File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
It would so fucking suck to be a woman a few hundred years ago... good fucking god, can you even imagine? Not just them constantly being accused of being witches left and right, but EVERYTHING. Yeesh.

Also, is this a movie?
>> Anonymous
Life was hard for both the sexes. Hell, Galileo was threatened with death by burning too

it pretty well sucked to be alive back then honestly. Although I think women probably did have it worse, probably not by much because everyone's lives were just so shitty
>> Anonymous
>>66703
Are you kidding? Yeah anyone who expressed any interest in the sciences or questioned the church was threatened with death/torture/etc., but women had next to no rights at all. Even a dirt poor male peasant had it a hell of a lot better than a female of equivalent circumstance.
>> Anonymous
Thread made of feminit and FAIL. plz ignore, all ye good, decent, and just.
>> Anonymous
>>66722
So you approve of the oppression and brutalization of women, and think they have no basic human rights?

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Function: noun
a : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes b : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests; specifically : the 19th and 20th century movement seeking to remove restrictions that discriminate against women

If you are not a feminist, you are a chauvinist. There is no gray area here; you either believe in equality or you don't. If you don't, you fail at life. You realize your probability of getting a gf is very low with that attitude?
>> Anonymous
>>66725
Heh, I have a GF and she knows her place. Unlike you, enjoy your cats...
>> Anonymous
>>66726
Lies. This Anonymous is lonely and tells lies.
>> Anonymous
>>66726
Her place is probably fucking other guys behind your back, right?
>> Anonymous
>>66731
Nope, sorry. Not all women are unfaithful whores like your mother. Nor are all women brainwashed American style "modern" feminazis.

You know that some people are happy with traditional gender roles right?

Again enjoy your cats and unshaven legs/armpits.
>> Anonymous
>>66734
You obviously have no idea what feminism is, even though the definition was posted here. Either that, or you are just a complete asshole. Feminism is not saying anything against the "traditional" housewife and working husband deal, it is just the stance that women are no less human than men and deserve equal treatment. If you really do think that men are superior, well, you have problems, and you will most likely end up a very lonely geezer. Even the most demure woman will not put up with that shit indefinitely.
>> vinz
>>66741
I feel sorry for him, he must only have experienced the Anglo (Second/Third wave) brand. Even the young ones in my area resemble first-wavers. That's okay though dude, don't worry. The corruptness of the new wavers and babyboomers will collapse eventually and you can get some sense of normalcy back. Once the lawsuit-happy spoiled brats have died out we can all return to rational societies. At least until the next crop of selfish asshats.
>> Anonymous
>>66725

You actualy went and quoted the dicionary definition to support your point? Well here's a little object lesson in "dictionary versus reality" for you: Let's take a look at the dictionary definition of communism...

com·mu·nism noun.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

That definition sure sounds good _on_paper_ doesn't it? But there's literally millions of dead russians (and ukranians, and cambodians, and chinese and on and on) who came to know the _reality_ of communism (and it ain't just what's in the dictionary).

In other words, the true measure of any ideal or movement is not it's definition in the dictionary, but the character of its adherants.

And the sad fact is that, regardless of what the dictionary definition of feminISM says, in the real world actual feminISTS are all either fat, ugly, hairy, man-hating bull-dykes or mewling little panty-waste momma's boys.

Here's a little real world experiment for you: To find out what a real world feminist actually thinks about "equality of the sexes", just ask her what her opinion is on selective service (conscription) for women. And then watch as the hypocrisy, back-pedalling, and bullshit spews from her mouth.
>> Anonymous
And now I know how Joan of Arc felt, when the flames rose to her roman nose...
>> Anonymous
>>66734
I'm fucking your girlfriend tonight man! oh yeaaaaaah!

After that, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me fucking your mom too, I mean, she IS just a worthless bitch after all, right?
>> Anonymous
***STOP PRESS***

4channers in Politically Correct shocker
>> Anonymous
>>66806
You are talking about radical feminists. That is not feminism and only ignorant idiots would think "zOMG fugly feminazi!" at the mention of feminism. Every single person I know is a normal feminist, as in they believe women are equal. Yes even the beautiful women believe they are equal. No they do not spout any of that "men are pigs and should be exterminated" bull. Every single philosophy and idea has wackos on the bandwagon, just look at religion. Just because there are a lot of religious freaks who use god as an excuse to massacre people and start wars, that does not mean people cannot recognize the difference between fundies and sunday worshippers. Your argument is stupid, sir.

And about communism, even though it is the perfect system, it will never be possibe for humans to implement it, as history has shown, because power like that does, eventually, corrupt, and thus shit like that begins. That isn't a very good example for you to use in this case, because the vast majority of feminists are exactly as the dictionary definition describes.
>> Anonymous
>>66833

> Every single person I know is a normal feminist, as in they believe women are equal.

Bullshit. That may be what thay _claim_, but (as the midwives say) when push comes to shove, they do NOT believe in equality.

ONCE AGAIN:

Here's a little real world experiment for you: To find out what a real world feminist actualy thinks about "equality of the sexes", just ASK HER WHAT HER OPINION IS ON SELECTIVE SERVICE (CONSCRIPTION - THAT MEAN'S "THE DRAFT") FOR WOMEN.

And then watch as the hypocrisy, back-pedalling, and bullshit spews from her mouth.

> And about communism, even though it is the perfect system,

This is precisely the point where you blatantly and irrevocably demonstrate your failage.
>> Anonymous
>>66835

Problem is.. the radicals are louder than the normal ones. So they get more attention. Which is why so many people link feminisim to the radical nazy fems.

Personally, I dont believe in equalness between the sexes. I believe women should have the same rights as men but that's where it has to stop. Not because of what I or any other person says. But because the sexes ARE DIFFERENT.

A female is not a man. A man is not a female. Whether people want to admit it or not there are roles that both sexes just fit into naturally. Our biological and mental differences seperate us in certain areas of life.

No amount of screaming or arguing will change that. We should be lucky we can even have these opinions. If we were more like animals one sex would be the top. Whether it's male or female.
>> Anonymous
>>66836
So everyone is lying, and no one believes in equality amongst the sexes, amiright? -_- You fail.
>> Anonymous
>>66839
Equality just means equal treatment for all. They aren't seeking to abolish gender distinction. Of course men and women are different, but that doesn't mean one should get special treatment over the other, or that one should be denied certain benifits, so long as they qualify on every other merit, just because of their sex. THAT is what feminism is about; fair and equal treatment.
>> Anonymous
>>66839

> I believe women should have the same rights as men but that's where it has to stop.

The problem is: that's where it does stop.

Feminists are all for "equal rights", but that's only part of the whole equation. "Equal rights" is NOT the same as "equality". And feminists do NOT want equality. Not really.

Because true equality between the sexes would require them to have equal rights, AS WELL AS EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

Let me repeat that: EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

But feminists don't want that. The want the rights, to be sure, but they are unwilling to shoulder the burden of responsibility that comes with those rights. And that's where the inherent bullshit in "feminism" stems from. Which festers and expresses itself as the aforementioned man-hating bull-dyke.

In other words, when women go down to the post office and sign up for the draft when they turn eighteen, then they can talk about equal rights. Until then, they should just shut the hell up and be damn grateful for what they've already been _given_.
>> Another Anonymous
>>66843
Some certainly do. Much of my extended family, male and female, gladly joined the army after school and every woman in my family would've signed up for the draft if told. But I come from a rather pragmatic military family, most of the feminists I know are fair-weather feminists who want someone else to save them or bail them out of their mistakes when they get in a jam, men and women both.
>> Anonymous
I'm all for equality of the sexes, but a lot of women want equal rights WITHOUT equal responsibility, and that I just wont stand for.
>> Anonymous
Ya know there was a time when women couldn't even be considered for military use, they had to fight and fight for that right, a ton of women WANTED to get drafted, WANTED to fight for their country, but they just couldn't, because they weren't allowed. Now, it's a little better, though there are still many who cannot respect a military woman, especially if she outranks them, they tend to resent her, and there are certain things they are still not allowed to do (women cannot serve on submarines, or become a navy seal, for example). Granted, there are some justifiable reasons for that; living in a cramped submarine for months can get very... messy, and a pretty lady on a ship full of men is probably not the best idea, and navy seals require a boatload of stamina and strengh, and the average woman is physically weaker than the average man, but in this case if they can pull their weight why not give them a chance? They can't even apply for it.

About the draft, I bring up what I just said about women on average being weaker than men; it isn't because they are out of shape, their bodies are just different. There is no chance in hell that a 'girly girl' could pass combat training, and as a result should not be allowed anywhere near a battlefield. There are a helluva lot of men as well who can't pass, and they shouldn't be forced into the military either. The fact is, the women who are able deserve the right to join the army/marines/navy/etc., but to force something on every single person even though they will just end up dieing or getting others killed is just dumb.

Basically, equal choice and equal opportunity. If a woman wants to be a soldier she should be able to. If a man wants to be a ballerina he should be able to. Without stigma, and with respect and ackowledgement of their skills.
>> Anonymous
>>66851

> Some certainly do.

But only _some_. And many of those probably only claim to want equal responsibility.

The real count of those who truly want equal responsibility is so small as to be completely insignificant.

>>66853

> About the draft, I bring up what I just said about women on average being weaker than men; it isn't because they are out of shape, their bodies are just different.

Not a good argument. Not at all.

Anyone with any experience in military logistics will tell you that it takes 10 men behind the lines to keep one man fighting at the front. Even if you assume that women are physically unsuited to combat, there's no reason why they couldn't be drafted for these non-combat tasks, thereby freeing up the supposedly more battle capable men for duty at the front.
>> Anonymous
Cite source of proof for this claim that most women do not want this responsibility. I smell bullshit.
>> Anonymous
>>66806
>>66836
Fails. You have no idea what communism is.
>> Anonymous
>>66860

Please.

Go back and reread. The proof was demonstrated as an easily reproduced experiment for the pro-"feminists".

In other words, if you want proof, then all you need to do is ask a feminist woman whether or not she believes in equal rights, and then follow this up by asking her if she favors selective service (the draft) for women. Or, for better results, reverse the order of the questions.

You might as well be asking for a citation of proof that the sky is blue. The answer you get back will be along the same lines: go out and look up, dumbass.

However, if you _really_ want a citation, take a look at this article from the Feminist Utopia website:

http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/ss2.shtml

In it you'll find just about every single lame duck excuse given by feminists for why women should not be subject to the EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY of the draft. There are many other similar works out there, but this one is a good typical example.
>> Anonymous
>>66863

Please. Put down the dictionary and try picking up a history book for a change.

You have no idea what communism REALLY is.

But 61,911,000 Russians (including Ukranians etc), and 35,236,000 Chinese, and 2,035,000 Cambodians, and 1,670,000 Vietnamese, and many countless others did learn what communism REALLY is when they were murdered in its name.

Communism is NOT a valid social or economic system. It is merely a hollow political excuse for tyranny, despotism, theft, and genocide.
>> Anonymous
>>66866

Wrong. The real chinese communism body count is 76,702,000 and growing.

But they keep rolling back prices at walmart, so that must make it ok.
>> Anonymous
>>66866
What you describe is called socialism.
>Communism is NOT a valid social or economic system.
Marx (you know, the guy who wrote the communist manafesto) himself didn't support the idea of communism being put into action. So I'd say communism isn't all that viable. I never said it was anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>66870

> What you describe is called socialism.

Po-Tay-To Po-Tah-To

"Socialism" is just a shallow marketing ploy to sell communism to the well meaning naive. Or the other way around.

> Marx (you know, the guy who wrote the communist manafesto) himself didn't support the idea of communism being put into action.

Oh really? Then why did he call his work the "COMMUNIST Manifesto"? Why didn't he call it the "Socialist Manifesto"?

And have you actually read it?

> So I'd say communism isn't all that viable. I never said it was anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>66871
>"Socialism" is just a shallow marketing ploy to sell communism to the well meaning naive. Or the other way around.
No. It was a system meant to lead from capitalism to communism. It was however a huge fucking mess that didn't work.
>Oh really? Then why did he call his work the "COMMUNIST Manifesto"? Why didn't he call it the "Socialist Manifesto"?
Because he decided to call his idea communism?
>But someone here called communism "the perfect system" (was that person you?).
[jedi mind trick]
This is not the Anonymous you are looking for.
[/jedi mind trick]
The current problem with making the "perfect system" is that it requires perfect people. Capitalism and Communism would both be perfect systems provided people where perfect. They however are not, so they aren't.
>> Anonymous
Shut up you guys and post more about to die witches in hi-res.
>> Anonymous
I love reading what dumb people write, it makes you feel so smart.

Especially when they think they are witty or clever and look down on others.
>> Anonymous
WHAT YOU SAY?!
>> Anonymous
>>66866
That's Stalinism, not Communism
>> vinz
Libs in thread = pwnt. Wowzers!
lol at falling to semantical arguments. Jesus mang accept you blokes got butchered and go back to /n/ to post Truthout links.
Back on topic, anyone got HR Hocus Pocus shots? The last confirmed time Sarah Jessica Parker was ever attractive to anybody.
http://www.hocus-pocus-movie.com/
for reference to folks that missed it.
ya'll should try the more workable ism, while you're at it.
Communist governments: Implode economically
Fascist governments: Can only be defeated by outside forces, or the head party simply getting tired of ruling over ungrateful saps and handing the reins over to someone else through an election.
>> Anonymous
Sage for bitching
>> Anonymous
Statistics have shown that women were not being oppressed by men by being accused of witchcraft in the middle ages. In fact, mostly it was women accusing women, and in some places more men were accused than women. And in no way was it the church orchestrating a persecution of women.
>> Anonymous
>>67130
Op here; I never said it was men or the church responsible for the witch hunt. I know it was just the colonies doing that shit all on their own, and eventually England stepped in and said enough already. Just saying how horrible it would have been to be a woman back then, what with the total lack of rights and all.

And no one answered my question; is this a movie?
>> Anonymous
It might have sucked to be a woman, but being a man wouldve been awesome.

BITCH GET IN THE KITCHEN AND MAKE ME A SANDWICH was pretty much the motto of all men in the dark ages.
>> Anonymous
>>66947

Wow, it's scray how the minds of idiots work, this case here is really so caught up in his fantasy world that he doesn't let anything from the outside world that would crush his fantasy get close to him.

No wonder the whole world hates amiland, with that many idiots around. They voted for bush, after all.
>> Anonymous
how the hell did a witch burning thread turning into an anti bush thread?

SIT TIME FOR SUM TIME PARADOX?
>> Anonymous
Good thing if women are ever going to pwn men I'll be long dead. gb2/kitchen/ bitches!
>> Anonymous
>>67193

> how the hell did a witch burning thread turning into an anti bush thread?

You must be new to the internet.

Stick around long enough and you'll find there's a particular group of whiny little bitchtard posters with a compulsion to turn every thread into an anti-bush rant.
>> Anonymous
Women are inferior to men because the Bible says so.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

HA! All you fucking feminists just got PWNED! Women are just containers for future men, nothing more.

PS. All you heathenous 'feminists' are going to burn in hell.

PSS. I hope you realize this was just satire.
>> Hentaikid
Fun fact, the spanish inquisition did not burn witches, because they did not believe in them and dismissed it as "female vapours"
>> Anonymous
NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION LOL
>> Anonymous
lol opinions