I am a little curious about what Kanae's reply to yours would have been.
>>11684503Guess we'll have to debate women... See, it irks me how one gets called a simp for stating even one thing in their favour and an incel for even slightly criticising them. It's like there can be no middle ground. Women have strengths and faults just like men do.
I'd also say that my mom is just as capable as any man (not physically, sure) but that's entirely anecdotal.
>I stated clearly that I was appauled by their demand for equal provileges by doing lessI do remember a vague version of that, but I was wondering what happened to you that it made you develop these convictions.
>weak people desserve commodities but in favour they must prostrate and be subservientI agree with that, but by generalising you end up grouping many strong ones together with the weak. When it comes to physical labour a strong man is better than a weak man, obviously. But a strong woman is better than a weak man. So the strong man should be paid more than the strong woman who in turn should be paid more than the weak man and so on and so forth. I agree that in an ideal society the pay you get is entirely dependant on your performance and not your sex. But it probably won't happen in reality, as it would mean more resources being spent on evaluating each individual worker.
>still perform piss poor at stem and outright bleed the culture and society in arts and philosophyI don't know about stem, but I do know about literature. Brilliant female writers do exist. Virginia Woolf, for example, or Emily Bronte. The main issue with the women writers which are being promoted today is that all many of them write about is what being a woman is like in [insert scenario here]. And that kind of writing will be mediocre at best, very little literary or philosophical value. See Margaret Atwood.
...
