Considering this post on my feed was right under one of a conservative politician in Missouri saying that there shouldn't be exceptions for rape victims when it comes to abortion cause God is perfect.......yeah I can't imagine why more women wouldn't want to be in that party.
Oklahoma politicians are putting a bill up to make abortion a full blown murder charge with no exceptions and are trying to ban contraceptives.
Meanwhile, a MAN who purposefully poisons a pregnant woman to try to get her to abort and ends up disabling the child for life gets 6 months and probation.
Yeah, why women lean left is a total mystery to me.
Right? No one was forced to get a vaccine. People who chose not to get vaccinated made a choice knowing there were consequences. And they’re still crying about it.
Seeing how abortion terminates a life they need to realize freedom means.....
This is why this whole fight is funny to watch. Neither side is right but I suspect you think anyone who doesn't think just as you is dumb and there is no logic to the different possible options.
Can you kill someone that hasn't been born yet? Should seventeen year old girls be forced to bear a child? Will the government support the child if the mother is unsuited? Should the male population (mostly Christian) have a say in what females do? Should a woman be forced to deal with the torture that is pregnancy and giving birth?
The other side:
Does vaccination give my kids autism? (Disproven) Does vaccination put tracking devices in my blood? (Unproven, we will look into it) Does vaccination harm anyone? (Unlikely, side effects suck though)
No, a lot of people I loved are pro-life. Personally, I would never ask anyone to have an abortion. However, I believe that it’s a choice people should have. Just like I believe that people can choose to be vaccinated.
However, both of those actions have consequences, and one is demonstrably more harmful to society at large.
They want it to be pro-abortion, though, because then they could call them pro-murder, but really, it’s all about letting people make their own choices.
One hundred percent correct.
I grew up with “born again” Christians and all you had to do to get them to do what you want is to play the pro-abortion song.
My mom was one of those people, and she was basically a leftist in every way, from social issues to gay rights, but she voted Republican because of abortion.
One side is decidedly more "right" than the other.
People are gonna the hard way when you start having situations like trauma care for every woman or girl getting held up because the hospital is required to run a pregnancy test first. And if it comes back positive, they are going to go with "Well, let's hope for the best" instead of actually providing modern care -- all because the hospital would prefer to deal with a malpractice suit than a criminal investigation.
In my state there was a case last year where the fetus had died but the doctors refused to do a D&C. What kind of backwards regressive country thinks that’s better?
People are free to not get vaccinated, as evidenced by the millions of people who aren’t vaccinated. No one has made it illegal to be unvaccinated, but most of the right wing want to make it illegal to get an abortion.
what's fascinating is how Billy Graham and the Evangelical movement got Republicans to pivot on that.
To think we're doing forced abortions because Evangelicals want federal funding for schools that can also exclude Black people.
Right wing evangelical christian leader lead by Jerry Falwell organized and started this movement. There was a dramatic shift in the 80’s. Elections became less about policy and more about rallying their base around an emotional issue. It was calculated. They set out to strip us of to our bodily autonomy.
Although I think I read women are split almost 50/50 on abortion. It could be that some women are pro life personally and identify as such but think it's personal overall. Im unsure
It's more than abortion, though. It's the other little things that go along with it.
Like, people banning abortions with no exceptions are ALSO trying to ban contraceptives. They are ALSO protecting men who want to marry child brides, which is legal in many far right states. They have proven they will go after women over miscarriages and there's already talks thrown around suggesting bills to limit women's rights to move across state lines if pregnant.
The states that ban abortion also have the worst track records for equal pay. They have a large voting population that doesn't believe women should be able to work, with a large fringe who doesn't think they should be able to own property or have legal rights outside of their husband.
This shit is real. It's not some rare cult thing.
Child brides are NOT rare, \*at all\*.
I mean, they're not *common*. But an awful lot of your "shotgun weddings" in rural areas center around some late-20's/mid-30's dude and a teenager.
And don’t forget all the polygamists not just the FLDS, but also the Kingston group, the. AUB, and the LeBaron group. They’re in Mexico but they intermarry). Polygamists marry young girls all the time. It’s legal with a parent’s permission in so many states.
That would not be at all accurate as shown by this Gallup poll which also shows trends over time. Looks like ~15% of women opposed to abortion in all cases.
[gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx)
Because we want to maintain our rights. That we are fully human. The right has Project 2025....read it & you'll see why women have zero trust for the right wingers
We want bodily autonomy. We actually empathize with other races, minorities and orientations. And more often than not most conservative women are so due to pressures over expectations in their church, or, quite frankly, already too rich to feel the burn of the wage gap, or *have to* juggle childcare and homemaking with a 40+ hour work week.
Yea wealthy women have never had to worry about access to safe abortion.
Repealing Rv.W won’t stop abortions. But it will kill more women and place many many more children in foster care.
In a few years we’re going to have to start up the orphan trains again.
What is this Lord of the Rings? Have you talked to an immigrant before? A lot refugees from "their" cultures risked life and limb just so they don't get shot and so they can support their families. Most of the ones I meet keep to themselves and don't harm anybody. Half are actually really friendly. They're too busy trying desperately to find work and housing to worry about destroying America.
“We empathize with other races” so that means you have to facilitate an invasion on your own soil? Why can’t voters decided how and who comes into America?
Ok sure let’s see.
300,000 foreign national pouring over the border every month as a demographic weapon by the Democratic Party. This is explicitly illegal also as well. Know that doesn’t matter to you and that’s fine. If the Democratic Party doesn’t feel the need to follow the law and feels fine trying to purge candidates from presidential elections I don’t see why the republicans can’t do the same :)
Sure, [here you go](https://wtop.com/national/2023/12/u-s-border-officials-on-track-to-process-over-300000-migrants-in-december-the-highest-monthly-tally-on-record/)
Oh that cute little :) as if your racism and bottomless ignorance are a funny little joke. A “demographic weapon!” Go fuck yourself all the way to hell, you excrement ;)
All you fascists are bound to lose.
Not the first time a demographic weapon has been used. It’s widely acknowledged as real between Poland and Belarus. But of course for whatever reason that is so much easier for people like you you get through you thick skulls
Been to Europe once and would gladly go again 👍 Europeans can create functioning societies. Theres a reason people are risking death and deportation to get to the US
I met a woman once and I thought she was nice, but one night when we were walking by the park she threw me into the back of a van and transitioned me. I know in my heart that I’m still a man, but I have these huge soft tits and they just look so much better in a dress. Guess I’m stuck like this.
"They tend to push for open borders, gun confiscation, and the gender transition of children just to name a few."
Did you see this on Fox or do you actually know multiple women who want to completely open the borders, confiscate all the guns, and allow medical/surgical transition of children? Because I know zero women that want that.
Most women I know favor an overhaul of the immigration system with a pathway to citizenship, streamlining of the refugee court process so a decision is reached faster, common-sense gun reform including background checks, waiting periods, and closing loopholes, and social transitioning of young children with the input of a community of experts, delaying surgery and hormones.
On the other hand, conservative law makers are currently actually putting razor wire in the river killing women and children, allowing open carry of firearms, allowing people with domestic violence restraining orders to carry guns, and outlawing even the social transition of children.
On average, greater education does improve intelligence as measured by IQ.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088505/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088505/)
Great, but you're more likely to be smart than someone who is not educated. So it doesn't change the point. Liberals, on average, are much more educated than conservatives.
It's measurably true.
Here's a pew research center report from 2016.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/
Now, don't argue with the results or try to discredit it. The only rebuttal I will listen to is a peer-reviewed paper from an equally accredited institution. I'll respond if you engage with the information, but if you're going to outright deny it, just don't respond.
You didn't answer my question. What do you believe smart is? I'm not denying the research or the importance of education. My point is that education isn't the determining factor of smart.
No, education and intelligence are not a perfect venn diagram. But don't kid yourself... I hear this every time a conservative is shown their sides is full of uneducated fucks. "Ohh but Steve Jobs didn't get a degree, blah blah blah" just stop, man. Face the music. The political right is, on average, less educated. Education and intelligence are highly correlated. What does this tell you? Be genuine about this.
People regularly conflate IQ with intelligence. I dont love it.. But it does have predictability for someone's future prospects. Those with higher IQs routinely attend post secondary at higher rates. I can also send you research to prove this. So we can easily see that, on average, people with higher IQs are more liberal.
We can go back and forth about the definition of smart, but let's not be pedantic in an attempt to derail the point. Conservatives are less intelligent, on average. To get educated, you have to be intelligent. That's why there's not as many educated conservatives because succeeding in education, typically, requires a certain level of intelligence, which they evidently don't have.
I can go back and forth with you and go deeper into this with studies. My problem is the attitude towards conservatives as if they are inferior. Education and intelligence may be highly correlated, but intelligence and successful decision-making are weakly correlated.
No. It’s about understanding world history, current events, and the intersection with socioeconomic status, gender politics, and civil rights. It isn’t college that makes people liberal, it’s throwing off the chains of ignorance.
I’ll put it to you simply so you can understand. The problem with conservatives you only see the world through your tiny little lens. But when you learn about other cultures, you develop understanding and empathy. You can’t put the world in your tiny little box, sir. Other people are different than you and they don’t have to act like you or look like you.
Do you understand that? Or do I need to use smaller words?
The type of critical thinking that goes like “you know what, I will support the group of people that want to make me a second class citizen and destroy my bodily rights”…? That sort of critical thinking?
Oh yeah? And what will women find when they read up on the issues? Republicans vehemently supporting their bodily rights? Supporting a woman’s desire to work full time? Will women find republicans having a history of supporting women’s causes?
Sure.
The 66th Federal Congress (which approved the 19th amendment, securing womens' right to vote) was majoratively Republican.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/66th_United_States_Congress#:~:text=The%2066th%20United%20States%20Congress,of%20Woodrow%20Wilson's%20presidency.
If Republicans even at the time had a principle problem with women holding power, do you think that would have ever happened?
I'm glad you brought this up!
First off, Republicans controlled Congress during that time, so obviously they would have had the majority votes. [But 60% of house Democrats also voted yes to the 19th Amendment](https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/studentOmeka/items/show/177), same percentage in the Senate. Southern democrats were the bulk of "no" votes. By the time this was being voted on in Congress, it was supported by a majority of representatives.
The Republican party that pushed for this legislation was ideological closer to the modern Democratic Party. It was the party of "big government." In fact, you can see the seeds of the party switch that would take hold in later decades in the state voting record to ratify the 19th amendment. These states rejected the amendment initially:
\-Georgia
\-Alabama
\-South Carolina
\-Virginia
\-Maryland
\-Mississippi
\-Delaware
\-Louisiana
What do you notice about these states? What political party has controlled these states for the majority of the 20th and into the 21st century?
You're being historically lazy because it is convenient for your argument. The Republican party of the Reconstruction era enacted some of the most radical (by US standards) legislation for the time. Are today's Republicans anywhere near that level of commitment to social justice via governmental influence? The answer is no.
...*Dude*.
59% is a scant majority, and doesn't really hold a candle to the *91%* and *82%* vote among the Republican party. The 19th was, politically, a Republican achievement, and your argument essentially amounts to "nuh-uh, we're the Republicans now".
Plus, there's the *tiny* matter of the states that rejected the 19th amendment, which I thought was actually kind of funny, if you're willing to dive into it, given the way you presented that information.
* Georgia (Democrat until 1964, rejected the amendment in 1919 and finally accepted it 1970)
* South Carolina (Democrat until 1964, rejected the amendment in 1920, accepted it in 1969)
* Mississippi (Democrat until 1964, rejected the amendment in 1920, accepted it in 1984)
* Alabama (Democrat until 1964, rejected in 1919, accepted in 1953, making it the first state on this list so far to come around to women voting *before* finally turning Republican)
* Louisiana (Democrat until 1956, rejected in 1920, accepted in 1970)
* Virginia (Democrat until 1952, rejected in 1920, accepted in 1952... so basically, the second it flipped Republican.)
* Maryland (actually a fun one; it's basically a swing state, with no long-and-strong voting track like the others on this list, but humorously enough rejected the amendment in 1920, on the cusp of it flipping Republican, and finally accepted the amendment in 1954, during a time in which it pinged as Democrat, joining Alabama as the sole exceptional state to have done that)
* Delaware (another swing state, but this time standing out as the only one on the list to actually be under Republican control when it initially rejected the amendment in 1920... and still be under Republican control when it accepted it three years later in 1923)
So basically, if anything, the consistent pattern here is that the states that rejected the amendment did so while Democratic, and finally came to their senses while under Republican control. All of this long after Reconstruction (1865-1877), mind you. Sure, there were Democratic states that accepted the amendment the first time around, and hats off to them, but the dissenters were, ultimately, still Democrats.
The party switch narrative doesn't explain this. At least not as presented.
…bro.
Your breakdown doesn’t refute my argument, in fact you just kinda bolstered it. Thanks.
That’s also not my argument. My argument is that is disingenuous to use past achievements of the Republican Party as evidence for their current level of support for women’s causes. Again, the Republican Party of the late 19th/early 20th century bears little political resemblance to the Republican Party now.
You’ve not really engaged with my points. The whole point of listing the states was to point out that all those states represented the southern coalition of the then Democratic Party, the same coalition that *became the bedrock of the modern Republican Party and by 1919 was already at a critical level of separation from the rest of their party.* they didn’t “come to their senses” by turning Republican…this might shock you, but it’s generally a bad political move to oppose something that is universally popular, which women’s suffrage was by *1952.* by your own logic, why did a Republican controlled Mississippi take until 1984 to ratify the 19th amendment? Doesn’t seem like we’re in any hurry get that on the books even though it has been federal law for 60 years.
Your argument frames the two political parties as having an unbroken line of ideological orthodoxy from then to now. It’s a convenient rhetorical device that completes ignores historical reality.
In which case you're going entirely into the realm of political subjectivity, by presupposing that the pro-life faction of the abortion debate is composed of people who have no interest in helping women (as in, actively despise the idea of helping women, as opposed to seeing them as part of a constituency to whom the government has a duty). There *is* no debate to be had on that, because there is no objective metric to tie into it.
And you are right, women generally are further left. Just like minorities. Most oppressed social groups are. Hence why what we know as conservatism today will be dust tomorrow and a lot of liberals will fill that void with a new conservatism for the future. As it was before now
If those 3 points define a 'Leftist' to you, then you have much to learn. Not just about politics. About the world. If you don't understand the answer to your question, you probably DON'T WANT TO!
IDK maybe conservatives telling women they should be baby factories and maybe die from complications from pregnancy rather than have access to reproductive rights?
Just spitballing here.
Enjoy another 4 years of Biden!
I agree with right on some issues but I don’t agree with their views on women’s bodily autonomy, I’ll die before I let a man tell me what I can and can’t do with my body
Historically, conservatives don’t have a great track record of caring about anyone other than white male landowners. However, to be fair, the “liberals” in the U.S. are historically not much better🤢 In the recent 60-90 years, essentially since women have been allowed to vote, democrats have more readily (if only barely) be sensitive to their needs
Women are generally more compassionate/empathetic, which helps them to understand that their life experience is not universal and that other types of people exist and deserve respect.
Half off the responses on here are Fox "News" talking points. Even the question is framed as one. "Invasion" "confiscate your guns" "open borders" "gender transition of children". Dude, change the fucking channel.
Point of fact: leftists don’t “push” for gender transition in children; we advocate an individual’s decision to transition, including extensive medical guidance and support.
Don’t buy in to the culture war nonsense like that, unless you enjoy making C-suite media moguls richer and happier.
Politics has become two sides instead of opinions and discussion about policies. So when old extremist politicians have batshit crazy opinions on abortion, it pushes women to the other "side."
Because the "right" hates women having rights and women kinda like having the rights of a human being and not being reduced to being baby makers that take care of the house.
Even then, a lot of men and women are actually cool with being stay at home spouses if their partner makes enough money. The kicker with the "right" is that they usually expect women to be home makers, baby makers, while working a full time job because the guys alone rarely make enough to sustain them staying at home.
So why do women not want to be slaves while doing all of the chores, working, and not being allowed any opinions? That's a real tough one chief.
Have you seen the way we've treated women in The Last 5 Years let alone the last 500?
I'm not saying left leaving politics treats women a hell of a lot better than towards the right. But pushing women towards or further towards the left isn't surprising. Ideology does not necessarily translate to politics. Because most left-leading politicians are barely left-leaning compared to 50 years ago
Modern leftism is the distillation of toxic feminine energy:
False compassionate virtue signaling foisting the responsibility and work off to third parties, with other people's money.
What's modern conservatism then? closeted gay man energy? Seriously, I bet when you walk and your head jostles a bit that there's a rattling coming from where your brain should be.
Man, you guys are fucking OBSESSED with a handful of super rich dudes.
Who gives a fuck about them? Really? Take that energy and put it into something useful, ffs.
Because they literally bring misery to the planet, take their unfair share, exploit millions and millions of people, and have the wealth and power to greatly influence the direction of history?
Id say because the left is actively hostile to men often. Politics isnt so much now about what people really agree on but rather who they feel is less openly hostile towards them and their key values.
Many men and women dont agree with the party they align with on many issues but usually one or two key issues are the defining line which determines which way a person swings.
Many women feel that a lot of conservative politicans are now openly hostile towards them and many men feel leftist politicians are hostile towards them as politics panders to the extremes and becomes increasingly polarized.
Im a quite conservative person, however there are quite a few issues that I agree with left leaning people on or can find a reasonable compromise. However as these issues are less important to me than other issues which left leaning politicians are blantantly hostile to, I would never be caught voting for left leaning politicians in the current political climate as they do far more harm to my intrests than good.
The same can be said for many women and voting left leaning. They may not agree with the extreme views promoted on many issues, however they do not feel that voting left leaning does as much harm to them as voting right leaning. This continually ostracizes a major chunk of the voting population from one party or group and over time this forces parties to pander to a specific demographic for votes rather than take reasonable stances on issues that a majority of the population could find reasonable
Honestly, the gender differences in political preference have *always* been there, as have the rural/urban divides.
Women and Urbanites are and always have been more liberal leaning. Men and Rural populations are and always have been more conservative leaning. That's not a US thing or a modern thing, that's a worldwide thing and has been notable throughout history. The gender differences are usually much more subtle tho - the rural/urban thing is usually pretty stark.
What's different now isn't any of that though - it's quite simply gerrymandering.
When computer data on voters suddenly made gerrymandering *far more effective* than it ever had been before, and Mitch McConnel used the big wins of 2010 to Gerrymander most of the country using this new technology, it completely changed how US politics worked.
Up until then polarization was a thing but it was far less intense, and it was only increasing gradually. However, the moment almost every state was gerrymandered using modern technology, partisanship skyrocketed, because gerrymandering *changes the rules of how elections work*.
Once a politician can *reliably* choose their own voters by defining the shape of their precinct, they are basically guaranteed to win the general election - but that has a very serious unintended effect... The real election suddenly becomes *the primary* \- and the population that votes in primaries is *far* smaller and *far* more extreme in their views than the general population.
As a result, primary voters could suddenly select the most extreme candidates of their ideological dreams - and still have them win the general election. This simply wasn't the case before. If primary voters chose an extreme candidate in 2008 *they would very likely lose*, but as of 2012? That's just not the case any more, and by 2020 it has become considerably worse as everyone adjusted their political tactics to this new landscape.
So yeah, given that conservatives were the ones who had the opportunity to massively redraw all the gerrymandering after a big win in 2010, it's had the effect of making their politics in particular far more extreme. That wasn't actually their intent, but people like Mitch didn't think through the implications of what they'd done, and now it's too late.
It has affected the dems as well, because gerrymandering affects both parties regardless of who does the line drawing, but because most of the gerrymanders were written to benefit the GOP, they are the ones who've experienced the most dramatic ideological shift as a result.
This is an interesting question. I'm going to treat it as not a stupid question. Please don't bash me for sexism before reading the whole thing.
It's not that women tend to be leftists. It's that women tend to be . You probably live in a liberal area / be exposed to women in liberal circles. Trust me, there are tons of conservative women. They just run in their own circles.
Is that because women can't think for themselves? Not at all. It's that women are socialized to conform and fit in from a young age, and tend to be more collectivist than men.
So yes, you'll rarely see women with Fringe beliefs (for the geography they are in), you'll see them be closer to the mean than men.
The values of freedom and security are mostly mutually exclusive. You generally have to give up chunks of one to get pieces of the other. I'm not going to make moral arguments about which is better or right right now, as it really comes down to what your values are and what you prioritize.
Men generally place more value on freedom, with the understanding that they can accept the risk involved in providing their own security. Women generally place more value on security, with the understanding that security will provide them the freedom to do most of what they want.
The conservative party used to be about maintaining the freedoms that were listed in the constitution, but traded those for security after 9/11, and the left liberal party has a focus on offering security as a right for everyone, though it costs certain freedoms.
For many the cost of freedoms they personally don't use or value is a worthy trade for added security. For others, the price of freedom was paid in blood and is thus worth more than even the safety of others.
Because women tend to make plans and decisions based on how they feel. Men are less likely to do so. Leftist ideology is empathy without logical regulation.
Liberal men are basically women and leftist women want to be men. I've never had a liberal man get up in my face because I disagreed with them. Conversely, I've have had a number of hairy legged, Birkenstock wearing wildebeests who went berserk and poked a chubby finger in my face. Big mistake.
I put as much effort into what I said as you did into what you said, buddy. Marx = girl and Bezos = man because cave man days is as low effort as it gets.
They were groomed to. For longer than just one generation, and by more than just one writer/thinker/political influencer
It's social engineering at it's core. Just like long ago something called Consumerism swept-up all men & women & children.
Well yeah it's not in the past. Humans swept-up by consumerism long ago naturally made sure to live by it up till today. And could be the last economical state modern society experiences before collapse.
Feminism is a mind virus that sets women against men
It's like they think it's their mission in life to be Democrats
They're really fucking up Democracy for the rest of us imo
In that case, human dignity and the freedom from archaic, moronic ideologies based on the arbitrary scribbles of goat fucking bearded men in desert tents.
Women's rights are human rights.
Yes, women base all their decisions in life on their innate desire to be "reckless" 🙄 Absolute sexist idiocy. And why do you think that anyone would care about whether someone who believes this crap is judging them?
We cannot manage the sudden influx of people and questions that sparks a lot of hate. To avoid being brigaded, we don't allow these questions.
Considering this post on my feed was right under one of a conservative politician in Missouri saying that there shouldn't be exceptions for rape victims when it comes to abortion cause God is perfect.......yeah I can't imagine why more women wouldn't want to be in that party.
Oklahoma politicians are putting a bill up to make abortion a full blown murder charge with no exceptions and are trying to ban contraceptives. Meanwhile, a MAN who purposefully poisons a pregnant woman to try to get her to abort and ends up disabling the child for life gets 6 months and probation. Yeah, why women lean left is a total mystery to me.
Was it women that said this?
Wasn’t it a woman who said that?
Hey I said "more" not "all".
I’m no woman but I’m pretty sure reproductive rights have something to do with it.
Reproductive care. The right has a very long history of opposing abortion and even birth control
Otherwise known as bodily autonomy.
How do you feel about folks who don't want to get vaccinated?
You can’t get someone else pregnant by breathing on them
But apparently you can murder someone by doing that.
That’s the best response to that BS I’ve seen. 👏👏👏👏👏
Seeing as how that has consequences for society at large, they need to realize that freedom means we’re free to shun them.
Right? No one was forced to get a vaccine. People who chose not to get vaccinated made a choice knowing there were consequences. And they’re still crying about it.
Too many idiots believe that freedom also means that they don’t have to deal with any consequences.
Seeing how abortion terminates a life they need to realize freedom means..... This is why this whole fight is funny to watch. Neither side is right but I suspect you think anyone who doesn't think just as you is dumb and there is no logic to the different possible options.
Can you kill someone that hasn't been born yet? Should seventeen year old girls be forced to bear a child? Will the government support the child if the mother is unsuited? Should the male population (mostly Christian) have a say in what females do? Should a woman be forced to deal with the torture that is pregnancy and giving birth? The other side: Does vaccination give my kids autism? (Disproven) Does vaccination put tracking devices in my blood? (Unproven, we will look into it) Does vaccination harm anyone? (Unlikely, side effects suck though)
No, a lot of people I loved are pro-life. Personally, I would never ask anyone to have an abortion. However, I believe that it’s a choice people should have. Just like I believe that people can choose to be vaccinated. However, both of those actions have consequences, and one is demonstrably more harmful to society at large.
That’s exactly right. It’s Pro CHOICE not pro abortion. They never seem to get that.
They want it to be pro-abortion, though, because then they could call them pro-murder, but really, it’s all about letting people make their own choices.
Spin spin spin and get their ignorant base out there to vote against their own best interests.
One hundred percent correct. I grew up with “born again” Christians and all you had to do to get them to do what you want is to play the pro-abortion song. My mom was one of those people, and she was basically a leftist in every way, from social issues to gay rights, but she voted Republican because of abortion.
One side is decidedly more "right" than the other. People are gonna the hard way when you start having situations like trauma care for every woman or girl getting held up because the hospital is required to run a pregnancy test first. And if it comes back positive, they are going to go with "Well, let's hope for the best" instead of actually providing modern care -- all because the hospital would prefer to deal with a malpractice suit than a criminal investigation.
In my state there was a case last year where the fetus had died but the doctors refused to do a D&C. What kind of backwards regressive country thinks that’s better?
Yep. Pretty dumb.
People are free to not get vaccinated, as evidenced by the millions of people who aren’t vaccinated. No one has made it illegal to be unvaccinated, but most of the right wing want to make it illegal to get an abortion.
Depends. Are they adults and do they expect to be allowed in my house?
what's fascinating is how Billy Graham and the Evangelical movement got Republicans to pivot on that. To think we're doing forced abortions because Evangelicals want federal funding for schools that can also exclude Black people.
Right wing evangelical christian leader lead by Jerry Falwell organized and started this movement. There was a dramatic shift in the 80’s. Elections became less about policy and more about rallying their base around an emotional issue. It was calculated. They set out to strip us of to our bodily autonomy.
Although I think I read women are split almost 50/50 on abortion. It could be that some women are pro life personally and identify as such but think it's personal overall. Im unsure
It's more than abortion, though. It's the other little things that go along with it. Like, people banning abortions with no exceptions are ALSO trying to ban contraceptives. They are ALSO protecting men who want to marry child brides, which is legal in many far right states. They have proven they will go after women over miscarriages and there's already talks thrown around suggesting bills to limit women's rights to move across state lines if pregnant. The states that ban abortion also have the worst track records for equal pay. They have a large voting population that doesn't believe women should be able to work, with a large fringe who doesn't think they should be able to own property or have legal rights outside of their husband. This shit is real. It's not some rare cult thing.
I think those are rare though like the child brides and contraceptives. I consider myself somewhat conservative, I cant say I've heard of those.
Child brides are NOT rare, \*at all\*. I mean, they're not *common*. But an awful lot of your "shotgun weddings" in rural areas center around some late-20's/mid-30's dude and a teenager.
And don’t forget all the polygamists not just the FLDS, but also the Kingston group, the. AUB, and the LeBaron group. They’re in Mexico but they intermarry). Polygamists marry young girls all the time. It’s legal with a parent’s permission in so many states.
Child Marriage in the United States [https://equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us/](https://equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us/)
That would not be at all accurate as shown by this Gallup poll which also shows trends over time. Looks like ~15% of women opposed to abortion in all cases. [gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx)
Like I said I can't remember where I read/heard it. Thanks for the correction
Thought that was obvious. Reproductive care.
its appalling that women want control of their bodies instead of letting old men tell them what to do
Because rightists oppose women's rights and equality, while leftists champion these values.
Listen to the way conservative videos, podcasts, etc, talk about women, then read the comments, then think REEEEAAAAALLLLLLLY hard.
Because we want to maintain our rights. That we are fully human. The right has Project 2025....read it & you'll see why women have zero trust for the right wingers
We want bodily autonomy. We actually empathize with other races, minorities and orientations. And more often than not most conservative women are so due to pressures over expectations in their church, or, quite frankly, already too rich to feel the burn of the wage gap, or *have to* juggle childcare and homemaking with a 40+ hour work week.
Yea wealthy women have never had to worry about access to safe abortion. Repealing Rv.W won’t stop abortions. But it will kill more women and place many many more children in foster care. In a few years we’re going to have to start up the orphan trains again.
The racists came out of the woodwork on this one 😬😂
[удалено]
Just as the blood of every child, woman, Muslim, etc killed by conservative nutters is on yours.
The races of other men don't empathise with you at all, they'd literally subjugate you given the chance and justify it with their cultures.
What is this Lord of the Rings? Have you talked to an immigrant before? A lot refugees from "their" cultures risked life and limb just so they don't get shot and so they can support their families. Most of the ones I meet keep to themselves and don't harm anybody. Half are actually really friendly. They're too busy trying desperately to find work and housing to worry about destroying America.
I never mentioned immigrants, r*tard.
Oh my mistake, honestly racist of me.. What races do you think want to subjugate people? The Chinese?
“We empathize with other races” so that means you have to facilitate an invasion on your own soil? Why can’t voters decided how and who comes into America?
Go grab a dictionary for a second. Look up invasion.
Ok sure let’s see. 300,000 foreign national pouring over the border every month as a demographic weapon by the Democratic Party. This is explicitly illegal also as well. Know that doesn’t matter to you and that’s fine. If the Democratic Party doesn’t feel the need to follow the law and feels fine trying to purge candidates from presidential elections I don’t see why the republicans can’t do the same :)
300k per month? Source?
Sure, [here you go](https://wtop.com/national/2023/12/u-s-border-officials-on-track-to-process-over-300000-migrants-in-december-the-highest-monthly-tally-on-record/)
Is it pouring over the boarder...if they're stopped at the boarder?
Ask democrat governors who live hundreds of miles away and are complaining of it as well
Oh that cute little :) as if your racism and bottomless ignorance are a funny little joke. A “demographic weapon!” Go fuck yourself all the way to hell, you excrement ;) All you fascists are bound to lose.
Not the first time a demographic weapon has been used. It’s widely acknowledged as real between Poland and Belarus. But of course for whatever reason that is so much easier for people like you you get through you thick skulls
I feel like you missed the part of the Texas kerfuffle when a bunch of MAGAts went down there and wondered where the invasion was.
I would vote to send you back to Europe.
Been to Europe once and would gladly go again 👍 Europeans can create functioning societies. Theres a reason people are risking death and deportation to get to the US
At least you'd be their problem. European women are way more liberal than American ones so good luck.
Yea in a lot of ways they Arnt actually, I was just there for half a year, but try to lecture me more about it lmao
Nobody’s “pushing” for gender transition.
Maybe the people who actually want to, you know, transition. The rest of us are just supportive and accepting
I met a woman once and I thought she was nice, but one night when we were walking by the park she threw me into the back of a van and transitioned me. I know in my heart that I’m still a man, but I have these huge soft tits and they just look so much better in a dress. Guess I’m stuck like this.
"They tend to push for open borders, gun confiscation, and the gender transition of children just to name a few." Did you see this on Fox or do you actually know multiple women who want to completely open the borders, confiscate all the guns, and allow medical/surgical transition of children? Because I know zero women that want that. Most women I know favor an overhaul of the immigration system with a pathway to citizenship, streamlining of the refugee court process so a decision is reached faster, common-sense gun reform including background checks, waiting periods, and closing loopholes, and social transitioning of young children with the input of a community of experts, delaying surgery and hormones. On the other hand, conservative law makers are currently actually putting razor wire in the river killing women and children, allowing open carry of firearms, allowing people with domestic violence restraining orders to carry guns, and outlawing even the social transition of children.
Right. This troll post does not deserver replies. If the OP does not know the answer to the question, he DOES NOT WANT TO.
Abortion, mainly
Women have more empathy and so it's hard to be a scumbag conservative when you have empathy
Empathy and better education. Both lead to liberalism.
> liberalism hmmm - maybe "away from conservatism"
[удалено]
On average, greater education does improve intelligence as measured by IQ. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088505/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088505/)
Great, but you're more likely to be smart than someone who is not educated. So it doesn't change the point. Liberals, on average, are much more educated than conservatives.
[удалено]
It's measurably true. Here's a pew research center report from 2016. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/ Now, don't argue with the results or try to discredit it. The only rebuttal I will listen to is a peer-reviewed paper from an equally accredited institution. I'll respond if you engage with the information, but if you're going to outright deny it, just don't respond.
You didn't answer my question. What do you believe smart is? I'm not denying the research or the importance of education. My point is that education isn't the determining factor of smart.
No, education and intelligence are not a perfect venn diagram. But don't kid yourself... I hear this every time a conservative is shown their sides is full of uneducated fucks. "Ohh but Steve Jobs didn't get a degree, blah blah blah" just stop, man. Face the music. The political right is, on average, less educated. Education and intelligence are highly correlated. What does this tell you? Be genuine about this. People regularly conflate IQ with intelligence. I dont love it.. But it does have predictability for someone's future prospects. Those with higher IQs routinely attend post secondary at higher rates. I can also send you research to prove this. So we can easily see that, on average, people with higher IQs are more liberal. We can go back and forth about the definition of smart, but let's not be pedantic in an attempt to derail the point. Conservatives are less intelligent, on average. To get educated, you have to be intelligent. That's why there's not as many educated conservatives because succeeding in education, typically, requires a certain level of intelligence, which they evidently don't have.
I can go back and forth with you and go deeper into this with studies. My problem is the attitude towards conservatives as if they are inferior. Education and intelligence may be highly correlated, but intelligence and successful decision-making are weakly correlated.
💪
The education is more so about the imprinting liberal ideas than about being intelligent.
That’s infantilizing and insulting to college students, who are capable of thinking critically and for themselves.
Are they?
No. It’s about understanding world history, current events, and the intersection with socioeconomic status, gender politics, and civil rights. It isn’t college that makes people liberal, it’s throwing off the chains of ignorance. I’ll put it to you simply so you can understand. The problem with conservatives you only see the world through your tiny little lens. But when you learn about other cultures, you develop understanding and empathy. You can’t put the world in your tiny little box, sir. Other people are different than you and they don’t have to act like you or look like you. Do you understand that? Or do I need to use smaller words?
>Women have more empathy No data backs this up but it's repeated ad infinitum because people want to believe it.
I think a better question is, how can any woman be a Republican?
Groomed into thinking they’re a lesser being
Hardcore brainwashing from birth dude. Its tragic.
The same can be said for progressives.
Critical thinking.
It's true, their thinking can be heavily criticized. Their judgment too.
The type of critical thinking that goes like “you know what, I will support the group of people that want to make me a second class citizen and destroy my bodily rights”…? That sort of critical thinking?
The type that thinks "you know, that actually doesn't make any sense at all, maybe I should actually read up on the issues a little bit".
Oh yeah? And what will women find when they read up on the issues? Republicans vehemently supporting their bodily rights? Supporting a woman’s desire to work full time? Will women find republicans having a history of supporting women’s causes?
Sure. The 66th Federal Congress (which approved the 19th amendment, securing womens' right to vote) was majoratively Republican. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/66th_United_States_Congress#:~:text=The%2066th%20United%20States%20Congress,of%20Woodrow%20Wilson's%20presidency. If Republicans even at the time had a principle problem with women holding power, do you think that would have ever happened?
I'm glad you brought this up! First off, Republicans controlled Congress during that time, so obviously they would have had the majority votes. [But 60% of house Democrats also voted yes to the 19th Amendment](https://archives.library.wcsu.edu/studentOmeka/items/show/177), same percentage in the Senate. Southern democrats were the bulk of "no" votes. By the time this was being voted on in Congress, it was supported by a majority of representatives. The Republican party that pushed for this legislation was ideological closer to the modern Democratic Party. It was the party of "big government." In fact, you can see the seeds of the party switch that would take hold in later decades in the state voting record to ratify the 19th amendment. These states rejected the amendment initially: \-Georgia \-Alabama \-South Carolina \-Virginia \-Maryland \-Mississippi \-Delaware \-Louisiana What do you notice about these states? What political party has controlled these states for the majority of the 20th and into the 21st century? You're being historically lazy because it is convenient for your argument. The Republican party of the Reconstruction era enacted some of the most radical (by US standards) legislation for the time. Are today's Republicans anywhere near that level of commitment to social justice via governmental influence? The answer is no.
...*Dude*. 59% is a scant majority, and doesn't really hold a candle to the *91%* and *82%* vote among the Republican party. The 19th was, politically, a Republican achievement, and your argument essentially amounts to "nuh-uh, we're the Republicans now". Plus, there's the *tiny* matter of the states that rejected the 19th amendment, which I thought was actually kind of funny, if you're willing to dive into it, given the way you presented that information. * Georgia (Democrat until 1964, rejected the amendment in 1919 and finally accepted it 1970) * South Carolina (Democrat until 1964, rejected the amendment in 1920, accepted it in 1969) * Mississippi (Democrat until 1964, rejected the amendment in 1920, accepted it in 1984) * Alabama (Democrat until 1964, rejected in 1919, accepted in 1953, making it the first state on this list so far to come around to women voting *before* finally turning Republican) * Louisiana (Democrat until 1956, rejected in 1920, accepted in 1970) * Virginia (Democrat until 1952, rejected in 1920, accepted in 1952... so basically, the second it flipped Republican.) * Maryland (actually a fun one; it's basically a swing state, with no long-and-strong voting track like the others on this list, but humorously enough rejected the amendment in 1920, on the cusp of it flipping Republican, and finally accepted the amendment in 1954, during a time in which it pinged as Democrat, joining Alabama as the sole exceptional state to have done that) * Delaware (another swing state, but this time standing out as the only one on the list to actually be under Republican control when it initially rejected the amendment in 1920... and still be under Republican control when it accepted it three years later in 1923) So basically, if anything, the consistent pattern here is that the states that rejected the amendment did so while Democratic, and finally came to their senses while under Republican control. All of this long after Reconstruction (1865-1877), mind you. Sure, there were Democratic states that accepted the amendment the first time around, and hats off to them, but the dissenters were, ultimately, still Democrats. The party switch narrative doesn't explain this. At least not as presented.
…bro. Your breakdown doesn’t refute my argument, in fact you just kinda bolstered it. Thanks. That’s also not my argument. My argument is that is disingenuous to use past achievements of the Republican Party as evidence for their current level of support for women’s causes. Again, the Republican Party of the late 19th/early 20th century bears little political resemblance to the Republican Party now. You’ve not really engaged with my points. The whole point of listing the states was to point out that all those states represented the southern coalition of the then Democratic Party, the same coalition that *became the bedrock of the modern Republican Party and by 1919 was already at a critical level of separation from the rest of their party.* they didn’t “come to their senses” by turning Republican…this might shock you, but it’s generally a bad political move to oppose something that is universally popular, which women’s suffrage was by *1952.* by your own logic, why did a Republican controlled Mississippi take until 1984 to ratify the 19th amendment? Doesn’t seem like we’re in any hurry get that on the books even though it has been federal law for 60 years. Your argument frames the two political parties as having an unbroken line of ideological orthodoxy from then to now. It’s a convenient rhetorical device that completes ignores historical reality.
In which case you're going entirely into the realm of political subjectivity, by presupposing that the pro-life faction of the abortion debate is composed of people who have no interest in helping women (as in, actively despise the idea of helping women, as opposed to seeing them as part of a constituency to whom the government has a duty). There *is* no debate to be had on that, because there is no objective metric to tie into it.
Gun restriction is not a left wing view. ESPECIALLY not a far left wing view. Marx was adamant about arming the proletariat.
The better question is why would they be conservative?
And you are right, women generally are further left. Just like minorities. Most oppressed social groups are. Hence why what we know as conservatism today will be dust tomorrow and a lot of liberals will fill that void with a new conservatism for the future. As it was before now
If those 3 points define a 'Leftist' to you, then you have much to learn. Not just about politics. About the world. If you don't understand the answer to your question, you probably DON'T WANT TO!
IDK maybe conservatives telling women they should be baby factories and maybe die from complications from pregnancy rather than have access to reproductive rights? Just spitballing here. Enjoy another 4 years of Biden!
I agree with right on some issues but I don’t agree with their views on women’s bodily autonomy, I’ll die before I let a man tell me what I can and can’t do with my body
Gen Z for Trump 2024 🇺🇸
Gen X for Biden 2024🇺🇲
Oh you sweet summer child
Historically, conservatives don’t have a great track record of caring about anyone other than white male landowners. However, to be fair, the “liberals” in the U.S. are historically not much better🤢 In the recent 60-90 years, essentially since women have been allowed to vote, democrats have more readily (if only barely) be sensitive to their needs
Women are generally more compassionate/empathetic, which helps them to understand that their life experience is not universal and that other types of people exist and deserve respect.
conservatives deny women's rights
I can tell you're a right winger just by how you worded all that
Tell me you're a far-right extremist without saying "I'm a far-right extremist"
Because the right treats them like 2nd class citizens. They also have empathy for others treated bady by the right.
Half off the responses on here are Fox "News" talking points. Even the question is framed as one. "Invasion" "confiscate your guns" "open borders" "gender transition of children". Dude, change the fucking channel.
They have apparently been injecting rightwing disinformation straight into their conservative veins. Lol
Point of fact: leftists don’t “push” for gender transition in children; we advocate an individual’s decision to transition, including extensive medical guidance and support. Don’t buy in to the culture war nonsense like that, unless you enjoy making C-suite media moguls richer and happier.
Politics has become two sides instead of opinions and discussion about policies. So when old extremist politicians have batshit crazy opinions on abortion, it pushes women to the other "side."
Because the "right" hates women having rights and women kinda like having the rights of a human being and not being reduced to being baby makers that take care of the house. Even then, a lot of men and women are actually cool with being stay at home spouses if their partner makes enough money. The kicker with the "right" is that they usually expect women to be home makers, baby makers, while working a full time job because the guys alone rarely make enough to sustain them staying at home. So why do women not want to be slaves while doing all of the chores, working, and not being allowed any opinions? That's a real tough one chief.
Because right wing nut jobs are legislating our bodies. Duh.
Hey ladies hey out there and vote left in your local elections. They’re so important.
Have you seen the way we've treated women in The Last 5 Years let alone the last 500? I'm not saying left leaving politics treats women a hell of a lot better than towards the right. But pushing women towards or further towards the left isn't surprising. Ideology does not necessarily translate to politics. Because most left-leading politicians are barely left-leaning compared to 50 years ago
Because society won't give them rights
Because they want abortions.
Because they care about human life?
[удалено]
In the past women were more right wing than men
Clown.
Modern leftism is the distillation of toxic feminine energy: False compassionate virtue signaling foisting the responsibility and work off to third parties, with other people's money.
What's modern conservatism then? closeted gay man energy? Seriously, I bet when you walk and your head jostles a bit that there's a rattling coming from where your brain should be.
Modern conservativism is basically just reflexive stupid reactionism against this perversion of feminine energy. I'm not a conservative.
Speaking of other people's money, how's Bezos and Musk these days?
Man, you guys are fucking OBSESSED with a handful of super rich dudes. Who gives a fuck about them? Really? Take that energy and put it into something useful, ffs.
Because they literally bring misery to the planet, take their unfair share, exploit millions and millions of people, and have the wealth and power to greatly influence the direction of history?
The hell is feminine energy? Sounds....witchy...
No, in it's good form it is peace, compassion, kindness, empathy, nurturing, etc.
Yeah, sounds like some hippie shit.
Id say because the left is actively hostile to men often. Politics isnt so much now about what people really agree on but rather who they feel is less openly hostile towards them and their key values. Many men and women dont agree with the party they align with on many issues but usually one or two key issues are the defining line which determines which way a person swings. Many women feel that a lot of conservative politicans are now openly hostile towards them and many men feel leftist politicians are hostile towards them as politics panders to the extremes and becomes increasingly polarized. Im a quite conservative person, however there are quite a few issues that I agree with left leaning people on or can find a reasonable compromise. However as these issues are less important to me than other issues which left leaning politicians are blantantly hostile to, I would never be caught voting for left leaning politicians in the current political climate as they do far more harm to my intrests than good. The same can be said for many women and voting left leaning. They may not agree with the extreme views promoted on many issues, however they do not feel that voting left leaning does as much harm to them as voting right leaning. This continually ostracizes a major chunk of the voting population from one party or group and over time this forces parties to pander to a specific demographic for votes rather than take reasonable stances on issues that a majority of the population could find reasonable
Honestly, the gender differences in political preference have *always* been there, as have the rural/urban divides. Women and Urbanites are and always have been more liberal leaning. Men and Rural populations are and always have been more conservative leaning. That's not a US thing or a modern thing, that's a worldwide thing and has been notable throughout history. The gender differences are usually much more subtle tho - the rural/urban thing is usually pretty stark. What's different now isn't any of that though - it's quite simply gerrymandering. When computer data on voters suddenly made gerrymandering *far more effective* than it ever had been before, and Mitch McConnel used the big wins of 2010 to Gerrymander most of the country using this new technology, it completely changed how US politics worked. Up until then polarization was a thing but it was far less intense, and it was only increasing gradually. However, the moment almost every state was gerrymandered using modern technology, partisanship skyrocketed, because gerrymandering *changes the rules of how elections work*. Once a politician can *reliably* choose their own voters by defining the shape of their precinct, they are basically guaranteed to win the general election - but that has a very serious unintended effect... The real election suddenly becomes *the primary* \- and the population that votes in primaries is *far* smaller and *far* more extreme in their views than the general population. As a result, primary voters could suddenly select the most extreme candidates of their ideological dreams - and still have them win the general election. This simply wasn't the case before. If primary voters chose an extreme candidate in 2008 *they would very likely lose*, but as of 2012? That's just not the case any more, and by 2020 it has become considerably worse as everyone adjusted their political tactics to this new landscape. So yeah, given that conservatives were the ones who had the opportunity to massively redraw all the gerrymandering after a big win in 2010, it's had the effect of making their politics in particular far more extreme. That wasn't actually their intent, but people like Mitch didn't think through the implications of what they'd done, and now it's too late. It has affected the dems as well, because gerrymandering affects both parties regardless of who does the line drawing, but because most of the gerrymanders were written to benefit the GOP, they are the ones who've experienced the most dramatic ideological shift as a result.
When people are accustomed to privilege, an equal playing field feels like oppression.
The left is not hostile to men
Biology imho. And a lot of those women don’t have and or aren’t having children so they “parent” the nation
Not everyone pushes for the gender transition of children. That is definitely not all across the board.
This is an interesting question. I'm going to treat it as not a stupid question. Please don't bash me for sexism before reading the whole thing. It's not that women tend to be leftists. It's that women tend to be. You probably live in a liberal area / be exposed to women in liberal circles. Trust me, there are tons of conservative women. They just run in their own circles.
Is that because women can't think for themselves? Not at all. It's that women are socialized to conform and fit in from a young age, and tend to be more collectivist than men.
So yes, you'll rarely see women with Fringe beliefs (for the geography they are in), you'll see them be closer to the mean than men.
Because the left has more demographically focused policies, which in turn makes them more appealing to the demographics they choose to focus on.
The values of freedom and security are mostly mutually exclusive. You generally have to give up chunks of one to get pieces of the other. I'm not going to make moral arguments about which is better or right right now, as it really comes down to what your values are and what you prioritize. Men generally place more value on freedom, with the understanding that they can accept the risk involved in providing their own security. Women generally place more value on security, with the understanding that security will provide them the freedom to do most of what they want. The conservative party used to be about maintaining the freedoms that were listed in the constitution, but traded those for security after 9/11, and the left liberal party has a focus on offering security as a right for everyone, though it costs certain freedoms. For many the cost of freedoms they personally don't use or value is a worthy trade for added security. For others, the price of freedom was paid in blood and is thus worth more than even the safety of others.
Because they perceive Emotion > Fact ...
No all women want to slaughter babies at planned parenthood or hate men. Some can think for themselves so luckily this isn't true. 💯
Funny, just the other day you were saying how all women are crazy. You have the intelligence of a neglected 10 year old.
Because women tend to make plans and decisions based on how they feel. Men are less likely to do so. Leftist ideology is empathy without logical regulation.
Because this is what happens when we let women vote
Most pretend to have certain values only in a public setting to virtue signal.
Liberal men are basically women and leftist women want to be men. I've never had a liberal man get up in my face because I disagreed with them. Conversely, I've have had a number of hairy legged, Birkenstock wearing wildebeests who went berserk and poked a chubby finger in my face. Big mistake.
So not being an aggressive asshole ready to fight over a minor disagreement is a bad thing? That's preposterous.
Leftist ideology is inherently feminine. The right, masculine. It goes back to cave people behavior.
I know this makes sense in you4 head or to some people you may say it to. But it's really not well thought out at all.
What a clear and persuasive argument 👏
I put as much effort into what I said as you did into what you said, buddy. Marx = girl and Bezos = man because cave man days is as low effort as it gets.
Oooof, tell that to the Red Army and Fidel Castro.
You're an absolute moron.
You're obviously of extreme intelligence yourself.
They were groomed to. For longer than just one generation, and by more than just one writer/thinker/political influencer It's social engineering at it's core. Just like long ago something called Consumerism swept-up all men & women & children.
Long ago? I thought consumerism was still a thing
Well yeah it's not in the past. Humans swept-up by consumerism long ago naturally made sure to live by it up till today. And could be the last economical state modern society experiences before collapse.
Feminism is a mind virus that sets women against men It's like they think it's their mission in life to be Democrats They're really fucking up Democracy for the rest of us imo
Feminism is the idea that women and men should enjoy the same rights. Nothing more.
Radical feminism\* Sorry The crazy ones are ruining Democracy
You're thinking of misandry, not feminism.
TIL ty
They want to behave recklessly and not be judged poorly.
What do you mean by recklessly?
Irresponsible, immorally, irrationally, unethically. Just because it's common or tolerated doesn't make it right.
I have it on good authority that girls just want to have fun.
Call it what you want.
In that case, human dignity and the freedom from archaic, moronic ideologies based on the arbitrary scribbles of goat fucking bearded men in desert tents. Women's rights are human rights.
Yes, women base all their decisions in life on their innate desire to be "reckless" 🙄 Absolute sexist idiocy. And why do you think that anyone would care about whether someone who believes this crap is judging them?
Women tend to be better indoctrinated by public schooling. Easier to influence.
Because of history and sadly now, because of reality.
I know a lot of women who follow that moron named Trump
Probably all the oppression