed of literature?

Attached: 1541555948771.jpg (307x309, 18K)

Fuck people that say you can't say something isn't a poem. This ain't a poem

it is a
poem
just because
you see it
through male eyes
it doesn't mean
that is not

(beautiful)

I mean even this shit I'd give a pass.

>be a woman
>make every single thing in your life about getting a man, what men deserve to get you, what you are expected to for men, what you expect men to do for you, what you ought to expect men to do for you, what men think of you, what men don't think of you, men men men men men every solution to every problem is a man dating men flirting with men started talking with a man all of my hobbies revolve around men gossiping about men marriage with men if i'm lonely i let a man entertain me for a few hours if i feel low i let a man validate my desirability for a few hours i'm depressed and bored i should get a boyfriend
>enter any field of social commentary/critique like philosophy, poetry, etc.
>"Men men men men how much I think about men is because MEN made me MEN men men men men think they can have my vagina but my vagina is only for the MEN I want to have my vagina my vagina I'm a vagina I'm a walking hole for the men who want to men men men"

>be a man
>do something
>that's it
>can be whatever you want
>just do a thing

>be a woman reading this post
>"yeah but MEN MEN MEN MEN ARE HORNY MEN ONLY WANT SEX MEN ARE HORNY ALL THE TIME PORN VAGINAS MEN MEN MEN DESIRE ME I GOTTA THINK ABOUT MEN FOREVER"
>miss the point

The flaw is that she should've waited for a man of good character to show up.

Please have sex

>misses the point

>misses having sex

t. unattractive person

t. virgin incel

you've really gotta try not taking the bait

Attached: 1552101641674.jpg (1672x1672, 241K)

kind of stung didn't it. your face won't ever look good

Attached: weininger.jpg (2294x751, 791K)

hnnnnnnnnnnnng

>Wittgenstein considered this one of the greatest works of philosophy/psychology of the 20th century
I can only imagine the size of the red-pill bottle that Wittgenstein chugged. No wonder he was a sperglord supreme.

Yep that restoration of Branwell’s group portrait was a godsend, let’s you drill down and just pick out Emily.

That drawing looks like low/mid-tier portapotty graffiti.

>the sexual revolution was a mistake
Is this, dare I say it, based?

Attached: POWERFUL.png (550x479, 14K)

Daring. Brave. Innovative. Beautiful.

its like poetry

Attached: POWERFUL2.png (550x316, 6K)

Yes.

Perhaps the greatest piece of art ever conceived on Yea Forums

>we all know that the twin dialectic of femininity and masculinity, softness and hardness, are resplendent, both reach the summits of beauty, when embodied in a male vessel
>female femininity is generally gaudy, over-exaggerated, bad and superficial
gay

Glorified masturbation. The beast in man desires it, the sublime knows it is disgusting.

Serious question, why does this stuff grind the gears so much? We don't have threads complaining about Wilbur Smith, or Danielle Steele, who are surely just as witless, and sell more, than insta poets.
Is because it's poetry, because it's female, confessional?

hmmmm sell more...

You know I've been thinking recently I like the forum style of Yea Forums but there might be a better way to do it. In my opinion, I think that thread positions being determined by a set amount of money deposited by the OP, and then distributed to the users ITT who have secured the best posts, as decided with a heavy weight towards the OP and some other weights given towards the other posters depending on if they have the best posts or not.

Is this a generally good idea you think?

So like the website doesn't profit from the money? It's just distributed to the other users if they make good posts?

Same reason Yea Forums is obsessed with Brie Larson; their attitudes are terrible, and their performance in their respective field is too poor to compensate. Being an egocentric asshole only works if you have the skills to back it up. If you're both arrogant and no good at your chosen artform, and still receive attention in the press, people get infuriated.

Hmmm.. I hadn't thought about it that way. I think that might be okay yeah.

Like the website would still make money from ads or whatever, but if you made an account and you get enough money (above a minimum) the site actually offers a service where it deposits the amount into an account if you want.

Obviously you have to pay into it to get money, but I doubt the posters would want to participate if its some sleazy fake shit. Like they should be able to deposit crypto or USD honestly, and have that reflected in the thread.

It would reward intelligent discussion honestly, so we don't have to see pictures of dicks.

>‘cause
That’s an opening quotation mark; what you want is an apostrophe (’cause)…

>lets college guys fuck on the first date and is then surprised that they leave when they got what they wanted

So politics? If she was rightwing she wouldn't get the hate?

Real breasts are lopsided, one is almost always larger and lower than the other

Yes.

nice poem actually

wouldn’t a more poetic line be
>cause no one ever comes,
>and no one ever stays
feels like it fits much better then
>is willing to stay

Cringe, can you define the ‘sublime’ for us, retard?

If she was right-wing she wouldn't be famous in the first place, which means she wouldn't be the object of Yea Forumss hate. I'd dislike her just the same, assuming I knew of her.

I just jerked off to this. Thank you Rupi Kaur.

Gee Rupi, I wonder who could possibly be teaching young women that "their legs are a pitstop for men" as you so eloquently put it. I guess it must just be a natural phenomenon with no correlation to your beliefs in complete sexual freedom and very loud opposition to traditional relationships.

that seems a bit cliché imo

plus it doesn't fit into the metaphor of women being a pitstop

>i understand realism and the depiction of bodily alienation, but this crap is not that
It is realism though, or at least, its an attempt to conform the image of the body to something other than the transcendent idea of beauty you're putting forward. It's banal and unattractive, but so are the majority of bodies. Not everyone looks like the vitruvian man but that doesn't mean we can't find beauty in ordinary, misshapen, stretch-marked bodies too

Damn this bitch is fucked up

no i mean THIS

Attached: internationalwomensday.jpg (750x1334, 92K)

I agree it’s cliched, but so is the rest of the poem

Attached: sdfsdfd.png (1280x1280, 107K)

You might not like it, but you're not the one its purporting to represent. If women are able to see themselves in the work and feel fulfilled by its representation of them, who are you to tell them otherwise?

*cums on your eyes and seals them shut*

based rupi

it happens because it's the manifestation, conscious or not, of the psychological mechanism of disgust.
In spite of all the "feminist" narrative being thrown around, in our times women are truly hated, and women hate themselves.
The hidden message of what currently passes as "feminism" is than being a woman is not only undesirable, it's most importantly "not enough" anymore.
In a society where a family can't afford to have a woman at home anymore, femininity has to be sacrificed, since both parents need to enter the workforce.
But such sacrifice has to be done swiftly. So, we make women hate femininity, making them perceive it as a ridiculous burden to get rid off as quickly as possible.
A woman basically has two options now: strip herself of her femininity in order to enter and stay in the workforce, or to embrace the rotten version of it and become a whore, in order to monetize it.
How the disgust arises? Femininity is the crown of the woman's body. It's what makes it beautiful, noble, not vulgar, object of desire that generates a natural equilibrium, a sign itself that kindness also is part of nature. Without it, it could at best just an object of lust, at worst just a mess of unnecessary biological processes, limiting and degrading.
Both generate disgust, and disgust always finds its ways to manifest himself.

i definitely agree that the theme lacks originality but still the word choice and the metaphoric are pretty on point; i dont even think that the originality i criticize here is intended, i think rupi wrote this in a very short time and didnt spent much second thoughts on it.

maybe this kaur isn't so bad after all

I can't even tell if this is a parody or something she actually wrote.

>In a society where a family can't afford to have a woman at home anymore, femininity has to be sacrificed, since both parents need to enter the workforce

Implying that femininity can only be expressed by not joining the workforce.

>So, we make women hate femininity, making them perceive it as a ridiculous burden to get rid off as quickly as possible.

Feminism is about embracing womanhood, not destroying it.

>A woman basically has two options now: strip herself of her femininity in order to enter and stay in the workforce, or to embrace the rotten version of it and become a whore, in order to monetize it.

Again youre implying that working is a mens domain, therefore thats, again, sexism at its worst, even pretending to care about woman, while youre just pushing a crypto right wing agenda.

> Femininity is the crown of the woman's body. It's what makes it beautiful, noble, not vulgar, object of desire that generates a natural equilibrium, a sign itself that kindness also is part of nature.

Thats just reverse sexism again.

>Both generate disgust, and disgust always finds its ways to manifest himself.

what is that even supposed to mean?

Not a poem, but she’s unironically correct.
Modern women are taught that their bodies are merely cum receptacles and that they should appreciate that, that such makes them “liberated”.
Kaur most likely doesn’t even consider such, but the condition of female degradation is a direct result of sexual promiscuity. Of course male libido wouldn’t actively disprove of that, but inevitably leads to the commodification of intimacy that we have today.

Of course that’s not her point, though. She wants both to be a whore and to be emotionally comforted by all her partners.

Attached: F0659805-1648-4D9B-8BA7-E1D93ECB2EA4.gif (200x200, 2.47M)

>Feminism is about embracing womanhood
lol

Attached: ze zi zo zum ismell the blood of cis scum.jpg (445x331, 99K)

It's amazing someone can rattle off so much nonsense without providing evidence for their claims. What you've said is so insubstantial, it doesn't even amount to being called 'wrong'.

The biggest problem here is you talk about it in such all-or-nothing terms (virginal, unsexualised employee or a monetised fuck-sink) which inevitably falls into the same madonna-whore pathology that all men will use to eulogise the present state of 'femininity', as though their opinion even comes close to representing it. Why do you think accurate (flawed) portrayals of the body is a mechanism of disgust? Wouldn't disgust use the proliferation of feminine images to mask the things which disgust us? We don't want to be confronted by the grotesque, we want to hide it behind photoshopped images or camera filters. I don't think you quite understand how disgust functions at a cognitive level

>Feminism is about embracing womanhood
lol

Attached: birth control.png (1336x750, 564K)

>it is narcissism if you use your actual body shape instead of an idealized one

Attached: 1542404722191.gif (480x480, 2.56M)

>Feminism is about embracing womanhood
lol

Attached: hormone_facial_features.png (300x185, 28K)

>MUH VAGINA
profound...

>t. purple dyed hair Tumblrdikes
is pulling out straw man arguments all you can do?

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahha

Artists are so fucking pathetic.

How does it feel that in the field you respect someone can shit on a canvas and have it considered more valuable or at least equal to a photorealistic painted mural?

I think Walter Benjamin is very appropriate when he claims that behind every fascism is a failed revolution. We had the sexual emancipation of the 60s, but it was unsustainable to such an extent that men eventually clocked on that they could exploit women's sexuality guilt-free, even though these attitudes were creating the phenomenon of single wine aunts and the lonely desperation of older menopausal women that we see so much of today. I don't think its fair to blame women for that kind of degredation, in opening themselves up to promiscuity they put far too much trust in men who immediately abused this newfound freedom.

Did you even read my post? I was critiquing your reductive approach to women (always disjunctive, always one extreme to the other). That's not a strawman, that's literally the crux of your argument. See:
>strip herself of her femininity in order to enter and stay in the workforce, or to embrace the rotten version of it and become a whore, in order to monetize it.

haha thats funny user, even using the 9gag font lmfao

>but inevitably leads to the commodification of intimacy that we have today.
But thats not what this is about genius. If anything males are leading the commodification of intimacy

Modern Women are NOT taught that they are cum receptacles.

Modern women are told to liberate themselves and be free and do what they want and never judge or be judged and live for today and get the wild phase out while they're young....

And then every woman ends up a fun receptacle too stupid to not throw themselves at sociopaths and too greedy not to exchange their body for something material to be offered (e.g. drugs, housing, an expensive lifestyle, connections, etc..)

Why should I care either way? Neither of those options sounds particularly appealing. Shit on a canvas is insubstantial and crass, while photorealism is overplayed. Also educate yourself on the difference between art in general and 'the art world', the latter being the source of the kind of problem you're pointing at.

Attached: 1552219834467.png (1280x1280, 108K)

You are utterly worthless. All art is shit on a canvas that you sit there and feel intelligent for critiquing.
Worthless pseud cant understand anything complex so you hide in art.

Kill yourself.

nice 9gag meme user

What most strikes me about "feminist" is how the fail to see the bare and evident fact that having to draw women in the workforce is the product of economic misery, is not a product of progress.
I'm not talking about a woman who freely chooses to do so. Yes, you might think you are free to choose. But, realistically, how many women can choose to stay at home and dedicate their time to govern the house and ti raise children? Not so many.
You HAVE to enter the workforce, and just like many fellow men you are just a pathetic slave in disguise.
Feminism is nothing but sugarcoating this bare and ugly reality.
There are virtually no more jobs that are compatible with a domestic lifestyle. There are no more "women's job". Woman will have to compete with men at the workplace. She will have to put her femininity aside, because it's just not fit for the environment, as it's not fit for the "whore way" either.
Virginia Woolf herself wrote, in A Room of One's Own, that if she had to choose between the right to vote to women and the monthly revenue her aunt left to her, he'd choose the latter.
The root of all oppressions, and of women oppression, surely in our time, is economic oppression.

Yes I've read it, but your only critique it's it is reductive. Of course it is, I can't write a book in here on such an intricate topic such as femininity, which from my point of view embraces many fields of knowledge.
You must simplify things when you have few words. You can't criticize my opinion because of that. Or better, you can, but it's lame.

>Why do you think accurate (flawed) portrayals of the body is a mechanism of disgust?
>We don't want to be confronted by the grotesque, we want to hide it behind photoshopped images or camera filters.
You are talking out of context. I was responding to

>What most strikes me about "feminist" is how the fail to see the bare and evident fact that having to draw women in the workforce is the product of economic misery, is not a product of progress.

What if it is both?

It's the greatest sham of our time.

A man used to be able to buy a home and support a family on the salary from his unskilled labour. Women had the option to work but most did not, only the poor or undesirable women would do this. Today, both man and woman don't have a choice to work or not because in order to raise a family and rent a home they both need to work. Do you think a single conservative would ever have the balls to suggest the promotion of women in the work force has nearly doubled the supply of labour for the same population, massively depressing wages?

>I don't think its fair to blame women for that kind of degredation, in opening themselves up to promiscuity they put far too much trust in men who immediately abused this newfound freedom
I agree in parts user. I didn’t want to come off as uncaring women’s struggle, but it’s a two sided sword. Both hungry men and manipulative women are to blame, not purely one side. It must also be remembered that absolving girls of the consequences of their actions is partly what leads to the harsh and cold sexual market of ours. Either way, discourse such as Kaur’s serves to reinforce unhealthy attitudes to girls, and it inevitably plays into the game of people who want to exploit them and leave the by the wayside

Women had to work before, the only difference is that they started to move to factories and got unionized

This is why marxist/anarchist feminism is the best feminism.

Women's liberation and capitalism are incompatable.

Okay, again:

Feminism isnt only about women joining the working force.

>reinforce unhealthy attitudes to girls
Like what exactly? Trying to have sex for intimacy?

>What if it is both?
I think we should undertake a revaluation of the meaning of progress.
Both men and women suffer from this state of things.
Feminism is just the enabler of the acceptance of this misery. Men already have that, I don't know under what denomination it should go. Maybe "work ethics".
Feminism bring up spooks such as rape, women oppression etc.
Thanks, everybody knows it's wrong. Why all these liberating ideologies omit the fact that what fucks everyone at the end of the day are the bills to pay? And more importantly, how damn hard has become to pay them?

you shouldn't mock the differently abled user

>women's liberation
All ideals of equality are a sham, retard.

You have been lied to. Equality is a fad, it's a trend and it's a failed experiment of this era that people will look back on in the future and laugh about.

Honestly, its pretty clear you're clutching at straw(men)s. You have no argument except 'muh artistic relativism!', and even that is predicated on a misunderstanding about how the art world works. You're actually a child

>some Frankfurt school kike describes fascism as 'le bad thing'
Woah so profound. Can you quote him some more?

>Feminism isnt only about women joining the working force.
It's final goal is that. The rest is propaganda.
And it's not simply about women entering the workforce. Nothing wrong if a woman chooses to do so.
The malicious aspect of it all is forcing women to do so, and indoctrinate them to think it's right that every woman MUST work. Such as raising your own children isn't enough of a work (strangely raising other's ones is).
All processes of stealth enslavement mess up with individuals' psyches. You can see disgust related disturbs emerging in women (such as anorexia) because disgust is a mechanism more developed in women. Men are driven by different destructive mechanisms.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm in no way defending Kaur. I just feel like this board often uses her as a totem with which to crucify all women. You're totally right that there's a mutual responsibility on both sides to ensure we aren't going off the degenerative deep end

There's neither positive or negative value attributed to fascism in that quote you fucking invalid, its a statement of historical fact. I don't know whether you're just baiting me or are genuinely an unreflective /pol/tard, but you really don't know what you're doing, do you?

> marxist/anarchist
Too bad those demented utopias never worked, and never will.
Only more mentally sane derivatives of those could work, such those of the Nordic Model.
You can't dream of wiping away capitalism. It's a huge dangerous beast and it's here to stay. The only hope is to tame or contain it.

Except it isn't, equal rights legislation has been perpetually growing and very little of it has been redacted. Do you think the right for women to vote is a 'failed' experiment? Because as far as I'm aware, women are still voting. I wouldn't call that a fad

No. Trying to fill the void of intimacy with the cum of strangers

>You must simplify things when you have few words. You can't criticize my opinion because of that
No, but I can criticise you for simplicity that falls back onto the same tired false dichotomies that men have been claiming about women for centuries. It's lazy, uninspired and does more harm than good.

>The malicious aspect of it all is forcing women to do so, and indoctrinate them to think it's right that every woman MUST work.

lmao its just absurd at this point to answer you anymore, but ok: Feminism doesnt force anyone to work (its not like sowjiet Russia) and feminists totally respect it if you want to be a stay at home mom or stay at home dad. thats what equality means. youre just putting out strawmans and cheap baits at this point and theres no point in arguing with you further than this comment.

t. right winger larping as a liberal

Yes, but there is work that is compatible with a person's dignity and health of mind, and work that is alienating.
Women that got sucked in English industrial revolution factory jobs, working 16 hours a day in devastating conditions, I don't think they were fond of that. And I don't think the the children that shared the same destiny were more emancipated that the one who didn't work.
At that time, the enabler was Calvinism. People thought it was right, especially the one who didn't have to put their asses in those factories.
What I see in feminism, and in many other "-isms", is just a dialectics of sugar coating a de facto slavery.

It's incredible, isn't it folks, how close he can get to the point and miss it entirely?

What about Fascism?

>Feminism doesnt force anyone to work (its not like sowjiet Russia) and feminists totally respect it if you want to be a stay at home mom or stay at home dad. thats what equality means
It’s the insidious effect of it, user. Can a man really support a household by himself as an average worker, like they used to do? His woman MUST work, otherwise they simply won’t survive because of lack of cash

It's 34 words too long.

>not counting the title as part of the poem

So it’s 35 words. Now what pleb

In describing femininity, I had no intention of describing women. Femininity is an adjective, not a subject.
>Feminism doesn't force
Of course not. Forcing labour is slavery. That shit doesn't fly anymore.
What you seem to miss is that the narrative of today's slavery. You need to pay the bills. Unless you are born rich, you will have to enter the workforce. Unless you are privileged, you will have to take the lower tier jobs because you can't afford education. And, even if you do enter the workforce, you merely get by with it. You have to renounce to many things that characterise you as a man, or as a woman, or as an individual in general.
THIS is the cause of today's oppression. It's not an oppression between sexes, it's an economical oppression.
Feminism draws the attention from this simple fact and tells us the oppression occurs between sexes.
Simple divide et impera scheme, and you divide a whopping 50% with it.

The fault of that is capitalism, not feminism. You are hitting on the point that capitalism has hijacked feminism and created a type of faux-feminism to shape women into workers and consumers, but feminism itself doesn't perpetuate this system.

I used to argue about this with my PhD candidate in women's literature girlfriend at the time.

She wouldn't admit that women's lives had become worse since the Western lifestyle required them to work. I think she had a point in that if a woman earns money than she has at least the chance of independence and freedom, she can leave her man if he turns out to be a piece of crap, but she will necessarily live a substandard lifestyle.

>but feminism itself doesn't perpetuate this system
Please elaborate. Feminism has inevitably been hijacked by the market’s interests

Name something that hasn't been hijacked by the market.

I do remember that there was some major feminist figure who admitted to working for the CIA, and I wonder if that was part of the agenda.

Fascism is frankly a scam.
It's both reactionary and revolutionary at the same time. Contrary to common belief, fascism is way more vague and hard to define than marxism or other totalitarian regimes. It cannot be pinned down if not by its crimes. Yeah, if I'd define fascism it would be its tendency to use crime as a political mean, ideologically sanctioning it.
I'm from Italy, btw.

Feminists criticize economic oppression also, friendo:

Feminist economics analyses the interrelationship between gender and the economy. Thereby, feminist economics also takes the unpaid, non-market intermediated part of the economy and society into account and examines the driving forces behind common dichotomies such as economic–social, productive–reproductive, masculine–feminine, paid–unpaid or public–private. Moreover, feminist economics analyses patriarchy and capitalism as interrelated forms of dominance.

from: exploring-economics.org/en/orientation/feminist-economics/

its even at the core-values of feminism lmao

Well they spelled Kapur wrong

As if in the past women were not pieces of meat. Absolutely delusional.

Yeah, but it stresses on the gender viewpoint, generating a distorted perspective.
>Feminist economics analyses the interrelationship between gender and the economy.
It's in the premise. Gender and the economy. Not the economy and gender which is a more realistic view.
You could object this is simply dialectical zealous. It isn't in my opinion. It generates a wrong mindset. That is a political manifesto, not a shitpost on an imageboard. Great care must be used in words.
I see a flaw in that sentence, and in that context it's an important flaw.

i like seducing cute guys

>It's in the premise. Gender and the economy. Not the economy and gender which is a more realistic view.
>I see a flaw in that sentence, and in that context it's an important flaw.

so its basically a conspiracy theory at this point based off on one sentence, how much more delusional can you get?

Eh, I’d still say women have it somewhat better now than they used to. In the past, their happiness depended on a dice roll of finding a good husband (which is a lot more difficult than it sounds). Now, they have the ability to be fiscally independent, meaning that they can make more choices. There are female specific problems of course (higher risk of sexual assault, pregnancies interfering with job prospects etc.), but it’s a marginal improvement over the situation they had before. There’s still a long way to go, though.

No, I just pointed out that.
Telling I think it's a conspiracy theory it's you putting words in my mouth.
You don't agree with what I said? Debate that. You are just dodging.

they weren't, they were valued caretakers.
Men couldn't afford, neither could comfort their children half as well. Important men don't want to see their children being treated without care.

>women are valued under traditionalism
Yeah okay, tell that to girls who were refused education, caned for disobeying their husbands, taught that their only option in life is to be a part of the ideal "family" of which the husband is the head, forced into subordination, denied the right to vote, treated as a child, etc.

Attached: download (1).jpg (177x186, 8K)

Holy shit all these dykes and /leftypol/ faggots ITT. The absolute state of Yea Forums

Attached: 1511562290422.jpg (988x1059, 160K)

Okay, I know I'm gonna get shit for this, but I do this Rupi has some merit. She's pretty insightful for the cases of damaged young insecure women, and I don't mean that in a snarky way.

She's still a shit fucking poet and can't write worth a fuck.

that is being valued tbqh, it has much better outcomes than letting them run around

It's a good thing all of you incels will never procreate.

fake

You realise that these values are at the heart of Islam, which is the fastest growing religion in the world because they procreate like crazy?

Post a picture of yourself, I want to see what a limp wristed cuck like you looks like.

Women can work and study in Islam though. Muhammad's wives were merchants army generals and politicians.

You realise that these are Christian core values as well you fucking retard?

that doesn't address his point at all lel
The Muslims in the UK recently won their battle against LGBT education in schools, they'll win against feminism too in the end. Sharia will come to the west

So you're okay with men having 7 wives and women not being able to show any kind of identification of character ever, but not WASP family life?

>refused education
More realistically, "badly home schooled"
>caned for disobeying husbands
Not across the board, which like today veers from "stern words" to "complete wifebeating till near death"
>Only option is ideal family
Coercion =/= Societal peer pressure
>Denied the vote
Yeah
>Treated as a child
Women are still treated like children because protip: it's how 99% of men manage to seduce women.

>7
4
>not being able to show any misnomer of character whatsoever
I don't believe this is what Islam says. All the Prophet's wives were wildly different people.

How the fuck do those statements follow from each other? Even if it was granted to you that enforcing traditional gender roles produces an infinitely better outcome than not enforcing them, it in no way follows that enforcing them is the same as valuing the people that they are enforced on; it isn't. You are simply valuing the ideal of the Christian god to which you subjugate women at the expense of their happiness. If you really valued the women you would let them choose whatever the fuck they want.

There is nothing funnier than shitblooded leftists simply stating the truth as though that makes it untrue.

Thank God we convinced these people that killing their own children was some sort of sacrament. This gene needs to be exterminated.

What the hell is the UK? Nobody gives a shit about the UK, if the UK actually had decent laws that wouldn't happen and even so, let's not pretend that you're not overinflating the actual things so that it fits your anti islam narrative. You know Christianity has had an influence far greater on the west for the last 2000 years and it is basically Islam 1.5

there's a difference between being valued as a progenitor and being valued as a hole in the wall, women's issue is with their own bodies, they want all the freedom they see men as having and have to go to such extreme lengths-hormone injections, daily pills, subdermal implants-to get it. As if the average modern young woman doesn't see men as pieces of meat themselves, strong, strapping, thick-cocked pillars of meat to wiggle their little bottoms against, they'd be in bliss if they didn't risk getting pregnant, getting all fat and gross, turning into some mom, having some shitty, smelly, disgusting little baby to deal with, they just want to be pretty their whole lives and fuck who they like when they like with no consequences, just like men. Fucking hypocrites, this poem represents exactly what they tell each other, whispering in the night, then the next day coming downstairs and announcing they're sick of everyone objectifying them when in reality the only one's saying this shit is themselves.

Well it's good that you'll never have the choice of killing your children as well, I mean masturbating doesn't really count.

>at the expense of their happiness.
Extreme citation needed. Cat ladies and wine aunts aren't "happy," and the illusion of choice that people pretend the modern day offers women is laughable.

Freedom doesn't mean shit if the only thing you are free to choose is to suffer.

They're happier not being able to choose therefore not letting them choose is valuing them

Shut the hell up whiyboy

>y-you're the cuck

Attached: 070.gif (379x284, 12K)

Your response to my hysterical laughter that you're going extinct is to boast that I'm not going extinct?
Yikes. Thank God there will never be more white liberals or Jews than there are now.

I will say that he probably has a point that feminism/LGBT groups and Islam are going to be forced to but heads eventually. Feminism in general is hardly complementary of Islam and the same goes for vice versa.

I'm not saying they can't find a way to co-exist, but I doubt that they will.

>it is basically Islam 1.5
It predates Islam by like 600 years. It's not an 'antimuslim narrative', if it were white people acting like that they'd literally be in jail for hate speech

modern men: women are walking vaginas
traditional men: women are walking uteruses

We've already seen how that's going. Feminism/LGBT are not legitimate movements, but rather anti-civilizational instincts of women and Jews.

In the UK, Sweden, Europe in general, we have already seen that as soon as these movements face any actual resistance, they immediately surrender. The British cancel faggot "tolerance" classes, the Swedish cancel gay pride parades, you get feminists pretending that burkhas are empowering, etc. What it really is is a giant shit-test.

It won't be a butting of heads, the Muslims will simply run over a bunch of children with trucks, and then immediately have their demands granted. If that means that homosexuals have to be hanged from construction cranes--well, we already know that Leftists will tolerate the murder of their own children, so why wouldn't they tolerate that? The alternative would be admitting that the white conservatives were right.

Ewwie

this, women have the option of choosing what they are objectified as.

>Coercion =/= Social pressure
Coercion is not the only way to enforce something on a people such that they are left with only one option. In fact, you could argue that social pressure is a much more effective method of enforcing gender roles than state coercion if you accept determinism to be true. Indeed, a person coerced has the choice between death and obedience, whereas a person socialised into a way of thinking has no choice but to think that way; they are repulsed and disgusted by the idea of even entertaining a contradictory view.

>“Learning the rules that govern intelligible speech is an inculcation into normalized language, where the price of not conforming is the loss of intelligibility itself.”

That's easy, user. It's whats underneath the lime

Must be easy to win le epic arguments when you strawmen and caricature everybody you don't agree with huh

You are free to choose to be a housewife in modern society as long as you find a likeminded husband who can support the household

Although I do not necessarily have an equipped response to what you've written out here.
I'm warmed by your efforts and words in doing so. I enjoyed reading your post.

Ugly women are like a fine wine, a putrid cheese, sweet tasting fruit fermented to delicious liquor. It takes a special kind of developed and tragic sensuality to appreciate them, as they are. The Hindoos call this sensuality tama guna, the mode of ignorance, but in doing so merely betray their resentment towards the glorious Chinese civilization, with its mastery of the putrid and tactile, which has overshadowed them for millennium.

And beautiful woman, who is young and healthy and full of life, what does she offer? A promise of sensual delights that is never equal in its realization to its conception. A certain bland yet aristocratic kindness that comes from being so desired by the world. A total lack of sensuality, that sweet and carefully cultivated fruit which is only truly realized when physical deprivation forces Eros to seek refuge in the imaginary.

The only part of a woman which can be truly beautiful, or truly and objectively hideous, is the feet and the soul. Everything else: crooked teeth, hanging putrid breats, a cancerous womb, a small ass, a haggard vagina, all of this can have its charm to the intellectual and the adventurer, to those enlightened and aristocratic few who appreciate novelty for its own sake, and have grown bored with the monotonous social conventions of beauty which serve only to stifle their sexuality.

>YOU MUST BE VALIDATED BY OTHER PEOPLES SEX DRIVE REEEEEEEEEE
Lol fuck off breeder

Fuck off, Hollerback

I was one-hundred percent with you until you included; the feet and the soul.
Surely, what is so fantastical about ugly women is that like honest men, they work constantly on building themselves in earnest, not merely 'being' and resigning themselves to the eternal waiting room where most women leave themselves merely to be picked up by the best candidate.
What is so beautiful about uglier women is that they are something beautiful women fashion themselves ill of, human.
(And perhaps that most uglier women understand their strongest assets and become so. e.g. tit-woman, ass-woman, mouth-woman, hips-woman.
Much like a man and his particular skill-sets, e.g. construction-man, carpenter-man etc.)

daily reminder only incels hang out on the literature section of a aussie fragrawnce soap forum on saturday night under a picute of a vagina but the vagina is blurred out with words and have discussions past 150 replies on a saturday night

I hate Americans so goddamn much

they hated him because he told the truth.

you're mentally ill

>of a aussie
you should've seen this cuming

>tfw this board is being actively subverted by lefty/pol/ virgins and redditors

True.

Ugly women are forced to improve themselves, but there is prejudice against them. They have neither any male privilege nor the privilege of being beautiful. This means they get all of the negative aspects of being a woman with none of the positives. Even ugly men have more advantages, because at least they have cliques which they can turn to.

Ugly women may very well be better people at heart, but the problem is that absolutely no one gives them the time of day because of how much society is obsessed with beauty. I'm willing t bet that most people here who romanticise ugly women would care about them either when put in a situation to show empathy towards them.

>I don't think they were fond of that. And I don't think the the children that shared the same destiny were more emancipated that the one who didn't work.
Women didn't even fought to abolish work them but to fucking unionize.

Attached: 1534782826523.jpg (324x271, 16K)

The anatomy on that drawing is pretty terrible.

>Ugly women may very well be better people at heart, but the problem is that absolutely no one gives them the time of day because of how much society is obsessed with beauty. I'm willing t bet that most people here who romanticise ugly women would care about them either when put in a situation to show empathy towards them.

Please rephrase, I can't read this

>Ugly women are like a fine wine, a putrid cheese, sweet tasting fruit fermented to delicious liquor
I can’t get past this first line without laughing

Looking to Islam for your values. Is this what late stage petersonism looks like?

But there are an overwhelming amount of fat, ugly wrecks of women who are just as retarded, malicious, and repugnant as they are ugly. Maybe if you are talking about someone who literally looks disfigured, and has been so all her life, then you can say she is more likely to have perfected inner qualities and improved herself. Otherwise I don't agree

>The British cancel faggot "tolerance" classes
no credible source found on that one, so i assume its wrong

>the Swedish cancel gay pride parades
actually, no, Breitbart (right wingers) did do that
source:prnewswire.com/news-releases/breitbart-news-cancels-milo-yiannopoulos-appearance-at-swedish-gay-pride-march-300303339.html

>you get feminists pretending that burkhas are empowering
theres actually a debate about that in the feminist community, so its not a black or white issue

>we already know that Leftists will tolerate the murder of their own children, so why wouldn't they tolerate that? The alternative would be admitting that the white conservatives were right.
thats really just sppoks from this point on and cheap propaganda from another poltard

lifesitenews.com/news/muslims-halt-pro-gay-curriculum-in-uk-school

>lifesitenews.com/news/muslims-halt-pro-gay-curriculum-in-uk-school
okay ive got to admit thats pretty fucking brutal shit right there

What is brutal?

useful ideologue fool

Designed by Moffat at the school in 2014, the No Outsiders curriculum ostensibly sought to teach children about different lifeways. According to Moffat, dozens of British schools use the program. In the past, Moffat resigned from a teaching job when Christian parents objected to lessons about so-called homophobia.

that this article shows the universal homophobia by christians and muslims

>It's an organised conspiracy, I s-swear! lefty/pol/ virgins are being payed off by Soros to post things I disagree with
R E N T F R E E

Attached: autistic-screeching-rupi-kaur.jpg (2408x1488, 287K)

>homophobia
Just because you put the suffix -phobia on it, doesn't mean it isn't irrational hate

Based and putridpilled

are you retarded or just mentally ill?

muslims are invincible against the left, they can literally get away with murder. It's either them or the Chinese for the future.

she's not a woman, she's a lady

Loled

Truth gazed.

Neither, I just have more common sense than you.

what a profound response
capped to show my comrades later

There are frequent organised raids and brigading organised by /leftypol/type forums. There is photographic proof of this. But it's not like there isn't any left-wing representation here anyway, so that's also true.

>comrades
let me guess, you call them that because they don't want to be your friend?

honestly bros, i feel so sad. what are the chances of finding a woman who hasnt been touched by many other men. what consolations are there today when it comes to dating

you can sort of tell when there is a sudden uptick in posting volume of multiple people saying prog stuff, the way they write is quite uniform. I have no idea what they think they're achieving

learn to read

>what consolations
That unless a woman has a lengthy series of unstable relationships beforehand, her not being a virgin doesn't mean anything.

>what is pair bonding

Stop putting pussy on a pedestal and expecting women to be virginal and pure, its not a healthy mentality to have and can breed a lot of resentment and disgust towards sexually active women (just look at this site as a prime example). Don't worry about whether or not a girl has had sex with someone else, worry if they actively endorse promiscuity or would be fully promiscuous if they weren't in a relationship with you. Those are the bad eggs to stay away from

nice try, roastie

You basically have to hire someone to be a fucking parent for you in this current day and age lmao. Shits pretty fucked.

>12734446
>12734446
>12734446
user I’d just like to say that this is the best post in the thread, and that it should have either ended right here or you should have been showered in (You)s. I’m sorry and I hope you see this.

good post, friend.

Attached: image.jpg (392x200, 36K)

The Catholics were right, sex before marriage was a mistake

>before marriage
outside of marriage, rather

>reading comprehension this bad
I literally condemned promiscuity you dumb fuck

>Again youre implying that working is a mens domain

that's what its been for 10,000 years, wome only wored in large numbers as prostitutes, servants, an only took male jobs when they were sent to die in a meat grinder

not enough
any woman lacking virginity is ultimately useless

>were refused education
>women have consistently been more educated than men for centuries because they were home all day

Why? It's an unrealistic expectation that disavows the majority of the adult female population for no reason beyond 'the bible says so!'. Your chances of getting laid were already pretty damn slim, by refusing to sleep with anything except a virgin that pretty much takes your chances down to zero.

>appeal to common practice
>strawman
>ad-hom
yawn - enjoy continuously lowering your standards and becoming divorce fodder
i have a qt gf who was a virgin when i met her btw

a hole in your matress doesnt count as female user

Listing off logical fallacies is totally redundant when you started this discussion by calling me a roastie, all principles of debate went out the window the moment you started posting like an idiot. Does she know that you have such a low estimation of other women? And also, by your own logic, once you've fucked her isn't she by definition 'useless'? It takes some serious cognitive dissonance to suggest that it doesn't count if its your dick that does the cherry-popping.

No it's narcissism if you reject/refuse to acknowledge the existence of the ideal female form because you can't get over the fact that you don't live up to it. It's narcissistic resentment towards existential limitation; feminists lack the humility to admit that some people are more beautiful than others so they just demolish the idea of beauty standards and call anybody who does acknowledge them a misogynistic oppressor or something.

>can't differentiate between a three word shitpost, and a post attempting to establish an argument
you're really fucking stupid, huh?
>Does she know that you have such a low estimation of other women?
yes, she does
>And also, by your own logic, once you've fucked her isn't she by definition 'useless'?
she only becomes useless once she is separated from her original partner; therefore, as i plan to stay with her, there is no nullification present

>It takes some serious cognitive dissonance to suggest that it doesn't count if its your dick that does the cherry-popping.
How can you possibly not understand the difference between an act that you do compared to the same act done by a stranger?
>once you've fucked her isn't she by definition 'useless'?
No one implied this, try harder.

>attempting to establish an argument
what argument? What points have you substantiated? What studies have you cited to reinforce your argument? All you've done is gone 'non-virgins=bad', accused me of ad hominem and then called me stupid a bunch of times for not agreeing with you. You're a child that won't hold themselves to the same standards that they hold everyone else to. Honestly, it's like talking to a brick wall that thinks it understands rhetoric better than you.

Can I be brutally honest here?
Virginal women enter the world with a bar of gold.
You give that gold to someone you love and will be by your side for a long time as a way of consolidating your faith in him.
Without that bar of gold to give again, you're telling the man (and yourself subconsciously) that he is worth less than gold (i.e. 2nd place, silver).

Being beautiful and staying a virgin (turning away men of bad character) is difficult. That's why it's respected.
Men who grope women without earning the consent to do so, are not respected in the same way as rapists.

>How can you possibly not understand the difference between an act that you do compared to the same act done by a stranger?
because that's literally subjective contamination and is a retarded way to approach questions like this in general– "All women are whores except for the virgins I deflower". It's like you don't even know how to apply the universal

>No one implied this
the poster I'm arguing with literally claimed non-virginal women are useless.

>yes, she does
Jesus thats what id call low self esteem

i had originally taken you to be a bit dull, but mostly misguided. however, as demonstrated by your lack of basic reading comprehension, i suppose it goes deeper than that. it was YOU who was attempting to establish an argument, which makes your use of logical fallacies so lazy. the differentiation i alluded to was between my original shitpost and your attempt at argumentation which followed. i really couldn't care less if you value non-virginal women or not

>being brutally honest through an allegory
That's not being honest, that's you making a false equivalency between a bar of gold and virginity for no other reason than to make the point 'virginity=good'. You haven't substantiated that at all. And also If women themselves don't see their virginity in that way, then regardless of whatever unprovable 'subconscious' messages are being transmitted, no woman is gonna think of you any less because THEY aren't virgins. You're reading into so much that literally isn't there

>other women
was this difficult to comprehend?
or do you blindly align yourself with each group you fit into

female virginity has been valued in multiple societies throughout the centuries, it is certainly not a new phenomena. only in our modern understanding of courtship, as following the sexual liberation movement, has this become taboo.

Doesn't change the fact that you're incapable of holding yourself accountable for the things which you're all-too eager to jump down other people's throats for. I don't know where you got the impression I was trying to make an argument, in fact if you read the post again I was asking for YOU to justify your claim (justification which you still have yet to provide).

is/ought fallacy
yeah man all those societies that value virginity and FGM are so forward-thinking!

>You're reading into so much that literally isn't there
Fine, I'm not a woman.
You can make linguistic gymnastics all you want but my point was simple enough.
Women know that virginity is precious, just as men do.
It's a 1st event, it had connotations to their 1st child in the past without protection.
Having sex after that is a repeat, nostalgia for the sake of remembering what it was like the 1st time.
Having sex to a man for the first time is an honour because you're tying your whole sexual history to him, you can't give that to another person (unless you take their virginity, and then the tables are turned and you're practically fathering him).

>it's an unreasonable expectation based on [this strawman]
>not an argument
retard
>you're incapable of holding yourself accountable for the things which you're all-too eager to jump down other people's throats for
like what? you're gonna have to substantiate some of your claims
>in fact if you read the post again I was asking for YOU to justify your claim
non-virginal women are impulsive and/or poor judges of character; they have learned to lack devotion
higher chance of divorce amongst those with more sexual partners

It's not brutal. It's the future left-wing losers LITERALLY chose.

Enjoy extinction. I'm going to fucking love it when they start hanging faggots from construction cranes in London, I'll get to see you cucks do mental gymnastics to explain how it's our fault this time.

The best part of this is that this actually justifies a years-old contention I've had with the rest of the Right--that once you get over the fact that they're racially inferior, we pretty much agree with Muslims on everything, and rather than growing less extreme, current trends show that they're actually radicalizing faster.

Oh how sweet the future looks. There's going to be a lot of blood before this is over, but who cares? If those kids had grown up, they probably would've been left-wing.

Jesus Imaging writing all that just to prove that you're a troglodyte

>linguistic gymnastics
I'm not the one purporting to be 'honest' and then using a reductive analogy to make my point.

>you're tying your whole sexual history to him
I can understand this but I still don't think it means virginity should be something privileged above the purity of genuine human connection. Losing it should be with someone special, but I am absolutely certain that a woman does not deserve to lose her value simply because she's already had sex.

quite literally not an argument
no one was discussing forward-thinkers, rather, that value for female virginity is presently
manufactured
also
>new = good!
yikes

Low tier bait shitshow

are you ok?

>like what?
like the fact that your spouting out of logical fallacies doesn't apply to you when you make those mistakes because its 'only shitposting'. Like I said, all of these fallacies you keep falling back on (in lieu of a proper argument) are totally redundant given that you opened this entire discussion with a fallacy, your arbitrary distinction between shitposting and argument is irrelevant.
Either stand by the retarded things you say, or don't say them at all.

>non-virginal women are impulsive and/or poor judges of character; they have learned to lack devotion
these don't correspond, I'd agree with you if you were talking about promiscuous women but given that non-virginal women are the majority its too much of a sweeping statement to have any truth to it.

>higher chance of divorce amongst those with more sexual partners
Do you think this applies to women only?

yeah in retrospect I regret reading your post as well
I was being honest in the definition that I spoke truthfully what was on my mind, acting like Socrates just makes you look like you can't read.
I'm glad you understand to a point, I'm not misogynistic in that women are worthless to my past their "1st encounter", but to not recognise a significant devaluation to me would not be unreasonable.
If I were to make a sexist analogy, I would compare a woman's sexual history with driving a car out of the showroom.
The car's still worth something, just not necessarily the same to other people.
Having your 78th bout of honeymoon sex with the same lover is hardly going to depreciate you in his eyes. Women don't seem to grasp as immediately that how special you treat sex echoes in how special you treat yourself.

anyone got a pancake recipe? i am suddenly hungry

>like the fact that your spouting out of logical fallacies doesn't apply to you when you make those mistakes because its 'only shitposting'.
you've understood nothing
a three word shitpost is exactly that, it's not an attempt at any sort of substantiative argument, and your resting upon this symmetrical display of logical fallacies suggest you have nothing of value to say
>your arbitrary distinction between shitposting and argument is irrelevant.
not at all, your inability, or perhaps unwillingness, to understand such a simple idea is rather embarrassing
>these don't correspond
yes they do, women who understand themselves to be in a position of praise and yet squander it are certainly impulsive, which is unlikely to correspond with devotion
>Do you think this applies to women only?
likely not, however, the topic is virginal women

there are better things than pussy out there, truly, although it's hard to believe.

shut up nigger floss those teeth ya herad ?

SCUM GANG

like drugs

>it's not an attempt at any sort of substantiative argument
it isn't, but what it does do is undermine every subsequent logical fallacy you point out, because you've already lowered the bar for discourse beyond the point of salvation. You post chain is riddled with examples of all the kinds of fallacies you've accused me of committing, but the rules apparently don't apply to you because your excuse is that "I was only pretending to be retarded!". Sorry bub, you've already smeared yourself with the shitstick, there's no going back.

>the topic is virginal women
no, the topic is the value of their 'virginity'. The rules you have for debate seem to correspond perfectly with your ideas about virginity: One rule for you, one rule for everyone else, one rule for men and one rule for women, and so on. If there are studies that show that men are less faithful the more sexual partners have, then arguably its not something particular to women but to the experience of promiscuity in general.

this, its only an hysterical reaction

you lack the most basic understanding of argumentation, and your posts ultimately lack any sort of substance. each post pushes you further into the realm of blind rejection in pursuit of your ideological goal. essentially, your claims rest upon a perceived failure of method, as opposed to the inadequacy of content. enjoy your mindless meandering and the cognitive dissonance you yourself purport to combat

Did you really write all that just to say that you like traps?

How old are the people making these threads?

This would have been a good post if not for the capitalisation.

Whatever you say, buddy. Nothing about this post even addressed the things I said in my previous post, probably because you know I'm right that you sullied the discussion from the get go and then started throwing out fallacies as though we were having a serious or formal argument. I know you think of yourself as above criticism (because you're only wrong when you're pretending to be retarded, right?), but I want you to know just how cowardly you really are. There is no inadequacy of your content because there is NO content. There's just you, your baseless misogyny, and the girl you would instantly disavow as a whore the minute she leaves you. Anyone who is that arbitrary in their judgement of women is nothing more than a self-obsessed coward. Hopefully for her sakes one day she'll realise it

You need to have sex

what a pathetically sensationalist post. as if this amalgamation of your insecurities and meekness is supposed to demonstrate some profound 'GOTTEM' moment. your entire line of argumentation has amounted to nothing more than, "uhhh give me an argument, that's not what i mean!!" or "my logical fallacies are perfectly acceptable if we understand that they're predicated on your initial one," while ignoring the justification behind it as though you're the decider of what is arbitrary, as opposed to a fool with nothing to say. and then you close with 'muh misogyny' as if anyone cares about your autistic obsession with labels. now fuck off back to r*ddit, where your empty meandering and virtue signalling amounts to something more than disdain, and your idiocy ignored.

as i forgot to mention, you're likely an ugly woman or a literal incel who thinks vain niceties will get you anywhere. such a realization makes things ultimately unimportant since you are below me, and your thoughts and their justifications meaningless

Heat. This is what cities mean to me. You get off the train and walk out of the station and you are hit with the full blast. The heat of air, traffic and people. The heat of food and sex. The heat of tall buildings. The heat that flows out of the subways and tunnels. It's always fifteen degrees hotter in the cities. Heat rises from the sidewalks and falls from the poisoned sky. The buses breathe heat. Heat emanates from crowds of shoppers and office workers, the entire infrastructure is based on heat, desperately uses up heat, breeds more heat. The eventual heat death of the universe that scientists love to talk about is already well underway and you can feel it happening all around you in any large or medium-sized city. Heat and wetness.

Please tell me you're a girl (male).

>UH NO DUDE, it's been like a hundred years women have been voting so its like totally not just a short trend in human history... that is utterly overshadowed by millions of years of male leadership

Buy your wife a second-hand engagement ring and see how well that goes when you tell get "uh no, idiot, think about it logically, this costs less and is the same item as bought new, why do you even care?"

Attached: 158.png (600x507, 93K)

Liking photorealism is the biggest giveaway that you are either a child or autistic.

based

>IM A BIG BOY I LIKE COMPLEX ART THAT CHALLENGES THE CISTEM LIKE SHITTING ON THE FLOOR AND TAKING PRETTY PICTURES ABOUT HOW IT REPRESENTS FEMALE STRENGTH YALL

You are mistaken. They were not conceptually linked to merely pieces of meat; Beatrice and Penelope, most of Shakespeare and Chaucer's women were based.

Most interactions are at meat level; unless you show mind and spirit, you will be seen as meat, regardless of sex.

Hear hear.

This is valid criticism only if:

-women were drafted for wars
-child labor werent actually a thing
-inner city indigence wasnt a looming social problem
-unironic blatant colonisation wasnt still going on.
-laudenum, gin, snuff, beer, were well regulated
-radium wasnt in fucking everything.

It was an age without modern knowledge or understanding; can you blame people for being retards then?

Also, whatever social system existed then, it was up to the individual to game it. Born a nigger? Try to be a house nigger, sip massa's rum. Born a woman? Marry a husband you can manipulate or outlive.

Stop complaining about getting shit cards; play your hand.

>you have been taught your legs are a pitstop
Who the fuck teaches this at any educational level? Which good father in his right mind tells his daughter this?

Heres where this teaching comes from:
-evil chads
-evil PUAs
-advert shills appealing to common denominator caveman instincts

So i answer my own question. Rupi Kaur learned this bullshit from :
-Krishnan "Kris" from beginner's BJJ at the gym
-Ravi "Randy" from two weeks ago Ladies Nite
-Basic cable TV
-Strawman doily making course at the community center.

The close proximity in which the "poet" 's name is to the hairy asshole, as if it had just been shit out, is the only thing /not/ flawed.

You talk like a fag and your shits all retarded

That’s just a wannabe artist.

reminds me of

Attached: c25cba3bf2b688a0aa7ea56d562eba9f.png (560x513, 457K)

Humans are social creatures biologically wired to respond more emotionally to other humans than to weird blobs of garbage.
Jackson Pollock might be big among the starfish-aliens but the average ape on the street simply doesn't care about abstract art.
Too many artists and theologians forget that the human pursuit of the transcendent is a human pursuit rooted quite firmly in the physical world.
To me the power of art is in the ability to unite the physical and divine and make visible to us the hidden attributes of God expressed through the physical world around us.

Taught by who? Nobody’s teaching this.

The white ones look like retard Wojaks
Based and redpilled

whom*

whom'st*

:3

define "flaw" please

ayy

:^)

this
there's nothing inherently wrong
with creatively formatted prose
but don't show me roots, thorns, and clippings
and tell me I'm seeing a rose

not him, but photo-realism isn't good art. It's just art. And a profound meaning behind a bunch of squiggles isn't good art, it's just good meaning. Truly good art is the unification of the two.
Good art does more than just represent reality, the artist must also 'focus' some perceptions and 'blur' others in order to best communicate his opinion. Fully rendering everything, i.e. photo-realism, is more of a chore and a display of patience than truly skillful artistry, and frankly looks like shit. If you want a photo, take a photo. Pic related. Not at all photo-realistic, and yet it conveys a more convincing perception of the depicted scene than an actual photograph would.

Attached: 1920px-EL_JALEO-SINGER.jpg (1920x1283, 610K)

reddit

Um no sweetie only PoC, LGBT and women have suffered.

Whatever You think is good art is bed art

Shit in the toilet is good art.

wrong by definition. Good art must be meaningful, by definition, because if it's not, then why talk it? Since we want to talk about Art by virtue of us using the word, shit in the toilet, because it means nothing, isn't art. It isn't good, neither is it art. Art means skill. Shit in a toilet isn't that either.

Poop represents life and decay.
Toilet represents society and its white patriarchy

Toilet poop > your art

Who cares what you say it represents? I say it represents nothing. Since all your criteria is subjective, I am right. Therefore it is not good. And still, it is not art, because art means skill or craft. Crafts can only exist if they are of value to people, because otherwise the craftsmen of a particular craft wouldn't be able to make a living. Shit is not valuable. Sorry

You're too stupid to understand quality art like poop toilet

poop toilet doesn't mean shit. At best it's a visual play on "words".

fucking kek

having these altercations reduces IQ by the minutes and i advise you 2 to get a room and save the last of braincells you gentleman might stil have

I'm taking IQ advice from someone who types out the numeral '2' instead of writing out 'two'? Ya rite. Have a fun day at middleschool tomorrow

incel

>Art means skill
Incorrect.
Art means beauty, which may necessarily require skill, but please do not confuse the two.

Hi Roger

Flat out wrong. Art only refers to skill or craft. Art in itself has nothing to do with beauty. You're confusing 'art' with 'good art'.
Your misconception is exactly the reason why we have people going around farting out paint balloons in the town square calling themselves 'artists'. Art is a skill. That's the end of it.

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

skill
/skil/Submit
noun
the ability to do something well; expertise.

spotted the il/lit/erates

pound me in the ass user

Those are REAL bodies you oppressive pig.

Extremely high IQ centrist.

You're a smart guy, user

Attached: 1551781545089.jpg (640x960, 48K)

UNDERRATED

If the shoe fits

>you subjugate women at the expense of their happiness
But they are happier when they don't have the responsibility of having to choose, and therefore being at risk of making mistakes.
You can see how most or all modern "struggles" of feminism originate in the desire to be liberated, not from men per se but from responsibility: I want to fuck whoever I want, but not run the risk of getting pregnant, hence legalize abortion and encourage men to get vasectomies. I want to get married but it's a big decision, so if I regret it I need to be able to to divorce whenever I want and take half of my husband's shit. I want to act sexually suggestive all throughout the day, but if someone I don't like comes to flirt with me I can accuse him of harassment or worse. Etc. etc.

Pretty good

Attached: 1548555882022.png (788x555, 28K)

>be a women
>play the victim

The end

future men: wtf is a woman?

lol women do not think that far

and then they have the audacity to say that everything they do is for them and not for men or just a man

love when women get upset because as soon as they get angry they will show you their true colors.
and from that point, you can base your relationship.

preach it sis

Their narcissism only has for equal their lack of self awareness.

I'm a woman. AMA

Its pretty good but it doesn't have any action to it so it seems quite self indulgent.

maybe if it ended with:

you have been taught your legs are a pit-stop for men that need a place to rest; a vacancy, body empty enough for guests 'cause no one ever comes and is willing to stay. Its time for you to build your on home, far from the tinder highway.

Proof or gtfo

ERROR: Incompatible response: Message: Unable to locate question. Try again.

this desu.

Would you mind providing me some valid evidence in regards with your claim?

No.
In the same way that I am incapable of determining whether or not you are a real human or merely a bot response, you are incapable of determining whether or not I am a real woman or merely a male feigning womanhood.

>women are literally always the victims and can never be held responsible for having sex with dozens of men, it's the men who abuse their trust
woahh

...

this post is basically just quoting Aristotle

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle's_views_on_women

yo what the fuck this thread on page 7 we cant have that shit down lets get this bumping 4channel start reposting on biz/fit/r9k lets get it rocking let get it thumping lets keep the replies flowing lets keep th

Attached: 1550446133389.jpg (782x778, 103K)

haha good pic

not this much from what i remember
>t. My aunt breastfeed me when she found out my mother wasn't

why must one be screeching in a megaphone? Why can't they have their queer holiday in peace. Why must they always be such a nuisance?

youtu.be/tkSNnR0aZTw

I just don't get it. looks like trash to me

>I hate people merely due to their sexual fetishes or because they love someone
>this is rational hate for a poltard.