Why are women always liberal?

Because men has to beomce; women just are.

Men has to become men though constant hardships, competition, denigration and expectations, whereas women just are. Women are the advertisers, and men are the pitchers, and the pitcher has to become.

Men represent meritocracy, and women represent a perverted, useless form of so-called equity that simply means equality of outcome.

Women just being is expressed perfectly in their incapability of confronting, be that either themselves or others. As such, they are masters of conformity, and of rationalizing that conformity through solipsism. When globohomo tells them in no uncertain terms that it's in their best interest to whore away their youth (only to realize they are completely undesirable, damaged goods when they hit the wall and the cock carousel stops), or that it's actually beneficial for them to invite and pay for the livelihood of niggers from shithole countries who would gladly rape and kill them for the most trivial of reasons, then women simply comply. They don't confront, because that's what men do.

Women will rather let the world burn than to admit their useless and disruptive nature.

We will not see better days until the men take charge of the reins again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Horrifying
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: WebLurker, God of Nothing, Falcos_Commisar and 4 others
Okay, real question, is "liberal" in this discussion purely in reference to the woke stuff going around (far left) , or does that include other topics, such as

-gun control
-abortion
-climate change
-vaccine

Or anything else?
 
redcent said:
Okay, real question, is "liberal" in this discussion purely in reference to the woke stuff going around (far left) , or does that include other topics, such as

-gun control
-abortion
-climate change
-vaccine

Or anything else?
Click to expand...
I think it refers to the supporters of the Democratic party and the stances it holds. "Liberal" is a shorthand that has lost its meaning.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: cactus, (‿ˠ‿) ԅ(≖‿≖ԅ), frozen_runner and 1 other person
Betonhaus said:
Which raises the question of is letting women vote a good thing?
Click to expand...
Imagine if you had to earn a vote by ticking off one or more of the following:
Married
Working or only temporarily unemployed or housewife
Children
Military service
Land/homeowner.
What would the result be, then break down by sex? People generally vote for what’s best for THEM on a shallow and immediate level (rather than a level that looks down the line to the future.) If that’s gibs, they vote gibs. If it’s feeling virtuous and kind they vote for emotionally driven policies like refugees. Just put the little sad kids at the front of the picture, and women will vote for it. Men less so. If it’s conformity they’ll vote for conformist policies
Voting is not purely and only along sex lines, although there is a strong difference between sexes, when you break down those into liberal/prog vs the rest there’s even more stark differences even within the sexes.
I’m a woman so obviously I’m not going to vote to remove my vote. Does that clash with do I think the mass of everyone should vote? Yes becasue often they vote against me. Is that moral? Maybe not. Turkeys voting for Christmas and all that.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Foreverial, WebLurker, Falcos_Commisar and 1 other person
Otterly said:
Imagine if you had to earn a vote by ticking off one or more of the following:
Married
Working or only temporarily unemployed or housewife
Children
Military service
Land/homeowner.
What would the result be, then break down by sex? People generally vote for what’s best for THEM on a shallow and immediate level (rather than a level that looks down the line to the future.) If that’s gibs, they vote gibs. If it’s feeling virtuous and kind they vote for emotionally driven policies like refugees. Just put the little sad kids at the front of the picture, and women will vote for it. Men less so. If it’s conformity they’ll vote for conformist policies
Voting is not purely and only along sex lines, although there is a strong difference between sexes, when you break down those into liberal/prog vs the rest there’s even more stark differences even within the sexes.
I’m a woman so obviously I’m not going to vote to remove my vote. Does that clash with do I think the mass of everyone should vote? Yes becasue often they vote against me. Is that moral? Maybe not. Turkeys voting for Christmas and all that.
Click to expand...
That is a valid concern. The question shouldn't really be "should women be allowed to vote" as much as it should be "who is allowed to vote." I would consider "being a landowner" to be a more valid restriction, as going through the hurdles of home ownership would usually mean you're familiar enough with legal processes to at least recognize what the government is doing. It would completely decimate the voting power that cities have, though. But it would encourage land ownership, as land investors would still count as one vote no matter how much land they hold.
 
Women are malleable and subservient by nature. They are a blank canvas on which to paint, hence why they are usually controlled by men in society.

Women will usually adopt the beliefs and thoughts of the men in their lives. What we have in society now is a push to make women more independent, and thus, the state (and it's arm, the media) do most of this painting for them. Since they are mostly absent strong male partners or, in many cases these days, even prominent father figures.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: cactus, Falcos_Commisar, frozen_runner and 4 others
Mega Black said:
Women are malleable and subservient by nature. They are a blank canvas on which to paint, hence why they are usually controlled by men in society.

Women will usually adopt the beliefs and thoughts of the men in their lives. What we have in society now is a push to make women more independent, and thus, the state (and it's arm, the media) do most of this painting for them. Since they are mostly absent strong male partners or, in many cases these days, even prominent father figures.
Click to expand...
You will never get laid. lol
 
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Autistic
Reactions: Bunny Tracks, Staticness, WebLurker and 5 others
Mothra1988 said:
You've never fucked anyone. lol
Click to expand...
It does seem like assholes get laid more. The general impression I get is that women (especially sluts and dumb birches) prefer it when the guy makes the decisions for her (but still accept their veto power), as otherwise they end up playing games like being hard to get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlaireWhitesBottom2, (‿ˠ‿) ԅ(≖‿≖ԅ), frozen_runner and 1 other person
Betonhaus said:
Which raises the question of is letting women vote a good thing?
Click to expand...
Because they're half the population of any given democracy? And democracy etymologically means "rule of the people?"
What you're beating off on is a weird oligarchy where a select group of chosen guys (landowners, paterfamiliases) can make decisions for everyone else, and that's called oligarchy.
Betonhaus said:
It does seem like assholes get laid more. The general impression I get is that women (especially sluts and dumb birches) prefer it when the guy makes the decisions for her (but still accept their veto power), as otherwise they end up playing games like being hard to get.
Click to expand...
The stuff you say about women makes me wonder if you think they're subhuman. Do you?
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: Bunny Tracks, Nein Inch Nales, WebLurker and 5 others
Betonhaus said:
I've come to see that marriage was intended as a fully symbiotic relationship. Like if the marriage was a company, the woman would be the Director - responsible for ensuring the company is functioning correctly and runs like clockwork. Ensuring that the company's tools and equipment are organized and in good working condition, Ensuring that daily tasks are are being completed properly and on time, And identifying and resolving problems and stresses the company is experiencing.

These are not meaningless tasks, and calling them trivial because they seem repetitive and simple does them a great disservice.
Click to expand...
Except what you're really asking for women to be your administrative assistant, not your "director". In practice you're saying you need someone to keep your underpants and dishes washed, your kids' appointments and schedules in order, your dinners cooked, and to whom you can basically delegate whatever tasks and problems you think you, as the man, are above having to deal with. Oh and she can also be the catch-all when shit hits the fan because she's "responsibly for ensuring everything runs like clockwork."

This seems like a real turd of a job, and I would not accept it.
 
  • Winner
  • Dumb
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: WebLurker, frozen_runner, Mega Black and 1 other person
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
@Sonic I’m against abortion on the secular grounds that it is murder and that is very much the states business.
Click to expand...

As long as you're not one of those psychotic bitches who stands outside of schools and doctor's offices with photos of miscarriages, it's your right to believe what you want and vote how you want. If you're one to get in women's faces and accuse them of being a murderer for making an extremely difficult decision (hopefully it's difficult, I know some women can be pretty heartless about it as a way to distance themselves from the gravity of their decision) then you're a dick. I personally would never have an abortion because I believe that if fate, or whatever forces are at work out there in the universe choose you to carry a life into this world, then who are you to deny that?
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Syaoran Li
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back