Hello, Yea Forums...

The Summa

Attached: 1561748917360.jpg (1024x780, 190K)

I'd rather she be a whore than a looney cultist obsessed with a dead desert jew.
Hadn't heard of this one before, I'll check it out.
I mean its like 9 books long so fuck that, also I don't think reading Tolkien is autistic at all.

You want to read books to your child that has good messages. Therefor my recommendations would be as follows: Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, selected work by H.C Andersen (such as The Emperors New Clothes) and Tolkien. You do not want to read her books such as Harry Potter, the messages in that book are horrible. Notice that many of the stories I mention are animated, and that is with good reason. They are classics. Don’t let your child be addicted to screens though, my little brother only watches stuff on youtube, it’s very sad. I read to him sometimes but he is obviously less interested than I was when I was a kid

Just like any other book series to read the first one and see if it goes over well.

My autistic implication was based on your refusal to concede modern children’s books within the zeitgeist, not that you’d be reading them Tolkien. Tolkien is great.

>I'd rather she be a whore

why do you care about what she reads if you want her to grow up an idiot like you?

>I'd rather she be a whore

Find someone to molest her

>You do not want to read her books such as Harry Potter, the messages in that book are horrible
What are the horrible messages in those books?

Your better off sticking to 'hungry caterpillar shit' just because it helps her develop language. All the other stuff does is facilitate closeness between you and your kid. She's not gonna get smarter just cause you read 'higher tier' novels. Better cognitive development would be exposing her to music from a young age and working on developing bilingualism.

Ever heard of the Moomins? Top tier childrens books good for adults too. Check them out, Tove Jansson - Moomins

Attached: muumit.jpg (403x247, 40K)

Assuming you meant ''whore'' as in a prostitute it probably wouldn't be a choice my daughter would make willingly, she'd probably do it in conditions of extreme poverty, kinda like Sonya in C&P. If you meant ''whore'' as in promiscuous I couldn't care any less since I'm not a religious nutjob.
You up for it?
Those are good reccs at first but I worry about turning her into a disney fanatic.
Both I and the mother have played instruments basically our entire lives so I can assure you she will be exposed to music. Obviously you have to start with hungry caterpillar shit when the child is very young but I was thinking a little ahead and the idea of more complicated books came about when we were talking about developing her imagination.
I've seen gifs of the guy in the green hat, looks pretty interesting.

>Assuming you meant ''whore'' as in a prostitute it probably wouldn't be a choice my daughter would make willingly, she'd probably do it in conditions of extreme poverty, kinda like Sonya in C&P. If you meant ''whore'' as in promiscuous I couldn't care any less since I'm not a religious nutjob.

>I don’t think my daughter would be dumb enough to get paid for sex with strangers. Doing it for free wouldn’t bother me at all because religion is so dumb
>what books should I read my pre-pubescent hole in the wall

Imagine being this stupid

But user don't you get it.
If she is taking dicks in all of her holes because she needs money that is oppression, but doing it for free is liberation.

No it’s the peak of female stupidity
She is liberated from the possibility of having any self respect and capacity for critical thinking. She will walk down the street and cross paths with the guy who unloaded in her mouth, and that will be the last time they see each other. She’s liberated from being a human with dignity. She is now trash.

Congratulations user. The tao of pooh

It's not about stupidity, it's about material conditions. And obviously it's much better for a person to have sex with strangers of their own volition instead of needing to do it just to eat.
People in this board tend to fear and demonize sexuality, it's quite interesting. I used to feel the same way back in '08 until I started therapy and realized sex is just a dumb little part of life like any other.
this but unironically and without despising the act of intercourse
That's a lot of resentment towards the opposite gender, user. Wanna talk about it?
Kek, that actually sounds pretty, but more for me than for a child.

Absolutely The Chronicles of Narnia

Yes moomins are great

The tao of pooh, is a winnie the pooh book for children.

>sex is just a dumb little part of life

Sorry for your loss, and your imaginary child

>That's a lot of resentment towards the opposite gender, user. Wanna talk about it?

I love women. I want what’s best for them. And going through life thinking sex is “just a dumb little part of life“ is a shame. Sex isn’t a dumb little part of life, it isn’t even a little part of life, it’s life. It’s everything. I’m so sorry you sold your soul for pennies on the dollar. Good luck with the daughter you will never have, thank God

Le Petit prince of course.

Are you a liberated female user?
>realized sex is just a dumb little part of life like any other
Yeah it's no big deal, it doesn't have any consequences for your mental well being, rape victims are just taking it too seriously they need to take it easy.

this

Is that not a Tolkien ripoff? Legit curious.
Oh ok, I read the summary briefly and thought it was some more advanced stuff. I'll check it out.
>I love women so much I think of them as children who can't decide what's good for them and want to pidgeonhole them into a role they've been historically unhappy with for at least one hundred years
Now that's a big brain take.
I'm ashamed I didn't think of this one before actually. Good one, user.
Nope. Also conflating rape and sex like it's one thing, when one of them invades and destroys your sense of privacy and respect while the other is consensual and life affirming, is an extremely dishonest comparison.

>My history of femininity is capped at 100 years, coincidentally at the same time modern propaganda in the form of gender oriented marketing took full form. No I don’t see any issues here.

The Wind in the Willows
Just So Stories
Roald Dahl

>Casual sex, in turn, was linked to further declines in mental health. Specifically, those who had casual sex in their late teens and early 20s were significantly more likely to have serious thoughts of suicide as young adults, results showed. In fact, each additional casual sex relationship increased the odds of suicidal thoughts by 18 percent.
Yes it is life affirming user

>As long as i decide who dominates me, i can feel empowered! this helps me normalize the assault i faced at the hands of my abusers

Yea we know that one

So it's da joos and not just the fact women want to be treated the same as men in society? Galaxy brain.
Source me, dog.
Noice, thanks.

Think I got enough out of this thread, nice to see some Yea Forumsizens posting on topic and with good reccs, even with we have to deal with the /pol/ and christian maniacs that are constantly spewing weird propaganda and conspiracy theories.

Post pics:^)

>role they've been historically unhappy with for at least one hundred years
ahahah what?
>The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging -- one with higher subjective well-being for men.

>Suicide rates have increased among all youth, but there has been a particularly sharp rise among young females, new research shows.
medscape.com/viewarticle/913143

Oh yes they were so unhappy, but things are getting way better now

>women want to be treated the same as men in society?

Women wanted equal wages, equal opportunity. They werent so fucking stupid as to think there was equality in sex. Men and women, by definition, are not the same, sexually speaking. And yes, you have been brainwashed by the goyim media to demoralize you so that you can remain docile while Israel lobbies successfully over your congress, taking your armies and playing border games while you get FUCKED

Welcome to History. Wake the fuck up idiot

>women want to be treated the same as men in society?
But how can you treat different things in the same way without doing an injustice to both?

Calm down, and learn to use 4chin faggotin

This is a great kid's book. Watership Down too.

Attached: tumblr_pf13upseqV1uv8o5n_1280.jpg (1280x853, 359K)

kill the child and i'll pay for the funeral

Sorry I can’t hear past all those penises in your mouth

>>The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging -- one with higher subjective well-being for men.
Have you read this study? The first page of the introduction cites women's inclusion in the market, their higher education levels and their control over fertility as a good thing. The people who wrote this aren't implying even by a long shot the social progress made is what is causing the rise in depression, you just read the title and projected your own assumptions onto a paper you've never even read. Correlation does not equal causation.

>By many measures the progress of women over recent decades has been extraordinary: the
gender wage gap has partly closed; educational attainment has risen and is now surpassing that of
men; women have gained an unprecedented level of control over fertility; technological change in the
form of new domestic appliances has freed women from domestic drudgery; and women’s freedoms
within both the family and market sphere have expanded. Blau’s 1998 assessment of objective
measures of female well-being since 1970 finds that women made enormous gains. Labor force
outcomes have improved absolutely, as women’s real wages have risen for all but the least educated
women, and relatively, as women’s wages relative to those of men have increased for women of all
races and education levels. Concurrently, female labor force participation has risen to record levels
both absolutely and relative to that of men (Blau & Kahn, 2007). In turn, better market outcomes for
women have likely improved their bargaining position in the home by raising their opportunities
outside of marriage.
Given these shifts of rights and bargaining power from men to women over the past 35 years,
holding all else equal, we might expect to see a concurrent shift in happiness toward women and away
from men. Yet we document in this paper that measures of women’s subjective well-being have fallen
both absolutely and relatively to that of men.
ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf

Ok, Alex Jones.

Once you equalize certain aspects of people they will become more different in other aspects as a result. For example, if we equalize job opportunities and payment for women, they won't have the need to be subservient to a male husband, which in turn makes it possible for them to be even more different than before, once they were relegated to house wifes but now they can be whatever. Marx explains this much better than me, but I hope it's clear enough.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Obviously brainwashed by liberal education and mass media

google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2002/04/03/porn-and-politics-in-palestine/?amp

>Correlation does not equal causation.
Yes, i'm sure that it is just a coincidence.
Or maybe it is the patriachy still oppressing them psychologically lol.

>Once you equalize certain aspects of people
You can't because there are biological differences that will not disappear unless we use genetic modification.
You can't change the fact that women have a different reproductive role.

>Marx explains this much better than me
Did he really, or are you just memeing?

How you take an economic issue and translate that to prescribing your homewrecking whore culture ideology is beyond fucking stupid

Pls kys

>Yes, i'm sure that it is just a coincidence.
Or maybe it is the patriachy still oppressing them psychologically lol.
It's purely especulation based on confirmation bias. The same way you blame it on societal distance from ''core values'' a marxist could blame it on capitalism and the alienation of the working class, which only happened to women once they actually got into the market.
Again, literal especulation.

>You can't because there are biological differences that will not disappear unless we use genetic modification.
Genetic difference is a positive, it however cannot be used to explain why there aren't women in computer science for instance, most researchers agree that in dawn of personal computers they were mostly marketed to boys, which left women behind. A societal difference which can be worked on, and should, so that people have the biggest amount of freedom possible.
>You can't change the fact that women have a different reproductive role.
You can change how society views this. In fact to relegate women to reproduction machines is an impossibly retarded argument. What if a woman has a shitty sterile womb then she is not a woman?
>Did he really, or are you just memeing?
Well, he was talking about the abolition of class really, I just changed it to the abolition of enforced traditionl gender roles.
What did he mean by this

Hello Susie

>develop her intellectually
Projecting

>What did he mean by this

Don’t question my little whore Marxist, liberate, liberate, liberate. Destroy, I mean, equalize gender roles. Yes, sterili- I mean equalize.

Attached: 584D7235-DA23-40D5-BE5C-677B3BACB1E8.jpg (600x600, 42K)

>marxist could blame it on capitalism and the alienation of the working class
I actually believe that it is both. And in my view it is just going to get worse.
To the previous user you said that he isn't concerned about the well being of women, well you don't seem to be either.
It seems like you want them to fulfill the ideological role that you have for them in your mind, aka make them men 2.0 despite the fact that it has negative consequences for them.

>women in computer science for instance
Most technical big brain jobs actually require an above average IQ.
And we know that there is a difference in the distribution of IQ among the two genders.
>Other research has concluded that there is larger variability in male scores compared to female scores, which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.[6] Additionally, there are differences in the capacity of males and females in performing certain tasks, such as rotation of objects in space, often categorized as spatial ability.[7]
> Also, studies have found the variability of male scores is greater than that of female scores, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.[6]
And IQ is mostly the result of genes.
So again untill you get genetic engineering, you are just going to make the lives of both genders miserable.

>You can change how society views this
But what is society? Are cultural ideas and norms arbitrary? Or was there a sort of evolutionary selective pressure for the creation of specific cultural patterns present almost among all cultures, which allowed them to develope.
But who knows maybe culture just magically appeard out of nothing and we can change every aspect of it as we wish with no negative consequences.

>I just changed it to the abolition of enforced traditionl gender roles
Yeah i know, it is typical intersectional feminism trash. That most likelly even Marx himself would have disavowed.

>But who knows maybe culture just magically appeard out of nothing and we can change every aspect of it as we wish with no negative consequences.

not even funny boomers actually pay top dollar to send their children to be indoctrinated to think like this

>To the previous user you said that he isn't concerned about the well being of women, well you don't seem to be either.
>It seems like you want them to fulfill the ideological role that you have for them in your mind, aka make them men 2.0 despite the fact that it has negative consequences for them.
Ideally neither man nor woman would have to suffer from alienation. But while we live in a capitalist society, depriving women of the small independence they can have inside it is wholly irrational.

>And IQ is mostly the result of genes.
Thats is completely false, user.
Here's a study that goes into how race differences in IQ exist because of enviromental causes and not genes.
psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-06583-002

>But what is society? Are cultural ideas and norms arbitrary? Or was there a sort of evolutionary selective pressure for the creation of specific cultural patterns present almost among all cultures, which allowed them to develope.
>But who knows maybe culture just magically appeard out of nothing and we can change every aspect of it as we wish with no negative consequences.

Culture is an ever changing stream of ideas we decide to carry on as a group of people. Good cultures select good ideas to pass on to the next generations. Culture is a synthetic, people influence and change it constantly. You want history to be stopped in a certain time of our civilization but that will never be the case.

>Yeah i know, it is typical intersectional feminism trash. That most likelly even Marx himself would have disavowed.
No one gives a fuck about Marx as a person, he was a huge antisemite for instance. Marxists take his useful ideas and apply it differently, you'd be hard to find any Marxist philosopher who agrees with Marx 100%.

>more Marxist memeing while alienating Marx himself
>your totally wrong, heres an unrelated study
>here are my projections of who I need you to be in order for me to rehearse this “debate” with you

back peddling at its finest

I don't think you know what alienation means.
Find me a study that maps the genetic clusters responsible for IQ.
Your post was non-answer btw.

A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket

Sorry I didn’t know we were role playing. Ok, I’ll play the conservative in your head who doesn’t believe culture changes and who wants to keep women at home and restrict them from equal opportunity, and you play the gallant strong feminine Marxist, whose here to save the ideas of communism and apply them to the liberation of gender roles against the evil male patriarchy. Awesome!

>But while we live in a capitalist society
Oh sweetie you actually think that there is going to be a gommunist rebolution
ahaha
>depriving women of the small independence they can have inside it is wholly irrational
If that can cause damage then it isn't irrational.
If someone was trying to stab himself i would deny his freedom to do so for his own well being.

>Thats is completely false, user.
First off, that study is from 1998. Secondly it has to do with racial differences in IQ for which we have not yet established whether the gap is mostly evironmental or genetic, and anyway i was talking about sex differences. Which are obviously 2 different things.
Though the one thing that we know for sure is that intelligence is for the most part determined by genetic factors.
>The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73%[6] with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[7] and 86%.

>You want history to be stopped in a certain time of our civilization but that will never be the case.
No, but we can all observe that there are common patterns in all cultures that make them work i.e. allows the local population to survive and reproduce.
We have yet to observe a society work in the long term with women acting like men.

>Marxists take his useful ideas and apply it differently
What is useful about them?
Besides the usual genocides that communist revolutions produce?

k
you go first

>Oh sweetie you actually think that there is going to be a gommunist rebolution
Who knows what's gonna happen after capitalism. Could be a gommunist rebolution, could be another version of capitalism on steroids, could be death for the species.
>If that can cause damage then it isn't irrational.
>If someone was trying to stab himself i would deny his freedom to do so for his own well being.
It is, because in our society freedom is valued above personal risk. For example, cars kill a million people each year and we don't ban them as they represent a big increase in personal freedom.
>First off, that study is from 1998. Secondly it has to do with racial differences in IQ for which we have not yet established whether the gap is mostly evironmental or genetic, and anyway i was talking about sex differences. Which are obviously 2 different things.
Fair enough, I'm open to reading new studies about IQ difference in gender if you have them.
>Though the one thing that we know for sure is that intelligence is for the most part determined by genetic factors.
Source me.
>No, but we can all observe that there are common patterns in all cultures that make them work i.e. allows the local population to survive and reproduce.
>We have yet to observe a society work in the long term with women acting like men.
Can you imagine a monarquist saying the same to a republican in the 18th century?
>What is useful about them?
Marxism is a lens from which we look at history, you can look this up for yourself though.
>Besides the usual genocides that communist revolutions produce?
If you're gonna do this whole capitalism vs socialism kill count thing remember people die from structural poverty in capitalism every day.

>Hello Susie
Who?

>k
>you go first

Ok can you send me your script?

The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane
This books goes over themes like self discovery, love and losses. I think it is always good to develop emotionally, regardless of age

>Who knows
Not you

>For example, cars
Lmao

>I'm open
I’m sure you are

>Source me
So you can twist it to fit your ideas, or so that you can respond with another irrelevant study?

>Can you imagine a monarquist saying the same to a republican in the 18th century?
Can you imagine a pigeon making love to Odysseus on the steps of the Bastille

>Marxism is a lens
No it is not

>remember people die
Yes you too, and I am grateful to God for the knowledge that has been handed down by culture for thousands of years

Ok Mr. No source, nice talking to ya.

>could be death for the species.
I'm not sure that any communist regime in history was ever environmentally friendly.
>Could be a gommunist rebolution
>>let try destroy that society that we have that manages to provide us with levels of well being never seeing in human history, for a hypothetical utopia
hmm yes very smart move

>because in our society freedom is valued above personal risk
That changes drastically one you introduce the well being of women or even better the well being of children.

> IQ difference in gender
books.google.it/books?id=4s5WCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA356&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
books.google.it/books?id=Xtq0M1f_aIMC&pg=PA302&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
>Feingold (1992b) and Hedges and Nowell (1995) have reported that, despite average sex differences being small and relatively stable over time, test score variances of males were generally larger than those of females."[25] Feingold "found that males were more variable than females on tests of quantitative reasoning, spatial visualisation, spelling, and general knowledge. ... Hedges and Nowell go one step further and demonstrate that, with the exception of performance on tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, more males than females were observed among high-scoring individuals."[25]
books.google.it/books?id=BJ1V9r_J0sUC&redir_esc=y

>Source me.
>Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.9 in adulthood.[77][78]
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/

>Can you imagine a monarquist saying the same to a republican in the 18th century?
Well, not really.
There were already some previous examples of somewhat functional societies.
>While the philosophical terminology developed in classical Greece and Rome, as already noted by Aristotle there was already a long history of city states with a wide variety of constitutions, not only in Greece but also in the Middle East. After the classical period, during the Middle Ages, many free cities developed again, such as Venice.

>people die from structural poverty in capitalism every day.
We don't have unlimited resources, and you can't blame the system that increased the living standards and the amount of resources available for not being perfect and thus incapable of providing for everybody.
On the other hand the deliberate genocide of entire groups, i would say is a bit different.
It is the difference between me not wanting to share my stuff with you or not being capable of doing so and me actually killing you.
See the difference, i know it is kinda subtle.

Prydain Chronicles are great.
Narnia is also not related to Lord of the Rings outside of the authors' friendship, and is perfect for kids.

>i know it is kinda subtle
Based sarcasticposting

>I'm not sure that any communist regime in history was ever environmentally friendly.
Never claimed that. Also nice whataboutism.

>>>let try destroy that society that we have that manages to provide us with levels of well being never seeing in human history, for a hypothetical utopia
What do you mean ''destroy society''? If you believe communism equals destruction of society you are very uninformed about the subject.

>That changes drastically one you introduce the well being of women or even better the well being of children.
Right. Because as I said to the user above, women are basically children and don't actually know what they want or what is good for them?

>books.google.it/books?id=Xtq0M1f_aIMC&pg=PA302&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
So this study basically concedes that IQ differences are agreed to be non existent. Pic related. Did you even read it?

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/
Ok, I'll grant you this one, seems like it does have a high correlation with genetics. Still there is no proof women have lower IQ, the study you posted earlier says as much.

>There were already some previous examples of somewhat functional societies.
And before those societies? Surely one of them had to be the first right? You act like it's necessary to have a historic precedent to any new idea a society tries out, that is not the case, the best ideas we have are cutting edge and rejected by the status quo at first.

>It is the difference between me not wanting to share my stuff with you or not being capable of doing so and me actually killing you.
>See the difference, i know it is kinda subtle.
We produce enough food for 10 billion people and yet hunger still exists. It's obviously not an issue with production, but a systemic issue where a capitalist society needs strife to survive, where a simulated scarcity of resources keeps people in a state of constant competition.
You have to be extremely obtuse to believe that people who die on the street from hunger or cold aren't being directly impacted the stupid concentration of wealth of a capitalist system.

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-07-04 19-14-54.png (826x205, 69K)

>I'd rather she be a whore than a looney cultist obsessed with a dead desert jew.
Poor girl, I hope she finds a good man when she grows older because she certainly won't be raised by one

>women in computer science for instance
>Most technical big brain jobs actually require an above average IQ
Do you really think so? I don't think computer science is that complicated, at least not much more complicated than for instance medicine, which has a much broader gender distribution.

>Still there is no proof women have lower IQ

This thread is proof enough

>If you believe communism equals destruction of society you are very uninformed about the subject.
Any attempt of changing a society in such a drastic way, could potentially lead to it's destruction. And we know what usually happens.

> women are basically children and don't actually know what they want or what is good for them?
Unironically YES, and they are also responsable for the production of new generations which is not something that should be taken lightly.

> Did you even read it?
Same question to you.
The issue he is that there is greater variability among boys and men in iq level, which is to say that males have more retards and geniuses compared to women.

>Still there is no proof women have lower IQ
Which isn't my claim, the claim is that women have are more average. There is less variation.

> the best ideas we have are cutting edge and rejected by the status quo at first
You know what would be fun. If we could test that idea.
Lets take women on a desert island and make them create their own society and see how it goes ;)
Or a gender equal gommunist society.

>You act like it's necessary to have a historic precedent to any new idea a society tries out
Well it has to be functional and benefitial.
And i don't see gommunism or gender equlity as ideas that can maintain a society in the long term.
Nor i see any potential benefit from it.
Unless the benefit is to destroy society and family structure.

>We produce enough food for 10 billion people
Any sauce that isn't communist propaganda?

>You have to be extremely obtuse to believe that people who die on the street
1. Nobody is directly killing them.
2. Thanks to capitalism the are less poor people around the world then ever.
>The percentage of the global population living in absolute poverty fell from over 80% in 1800 to 10% by 2015.[15]According to United Nations estimates, in 2015 roughly 734 million people or 10% remained under those conditions.

Attached: lelo.png (580x124, 33K)

>instance medicine
Any data on that?
Lets not include nurses please.

>I'd rather she be a whore than a looney cultist obsessed with a dead desert jew.

She’ll be a whore and a looney cultist obsessed with dead desert Jews (niggers)

Attached: B56C9EEC-95C7-4445-883C-A77A1E765116.jpg (700x587, 90K)

I just did some shallow research, but feel free to look it up yourself. Here are the percentages of female doctors for a lot of countries:
oecd.org/gender/data/women-make-up-most-of-the-health-sector-workers-but-they-are-under-represented-in-high-skilled-jobs.htm
It's mostly around 40-60% and apparently the percentage is growing pretty fast.

People here are anonymous, user.
>Any attempt of changing a society in such a drastic way, could potentially lead to it's destruction. And we know what usually happens.
Sure, I'm just not certain you know exactly what changes that entails. A society could be socialist and function virtually the same as the one we have right now, except with the collective ownership of companies, for example, something that would not rip apart the fabric of social interactions.

>Unironically YES
Well, we're just never going to agree on this one then.

>Which isn't my claim, the claim is that women have are more average. There is less variation.
Which doesn't mean women need to be pushed out of the jobs market.

>And i don't see gommunism or gender equlity as ideas that can maintain a society in the long term.
I mean if even economists consider it basically impossible to predict the market with accuracy a week from now, in a system which we already know the innings of, imagine a random Yea Forums poster being able to say confidently that x political system wouldn't work. Sounds a little ludicrous.

>Unless the benefit is to destroy society and family structure.
Again, society is not going anywhere. And no one is trying to destroy the family structure, it's changed to be more inclusive.

>Any sauce that isn't communist propaganda?
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331?journalCode=wjsa20

>Nobody is directly killing them
If somebody locks you in a basement and you die of starvation, that's called murder.

>Thanks to capitalism the are less poor people around the world then ever.
That's great but it could be even better if a small number of people didn't concentrate so much wealth.

Is that pic supposed to bad? Pretty hot chick imo.

god knows what she'll remember and at what age.

try word games and nonsense word games and improvisation / observation games.

read the same book differently every time, shit like that.

fuck this trash

shut up and fucking read harry potter.

its less autistic than tolkein and really the world only has two kinds of people: those who read tolkein and those who read harry potter. even if you've read both, you know who you are. kids like harry.

Too obvious

Astrid Lindgrens books

>function virtually the same as the one we have right now
I high doubt it could, but even if it did, it is the process of transformaiton that worries me.

>Which doesn't mean women need to be pushed out of the jobs market.
That isn't my claim. What i'm saying is that since they usually aren't interested in those fields and most of them unfortunatelly aren't capable of preforming efficiently in them, they shouldn't be forced into them.
That isn't beneficial for them, it isn't beneficial for the men that could be doing those job, neither it is for the companies nor for society at large.
But if a specific female happens to have the desire and the talent to perform that job nobody is going to stop her.

>basically impossible to predict the market with accuracy a week from now
We can make predictions for the economic grow or lack there off for entire nations user. Of course nobody can give you the precise numbers. But you can make good general predictions.

>x political system wouldn't work
I don't know, you can like maybe look at all the other times it was applied to some degree or another and how it went.
It's weird but humans tend to make predictions based on previous behaviours or tendencies. Which usually work.

>it's changed to be more inclusive
The only way to have more jobs for women is to have less jobs for men.
The only way women can compete at higher levels is by having the state force companies to hire them.
Which leads to lower productivity, if said females are as capable.
Which leads to higher prices for products and services, which damages the consumer.

>If somebody locks you in a basement and you die of starvation
But who is locking them?
They are free to do whatever they want.

>small number of people didn't concentrate so much wealth
If you live in the west, you are part of the 1% of world most wealthy people.
Lets take all your stuff away and give it to people who need it more.
We will send the state to do so, and if you have any problems with that we will kill you.
Ya like that idea?

>your study
The entire planet would need to become vegan/vegetarian for that to happen.
He also doesn't consider that an increase in agricultural production will have environmental consequences too.
>Agricultural production will have to increase at the same time that governments are trying to slash global greenhouse gas emissions. Historically, the production and distribution of food has been a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The large increase in the use of nitrogen fertilizer for the production of crops like corn has dramatically increased the emissions of nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, while the world's growing appetite for beef is contributing to a rise in methane emissions. The gasoline and diesel fuel that is consumed by tractors and trucks is also a large source of carbon emissions.

>>imagine being this naive

Attached: Screenshot_2019-07-05 We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People … and Still Can't End (547x97, 52K)

The issue with being a doctor is that it mostly requires to remember large amount of information.
Knowledge aka memorizing information isn't intelligence which is the ability to process information.
Other fields do require the capability to creativelly solve very complex problems.
There is also the fact that women prefer fields which involve interacting with other human beings, rather than obsession with objects and ideas.
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/behind-online-behavior/201507/men-systemize-women-empathize

>What i'm saying is that since they usually aren't interested in those fields
Why aren't they interested in those fields though? It's not really biology, it's the way society treated girls in the 70s, computers were for boys and that was it.

>I don't know, you can like maybe look at all the other times it was applied to some degree or another and how it went.
Sure but did any of the previous so called "communist" country actually had worker owned means of production? It was all totalitarian and state capitalism bullshit, just like China today.

>The only way women can compete at higher levels is by having the state force companies to hire them.
I don't know where you got this from.

>But who is locking them?
The system.
>They are free to do whatever they want.
Ok, let's say you are a black person born to a family that suffered from Jim Crow laws and redlining, you were born in a house with lead pipes and you got lead poisoning as a child, which in turn resulted in you having 70 IQ, then you can't find a job since employers in the US are much more likely to hire people with white sounding names, then you turn to a life of crime to be able to afford anything and the police arrests you so you are sent to jail because black people are sent to jail much more often by the justice system. How much of that is choice? Believing in 100% free will or 100% determinism is simply insane. Search for compatibilism if you are interested.

>If you live in the west, you are part of the 1% of world most wealthy people.
>Lets take all your stuff away and give it to people who need it more.
>We will send the state to do so, and if you have any problems with that we will kill you.
>Ya like that idea?

Would you rather be the one rich person among a thousand or live with a thousand people who have the same wealth? You have to concede that a small number of people hold an unnecessary amount of wealth and that it needs to be distributed better, even if within the capitalist system we live in now.

>The entire planet would need to become vegan/vegetarian for that to happen.

>He also doesn't consider that an increase in agricultural production will have environmental consequences too.
Livestock is worse for the environment than agriculture, we should actually all go vegan.

It was nice talking to you, user. I think we kept it civil enough but I'm tired of replying.

Even if that's correct, which I have doubts about (I think being a doctor requires a lot of processing of information), how do you explain that in some countries the number of female computer scientists steadily increase? Do Malayian women have super unique genetics or why are they able to work in that field by such a high percentage for example? I think the reality is rather that those jobs really are not that complicated and can be performed by anyone. Maybe not at the top of the top level, but thats just a tiny percentage anyways.

>There is also the fact that women prefer fields which involve interacting with other human beings, rather than obsession with objects and ideas.
The questions to ask here is why they prefer that, how much society plays a factor and whether we should make changes in society to adress them or not.

why is 100% determinism insane?

Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

>way society treated girls in the 70s, computers were for boys and that was it.
Boys are interested in objects, girls are interested in people.
Male brain has evolved for hunting, the female for child care.
yikes
sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm
livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

> It was all totalitarian and state capitalism bullshit
It wasn't real, next time we gonna get it right. Consequences be damned.

>The system.
The one that allows them freedom? Interesting.

>Believing in 100% free will or 100% determinism is simply insane. Search for compatibilism if you are interested
Freedom has nothing to do with the concept of free will or lack there off.
It is based on the idea that there are no state laws preventing you from doing what you want (whether what you want is determined by biological and cultural factors or not), exept for damaging other human beings.

> then you turn to a life of crime to be able to afford anything
BS
If you live in the west, you can literally go to a random church and ask for food.
You are not going to die of hunger.
>to jail because black people are sent to jail much more often by the justice system.
You just said that he is doing crimes, what do you expect the police to do?
Oh sorry sir you can go around stealing shit as you wish becasue you happen to be born with brown skin.

>in the US are much more likely to hire people with white sounding names
As fas as i know they are forced to hire non whites as much as possible.

>How much of that is choice?
The majority of poor and retarded people don't commit crimes.
How is that all of that a justification?

>You have to concede that a small number of people hold an unnecessary amount of wealth and that it needs to be distributed better
You realize that the amount of cash that they have doesn't == to actually readily available resources for the public consumption right?

>Livestock is worse for the environment than agriculture
It is actually wrong but i don't have time.

Please stop being a degenerate feminist sjw communist vegan, thanks.

Yeah but how does any of that disprove hard determinism? Why is it insane to believe that free will is impossible?

>Do Malayian women have super unique genetics
Asians unironically have a higher average Iq then whites.

>The questions to ask here is why they prefer that
Man == hunting
Woman == taking care of kids and other members of the tribe

The main issue here is:
Why does there has to be an equal amount of women and men in all field?
Well, not those that involve physical labour or potentially dangerous jobs obviously.
Why does society need to force women to compete with men at the same level, wheter women wan it or not, and wheter they can or not?
What is this obsession?
This is the real issue.

>Asians unironically have a higher average Iq then whites.
Indians and Arab women too? Because there the percentages are also rising. I don't think you thought this one through enough.

>Man == hunting
>Woman == taking care of kids and other members of the tribe
Genetics might be one of the reasons, I agree. But is it the only reason? If you tell kids that certain jobs are for certain genders, of course that will have an impact as well and society could do something to adress that. In Malaysia there is no gender bias about computer science and they have more women in that field than man now.
cs.cmu.edu/~cfrieze/courses/malaysia.pdf

So you agree with me now? All I wanted to point out is that it's dumb to say that women don't work in computer science because of their IQ.

>Why does there has to be an equal amount of women and men in all field?
I don't think there has to be. But in the case of computer science, I'm sure it would be beneficial for the economy if more women would go into that field instead of becoming a nurse or a high school teacher.

Why does society need to force women to compete with men at the same level, wheter women wan it or not, and wheter they can or not?
What is this obsession?
No one is forcing anyone to become anything, what are you talking about?

Have Sex

Attached: FA47EBAB-C7E9-4F69-913C-2C8FA24D793B.jpg (647x585, 178K)

Terrible father

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

Suck a fat cock retard

For free or for hire? I have totally lost track of which one is empowering and which one is oppressive.

Attached: 1562306271649.png (480x400, 10K)

I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing, raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she can go and get ravaged by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it has one simple result: her body is more enjoyable for other men.

Raised the perfect girl? Great. Who benefits? If you're lucky, a random man who had nothing to do with the way she grew up, who marries her. He gets to ravage her every night. He gets the benefits of her kind and sweet personality that came from the way you raised her.

As a man who has a daughter, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least 20 years of your life simply to raise a girl for another man to enjoy. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Think about it logically.

>"Research conducted for a study in both developed and developing countries found classic cases of vertical gender segregation, with women more strongly represented in lower-level computer science occupations than in higher-status and higher-paid arenas,"
The fact that there are more students doesn't mean that there are going to be more workers.

>Indians and Arab women too?
>In India, women graduates from IIT Bombay in engineering grew from 1.8% in 1972 to 8% in 2005

>I'm sure it would be beneficial for the economy
In what way?

>No one is forcing anyone to become anything, what are you talking about?
People like you want to use public resources to finance programs to convince more women to go in those fields. Because in your mind it has to be 50/50.
What about gender equality in sewage workers?

Based

this board is dead

What do you mean?

Read her fables. Hans Christian Anderson is very good. I'm sure you can find a kid-friendly book on Greek myths as well

>The fact that there are more students doesn't mean that there are going to be more workers.
Of course it does. Also the fact that women aren't failing the courses more than men do is a clear indication that their genetics aren't preventing them from acquiring the skills you need when working in that field.

>In what way?
Isn't there a lack of people working in computer science jobs in most countries? If women get more interested in that field you have more specialized people who can work those jobs and generate more money I'd think.

>People like you want to use public resources to finance programs to convince more women to go in those fields. Because in your mind it has to be 50/50.
I don't think it has to be 50/50, no. Maybe the genetics really are important and a distribution without any gender biases would be more around 60/40, then thats totally fine. But that doesn't change the fact that the gender biases for certain jobs are unnecessary and I would say that pretty much applies to all types of jobs, even sewage workers (although thats not really a job any kid would name as their dream job, more something you do to make a living, therefore I think it's a little different). Also, once again - who is forcing anyone to become anything? It's all about eradicating a bias so that people actually have more choosing power.

>Isn't there a lack of people working in computer science jobs
From what i know that market is currently oversaturated.

>It's all about eradicating a bias
It has been suggested there is a greater gap in countries where people of both sexes are treated more equally, contradicting any theories that society in general is to blame for any disparity
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x

>Also, once again - who is forcing anyone to become anything?
But if you want more female partecipation in specific fields, at the same time you would need to increase male partecipation in field dominated by women.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-07-05 20 jobs that are dominated by women.png (640x448, 79K)

have her learn on Narnia once she gets good enough
it did wonders for my vocabulary as a kid

Why do women "need" to work in the first place?

wait is op’s pick a fetish thing

The Wind in the Willows, too.

Attached: wind-in-the-willows2.jpg (800x420, 466K)

Chad

Attached: 8CF0D5C0-2F02-40AB-BC82-2572B6C7DBF3.jpg (520x809, 48K)

forgot
also redwall, she'll learn all those british words

He is just angry because he is losing his privilege. Fuck patriarchy, fuck white men.

>From what i know that market is currently oversaturated.
Do you have anything that supports that? Because I just tried looking for something and couldn't find anything. I don't know where you live but in my country, where I'm studying CS, it's super easy to get a job after graduatiing college.

>It has been suggested there is a greater gap in countries where people of both sexes are treated more equally, contradicting any theories that society in general is to blame for any disparity
Can you link me something that I can actually read? Also a society can still be inequal in terms of genders but not have that specific gender bias, that girls aren't meant to work in CS, right? I don't see how that totally disproves societal factors. Also, again - If it has nothing to with society and is only about genetics, how come some cultures like the Malaysian people are so different in that respect? What else could have caused that?

>But if you want more female partecipation in specific fields, at the same time you would need to increase male partecipation in field dominated by women.
Yes, I think it's ideal to erase all types of gender biases.

>Do you have anything that supports that?
Nope, i just know to many who have a degree but are unemployed.

>Can you link me something that I can actually read?
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.9292&rep=rep1&type=pdf

In regards to Narnia, it couldn't be any more different from The Hobbit. For one thing, all the characters The Hobbit are all pretty old, but the 4 main characters of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe are all just kids, and it's such a small book that it's easy to get through when read to a child. In comparison, The Hobbit is almost 100,000 words, but The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is only about 38,000 words, and even that combined with the second book Prince Caspian is only about 85,000 words.

As for just the basic content, The Hobbit spends a lot of time engaged in battle at one moment or another, but the Narnia books aren't really like that. Sure, there are battles in those books, but they are relatively few and far between in comparison to The Hobbit where Bilbo and the gang seem to be dodging death every few feet, Middle Earth not exactly being all that safe outside of the Shire after all.

So I would say at least give it a try with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and if your child likes that one, go on to Prince Caspian and the other 5.

I agree with this guy . When I was a young child I loved the Narnia books.

Not with this bad boy.

Attached: meinkampf_b.jpg (514x561, 60K)