>>34149259
He's a sperg, you dated a sperg. He does see you as a human but for some reason you seem to think his opinions on gay Hollywood portrayals is somehow connected to (you). He's probably arrogant and annoying about it yeah, but you have to admit it's a bit weird to see some 5'2" woman with zero muscle randomly girl boss kung-fu and take down 10 grown fighting age men who are a foot taller and thrice as muscular. It's shit writing and breaks immersion and the reason they do it is to appeal to gay identity politics.
Your BF is angry that he can't escape I to fantasy with a show or movie without real world psy-op political shit bleeding in but he's a sperg so he probably rants about it in a way that sounds personal to you.

If he didn't see you as a human, he would not be dating you or spending time or money or energy on you. Actions speak louder than words OP, his actions should be telling you your worth to him, not his sperg rants.

He says women should just paint and make art and stuff like that but dont show it on screen and don't make it public so as not to brainwash others, it's out of this world.

I am not a crazy feminist and don't want to be one ever, but I hate that he is pushing me towards it. Literally advocating for me being treated as a thing to be kept on a leash, hidden and minimized forever.

It's monstrous what a man's nature can reveal. Yet women are jew's satanic tool of destruction sure

>>34149293
>>34149259
Also as for women's voting rights, it's not just your BF or men who despise it, some women do too, my wife rants about how she thinks women's rights to vote was a mistake and I don't even have to convince her, I'm mostly apolitical myself yet my wife is smart enough to know women's voting rights was a scam. Because other women voted to let big corporations abduct women into the workforce and now women are expected to work full time jobs + endure pregnancy, labour, childbirth and motherhood at the same time. My wife hates other women for ruining the collective happiness of women with their stupidity and gendered egotism, because a smart woman knows the best and happiest lifestyle is homemaker and nurturer to children, she gets to stay comfortable at home yet also works hard as a mother. Motherhood is a hard role very hard, harder than most men know. But women can't do this comfortably anymore precisely because feminism absolutely fucked the ideal set up for women.

>>34149302
>Literally advocating for me being treated as a thing to be kept on a leash, hidden and minimized forever.
He's simply hating on stupid sensationalism on the media. Does he keep you on a leash? Does he treat you as a 'thing'? Does he hide you and minimize you?

If the answer is 'no' and all you have is your frustration with how he spergs about TV shows, then maybe you should consider whether or not these TV shows are propaganda because clearly it works if they can get you to make an enemy out of your BF all because he vented frustration at dumb liberal shows.

>>34149293
>it's a bit weird to see some 5'2" woman with zero muscle randomly girl boss kung-fu and take down 10 grown fighting age men who are a foot taller and thrice as muscular. It's shit writing and breaks immersion and the reason they do it is to appeal to gay identity politics

This is totally correct and I agree with it, I would not be able to watch such a movie either. But this is not quite happening in the movie we fought over and it's not implying puny women are just as strong. It has elements of fantasy from which women derive their power. Any other goofy over the top moment that's clearly propaganda should be treated as such. But for him it's still just a means to the same end

>Your BF is angry that he can't escape I to fantasy with a show or movie without real world psy-op political shit bleeding in
I relate to that to be honest, the amount of identity politics in media nowadays is sickening and I'm a woman, I simply can't take it. But I see other women around me gobbling it up and the effect it has on a global scale, so I understand the maddening effect it might have on men seeing this. As a man who is less prone to emotions and has more logic and detachment, he should be the one not swaying to the other extreme and keeping balance. I guess

>If he didn't see you as a human, he would not be dating you or spending time or money
Thank you for your reasonable response I appreciate your intent. I want to believe that, but in moments like this I think he's doing it because he has no choice and when in rome you do as the romans do. He has to be with someone and he deemed me the most reasonable and manageable one out of the women he's dated. But he is not living in a world where he could exert control like our acenstors did, so he settles with what he can, but keeps his views and inclinations and spergs out because the world he lives in is unfair to him, to men and supposedly far from the ideal order that men supposedly had before

>>34149259
>How do I cope with this?
Break up with him immediately.

>>34149259
>I guess I'm mad that I thought he at least saw me as human, with the right to self-govern however badly that is.
Er, yeah. Your partner not regarding you as human should certainly be a deal breaker.

>>34149345
>He has to be with someone and he deemed me the most reasonable and manageable one out of the women he's dated.

Do you have any idea how insulting that is? Not just to your boyfriend but to yourself. You more or less said:

"My boyfriend is desperate and pathetic and that's why he settled for me, his pathetic prize".

Fucking hell

>>34149326
I think it was a scam as well. But how else do you "fairly" solve the problem of women not having economic autonomy? How do you give them the freedom to walk away from abusive relationships and marriages they are sold into? They have no money, society turns on them and they become victims

Every person should have autonomy over themselves and the means to sustain themselves economically. It would be unfair and weird for men to provide for women they have no leverage over, so woman should earn their living as well. Unfortunately, the consequence of that is a world like this. But the world we live in would still be so much better if corruption did not exist to begin with. A nanny state isn't that bad after all if the state is not corrupted. But yeah you cannot have that not in men's perfect world nor in women's degenerate world. So the solution is to enslave half of the population?

>happiest lifestyle is homemaker and nurturer to children, she gets to stay comfortable at home yet also works hard as a mother.
Not every woman is born and happy in this role. Just like not every man is born and happy in the role of a hunter/provider, warrior etc. And not everybody should reproduce clearly

>>34149370
>But how else do you "fairly" solve the problem of women not having economic autonomy?
That's easy, it's called a shared bank account. I work and my wife doesn't, I share my bank account under both our names. My money is her money, she and I share the autonomy as a unit.

As for abusive relationships, money does not and should not matter. If you are being abused you leave, common sense should tell you it's better to be broke than dead. Sensible women leave and go to their parents or trusted family members or friends for shelter. Money is not a reason to stay in abusive relationships.

>Not every woman is born and happy in this role. Just like not every man is born and happy in the role of a hunter/provider, warrior etc. And not everybody should reproduce clearly.

Those men and women are children in the bodies of adults who will let themselves go extinct. The women are idiots who let the government or state be their daddy. And the weak simp-coded men who don't marry or breed are slaves to their own libido, like dogs or animals who hid behind skirts and hump women's legs for their own self esteem. Fuck the both of em

>>34149342
>Does he keep you on a leash? Does he treat you as a 'thing'? Does he hide you and minimize you?
He admitted he cannot control me as much as he would and cannot keep a tighter "guidance" because of today's world. But I can tell from his behavior or expectations a lot of things

>>34149365
Yes I guess it sounds pathetic, I do feel like a pathetic prize that is out of his control

>women being emotional and jews ruining the world by letting them vote
Retarded men think that way. My man would rather me have a vote over a subhuman male primate. Yours doesn't see any value in you?

>>34149259
Here female anon, I'm going to teach you an amazing thing about the male brain as it appears you lack the knowledge of our purpose and being of operation.

We are designed, to dominate, destroy, conqueror, damage, rule if we cannot then we begin to form niches within our structure and perfect our craft.

We see patterns, we recognize things and understand them because we are being hunted but when you apply this tribalism to the modern world then you end up with those same features design to protect us being used in different ways no longer are we looking for animals in the night but our fellow man, our partner or things around us.

Recently there's been a shift in the last 36 years toward feelings, female thought and effeminate things and for us it's an unnatural concept, as it's against every aspect of our mind and the the nature of our primordial being. You have to do it, anon. That is a threat, We will attack you, cancel you, destroy you. That threat has been registered and we begin to notice this trend and who is making those choices and how this pattern evolves overtime.

The nature of the beast can be trained out, people with no wants, no drive and simply exist can be created but ultimately those people aren't those who you are driven towards.

Which leads me to my attack on you. Why did you get with your partner in the first place? If you understand this, you will understand him.

Or.

Alternatively if you preference, I can recommend a fine line of extreme feminist who are socialist and walk overs.

>>34149396
>He admitted he cannot control me as much as he would and cannot keep a tighter "guidance" because of today's world. But I can tell from his behavior or expectations a lot of things

That's pathetic on his part. I never have to keep my woman in line because I keep myself in line, I embody the things I profess to be strength or virtue as best I can and my wife feels secure and trusts me, no control necessary. Seeking control is the sign of weakness. Tell your boyfriend to stop being weak.

>Yes I guess it sounds pathetic, I do feel like a pathetic prize that is out of his control

Do yourself and him a solid, go and buy as many purchases of small pieces of furniture and upholstery the shit you get from IKEA, then what you do is you tell him you want a big strong man to do the DIY assembly. Hand him a box of tools and watch him cease being a whiny bitch and he'll feel more comfortable with his own manhood and will feel less of a need to sperg out and desire childish things like control.

>>34149259
Advice. Get a GF that is what you want

>>34149393
Well that would have to be law. Would men agree to that without radical restrictions against a "spending" wife who does not understand the value of hard work and how money is earned?

You are talking about ideal worlds, but the worlds of past were not ideal. The woman was shunned, not believed or told to endure it as her role. They had no easy way out or their family as a saving net. My problem with his and men's view is that our ancestors did right and we're doing it wrong and no matter what solution you come up with it will always be wrong, so long as women are free to make decisions over their life, especially when they don't align with what men want

>Those men and women are children in the bodies of adults who will let themselves go extinct.
They may be, but people should have the freedom to decide over their life so long as they're not breaching society's essential laws. But not everybody should continue their lineage. Not everyone is able to raise a proper lineage.Maybe we would not be having today's problems if people who should not be children or instill any good value in them hadn't reproduced so incontrollably because "biology demands it and we're somehow animals who must obey in all cases, but we're also somehow superior"

>>34149259
larp alert

>>34149421
>Well that would have to be law. Would men agree to that without radical restrictions against a "spending" wife who does not understand the value of hard work and how money is earned?

It doesn't have to be a law because fuck the law. No man or woman should ever let the law define their entire lives. It's important to abide by the law when it's morally sound, but for shit like this you don't need the law, you just need your own power of will.

>You are talking about ideal worlds, but the worlds of past were not ideal.
You are suppose to create this for yourself with the man you selected as your teammate, your other half. You both create this for yourselves.

It's really simple, you find a good mate, you exchange desires and wishes and goals, you compromise and find balance. My woman wanted financial responsibility, I give it to her aka my money is our money, it's mine & hers, entirely shared. I want to be provider and hunter gatherer I do that and I go work and she takes care of our children. The money is also her money because she earns it through hard work of being an excellent home maker and mother.

The law should have no say on this matter, because the minute we allow the government into our homes and marriages is the minute we're collectively fucked as a species. They'll want into our bedrooms next

>>34149409
Interestingly put. I enjoy his masculine side and I do understand these urges, I suppose I wished he displayed some control over them towards me, as his partner. More so that he relates to his rational/cerebral side.

I too have feminine urges I could unleash on him, and irrational thoughts of oppression I could blame on him, and go feminist and what not. But I'm really trying not to, not against him at least. Because he's special to me, he's above the rest of the men so I have higher expectations of him as well

Despite this rant, which is more sadness than misandrist spews, I still love him dearly as a man and as a unique being/person with his own distinctive personality. I wish he loved me as both too, but I'll never be more than a woman who is probably emotional, aligns with women things, etc.

>>34149439
But that meant you both wanted children. In addition to this you wanted and needed someone to take care of them while you worked and she got the money for this "job" that she also enjoys

It is a win-win, and I'm happy for you. Obivously your partner should share your goals, regardless if does involve children or not. But ideally, both should want children in order to raise them properly. Single parents and families who only go along with their biological and social imperative of having children but not raising them in love and virtue are the problem, so why push this role unto everyone?

>>34149466
>But that meant you both wanted children.

Word to the wise: no want wants children 100%, no one doesn't want them 100% either. I always wanted to be a father since I was a kid, but that was only 70% of my true want. 30% of me didn't want to be a father. My wife was the opposite, 70% certain she didn't want kids, 30% open to the idea. I get her pregnant and lo and behold she is now more enthusiastic about it than I am and I'm the one who thought I was 100% on it. Some days I am 100% other days closer to 0%.

This is called being a human and having bad days of worry or doubt or dreaming in missing out on alternatives, that's normal. I have seen parents who both 100% wanted kids, only to abuse their kids after they were born. I've seen parents who got pregnant by mistake, both of em convinced they'd be shit parents or their circumstances were too shit and they worried and thought they didn't want kids who turned out to be the best parents a kid could hope for.

This is because with wisdom you see the reality: The parents who worry the most are the ones who actually give a shit the most. If they didn't give a shit they'd not have worry or doubt. The parents who pretend to be 100% all about parenthood and act as if nothing bothers them are the ones you gotta watch out for.

>So why push this role u to everyone?
No one is. Reality is this: Have kids or go extinct. I don't mean humanity goes extinct, but your own bloodline your own genetics and psychological portfolio dies with you, never carried on. If you are happy to do that, by all means go ahead no one forces you. The only force that pressures you is death, the grim reaper. Particularly when your own parents die and you become an orphan. Your sense of belonging and having a family gets voided and at that moment you crave a new one with every fibre of your being.

As a woman your dilemma is this: If your eggs expire by the time this dark reality arrives, you're fucked. So women must be wise.

>>34149444
I can't believe you actually entertained a reply like that that sounds like it came out of the mouth an angry 14 year old. There's a difference between men being assertive and wanting to "possess" women to an extent and being an autistic retard that justifies every dumb angry impulse as true masculinity. I hope you realize this before you find yourself in a worse situation.

Ask yourself where you see him in old age based on how he acts now. Think of any men you've seen or know that are 65+ and getting upset and ranting at their TVs and what these men are like. This is your future if you won't make demands in a relationship just because you don't want to be associated with a manufactured image of a blue haired starbucks barista feminazi or whatever.

>>34149259
Tldr
>it's propaganda for women to be human and on screen
It's propaganda for anything to be portrayed as human on screen

File: IMG_5229.jpg (23 KB, 386x315)

23 KB JPG

>>34149259
>But I'm disappointed at how limited he is because he's otherwise smart
bruh

>>34149495
You are right but what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Is it not possible to have children unless you take away the woman's possibility to vote, work etc.?

>>34149617
I don't know what to say, it did not sound like that in my head. But now I got a good night's sleep lol. My thread sounds like a fuming cat lady feminist rant as well, I'm surprised at the generally reasonable replies I've gotten around here.

Anyway, it's not that far-fetched what he wrote. Yeah there is a difference but there are flavors of the same energy and it can come from the same place. Wanting to protect someone from danger can be just as masculine as sperging out that you cannot control them for their sake and society's safe, it's just a different face of the same masculinity. It doesn't make masculinity any less

>>34149259
>He can't even watch a show with me if the main character is a woman
Your BF is an idiot. Get rid of him post haste.

>>34151231
>Is it not possible to have children unless you take away the woman's possibility to vote, work etc.?
It has been done. Look at Iran and judge the results yourself.
>Wanting to protect someone from danger can be just as masculine as sperging out that you cannot control them for their sake and society's safe
For a monkey maybe. I doubt any man worth it would put up with a burden that requires constant control to function.

>>34151231
>You are right but what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Is it not possible to have children unless you take away the woman's possibility to vote, work etc.?

No clue how it's relevant to the topic at hand, the convo just strayed into the discussion of womanhood in general and into motherhood. It's possible to have kids & vote & work at the same time, all I'm saying is if you're a woman and you want a good time at motherhood it's better not to work at a soulless job. Unfortunately this option is near unobtainable thanks to the aforementioned feminist movement opening their legs for big corporate interests. And the reason feminism was successful in doing this is because it succeeded in villainizing men, fathers and the nuclear family model. Their right to vote was purchased with the betrayal of the family and that's where we are today. Which brings us back to your BF and his sperg out: He laments at the fact he can't have the idyllic family vision our forefathers and foremothers got to enjoy. He looks at the propagandized TV shows on Netflix and he sees a mockery of reality and he gets pissy.

He's not a misogynist, at best you can say he's a chauvinist. A misogynist is someone who has a deep contempt and hatred for women. If he was a misogynist he'd not be dating you, he'd only pay whores for sex while donkey punching the back do theirs heads and calling them sluts. A chauvinist is a man who has fantasies of being Big Alpha Leader McStrong Man who dominates the woman under a suffocating leadership and asserts men should be 100% responsible for everything and the woman should be a good little girl and submit.

Chauvinism is ultimately gay and weak, usually posturing men who have no power, they have to ask permission from their GFs to dominate, like asking Mommy for permission to be a man. An actual man doesn't need to ask permission and won't dominate the woman out of control. He instead is a master of himself and the woman naturally follows.

>>34151340
literally how the world has worked so far. do you imply men weren't worth it in the old days?

>>34151440
>>34151340
As for voting, don't vote. My wife doesn't and I don't either as a man. The only good politician is a dead one, in Minecraft of course. Because giving a vote to a politician no matter if they're left wing or right wing or in the middle is a validation ticket for a narcissistic megalomaniac in a suit that says "Yes, please take control over my life and the lives of my brothers and sisters". Only a fool votes for politicians

>>34151458
What about voting for rights and changes to the law?

>>34151469
If you have to vote for your rights, then it only proves you never had rights and never will. Asking permission for your rights is the complete opposite of having them. You don't ask for rights and you don't vote for them, you are supposed to take them.

Changes to the law? Good luck because politicians never change laws to reflect the will of votes anymore. The politician will only change laws when they are threatened by collective violence or the smell of uprising. Politicians are creatures that only understand self interest. A 90% majority vote doesn't scare them to change laws, even if you protest they know within 2 weeks everyone gets tired and goes home. Only blood changes their minds unfortunately

>>34151475
Blood gets spilled meaningfully only in Minecraft, so how do you proceed when not in Minecraft, if you are not given a right? If it's your freedom to exert it but you are blocked? Not voting will do nothing because others will vote and even if nobody votes, parties will vote for their politicians, money will continue changing hands and those on power will continue to crush those underneath in any way

>>34151477
It means society better install Minecraft and start playing and start it soon. People will only do that once it becomes popular to install the people are organized to create Minecraft servers in their communities. Especially when everyone has access to diamond swords.

Until then a man and woman's job is to create their own private utopia in the form of a household or family and then fight the law at every single turn whenever it overextends into their personal lives.

>>34149259
I think you suitor explain to him that you think he's being immature.
Imo, it is immature to discredit half the population for petty reasons.

>>34149259
He had damn well better be great in bed, because I can't see any other reason for you to have anything to do with this idiot.

>>34151475
Actually we already have rights, there's an entire book about it