“Assemblywomen” is a play written by the Greek play-wright Aristophanes. In this dark comedy, the women of Athens (who have taken to wearing their husbands’ clothes and stopped shaving their armpits) convince the men of the city to hand power over to them. According to Wikipedia “The play invents a scenario where the women of Athens assume control of the government and instate pseudo-communist reforms that ban private wealth and enforce sexual equality for the old and unattractive.“
The predictive power of this play is almost unbelievable. Among other things, the women abolish private wealth, shut down the courts (since they assume there will be no theft without private property), knock down all the walls (fences) between homes to make more of a communal atmosphere, and outlaw prostitution. Any man and woman can have sex, but only if the man first has sex with an ugly woman. Because men no longer know who their children are, women give responsibility for parenting to the state. With no more family or civic responsibility, the men start sleeping in late. I assume if Greek mothers had basements they would stay there.
This mirrors pretty much exactly what women have done given the partial control they now have in reality, and it’s not that hard to imagine them actually trying to implement the more outlandish parts if they had full control. It’s pretty incredible to see just how obvious it was to pre-modern people that women were unsuited for power. We may laugh at their lack of scientific knowledge and primitive nature in many areas, but they would be absolutely dumbfounded by our naivety over such simple matters as the differences between men and women.
As funny as the play is, it’s also pretty horrifying when you realize that this guy imagined a dystopia that seemed so outlandish and ridiculous that it could be the subject of a comedy, and you’re living in it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen
I came here to say "dont use fiction here". But Damn! This is as funny as it is accurate!
This is more of an historical perspective on gender issues than a direct example from fiction. It describes how ancient peoples made similar observations about how women are not suited for positions of authority.
I am allowing it.
I know I'll encounter hurt feelings for saying this, but I'd never report the following as long as the other-following:
1) Assemblywomen. Women make communism and don't give a rat's ass how many times it has failed before. Probably wasn't a remotely new idea when this play was written. Satire isn't original content; you literally "can't make this up" - it's just an adjustment of something which is already out there and known to the audience. Somewhere out there, communism was practiced in ancient Greece. Probably the big reason why they were willing to die for democracy.
2) Orwell. This guy didn't write fiction; he called it fiction and manipulated a few identifying details to protect his life. Stalin might kill you but the British kingmakers don't believe in maybes. The only problem with Orwell is that none of his works need to be mentioned. I'd trust Orwell before I'd trust a public school history book.
3) Dickens. Not for the sake of bashing men / capitalism / whatever, but rather so you will read history and find what was happening BEFORE the workhouses went up. To avoid expecting readers to go elsewhere: women tossed their newborns into graveyard apartments and quietly forgot about them. Before that? A new mother could point at any single man and force him to marry her - if he was a virgin and she was a married man's mistress then neither could be proven.
4) The Mark Twain books that revolve around normal life in the mid 1800s. A Connecticut Yankee is a cool story, but useless as a discussion piece. (Time flip to the 6th century.)
5) Any famous story from before the industrial revolution, which also survived to the present day without being "remastered" by 20th century leftovers.
Conditions:
A) Stories in books are not admissible as evidence, same as anecdotes. In fact, if you're expecting things like unchanging truths and logical continuity then you probably don't belong on the internet.
B) Don't tell people to be-like-<character> unless this character also has an extensive biography. You cannot expect to "be like" a storybook character at their peak of miracles.
C) Signal to noise! This board isn't nearly as shat-up as the Reddit norm (100% noise 0% signal) it is still not as good as many would wish. If you're going to say something, try to say something the community gives a damn about. People everywhere tend to miss that part 24/7/365/eternal. Rules could be a lot simpler if we could just say "if it isn't for us then don't bring it to us."
D) As always, have a little respect for the others in the room. If this is a difficult challenge then you're probably only here to cause trouble, which is the entire reason why leaders write vague rules and enforce them selectively. Everything wrong with civilization is ultimately your fault.
You went a little out there friend. I have no idea what you're actually saying about Orwell by the end.
It's as if you're just assuming most of us know what the heck you're talking about already.
That's because the works of George Orwell are so popular that it's better to point newcomers to web-searching than to explain anew each time. Long story short, Orwell (pen name) wrote dystopian fiction about the likely future of various places if they continued to advance the ideas of authoritarianism. As an authoritarian-right myself, I deeply respect this author and as I've said I would trust his writing above the contents of a typical school history book.
Nineteen Eighty-Four cliff notes (story spoilers:)
1) A guy lives in a world where the TV screens watch you back (ignoring modern parallels to continue smoothly.)
2) This society has intense pressure to be normal; effectively the only crime in this land is non-conformity. All other wrongdoing is considered a symptom.
3) The worst possible thing you can do in this place is rebel against the establishment - basically that's what the unhero does.
4) He gets caught, and locked into a dungeon with sci-fi technology and dark age ethos. He already understands everyone who comes to this place is doomed, but will be released back into society to be killed at a date of the government's choosing.
5) While being tortured, his captors monitor his every reaction to the subtlest detail with high tech instruments. They do not stop until he believes in the system inside and out, and that's when they release him reformed. End of story.
Etc.) For those who read the book once and then mostly forgot about it, the inner party is just the outer party but with wine instead of gin and houses instead of apartments. To paraphrase Leon Trotsky: the inner party defers to a bureau which defers to a committee which defers to a dictator.
I don't understand what the hell that guy didn't understand. It's like, if you don't know who Orwell is then google him, otherwise wtf is there not to understand?
What is the "inner party" ? And what is the "outer party"? That last paragraph was a perfect example of what I meant by you saying something as if I'm supposed to already know what that means. I don't know what you mean by inner/outer party or what it has to do with the type of alcohol they drink.
Also off topic but
I'm so confused. You said you liked that this guy wrote about how authoritarianism can be bad and then in the very next sentence said "I'm an authoritarian"
That's sounds to me like saying "this book explains why communism is bad but fyi I'm a communist"
Read the book and you'll find answers.
Your authoritarian despite knowing what will come from an authoritarian Society? Why?
Because every society is authoritarian. In true democracy you have the rule of a dumb, uneducated mob and even "educated" voters cannot put away their biases as they have no experience with ruling and have no training in it either.
In our democracy, you have the rule of a dumb mob conducted and gently guided into what is good for those in power - but since the mob is dumb and has no training in how to rule, they dont see it.
The best rule of government occurs by leaders especially trained to rule, that rule because they beat their competition and thus the weak rulers have been outcompeted leaving only the strong/good ones. It is a form of natural selection except for states.
Think about it like this, do you let an untrained mob decide how you are going to get your cancer treated that knows nothing of medicine or do you let a trained doctor decide by himself with experience treat other cancers? What makes people think that letting untrained people decide which way a country should go is a good idea?
I don't think the Greek idea of democracy is the same as the Amerifat one. You're projecting into the past by comparing communism to it.
Orwell was a socialist, FYI
I honestly have no idea if you're for or against Capitalism from this.
Yea but democracy equals communism to all these ultra conservative fascists. I can’t count the ones people have told me that “Chavez was democratically elected so democracy is bad!” Yea they have Madura now and are collapsing, but Trump is knocking America down the same amount of pegs overall. Chavez let the next guy in when he didn’t win the next time.
The Greeks weren't willing to die for democracy though at least not because of Communism. In fact the Greek "democratic" system in many places was more similar to Communism than Democracy and they did just fine. The worlds longest standing democracy, Sparta, had banned money while having a democratic system of government (which means it had democracy with communistic economic tendencies) and yet Sparta won out againstcapitalist, Imperial Sparta.
Finally, communism is not "bad" not because it doesnt work (it failed only a FEW times in history), it is bad because it doesnt promote hard work.
FYI, capitalism failed EVERY SINGLE TIME it has existed as almost all Empires had a capitalistic economic system. Capitalism has failed more times than communism, does that mean capitalism doesnt work,?
First of all, source. Second, to my understanding most of Greece was not even remotely democratic.
What?! Sparta?! They were a hybrid monarchy/junta.
Pretty sure this was just a myth. Otherwise, source.
Do you mean... Athens?
AKA literally every time it has ever been attempted ever?
What the fuck? When has Capitalism "failed"? More people are brought out of poverty every day by Capitalism. As you pointed out, Capitalism has been the dominant economic system (whether we knew it or not) for AGES. So of COURSE it will have more PERCEIVED failure because if anything goes wrong, there's a 99% chance it will have happened under Capitalism's watch because we've had a Capitalist society 99% of the time.
Capitalism isn't even a system. It's just a law of nature. A force of physics. It describes the behavior of people. People naturally try to grow and acquire more value/happiness. It is how we are wired.
Think about gravity. You have no control over gravity. You can't stop it or alter it. All you have control over is how you build your elevators. If you build your elevators to harness gravity they'll be good elevators. If you don't, they'll be fucking garbage. Communists are elevator designers insisting gravity isn't real.
Learn to do research yourself
There was no strict definition of 'democracy' in ancient times. It had rights for its citizens, rights of inheritance for women, its own constiution and the ephors and members of the gerousia were elected by members above 30.
Again learn to do your own research. The point is, money was worthless in Sparta.
Nah. Depends on what you define as 'failure'. The Inca Empire was a truly communist system - the people had no conception of private property. It failed not due to the short-comings of the system but from conquest by the Spanish.
Also, by that logic we can say that Capitalism has failed every time its been tried as every Empire (most have been capitalist) that had it has failed.
Ancient Mesopotamia, Minoan civilization, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Athenian Empire (defeated by the Spartans who despised wealth), Ancient Rome, the Byzantines, Ottoman Empire, HRE, Russian Empire (to be replaced by a Communist one), British Empire, Qing dynastic China (to be replaced by the communists), capitalist Cuba (which brought cuba into poverty under Bautista), etc. Need I continue?
Really? Says who? The kids working in sweat shops in China for one dollar a day making Apple Iphones?
So essentially capitalism has a long track record of failing and has failed 99% of times its been tried? In science, if you have a large sample size of something failing, that usually tells you that its a shit model. With communism, as its been tried a few times, we have a small sample size and thus you can't make any statistical conclusions about it.
Neither is communism. People are a collective species. Collective hunting practices is what allowed hunter-gatherer tribes to catch large prey and defeat powerful predators. It is also the reason for human speech capability and ability to wield tools. Thus an argument can be made that people acquire most value/happiness when working for a collective, not for the individual (essence of communism).
Your conception of communism is flawed, being an American and being brainwashed to view communism is "evil".
No, YOU posit the claim, YOU provide the evidence. Otherwise you are asking me to do your research for you.
We are not having the argument in ancient times, we’re having the argument now. And guess what, we’ve got fucking definitions and we should use them. This does not meet the definition:
Having minor democratic elements doesn’t make you democratic, otherwise every society since the 300’s has been democratic. Even in the early medieval era, villages and cities elected their rulers in many cases. If “having a bit of democracy” is the standard for being “democratic”, it’s a useless standard as everything meets it from medieval Europe to Nazi Germany to Tsarist Russia.
From your own source: “Whether Lycurgus in all actuality created iron money is debatable.” It’s Plutarch. You may as well cite Arthurian Legend and insist that it’s a realistic depiction of early medieval Britain. Lycurgus is a Spartan King Arthur for all intents and purposes. EVEN PLUTARCH admits he’s not certain about Lycurgus’ lifetime or if he even lived.
Chronic starvation and poverty?
You mean the people who also never invented the fucking wheel? They had currency, it was food and labor. You paid taxes in labor and were only allowed to buy things from the state.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-mystery-of-the-inca-empire-was-its-strange-1198541254
No, because you’re conflating the state with capitalism. STATES fail all the time regardless of capitalism or communism. It just so happens that in Communism’s case it is inseparable from the state, so when Communism fails the state always fails by necessity. To be blunt: EVERY EMPIRE has failed/will fail PERIOD. Given enough time, they will all fail.
Again, STATES collapsing/being defeated is hardly capitalism failing. That’s ridiculous. Similarly, I wouldn’t cite a communist nation being violently overthrown/invaded as a failure of “communism”. Communist states can fail independent of Communism to be sure.
YES! Says them! You know why they’re there? Because the alternative is worse! The alternative is prostitution or, more likely, death.
No, see above.
We have a small sample size of you chopping your dick off. No sample size in fact. Chopping your dick off will make you a millionaire and you’ll grow a new dick. Go ahead.
Only on the familial level. There are only so many other people that the human brain can even acknowledge as actual people. So yes, families and small, tight knit villages can successfully operate on a communist model. Beyond that, it gets fucked sideways. Because I don’t care about someone I don’t really know.
Even if we ignore what I said above (that communist models work for families or small tribes of villages, like fewer than 80) this just makes sense. If five of us working together can get more food than five of us working separately, that is just calculated economics. Economies of scale are a Capitalist concept.
TIL communism is what made us speak. /s Seriously I don’t even understand this point.
Only if that collective is their immediate family or very close friends. I get no value helping some obscure, vague “collective” of people I’ve never met.
Not evil. Just fucking stupid. But it seems like you don’t have an actual argument so…?
Why the fuck can’t someone use fiction here?
Quoting u/Troll_name:
Probably because of this.
The rules explain why. You have read them, haven't you?
I wonder if there DID exist feminist societies in Ancient Greece, but they failed so miserably they got forgotten in history, their lessons appearing only in such comedy plays.
yeah coz you're the fucking rulemaker cunt
EastData reads ALOT of classic literature. You can just tell.
No, I am. Knock it the fuck off.
Thanks for letting us smell that. Ninja removals create an unsettling illusion that everyone is the same. Also redacting the poop from all history deprives people of the knowledge that their ideas are not new and not going to impress.
Woah there edge lord there’s a real reason why fiction should not be implemented in anything cause at the end of the day it’s a fucking fairytale.
Not putting fiction is a rule in sidebar.
Wikipedia is interesting on this one point:
Aka Justin Trudeau and the entire west.
Lol Cuckipedia somehow twists it at the end to say women are actually the heroes.
Every. Fucking. Time.
It's as if they are programmed to take the most cucked path in any given scenario it's presented.
Cuckipedia has been infiltrated by Cucks for a long time now. The amount of [citation needed] and [how?] in the most random articles, at the most opportune lefty bullshit times, is really quite something.
The left thinks that the effort to manipulate the mainstream view for their benefit is the only effort worth undertaking. It's the only way they're able to survive.
Feminists and other SJWs literally do Wikipedia "edit-a-thons" where they get together and put their spin on everything.
Holy shit really?
Look on their works and despair.
Good fuck these people are a plague. You know I’m actually starting to seriously believe the Alexander Solzhenitsyn quote regarding the communist disaster: “People have forgotten God. That’s why all this has happened.”
I’m almost convinced this is also what’s going on in America today with these cultist leftists.
LOL at taking Solzhenitsyn seriously.
They're not "infiltrated." They are the infiltrators and this is their base. Their property, their dominion, their private publication hidden behind a thin veneer of egalitarianism (which is pretty much what commies always use.)
They're a small group of old school McJournalists pretending to have invented a new and incorruptible form of journalism. Really they just type whatever they want and ban anyone who questions them. If you so much as veer off the course mainstream establishment sets for you, Wikipedia will be one of the first attack dogs to bite into you.
Also don't forget about Snopes and the SPLC, more commies in drag.
Classic lefty tactic is to make grandiose sweeping statements with little to no evidence while demanding scientific or statistical evidence for anything that doesn’t support them even if it’s common sense.
“Diversity is good DUH!!!!!”
The sheer irony of this comment
There is none. Good try though.
Citation needed
That is so true. They are on a time limit.
Reading comprehension seems to be lacking in this thread. The analysis shows that the point was that men should not have feminine qualities if they want to lead.
This is still redpill, but the nuance seems to be evading many readers. People here need to reign-in their anger-phase antics, being swept up by the very emotions and sentimentally this play attempts to warn us against.
Eh yes but it also at the bottom says he’s trying to say women save it.
Don’t know what you make of that part.
It's to show how absurd they have become, to hold up a mirror in essence. The playwright outlines a dissaterous situation should women actually take power.
And the wikipedia writer contextualizes it somehow as women being necessary to save a government from itself rather than having feminine men as leaders.
Wikipedia is heavily converged. It's a blue pill distributor. More likely this is the approved narrative. If Aristophenes himself were to call bullshit the Intellectuals would prove they know better than him by claiming his work is subjective and open to interpretation by the society or culture reading it. Like Bradbury was told by a college audience he couldn't tell people what his books meant because the audience already decided how to interpret it and disagreeing with them made him wrong. I'm pretty sure college professors are twisting the meanings and words of authors to further their own beliefs So take wikipedia with a crate of salt.
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
-Thomas Sowell
But what about capitalism? Its existed in almost every civilization since the dawn of civilization and none of those civilization exist. Doesnt that imply a greater rate of failure?
Until recently, there has not been any civilizations, that you could call capitalist. In all the times of history, you didn’t have property rights, and there was no legal system that prevented you from the state ordering you to go to war or putting you to jail for opposing the rulers.
Most countries today are mixed economies, even the USA. Only countries, that you can call capitalist, are Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland.
All you need for a civilization to be called 'capitalist' is the ability to accumulate wealth and own the means of production. Everything else is details.
In the classical era, property rights existed given that Patricians owned the land on which their estates where located and in the times of the Early Republic (before the advent of Caesar), veterans would be given land at the end of their service.
The oldest legal system dates back to the time of the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia. Also, Rome had a well-developed legal system that is the basis for just about every legal system around the entire world.
That is a very basic view and not true view of how life was back in the day. Also, what makes you think you can oppose the rulers or prevent the state from sending you to war now?
No. They went from strong to weak and were superseded by stronger civilizations.
The same thing can be said for 'communist' civilizations.
So either, the civilization was weak and its fall had nothing to do with Communism and go superseded by stronger civilizations - or it had everything to do with communism, but then we can say that earlier civilizations failed because they had a capitalist system(because most did). So if every civilization that had capitalism failed, then it doesn't work.
Low-effort fake lies, this is just the same old communist tactic of blaming every single thing that goes wrong on other ideologies.
If you're an American, just look at Detroit. They've had their one-sided way over their own town for 50 years, and still haven't stopped blaming everyone else for their condition.
Exactly. The problem is mob rule. The mobs are weak, irrational, dumb and untrained. A smart dictator would give any "democracy" a run for their money, just look at how fast China is developing. If they need to fix something, they dont need to go through endless committees and "debates" they just order it done and thats that.
You triggered a Canadian. He earned a full ride scholarship to Banzville. I have ZERO tolerance for racism and race baiting. Don't even return fire.
Good. He "debated" like a woman.
I've heard some remarkably level and persuasive women; I'd say it was more debating like a soy imp.
Fuck you, dude. You're so quick to comment on other people failing to run things to your standards when put in the same position you'd fail too. People like you say "America doesn't have a drug problem, it has a nigger problem."
The real problem is people like you, who insist that problems aren't your fault, therefore not your problem, as if shit that happens in your backyard isn't inherently your problem.
You use Detroit as an example of people who fail to take responsibility. Lemme give you another example: The Republic of the United States of America. A country that embodies the cop out.
You're a hypocrite and if you had any decency or self respect you'd shut the fuck up right now. But clearly you don't since you're extolling the virtues of President Trump. The thing is you roll your eyes when I say that, because Trump bashing is really old. If I was making a joke, yes, it's old. But you are incapable of distinguishing the novelty of the content for purposes of comedy and entertainment and the significance of the society in which you live. Trump is objectively bad for America and Americans. The fact you support him is testament to the fact you are completely full of shit.
Thank you for basically saying that it is most men's fault. Here the problem lies. It is up to real men to fix the situation again as it will always be.
Human nature doesn't change.
What we call 'esoteric and controversial ev psych theories', our ancestors called 'common sense'.
And Aristophanes was god-tier prescient, he basically predicted communism (and its crushing level of impracticality and evil) ~2000 years before it was seriously tried...
...and he predicted who would be its main proponents.
Indeed he was.
If you think.. there has been such awesome minds back in the days.
Diogenes with his attitude; „I don’t give a fuck who you are. You stand in the sun bitch“.
Or Marcus Aurelius..
Damm it would be a pleasure to live in that time period despite potentially dying by war or diseases, without all the bullshit we have today.
If I could take my modern medical care with me I would go back and live in almost any other era except this one.
Futuristic eras, please. No reddit in the past
They were pretty mediocre intellects by today's standards. Diogenes was basically any lifestyle minimalist. If you met him today you'd probably think he's an unproductive low SMV loser.
"Meditations" is mostly a mix of common sense and laughably fallacious statements, such as
and
There are certainly nuggets of great wisdom in the book, but also plenty of arbitrary, illogical nonsense. To be fair, Marcus Aurelius didn't claim to be a great philosopher or anything; it was just his book of personal life lessons.
But if these people were alive today, they would be nobodies whose names you never knew.
I don’t think that’s really fair. All intellectuals build on the progress of others, and with the exception of a few like Newton or Einstein, make incredibly small incremental gains in their fields. These guys were building on nothing. They invented the concept of trying to use logic to solve abstract questions.
I would agree if we were talking about an a posteriori field, but we're talking about logic, which requires no education.
I'd be unimpressed to meet a child who understands axiomatic logic. For the most part, it's something any given caveman from 30,000 years ago could quite easily figure out on their own given some time alone. Most likely, many did so. It's just that, even after the advent of writing, few had the education to know how to write about it, and even fewer had the social standing to have their writings respected.
So, from that amazingly small subsection of people, it is unsurprising we don't find anything particularly impressive. It's not even until the 1700s (e.g. Kant) that we even see the academic field advance to the level I'd expect any non-retard to figure out on their own by age 20.
Ill put it fancy: Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in you.
How's the weather up there?
The difference between modern "intellects" and those back then was that they invented the idea. So you can say Diogenes invented "lifestyle" minimalism. That requires greater intellect than copying like a sheep.
"There is nothing new under the sun."
It's no mystery why the west cant rid itself of socialism or communism. Women naturally desire to be taken care of by a strong leadership. When women are told they are equal, and must work. The strong leader becomes the State.
As long as we live in a matriarchy, which we do, socialism and eventually communism will be realities we cannot be rid of
We don’t quite live in a matriarchy. We live in a schizoid non system.
Our society is currently dominated by women's wants,need and view points. Masculinity is shunned. The State is no longer a tool of governance but a Nanny/ paternal entity believed to exist to care for people.
The traditional Male environment, space and behaviours are neglected or considered wrong while the feminine is promoted.
Credentialism is feminine. Socialism is feminine. The obsession with psychotherapy is feminine
I fully agree we live in a highly feminized society and that women are controlling more, but that’s still not exactly the same thing as a matriarchy. Again we live in a schizoid, feminized non system. Much as I love Rollo, I think he oversells the feminine imperative idea. It’s like a manosphere version of the feminist “blame the patriarchy” paranoia. But there’s definitely a lot of truth to what he’s saying with the feminine imperative idea. I just don’t quite see it as systematically and firmly established as that. It’s one motive among many in our deteriorating society.
We are decisively ruled by men. Women are just the foot soldiers now.
There's normal men, then there's normal women, then petty gentry, then the actual power structure. If you're XY in this decade then it's not time to fight it's time to run. Get what you can peacefully and survive until the tides change (someday.)
Men may rule the state but women rule the family. Your woman can kick you out of your own house and take your kids and wealth from you. Sounds pretty matriarchal to me.
Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?
It's no mystery why the west cant rid itself of socialism or communism. Women naturally desire to be taken care of by a strong leader. When women are told they are equal, and must work. The strong leader becomes the State.
As long as we live in a matriarchy, which we do, socialism and eventually communism will be realities we cannot be rid of
Uhh the Spartans practiced communism.
Are you male and want to do something other than be a soldier turned farmer the rest of your life? TOO FUCKING BAD, the state needs soldiers because there's slaves (helots) to keep in line and enemies to fight. Maybe when your crusty retired ass turns 60 you can think about doing something else..
Do you like eating good tasting food? Well too fucking bad, we have melas zomos, good for you nutritionally but tastes like shit and death mixed together. THE STATE DOESNT NEED FUCKING COOKS. EAT THAT SHIT.
Are you a female who wants to be fat, lazy, and uneducated? FUCK THAT. NOT ALLOWED. YOU HAVE TO MANAGE THE FARMS BITCH... AND BE HOT ENOUGH TO BE FUCKED AND PUMP BABIES FOR THE STATE.
Yeah... we like to idolize the spartans because they were badass warriors (and they were...) but their (both men and women) whole lives were for the state and the continued existence of it. Basically nationalist communist before it was cool.
Spartans practiced eugenics.
What's the polite way of saying 'go learn your history' ?
Ironic you should mention communism because Pythagoras was a communist.
Heads: Marx wasn't alive yet; the form of government built from his manual was not possible and therefore parallels to governments utilizing his work are also impossible.
Tails: The pre-fake-egalitarianism practiced by the assemblywomen cannot possibly include Pythagoras; he could only have possibly seen all the way through it to the conclusion because he already had abundant experience with pointless complicated machines. Also I heard Pythagoras was a dude which means he wouldn't make the woman government.
No response without the coin toss please.
Communism has been around a hell of a lot longer than Marx so you're creating a false dichotomy.
Marx just wrote a lot about it
We don't need an ancient greek comedy fiction to see what happens when women are given power.
Look in the politics of today.
Meme of the day about this topic: https://i.imgur.com/uRrYWKH.jpg
By whom do you want to be defended?
alternate version
Dang, you can tell those male defense leaders have an almost natural alpha look to them...and they're not even in proper physical fitness.
Poland has had enough of this shit
Idk what you're complaining about. I'm not usually into MILFs but I'd invade every single one of those countries.
Edit: Except Norway
To be honest Germany is doing quite great having a woman prime minister.
Except for the turks invading and raping their women, Germany is doing great and it's clearly the leader of Europe again.
Not sure if serious or not.
Germans are fucking all other countries, economically at least.
Technically, so is California.
If you are a common man of either location then that money is only used to bludgeon you.
This is sadly a trend all over the world.
True. Why? Because of this: https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2014/11/blogs/graphic-detail/20141122_gdc316.png
The average dude didn't have a real increase in living standards for essentially 2-3 decades. If you are a bottom-dweller, you lost up to 10-20% in real wages.
If you are selling your work force for a penny while everyone else expects a normal pay, you will dominate the business. As a result, your work force will decline into poverty though: https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fftalphaville-cdn.ft.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F07%2F10212722%2FGermany-poverty-rate-590x468.png?source=Alphaville
It's illegal to be German.
Your maximum salary does not afford you the minimum things you must buy; this is assuming the employer cares at all about hiring a qualified candidate instead of scoring more political correctness points. If you are unemployed then you are marked as intentionally job-shy because you're not a foreigner illiterate in his own language; jobshyness has been considered an offense against public decency ever since Hitler started practicing socialism. Germany for German men is like a remarkably unpleasant dominatrix lounge.
Are you German? I don't disbelieve you, I would like to know where this information comes from.
This detail is entirely unimportant. However, in the coming years you will probably be told there is no such thing as German blood. It's already happening to England.
The same places any information comes from, when one is conducting independent research to verify or rule-out a claim. If I hand you something myself then it isn't really proof; it's just me (and my favorite websites) telling you the same thing twice. Guaranteed some portion came from casual conversation (and must be taken with a grain of salt) but that's why search engines exist. I suggest DuckDuckGo because Google openly stickies its favorite voices to the top of searches (usually Wikipedia, or if it's a topic they hate they'll just find another hater or a strawman-immitation of the hated thing itself.)
The future of Europe is Islam if things go like this. When one of our relatives had their first child, we went to the hospital to see them and it turns out their next room neighbour was a Muslim whose 3rd wife was having her 3rd kid. Hope you see where it's going.
The amount of Muslims in Europe is massively over exaggerated by American media. It's really not a problem at all
This incident was not in Europe, but you get the idea as to which demographic and religion could dominate in the long run if this goes on.
Depends what you mean by dominate. They may out populate everyone else but dominance isn't dictated by population. For example there are a lot more poor people than rich people and yet the rich hold all the power.
Mohammed has been the most popular baby name in Brussels for a few years now
You're only backing up my point by bringing up intentionally misleading statistics. That's only true because Muslims are less than imaginative when it comes to baby names. The majority of Muslim boys are named Mohammad
Or the extent of the problem is being actively ignored and covered up by European media. This seems more likely as America has independent media with strong free speech protection, while European media is basicslly an extension of the state.
American media is some of the most blatantly biassed in the world. And the anti Muslim narrative suits fox news and sites like that very well, so they exaggerated it massively. We europeans don't need media to tell us how many Muslims are here when we can see by looking around.
Honestly is that such a bad thing at this point though. I think it's just nature correcting an imbalance.
Europe is obsessed with its own destruction. Westerners have no clue how the middle east is ever doing but right this moment it's actually doing incredibly good. (Europe thinks they are doing incredibly bad and thus they must all come to Europe for their own survival.) Arabia already reformed since Trump took office, Iran is next, Iraq is now winning all its battles against IS instead of losing all, Afghanistan isn't being conquered constantly anymore (Taliban were only in power a few years) and Pakistan is finally on the verge of coming back from its Cuba-like dictatorship spiral (remember the Benazir Bhutto assassination? If so then pat yourself on the back.) Syria has been pacified and Assad is doing his marionette dance of victory over terrorists, problem solved. Arabians are now capable of shooting a bomb out of a charging truck and then interrogating the driver - that's a microscopic portion of their new toys. Trump sold them hardware then house Saud upgraded it with their own advanced tech.
Caveat: places meaning places' aristocratic governments who make all the impactful decisions, not their farmers and service sector workers who swallow all the consequences.
Yeah honestly I'd join Islam myself at this point or at least be willing to live alongside it. I'm atheist but the West is sick at the moment. I want to move.
Except for the
turks invadingthreat of Gulag and the socially friendly elements raping their women,GermanyRussia is doing great andit's clearly the leader of Europe againif it keeps expanding at its current rate, will soon control the whole world.Who could eat whom for breakfast? Thoughts?
If all the defense ministers were women, there would be no need for defense ministers.
I think you made a wrong turn. This isn’t the sub you’re looking for.
It's coz we'd all be too feminized to fight each other any way.
Holy cow that’s red pill as fuck. What’s crazy is he predicted very similar types of reforms as women are always screeching about today. Jesus that’s spooky.
Hate to say I could totally bang an ugly chick to nail a hottie, would just think of the hot chick the first time around. Pretty sure that's not the point at all though....
Think about how genius this is though. The fact you would have to sleep with an ugly woman before you sleep with a pretty woman is a criticism that works against today's post-modern/cultural marxist philosophy.
Today, ugly women shame beautiful women for being too thin, too feminine, too beautiful, etc. These ugly women are trying to prevent women from being beautiful so that men will find them attractive or sleep with them because of the social stigma. Look at the SJWs who claim that they are persecuted or discriminated against because they are fat, hairy, ugly, etc. Instead of trying to play the game (try to make themselves attractive) these SJWs blame some imaginary "system" and claim injustice. In reality, a lot of these things they are complaining about are biological factors, but they can't simply just make a law the men have to sleep with ugly women first and so they resort to "social justice".
This. Just bang it right outta them. But that being said I wouldn't start some crusade to start banging ugly sjws
So you would bang Rosie O Donnell in first before you could bang Taylor Swift. Tough but fair
But what if you had to bang Nancy Pelosi
Imagine how popular the hottest ugly girl would be
True between Pelosi, O'donell and Amy Schummer I suppose Schummer will feel like the prized pig.
To be completely clear, I BELIEVE (if I recall correctly) that the man actually had to fuck ALL the chicks who were UGLIER than the one they wanted to fuck first. But I mean, presumably a lot of the chicks uglier than a 10 are still pretty hot, right?
In that case I sound start with the ones nearly as hot as the hottest, and never finish.
Ancient comedies were all either dark and brutal or based on fart jokes. In fact, in Rome many comedies would act as a form of capital penalty. The criminal would play a character that dies in the play and the only proper way to play out a death scene is to kill the actor.
Apparently this one has some poop jokes in it too. I guess we can add the female nature and fart jokes to death and taxes in the list of things that will never change.
Poop jokes or shit jokes? There's a big difference between them.
The fart jokes were primitive creativity. Painfully limited because we can steal their ideas from the past but they cannot steal ours from the future.
The gritty shit was just a reflection of what life was like for people without much technology. If you took the difference in time from them to us, and went that much further back from them, you would find an era in which injury accounts for nearly all human death.
It took 1000 years for men to build the West
It only took 100 years for women to destroy it
Yea, but the play isn't actually about women. The women are suppose to symbolize effeminate men in a shameful way.
Women and manginas are not so different you know.
Well they seem to behave pretty similarly in reality. And the criticism of effeminate men pretty closely mirrors our disdain for white knights.
Aristophanes "The Original Orwell"
Women's brains work in a communist way. Men's brains are capitalist.
A woman's brain is robber baron for the self and Stalin for the community.
Mens brains are capitalistic. But a smart man will have an authoritarian mind if he acquires power. Why share the power (democracy) if you can have it for yourself?
Except soyboys their brains are socialist because they are effeminate
so pretty much our current reality
Before I get downvoted to hell, I just want to point out that there is MUCH wisdom on this board but you have to occasionally filter through some things that are purely misogynistic.
There are literally millions of American women with conservative political views who inherently know that the “reforms” in The Assemblywomen would be disastrous.
What the play describes are not the dangers of giving “women” power, but the dangers of giving feminists, socialists and communists power.
This board is smart enough and experienced enough to recognize that it doesn’t matter what kind of plumbing you have between your legs - you can still be a blue-pilled, pro-feminist white knight who thinks socialism will solve the worlds peoblems.
In short, I reject OP’s post as an example of why women shouldn’t have political power. That is pure misogyny when in fact any person regardless of gender is capable of harboring such flawed values.
Individual women are aware of the folly in thee things, sure; but the problem is they operate via goupthink when it comes time to actually do things.
What is going on - a play that you haven’t read and just pulled a portion of your argument out of Wikipedia and somehow try to state it’s happening now - that its a tragic comedy? I don’t see any women stating you can have free sex with any of them as long as you bang the ugly chick first. I have never heard a feminist group wanting to abolish courts. With child rearing being outsourced (child care centres, schools ect) was implemented by businesses so women could enter the labor force and have money to consume (and fuelled by man made wars that destroyed the male work force causing a shortage of workers) - business owned males and male board members. What women wants to tear down fences and get rid of private wealth ? What are you talking about? What is this we can laugh at females lack of scientific knowledge? Women were not allowed to be doctors, scientists, engineers just a generation ago and now are now in these fields making our lives better- I know plenty of males and females smarter than me, I’m happy that a female studied ten years to be a specialist and save my life. Fuck, men in power have fucked other men over longer than women with wars, bullying, slavery, working poor, despots, isis, terrorists blah blah
There were female doctors, scientists and engineers a generation ago and beyond. There just weren't very many of them. Why not? Because -having other priorities- not that many women chose to strive toward such careers as goals. There was no secret tribunal of men rubbing their hands together and preventing women from applying to STEM colleges, i.e., "not allowing" them to do so. Let's be factually accurate here.
My mum was in the A class and wanted to be a doctor but the teacher told her she could not do it as not physically able to and told she should work in a bank as good at maths (bank teller) - women were not encouraged to become these things and unless you had family/friends to get you into university you were actively discourage.
Lysistrata is another good one by him
Thank you for sharing, it would help my MA project.
It proves how brilliant Greeks were. Awesome find.
I know that politics are not discussed here, but leftist ideas work well with a lot of feminist ideas.
Yikes. TIL women shaved their armpits in ancient Greek. TrippleYikes a Dystopia were women won't shave their armpits. This is so absurd...
It was absolutely a display of the failures of communism even if that was not his intent. In the play it's not just the attractive men who were screwed over. It was the attractive women as well.
There was a pair of pretty lovers who couldn't unite until the pretty guy had fucked all the ugly chicks. The pretty girl was upset as well. The ugly women and ugly men were thrilled. Sucked for the attractive people of both genders.
Anyone with a high market value is fucked by communism.
Want to see the destruction from a woman with absolute power?
Find a single mother.
"Mother is the name of God from the lips of all children." Eric Draven, The Crow
It's something no one here wants to really talk about. Some guys here had great moms. Some had OK moms. I'd wager most, their moms were basically shitty human beings and much of the unplugging was trying to reboot from the damage inflicted from youth.
I keep seeing the sidebar statement - She's the most responsible teenager in the house. I disagree. Not all teenagers are to that degree of being a selfish asshole.
The "Oneitis" most men will never cure is their natural drive to excuse the actions of their mothers. It's just something no one wants to really talk about here. And I understand why.
Motherhood is just another strategy for them for attention, validation, status and power. Most of them never gave a shit about most of you. Not even on the day you were born.
Heard of it before when some college professor bitched about the play.
On a broad scale, it is men vs women. Its a war. Every time your girl shit tests you, she is waging war against the entire male race, and its your duty as a soldier of the male race to defuse that shit and make her submit to you. Because if you dont, she will make you submit to her. It is a battle, a power battle. And you'd better fucking believe it, because it doesnt matter what you think about it. It is true.
This isn't entirely accurate. The actual script says this:
Women will always pretend to be for "equality" when pushing their agenda. Aristophanes got this spot on
Us not understanding the difference between men and women is not because of naivety, but a long deliberate brainwash campaign starting 60 years ago (if not earlier). Successfull brainwash requires generations, but the results are beautiful
Lmao this is gold! Damn those Greeks really had some pretty good heads on their shoulders
Here is the complete text of the play
Before you go spouting off about this RP knowledge OP laid on you, read the stuff you're talking about.
Wiki article, because I bet a lot of you pussy-obsessed newbie "alphas" have no understanding of classics
Why is this guy being downvoted? He's just offering routes to the information for us to examine it and draw our own conclusions, if we choose to.
I insulted people and their feels made them lose frame. Very meta RP lesson to be learned here.
Same thing could be (rightfully) applied to race.
1 or 2 black politicians, you're most likely fine. An entire government made up of mixed or black people?
Well let's see, you have Africa, Mexico, Brazil, you have places like Detroit and Dearborn.. democrat Black leaders have turned those cities into absolute borderline 3rd world ghetto hell holes.
Women shouldn't be allowed to vote, initiate divorce or own property. Men who divorce should be condemned to a divorce tax, women who remain married (and stay at home w/ the kids) should be given economic incentives to continue to do so.
Women shouldn't be allowed to get an education, maybe comm. college for the enlightened but even that is something i'm opposed to.
I'm not trolling, i'm just saying a successful and prosperous people need boundaries and restrictions. At one time we had all-men spaces.. colleges were for men to be men, same with church, same with the workplace, same with the bars...
Not anymore.
If you remove the welfare state, the rest takes care of itself. Women won't divorce unless there's someone else to take care of them. Branch swinging, or the state. Branch swinging is less likely as she gets older, the state has no standards.
All it takes is for women to trade sex for political power (as was done in the US), and the system falls down again. If you have a small state, with no welfare whatsoever, it's much harder to your enemies to use it once they get in. Imagine if you took everything you wrote down, and swapped black and white; and men and women, pretty scary yeah?
Shrink the state, cut off all welfare, and leave it to individual people and families to negotiate and run their own lives.
The first domino is putting women back in their place, everything follows after that.
I thought this place was a sort of counterpoint to overzealous feminism... I din't realize we were actively misogynistic and wanted to discriminate based on gender?
First, I removed the post because it's going to get reported into oblivion and I'm tired of seeing them in the queue. Second, I'm not going to ban you, but you do need to ask yourself if you are ready now or if you will ever be ready for the pill. You seem to have gotten your answer below, so I'll leave it for you to work out on your own.
Do you believe children should vote? What about felons? If you answer no to either, why? Isn’t that discrimination?
Felons should be allowed to vote. That is clearly discrimination. Children do not have the education, decision making skills, or capacity to even understand properly what representative democracy is, never mind vote. However, it is still a form of discrimination. It is not based on some unchangeable, and unfactorable quality of the person, though. It is based on a salience test. Children are not allowed to vote for the same reason we dont allow anyone to become an air traffic controller or heart surgeon. If they pass the necessary exams, and demonstrate proficiency, they are allowed. Basing it upon some trivial factor, liek skin colour, race, height, or gender, is bigotted discrimination.
Those who do not respect the laws of society do not deserve the right to vote on the laws of society
This sounds a lot like the tyranny of the majority problem. The majority do not have a right to enforce their opinion and laws on the minority. The minority shoudl be allowed an opportunity to protest through the democratic process, lest we end up with a communsit dictatorship.
that is precisely what 'democracy' is....tyranny of an uneducated majority.
Guess you shouldn't vote if you ever went over the speed limit on your way to work today. Have you consumed alcohol under the age of 21? Have you ever purchased alcohol for a minor to consume?
There's so many bullshit laws you probably broke several already anyways, so who are you to judge? You just never got caught. "Ah but xPURE_AcIDx, im not one of those criminals that sell drugs and stuff"
I think all drugs should be completely legalized as I don't think the government shouldnt have a say in what I decide to put into my body. Drug dealers mostly resort to dealing drugs because they're already poor and looking for a way to feed their family or survive in the streets. These dealers crave a more capitalist system. They're called 'dealers' ffs. These people do not belong in a jail. They should be allowed to open shop and get licensed for distribution. Let the free market decide if drugs should be able to be sold.
The vast majority of people in jail are in jail because of two things; 1) They had a drug related offense. (which shouldn't be jail-able imo) 2) Politicians sold public jails to the private sector. A private sector that makes money by putting people in jail. Thats fucked up if you ask me. And it only becomes a problem when you enter the system. And when you enter the system, you lost your ability to vote.
Women make poor voters because their biology programs them to extract resources from government, destroy the nuclear family, and because they have very low in-group tribal loyalty. These qualities will degrade and eventually sink your civilization. Children make poor voters for all the reasons you listed. Neither group should vote. The fact that children will grow out of their unsuitability as voters is an irrelevant qualification that you invented and which I do not recognize as legitimate.
Also, your constant use of the words mysogynistic and bigoted are not arguments. They are moralizing and have no place here. Reported to mods.
But the nuclear family is not the 'ideal' family unit though....
I have not used misogynistic or bigoted in a disparaging way.
I honestly didn't realise this community believed someones gender was an overriding factor in their charachter and behavior. I thought it was a response to out of control feminism. I have no place here if it is a place which believes gender is a strong , and certainly an irrevocable, determinant of behavior or beliefs.
I ahve met too many men who fit your criteria, and too many women who do not, to believe that myself.
We do not believe gender is an overriding factor in determining one’s character. We do believe gender is an overwhelming factor in determining one’s behavior. The latter is one of, if not the foundational belief of TRP.
What you say about children, we apply to women.
Women are kids locked in an overgrown adults' body.
Only the discrimination that aesu approves of is acceptable. He is our moral arbiter. Kneel before him.
LOL as if the majority of voters understand those things and don't make voting decision based on their own biases and who they 'like' more.
So do we have 'votes' on how heart surgery should be conducted, by a bunch of people who have no understanding of or training in medicine? No, you say? Then why do we allow people with no understanding or training in Ruling make decisions about the fate of the country? Utter foolishness.
I've seen this play before but it is only fiction and not anyone's time except as entertainment. It is not a valid source for insights into women.
In a society that includes powerful women, you will be forced to compete for more and more powerful women. Would you then be forced to become more yourself? And when on the mission to become your best self, would you not want greater and greater challenges along the way? Fucking the prime minister of a country must be more of a conquest then your local barista. So then, why would you not want women in places of power.
Compare the hottest barista and hottest prime minister and get back to us.
oh yeah Angela Merkel makes me rock hard. Such powerful many empowered!
I know a girl that works at Burger King that's way hotter (and therefore more powerful) than any female doctor or lawyer you can find.
Have an upvote for laying down an interesting question. I had never thought about power as being sexy. Female sex appeal for me is more about general demeanor, wit and appearance, not necessarily in that order. Unlike women, power, authority and financial success has never factored in to my choices for dating, etc. I suspect it’s the same for most everyone here. But now that you mention it, going for a mature woman in power or with influence would be a fun challenge and in a way that does amp the ‘appeal’.
Here's your fun challenge mate. Just don't put anything in her mouth, I heard she bites. Good luck.
I still have my standards and I still have limits. Not her, not that ‘let go’ AND old, and probably not that powerful.
You say that now, but we all know you'd jump at an opportunity to plough that puss if she was president. Don't be so powerist mate.
EDIT: added but we all know
If your aim is aversion therapy, it’s working. I think I’m sick now.