The Problem With Feminizing Society

Why are we in the final century of our civilisation?
Civilizations consistently last around a thousand years. They deplete their basic resources and become unable to sustain their populations. The founding philosophy and values fail as they meet new challenges. A notable exception is China, partially due to geographic isolation. It had a village tradition and resilience that limited the severity of collapse and dark ages, so it had faster rebounds back up to what we know as five thousand years of civilization. But the modern nation of China obliterated that village tradition in its phase of globalization, extreme urbanization, and industrial farming. The collapse there looks likely to be worse than the American collapse.
 
Civilizations consistently last around a thousand years. They deplete their basic resources and become unable to sustain their populations. The founding philosophy and values fail as they meet new challenges. A notable exception is China, partially due to geographic isolation. It had a village tradition and resilience that limited the severity of collapse and dark ages, so it had faster rebounds back up to what we know as five thousand years of civilization. But the modern nation of China obliterated that village tradition in its phase of globalization, extreme urbanization, and industrial farming. The collapse there looks likely to be worse than the American collapse.
Following a scientific and industrial revolution, any factors that might cause a civilization to collapse are entirely differemt from those that applied previously. And there is also now a floor below which civilization cannot fall, not even in a Road Warrior scenario.
 
Following a scientific and industrial revolution, any factors that might cause a civilization to collapse are entirely differemt from those that applied previously. And there is also now a floor below which civilization cannot fall, not even in a Road Warrior scenario.
That sounds neat and modern, but it doesn’t hold up once you separate technology from the systems that sustain it. Industrial complexity creates new fragilities. A post–industrial society isn’t immune to collapse; it’s more interdependent. Power grids, supply chains, finance, digital infrastructure, and just-in-time logistics are tightly coupled. Disrupt one layer and the effects cascade. That’s not a higher floor, that’s a taller, narrower tower.

Yes, we know how to build advanced systems. But knowing how and being able to do it at scale are different things. Modern production depends on specialized labor, global supply chains, high-precision tooling, stable energy, and finance. Remove those, and all of our knowledge sits in books while our capability collapses.
 
Not to worry. Right now he's making sure the IRGC is running out of people.
Something tells me the USA will run out of counter-missile, counter-drone and counter-mine weaponry long before the IRGC runs out of people!

I mean, how long is the Strait of Hormuz going to be closed? A month? A year?
 
You're not making any new argument. It's the same shit you offered last thread.

Generalizations, cherry picking, sweeping gender stereotypes, vague definitions....all wrapped into your insecurities and demonstrated by your incessant need to bring up the same exact topic multiple times a week.

It's pathetic.

Feminism isn't ruining the world. Go cry to your mommy
Watch the video, then emote.
 
The original poster seems to spend his days in a fog of hate and bitterness: Against women (this thread) against minorities and "Wokeness" (in countless other threads) against Democrats (too many other threads to mention) and against the environment.

If he wasn't such a demonstratably mean-spirited and willfully ignorant person I'd almost feel sorry for him.
That’s a remarkable amount of emotional projection for someone who couldn’t be bothered to address a single point. If this is your idea of an argument, I can see why you prefer character attacks; they’re easier than thinking. You’ve managed to diagnose my entire worldview without engaging a single idea. That’s certainly not insight, but it could be a somewhat yellowed belly dressed up as moral superiority. Don't ya think?
 
Imagine hating women this much and somehow being on a porn site.
Imagine hating women this much and we're just over here hoping you go don't talk to us.
Imagine hating women this much and somehow, this country is facing rising prices, a war no one wants, a pedophile in the oval office and none of these are because of women. Go figure.
 
Imagine hating women this much and somehow being on a porn site.
Imagine hating women this much and we're just over here hoping you go don't talk to us.
Imagine hating women this much and somehow, this country is facing rising prices, a war no one wants, a pedophile in the oval office and none of these are because of women. Go figure.
Criticizing a set of policies isn’t “hating women.” That leap says more about your argument than mine. If you can’t separate ideas from identity, you’re not debating, you’re deflecting. But since you insist on using your imagination, imagine thinking that calling someone a name is a substitute for having an argument. Imagine being so short on substance that “you hate women” is your entire rebuttal. Imagine confusing disagreement with hatred because it’s easier than defending your position. Imagine typing all that and still not addressing a single point. Just imagine. :rolleyes:
 
Criticizing a set of policies isn’t “hating women.” That leap says more about your argument than mine. If you can’t separate ideas from identity, you’re not debating, you’re deflecting. But since you insist on using your imagination, imagine thinking that calling someone a name is a substitute for having an argument. Imagine being so short on substance that “you hate women” is your entire rebuttal. Imagine confusing disagreement with hatred because it’s easier than defending your position. Imagine typing all that and still not addressing a single point. Just imagine. :rolleyes:
You will always be the most fem whiny bitch here, Jacquline.
 
How many women rejected Rightguide to the point that he feels a need to post a women-hating thread each day?

Maybe we can come up with an equation. 🤔
Y = # women-hating threads Rightguide posts per day
A = # women who ignore Rightguide
B = # women who roll their eyes at Rightguide
C = # women who laugh at Rightguide
D = # women who take out restraining orders
E = # women Rightguide tries to approach in a day

Y = (A+B+C+D)/E
 
Criticizing a set of policies isn’t “hating women.” That leap says more about your argument than mine. If you can’t separate ideas from identity, you’re not debating, you’re deflecting. But since you insist on using your imagination, imagine thinking that calling someone a name is a substitute for having an argument. Imagine being so short on substance that “you hate women” is your entire rebuttal. Imagine confusing disagreement with hatred because it’s easier than defending your position. Imagine typing all that and still not addressing a single point. Just imagine. :rolleyes:
You don’t even know what policies you’re talking about
Fascism is usually pretty pro family and we aren’t even that.
You lose in a scenario where women are independent because you have nothing to offer women.
 
Criticizing a set of policies isn’t “hating women.”
On the other hand, some people do bear an animus towards women, and that affects their ideas about policies, such as abortion or marriage law or equal treatment in the workplace or education or contraception and so forth.
 
Back
Top