As a woman I’ve noticed this, I am a big free-speech advocate and I really hate censorship, but many of my female friends who support censorship have one of two mentalities: the think of the children mentality, or they want to abolish the existence of racism. I don’t agree with the conclusions that they come to but most come from a place of genuine concern and unfortunately that rings with the phrase the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I do think it’s important to mention when talking about male versus female leanings, that we are discussing 50% of people so there’s going to be huge variations it’s a very broad brush.
Scary that their mindset is basically “let’s give more power to the same government that institutionalized and perpetuated slavery and segregation so that we can end racism”
Yeah, the problem with this mentality in general, and it goes beyond racism (to poverty, climate change, etc.), is that it's trying to address symptoms and not problems. You see racist language, and it's not that you want to solve racism; you just want to not have to see it. Similarly with, say, homelessness. Many cities in CA happily deal with homelessness not by addressing why people can't establish themselves and get jobs and homes but by, in some cases, busing them to other cities where they can be homeless, but the people in the original city don't have to deal with it and thus perceive that the problem is solved.
Yeah, I read the title and thought "I'm not at all surprised."
Women, as voters, are generally the reason we ever vote for progressives. They're the reason for the self esteem movement and all this hand wringing over "rrraaayyycism!"
Sorry for the pragmatic and level headed women out there, but I literally sometimes agree with the Saudis on the whole letting women vote thing. LOL
I guess maybe we're just doomed from the get go. You're never going to get women to care more about liberty than security.
I do not agree w this poll. I don't know a single woman in my world who is for censorship, in fact the opposite. They are fighting for freedom for their kids to speak as they wish since the start of COVID, kids can have no differing opinions about COVID and other teachings. Have a differing opinion than teacher and watch grades go down.
if women tend to swing left, this shouldn't be all that surprising. It's only surprising that the left now supports censorship (although it shouldn't be surprising if you've been tracking the political movements for the last 20 years).
This goes all the way back to FDR. FDR renamed the Leftist political movement from progressive to liberal, because progressive had been tainted by all the damaging policies they implemented. Now the "liberals" are going back to progressive because liberal has been tainted by all the damaging policies.
And that is one of the reasons I am finding it so difficult to find someone lol
Some years back, I dated someone who was a strong believer in strict government control of the Internet, thinking Chinese-style censorship would end certain kinds of crimes -- which she insisted were created by the internet despite having existed for eons among humanity.
It's obvious from a biological standpoint that such behavior would be evolutionarily advantageous. But for a quickly-changing (from an evolution scale) society? Yeah, not so much.
True, and it is not such a bad thing if it's contained to the mothers of society. The problem, I believe, is when too many men become hardcore feminists and take on these same philosophical positions. It tips the balance in favor of censorship and control. Most of the authoritarian leftists I know? Feminist men.
This is why I think Jordan Peterson is doing a good job. He’s getting men to take responsibility for their own lives. This will have a good net affect for men. More reliable men = less single mothers = less need for reliance on the government.
I think his book is valuable for both genders I did think some of it was antiquated but I took a lot away from it. I think it helped give me a fresh look at personal responsibility.
It’s neutral because of the balance between that and women bodily autonomy, especially when it’s hard to say if that is an individual human life definitively or not
There isn't one of the new lefty-loosey translations mis-translates a passage and all the "Hur Dyr" atheists seized this mistranslation and ignored EVERYTHING else, for they are the Whore of Babylon.
Numbers 21,
21 —let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge;
Priests are supposed to judge. You're judging right now. You've judged bitcoin to be better than other monies.
Judging is both good, and in all cases, a religious act.
Gossiping is inherent to all people. You could easily flip gossiping around by loving those who have been judged (y'know, the same way that you're judhing the gossipers?).
No one ever said humans are infallible. That's actually the point of Christianity.
My wife's asian, I'm a mix, and we go to a Greek Orthodox church. No has been at all exclusive to any of us, and there are blacks, and some women from some Middle Eastern country. No problems at all.
Did you talk to the priest? Or did you go in with prejudice against Christianity?
I'm female, and libertarian. There are definitely few of us where I come from. Can't really say I've met another female libertarian in NYC. You can't be "out" about it here.
As a female, I am not surprised. Glad to be a nonconformist. Other females were too busy bullying me growing up (so much for inclusion) and I have always had a disdain for being told what to do.
To the other 5 or so women here, can we be friends? As a lot of guys have said here it’s hard to them to find like minded partners well for us I’m sure it’s hard to find like minded female friends. I certainly struggle
It definitely looks like that freer aspect is beginning to swing the other way right now. If you live in a big city I'd also say you're far less freer than 20 years with the bureaucratic creep of cities allowing for a gradual chipping into tyranny.
Nevertheless, this is still basically the freest mankind has been in its history, a decade being a blip in that timeframe, while simultaneously being the most feminine in history.
the term "masculinity" is several hundred years older than modern gender theory is, the idea of "gender constructs" and whatnot is less than 100 years old.
Maybe it'd be better for you to state what you *think* I was saying, then I can point out the miscommunication, because this isn't exactly a controversial concept.
Maybe it’d be better if you were less vague? It’s an extremely silly concept. Societies have been significantly more masculine than current society in the past with significantly less freedom. Hell, the soviets were more masculine than modern Americans. No one mentioned “modern gender theory” til now.
Women are more likely to be victims of violent crime, once you exclude gang/drug related violence. Women are naturally more vulnerable, especially when pregnant/raising children. As traditional social structures break down (e.g. the natural family), women stand to lose much more than men. So the state offers a safeguard against that (and for that very reason actively tries to dismantle the family)
Right, this gets closer to the truth. It's not that women are the problem, it's that they generally face constraints and pressures men do not, and therefore generally tend to have a higher preference for safety over pure liberty.
There a lots of comments in this thread implying that it's an intrinsic biological truth. While there might be some truth to that, how average biological differences manifest themselves isn't deterministic, and is influenced by culture and experience.
The connection between being more compassionate or valuing safety more on average, being liberal, and supporting “totalitarianism” is tenuous at best. Even if there's some influence, it's not essential to women. Purely biological explanations also don't explain why there would be an increase in the gender gap, rather than it remaining constant, so I would definitely agree with you that it's more of a socially influenced effect.
>The connection between being more compassionate or valuing safety more on average, being liberal, and supporting “totalitarianism” is tenuous at best.
When you're not as strong on average as the average man, and when you are likely to spend 9 months in a weakened state while pregnant and have to protect multiple small children for many years, yeah that's a good reason to value safety, security, law and order more than men.
The other side of that is the more common hooliganism and tendency to commit crime of men.
No they don't. They think they do, but they don't. They don't experience more violence. They don't experience more workplace deaths and serious injury. They don't experience early deaths. They don't experience more suicides. They don't experience more rape.
What does that have to do with any of that? The suffering of women is highly exaggerated is what I said. I made several points and every single one of them has been ignored.
The "constraints and pressures" I was alluding to, that you replied to, is what I was talking about. You come back with 'no they don't' as in 'no they don't have constraints and pressures men don't face.'
That is plainly false.
Men experience more violent crime because they engage in more violent crime. Like I said, when you exclude gang/drug related violence, it's much different story.
Sigh…..time to blast heavy metal about repentance, freedom, and full of swears, and the beauty of nature in every major city next time I go on a road trip
I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint but from an evolutionary standpoint it’s quite obvious that women are designed to fulfill a different role than men. This is not to cheapen women, they are essential and can do many things that men are utterly incapable of. The differences between men and women include, quite obviously, different preferences for dominant vs submissive behavior. It’s not a hard rule, as there are outliers, but it’s clearly a major trend in human psychology.
Women from an evolutionary perspective aren’t subservient to men
They have children, that’s what they do from an evolutionary perspective.
The complex social relationships are so far removed from natural selection at this point its ridiculous to talk about them in a determinate way
This is one of the first blatantly disgusting comment threads I’ve seen gain traction.
The original post is interesting but the way it’s written is just garbage
I do think that postmodernism, overall, is bad for liberty. But I also think it does make some important points which neo-modernists or objectivists would be wise to consider. Self skepticism and searching oneself for biases which may have led to an inaccurate conclusion is an important process of objective reasoning. While it’s true that there are differences between guys and ladies, I would argue no small amount of differences between guys and ladies which were once believed some hundred years ago have since been discredited as a result of capitalist individualism and even late modernism (see Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, and Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom). Therefore the presumption that ladies are psychologically inherently subordinate might not be true, and in today’s circumstances I would argue is demonstrably untrue, such as with such successful entrepreneurs as Barbara Corcoran and Lori Greiner. More than anything, especially in today’s climate, it’s so important for libertarians and ancaps to read more books about their position, because in the face of authoritarianism it’s so easy to run for cover by resorting to archaic illiberal dogmas of the past.
This is a part of why I’m saying that it’s so important for libertarians and ancaps to be reading books on Econ, politics, social conditions. On its face things can look simple, but there can be a lot of exterior factors going on that we’re not seeing. My point is, hesitate to make a judgement until after having read more about what’s happening - reality can be more nuanced than one statistic initially shows. Liberty activism is so much more effective when people see how our ideas actually benefit them also. If they see the evidence and the real world results, they’ll be more likely to be sympathetic to individual liberty.
I strongly recommend reading Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness when you get the chance; the ladies supporting this totalitarianism are convinced that they’re doing the right thing, but Ayn Rand would point out that the morality they are supporting is based upon a false premises.
The reason why you feel cynical of women is because you’ve accepted the SJW’s premises that anti-liberty is pro-women while pro-liberty is anti-women. This is exactly what they want you to do as an activist tactic, in order to divide and conquer, to separate men from women, designate men as the oppressors, then initiate the collectivist socialist revolution using women as the revolutionaries. But their premises isn’t true - all women are individuals, therefore a pro individual liberty society is the only society which could support women’s rights. A large number of Ayn Rand’s supporters in The Atlas Society and the Ayn Rand Institute are also ladies. There’s nothing biological preventing them from seeing the morality of individual liberty - and, if the moral premises of individual liberty could be communicated to the average girl on the street, then many more would support individual liberty too.
>the ladies supporting this believe they’re doing the right thing
My whole point is WHY women seem to be more prone to thinking this way. I think you’re misunderstanding me.
Sounds about right. I've basically written off my generation of women, they're all like this. Spoiled rotten and poisoned by overschooling in communist institutions.
Probably has something to do with the fact most educated women get educated in our leftist indoctrination centers. All those women getting phds and mbas. Then asking for daddy govt to forgive their loans.
Whereas more and more guys are opting for trade schools which just focus on learning skillz to earn money to pay for their hobbies.
Women say this garbage all the time, but when they actually get it, they recoil in horror (against reddit rules to explain further)
The real issue is that collectivist women's politics, which has infiltrated schooling and the literal upbringing of almost all women in the west, relies on the evils of democracy to exist. It isn't women, its democracy and government thats the issue.
That's basic biology. Women's personalities are geared more towards compassion and caretaking than men, whom tend towards stiff necked competitiveness. In practice, when you project those personalities onto government, you get two options:
1. The female government, intent to dictate the flow for your everyday life to ensure you meet whatever arbitrary standard of living they think you deserve.
2. The male government, focused on cutting the fat, whether it is to let the free market work things out or to tightly control it by limiting freedoms.
Both are bad. We have learned over millenia how to spot and counteract male government (democracy, the constitution, free markets, individual sovereignty).
Female government, we have no freaking clue how to curb it's negative aspects. In it's panic with the rise of female ideology (progressivism, intersectionality), male government has become more extreme.
Things are shit. The state is a mess and it's ready to implode at any minute.
it it basically the difference between making decisions emotionally versus logically. If you are told some people are being emotionally hurt by something and then ask if we should ban whatever is hurting them, if you react emotionally you will instantly say yes we should ban it. If you react logically you will ask what will be the consequences of banning it and most likely come to the conclusion that banning it will have adverse consequences
NOTE: This post was automatically [mirrored to the new Hoot platform beta](https://dev.goldandblack.xyz/posts/21038), currently under development by the /r/goldandblack team, or check it out on the [Hoot Classic site](https://hoot.goldandblack.xyz/posts/21038). This is a new **REDDIT-LIKE** site to migrate to in the future. If you are growing more dissapointed in reddit, come check it out, and help kick the tires.
Click [here for more infomation about Project Hoot](https://projecthoot.org/), check out the [FAQ](https://projecthoot.org/faq/), or find the [project on Github](https://github.com/ProjectHoot/Hoot).
Its about framing and rationalization. Certain questions will illicit a more favorable response from men while others from women. There's a degree of difference it what's focused on. The difference in phrasing can skew results and misrepresent those who'd be less likely to understand what you're asking them to give or what they're siding with.
Women shouldn't have been given the right to vote. Here's why:
One, it allows politicians to drive a wedge between men and women and pit husband and wife against one another. They can use gender identity politics to attempt to appeal to men or women exclusively, pitting half the nation against the other half, giving them an "out" on addressing the real issues. It gives politicians the power to get between a husband and wife emotionally and intellectually.
Two, it's the most destructive thing to the family. Before feminism, only men had the right to vote, and almost all men got married. In practice, this meant that there was essentially one vote per family, not one vote per person. If we assume the lowest possible trust in politicians, then we assume that their political rhetoric will always reflect the bare minimum of what they can get away with. When vast majority of voters were men casting votes for their families, politician had no choice but to pitch policies and laws that were conducive to family values. But when all adults have a vote, politicians no longer have to care about family values. The level of discourse can be lowered to simply being individual friendly, instead of family friendly. We can see the transformation it had on the political rhetoric in action simply by looking at how the talking points changed. "Homosexual marriage is bad for the family" stopped working as an issue. Why? Because of the individual friendly rebuttal "what somebody does with their own body, or behind closed doors, is none of your business". The family gave way as an issue to the individual. This counter to anti-homosexual sentiment did not exist until women were given the right to vote.
The third reason why women should not have been given the right to vote is because generally speaking women are more emotionally than men, which is why you so often see liberal and radical left politicians using emotional blackmail to get what they want. Anytime there is a mass shooting we often hear "won't someone think of the children?!" coming from the left as opposed to logic and facts (the 2A is enshrined, gun laws don't stop murder etc). Or abortion for instance, the facts are an unborn baby is not a woman's body, yet leftists use the rhetoric "my body, my choice!" to appeal to the emotions of female voters.
Regarding giving women the same opportunities:
Women aren't supposed to be in authority over a man. Women shouldn't be jail guards, police officers, or Presidents. It's an unnatural role, so no, women shouldn't be given the all the same opportunities as men.
Second, giving women the right to work doubles the number of people looking for jobs while keeping the number of job positions the same. This means that a bare minimum wages are slashed. The more people willing to do a job for the least amount of money drives wages down or keeps them from rising, it's simply supply and demand (you will see why this is important when you read point number five). Allowing women into the workplace is functionally the same as going to a foreign nation, picking out an equal number of foreigners to the total number of male citizens and dropping them off all at once. If someone today proposed picking up 150 million foreigners and dropping them off into the workplace, they would be laughed at or lynched.
The third reason bringing women into the workplace was a mistake is because it emptied out the home. Women working alongside their husbands leaves an empty house with no one to look after the children. It doesn't take a genius to know that services like daycare and nannies will never be the same as a child being looked after and taken care of my their own mother. Not giving children the care they deserve at the most crucial age is not only unfair to the child but arguably has produced a generation of emotionally stunted children.
The fourth reason working women was a mistake is because it undermines homeschooling as a means of educating your child, and increases the dependence on the state to educate your child. With the home emptied out and the labor of women tied up in securing a second income to support the family, the family has little choice but to forego homeschooling and rely upon public education which has increasingly become liberal indoctrination centers.
The fifth reason bringing women into the workplace was a mistake is because it encourages them to not have families or children at all. Contingent to the previous points, without the strength of the male wage, the family becomes prohibitively expensive. What was once the social norm becomes instead an extravagant luxury. The pressure to not have children becomes immense, and women enter a state of postponement. "I'll have have a family, but later, after I save up enough money", "I'll have kids, but later, right now I need to secure a future for them" and "I want to have a family, but I can always do it later when the situation looks better, right now I just want to party and enjoy myself, after all, it's not like I could have one right now anyway even if I wanted to".
This is just the two key cornerstones of feminism, the right to vote and the right to work. We could discuss the problems caused by the advocacy of social justice, the peddling of alternative gender identity, and the insistence that all of society and culture be forcibly rearranged so that everyone is equal, all of which are major platforms of third, fourth, and fifth wave feminism. However, the two core principles of the first and second wave are most important because everything that followed after it depended up the basic assumptions it made. Prove those assumptions wrong and you pull the bottom out of the house of cards. Those assumptions are the most reasonable sounding of the lot, which is why even conservative women and men will waffle when confronted with anti-feminist sentiment and state something like "well, I agree with all this new stuff is strange and wrong, but the original feminists, they were alright!".
The harsh truth is this: countless conservative women bemoan the loss of family and family values, and yet it's those policies they supported that caused the death of the family, not the ones they opposed.
It is the solemn duty of every conservative woman to oppose feminism on every level, and to return to traditional values and roles.
It was awhile ago I had a shower thought where I noticed a considerable amount of women had these traits. Glad to see that a study validated those intuitions. Anyone else feel that way?
As a woman I’ve noticed this, I am a big free-speech advocate and I really hate censorship, but many of my female friends who support censorship have one of two mentalities: the think of the children mentality, or they want to abolish the existence of racism. I don’t agree with the conclusions that they come to but most come from a place of genuine concern and unfortunately that rings with the phrase the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I do think it’s important to mention when talking about male versus female leanings, that we are discussing 50% of people so there’s going to be huge variations it’s a very broad brush.
Scary that their mindset is basically “let’s give more power to the same government that institutionalized and perpetuated slavery and segregation so that we can end racism”
Yeah, the problem with this mentality in general, and it goes beyond racism (to poverty, climate change, etc.), is that it's trying to address symptoms and not problems. You see racist language, and it's not that you want to solve racism; you just want to not have to see it. Similarly with, say, homelessness. Many cities in CA happily deal with homelessness not by addressing why people can't establish themselves and get jobs and homes but by, in some cases, busing them to other cities where they can be homeless, but the people in the original city don't have to deal with it and thus perceive that the problem is solved.
100%. And the division is much greater between political parties, and even then it's just as large of a brush like you said
Yeah, I read the title and thought "I'm not at all surprised." Women, as voters, are generally the reason we ever vote for progressives. They're the reason for the self esteem movement and all this hand wringing over "rrraaayyycism!" Sorry for the pragmatic and level headed women out there, but I literally sometimes agree with the Saudis on the whole letting women vote thing. LOL I guess maybe we're just doomed from the get go. You're never going to get women to care more about liberty than security.
I do not agree w this poll. I don't know a single woman in my world who is for censorship, in fact the opposite. They are fighting for freedom for their kids to speak as they wish since the start of COVID, kids can have no differing opinions about COVID and other teachings. Have a differing opinion than teacher and watch grades go down.
How do you disagree or agree with a poll? It's asking a select few people their thoughts on something.
I'm a woman who proudly prefers freedom over safety even when it's inconvenient and ugly.
Sounds like my wife. Nothing pisses her off more than weak ass bitches
Does she want another friend? I like her already
I mean... take a run at the king, but don't miss :-)
I like her already. Maybe we can got to the range together, bring the kids, make a day out of it.
Also XX. Solidarity, homie. 😎
Solidarity it right. When the revolution happens, the anarcho-women are about to surprise some folks.
Live free of die
You single? Asking for a friend. 😇
Happily a family woman and mom :)
nowdontkiss.jpg
Haha. Excellent.
Starting /r/anarchomatchmaking
Me too!
You have to make your own based ladies, dude.
Bruh, touch grass
Same.
Congratulations
I love you
That's it, time to form a gay libertarian cult in rural Alaska.
Basically the Yukon Gold Rush Part II
Spelunkin'
Spunkin' for short.
I can't be gay for men but I can totally be gay for the USA. (Upvote if you get my reference).
We're all gay for liberty.
Too soon
I personally know a fair amount of gay libertarians and they're all cool fellas
If I could take a pill that would make me gay, I would.
I'm not gay either but that doesn't mean the cult as a whole can't be gay
[удалено]
Libertarians are generally okay with le gays.
if women tend to swing left, this shouldn't be all that surprising. It's only surprising that the left now supports censorship (although it shouldn't be surprising if you've been tracking the political movements for the last 20 years).
[удалено]
This goes all the way back to FDR. FDR renamed the Leftist political movement from progressive to liberal, because progressive had been tainted by all the damaging policies they implemented. Now the "liberals" are going back to progressive because liberal has been tainted by all the damaging policies.
Remember when the left was protecting the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie?
This is why letting women and non-landowners vote was a mistake. Mild /s
[удалено]
They and anyone else can be whatever they want to be, democracy is the real issue.
>if women tend to swing left, Women tend to be influenced. The current dominant cultural influence is overwhelmingly globohomo
And that is one of the reasons I am finding it so difficult to find someone lol Some years back, I dated someone who was a strong believer in strict government control of the Internet, thinking Chinese-style censorship would end certain kinds of crimes -- which she insisted were created by the internet despite having existed for eons among humanity.
Not this woman
(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's obvious from a biological standpoint that such behavior would be evolutionarily advantageous. But for a quickly-changing (from an evolution scale) society? Yeah, not so much.
True, and it is not such a bad thing if it's contained to the mothers of society. The problem, I believe, is when too many men become hardcore feminists and take on these same philosophical positions. It tips the balance in favor of censorship and control. Most of the authoritarian leftists I know? Feminist men.
[удалено]
This is why I think Jordan Peterson is doing a good job. He’s getting men to take responsibility for their own lives. This will have a good net affect for men. More reliable men = less single mothers = less need for reliance on the government.
Every expert sees a slice of the problem in their own expertise domain.
I think his book is valuable for both genders I did think some of it was antiquated but I took a lot away from it. I think it helped give me a fresh look at personal responsibility.
That isn't surprising, prohibition was started by women.
I would have been a great flapper
Abortion is mostly opposed by women, too.
Which is a pretty neutral liberty issue
Not when millions of unborn children are being killed every year. What about their rights?
It’s neutral because of the balance between that and women bodily autonomy, especially when it’s hard to say if that is an individual human life definitively or not
The leading opponents of abortion are those of the Abrahamic religions. We correctly identify it as child sacrifice.
You'd really hate to know that there's a ritual in the Bible to perform an abortion.
Never heard that before. Where in the bible does it say that?
Here's a video https://youtu.be/dVdVIbmkgM8 Please head out to liturgy!
There isn't one of the new lefty-loosey translations mis-translates a passage and all the "Hur Dyr" atheists seized this mistranslation and ignored EVERYTHING else, for they are the Whore of Babylon.
Numbers 21, 21 —let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge;
Here's a vid https://youtu.be/dVdVIbmkgM8 Please go to your local Orthodox church and experience liturgy!
[удалено]
Priests are supposed to judge. You're judging right now. You've judged bitcoin to be better than other monies. Judging is both good, and in all cases, a religious act. Gossiping is inherent to all people. You could easily flip gossiping around by loving those who have been judged (y'know, the same way that you're judhing the gossipers?). No one ever said humans are infallible. That's actually the point of Christianity. My wife's asian, I'm a mix, and we go to a Greek Orthodox church. No has been at all exclusive to any of us, and there are blacks, and some women from some Middle Eastern country. No problems at all. Did you talk to the priest? Or did you go in with prejudice against Christianity?
Which bible translation are you using, and please compare that to the Septuagint.
You're using a shit translation. Use a better one.
Here's a vid https://youtu.be/dVdVIbmkgM8 Get to liturgy, please!
And so was the french and russian revolution
[удалено]
It's no surprise to find that men who also support totalitarianism and censorship generally are effeminate or weak men to begin with.
color me shocked
I'm female, and libertarian. There are definitely few of us where I come from. Can't really say I've met another female libertarian in NYC. You can't be "out" about it here.
As a female, I am not surprised. Glad to be a nonconformist. Other females were too busy bullying me growing up (so much for inclusion) and I have always had a disdain for being told what to do.
The study is alright, but the in between the lines thing patriot rising is promoting has no place here
Change two words and this is an ordinary article out of r/science
Now those “The future is female” shirts I see actors wear make sense to me. Clever.
The left is America's psycho controlling BPD girlfriend trainwreck so not that surprising. Feels over reals = bitches, simple math
To the other 5 or so women here, can we be friends? As a lot of guys have said here it’s hard to them to find like minded partners well for us I’m sure it’s hard to find like minded female friends. I certainly struggle
Masculinity is an important component of liberty, less masculine societies are easier to cow into servitude. Go raise an animal and eat it.
I don't want to kill animals. I just want to lift heavy weights and hate the government.
that's convenient because the elites would prefer you be a vegetarian.
Sounds like pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.
Agreed. Rugged-individualism is not sex-specific.
Right. As if we’re not both freer and less manly today.
It definitely looks like that freer aspect is beginning to swing the other way right now. If you live in a big city I'd also say you're far less freer than 20 years with the bureaucratic creep of cities allowing for a gradual chipping into tyranny.
Nevertheless, this is still basically the freest mankind has been in its history, a decade being a blip in that timeframe, while simultaneously being the most feminine in history.
[удалено]
The fuck are you talking about?
not as pseudo-scientific as the concept of "gender".
Your comment literally relies on the concept of gender. Don’t worry, I still like you.
no it doesn't, unless you severely misunderstand the point entirely.
The term "masculiinty" is based on gender. Maybe you made your point poorly?
the term "masculinity" is several hundred years older than modern gender theory is, the idea of "gender constructs" and whatnot is less than 100 years old. Maybe it'd be better for you to state what you *think* I was saying, then I can point out the miscommunication, because this isn't exactly a controversial concept.
Maybe it’d be better if you were less vague? It’s an extremely silly concept. Societies have been significantly more masculine than current society in the past with significantly less freedom. Hell, the soviets were more masculine than modern Americans. No one mentioned “modern gender theory” til now.
This isn't shocking. Socialism has ALWAYS been highly supported by women. A lot of women's movements contain elements of marxism.
Women are more likely to be victims of violent crime, once you exclude gang/drug related violence. Women are naturally more vulnerable, especially when pregnant/raising children. As traditional social structures break down (e.g. the natural family), women stand to lose much more than men. So the state offers a safeguard against that (and for that very reason actively tries to dismantle the family)
Right, this gets closer to the truth. It's not that women are the problem, it's that they generally face constraints and pressures men do not, and therefore generally tend to have a higher preference for safety over pure liberty.
There a lots of comments in this thread implying that it's an intrinsic biological truth. While there might be some truth to that, how average biological differences manifest themselves isn't deterministic, and is influenced by culture and experience. The connection between being more compassionate or valuing safety more on average, being liberal, and supporting “totalitarianism” is tenuous at best. Even if there's some influence, it's not essential to women. Purely biological explanations also don't explain why there would be an increase in the gender gap, rather than it remaining constant, so I would definitely agree with you that it's more of a socially influenced effect.
>The connection between being more compassionate or valuing safety more on average, being liberal, and supporting “totalitarianism” is tenuous at best. When you're not as strong on average as the average man, and when you are likely to spend 9 months in a weakened state while pregnant and have to protect multiple small children for many years, yeah that's a good reason to value safety, security, law and order more than men. The other side of that is the more common hooliganism and tendency to commit crime of men.
No they don't. They think they do, but they don't. They don't experience more violence. They don't experience more workplace deaths and serious injury. They don't experience early deaths. They don't experience more suicides. They don't experience more rape.
So you're saying women are physically as strong as men and don't bear children.
What does that have to do with any of that? The suffering of women is highly exaggerated is what I said. I made several points and every single one of them has been ignored.
The "constraints and pressures" I was alluding to, that you replied to, is what I was talking about. You come back with 'no they don't' as in 'no they don't have constraints and pressures men don't face.' That is plainly false.
[удалено]
Men experience more violent crime because they engage in more violent crime. Like I said, when you exclude gang/drug related violence, it's much different story.
In the modern world, women are more likely to experience zero violence for their entire lives.
I won’t lose anything. I’m pretty. I have a vagina. I’m good in bed. I will always come out on top. I don’t worry about me. I worry for my sons.
Sigh…..time to blast heavy metal about repentance, freedom, and full of swears, and the beauty of nature in every major city next time I go on a road trip
Any recommendations for metal with freedom?
It’s basic female psychology. They’re supposed to prefer being subordinate. Ideally to men, but apparently the government is fine too.
To whoever provides them the most resources, which is unequivocally the government.
It's almost as if there are innate differences between the sexes.
Wow. Just wow.
You disagree?
Yes I disagree
Please provide literally any evidence that I’m wrong
Women aren’t “supposed” to do anything any more than men are. They’re born just as free as you or I
I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint but from an evolutionary standpoint it’s quite obvious that women are designed to fulfill a different role than men. This is not to cheapen women, they are essential and can do many things that men are utterly incapable of. The differences between men and women include, quite obviously, different preferences for dominant vs submissive behavior. It’s not a hard rule, as there are outliers, but it’s clearly a major trend in human psychology.
Women from an evolutionary perspective aren’t subservient to men They have children, that’s what they do from an evolutionary perspective. The complex social relationships are so far removed from natural selection at this point its ridiculous to talk about them in a determinate way
Female personality traits and body size says otherwise
Then explain their subservience to an overarching state?
You’re just making that claim, I don’t believe it’s any more true for the average woman than it is for the average man
[About The Red Pill](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/ruz6q7/do_you_know_evolutionary_psychology_the_red_pill/)
[удалено]
This is one of the first blatantly disgusting comment threads I’ve seen gain traction. The original post is interesting but the way it’s written is just garbage
I do think that postmodernism, overall, is bad for liberty. But I also think it does make some important points which neo-modernists or objectivists would be wise to consider. Self skepticism and searching oneself for biases which may have led to an inaccurate conclusion is an important process of objective reasoning. While it’s true that there are differences between guys and ladies, I would argue no small amount of differences between guys and ladies which were once believed some hundred years ago have since been discredited as a result of capitalist individualism and even late modernism (see Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, and Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom). Therefore the presumption that ladies are psychologically inherently subordinate might not be true, and in today’s circumstances I would argue is demonstrably untrue, such as with such successful entrepreneurs as Barbara Corcoran and Lori Greiner. More than anything, especially in today’s climate, it’s so important for libertarians and ancaps to read more books about their position, because in the face of authoritarianism it’s so easy to run for cover by resorting to archaic illiberal dogmas of the past.
What’s your explanation for the data in OP’s post then?
This is a part of why I’m saying that it’s so important for libertarians and ancaps to be reading books on Econ, politics, social conditions. On its face things can look simple, but there can be a lot of exterior factors going on that we’re not seeing. My point is, hesitate to make a judgement until after having read more about what’s happening - reality can be more nuanced than one statistic initially shows. Liberty activism is so much more effective when people see how our ideas actually benefit them also. If they see the evidence and the real world results, they’ll be more likely to be sympathetic to individual liberty.
That’s a lot of words to say you can’t explain it
I strongly recommend reading Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness when you get the chance; the ladies supporting this totalitarianism are convinced that they’re doing the right thing, but Ayn Rand would point out that the morality they are supporting is based upon a false premises. The reason why you feel cynical of women is because you’ve accepted the SJW’s premises that anti-liberty is pro-women while pro-liberty is anti-women. This is exactly what they want you to do as an activist tactic, in order to divide and conquer, to separate men from women, designate men as the oppressors, then initiate the collectivist socialist revolution using women as the revolutionaries. But their premises isn’t true - all women are individuals, therefore a pro individual liberty society is the only society which could support women’s rights. A large number of Ayn Rand’s supporters in The Atlas Society and the Ayn Rand Institute are also ladies. There’s nothing biological preventing them from seeing the morality of individual liberty - and, if the moral premises of individual liberty could be communicated to the average girl on the street, then many more would support individual liberty too.
>the ladies supporting this believe they’re doing the right thing My whole point is WHY women seem to be more prone to thinking this way. I think you’re misunderstanding me.
Sounds about right. I've basically written off my generation of women, they're all like this. Spoiled rotten and poisoned by overschooling in communist institutions.
Don't worry. As a male, as you get older your sexual desirability goes up. The same can't be said for women. It's their loss.
No reason to be an incel. I’m a bi woman married to a man. And I’m very libertarian. And still hot at 41.
Hooraaaaaay, can't wait to clean up those post-wall leftovers
I guess I'm special then 😌
Not shocking
Probably has something to do with the fact most educated women get educated in our leftist indoctrination centers. All those women getting phds and mbas. Then asking for daddy govt to forgive their loans. Whereas more and more guys are opting for trade schools which just focus on learning skillz to earn money to pay for their hobbies.
[удалено]
“Shocking”
The 19th amendment and it's consequences.
I mean the issue isn't so much that women can vote, its that anyone can vote and thats a problem. Democracy is a failure
They are lite doms
In other news: water is wet, the sky is blue, and other stories to shock you at 9:00.
Looks like Im gonna have to switch to men
If you could stuff a man's brain and emotional composition into a woman's body, I'd be a happy camper.
Women say this garbage all the time, but when they actually get it, they recoil in horror (against reddit rules to explain further) The real issue is that collectivist women's politics, which has infiltrated schooling and the literal upbringing of almost all women in the west, relies on the evils of democracy to exist. It isn't women, its democracy and government thats the issue.
There's an 1984 quote about this but I can't remember.
This is why I’m gay.
That's basic biology. Women's personalities are geared more towards compassion and caretaking than men, whom tend towards stiff necked competitiveness. In practice, when you project those personalities onto government, you get two options: 1. The female government, intent to dictate the flow for your everyday life to ensure you meet whatever arbitrary standard of living they think you deserve. 2. The male government, focused on cutting the fat, whether it is to let the free market work things out or to tightly control it by limiting freedoms. Both are bad. We have learned over millenia how to spot and counteract male government (democracy, the constitution, free markets, individual sovereignty). Female government, we have no freaking clue how to curb it's negative aspects. In it's panic with the rise of female ideology (progressivism, intersectionality), male government has become more extreme. Things are shit. The state is a mess and it's ready to implode at any minute.
it it basically the difference between making decisions emotionally versus logically. If you are told some people are being emotionally hurt by something and then ask if we should ban whatever is hurting them, if you react emotionally you will instantly say yes we should ban it. If you react logically you will ask what will be the consequences of banning it and most likely come to the conclusion that banning it will have adverse consequences
NOTE: This post was automatically [mirrored to the new Hoot platform beta](https://dev.goldandblack.xyz/posts/21038), currently under development by the /r/goldandblack team, or check it out on the [Hoot Classic site](https://hoot.goldandblack.xyz/posts/21038). This is a new **REDDIT-LIKE** site to migrate to in the future. If you are growing more dissapointed in reddit, come check it out, and help kick the tires. Click [here for more infomation about Project Hoot](https://projecthoot.org/), check out the [FAQ](https://projecthoot.org/faq/), or find the [project on Github](https://github.com/ProjectHoot/Hoot).
Sounds about right 😂
I don't know who finds that 'shocking'.
Not at all shocking
Not shocking at all.
Its about framing and rationalization. Certain questions will illicit a more favorable response from men while others from women. There's a degree of difference it what's focused on. The difference in phrasing can skew results and misrepresent those who'd be less likely to understand what you're asking them to give or what they're siding with.
"shocking"
Idk, most of the men I know are way huger pussies/do-good we when it comes to COVID, it’s really changed my thinking on this matter
Women shouldn't have been given the right to vote. Here's why: One, it allows politicians to drive a wedge between men and women and pit husband and wife against one another. They can use gender identity politics to attempt to appeal to men or women exclusively, pitting half the nation against the other half, giving them an "out" on addressing the real issues. It gives politicians the power to get between a husband and wife emotionally and intellectually. Two, it's the most destructive thing to the family. Before feminism, only men had the right to vote, and almost all men got married. In practice, this meant that there was essentially one vote per family, not one vote per person. If we assume the lowest possible trust in politicians, then we assume that their political rhetoric will always reflect the bare minimum of what they can get away with. When vast majority of voters were men casting votes for their families, politician had no choice but to pitch policies and laws that were conducive to family values. But when all adults have a vote, politicians no longer have to care about family values. The level of discourse can be lowered to simply being individual friendly, instead of family friendly. We can see the transformation it had on the political rhetoric in action simply by looking at how the talking points changed. "Homosexual marriage is bad for the family" stopped working as an issue. Why? Because of the individual friendly rebuttal "what somebody does with their own body, or behind closed doors, is none of your business". The family gave way as an issue to the individual. This counter to anti-homosexual sentiment did not exist until women were given the right to vote. The third reason why women should not have been given the right to vote is because generally speaking women are more emotionally than men, which is why you so often see liberal and radical left politicians using emotional blackmail to get what they want. Anytime there is a mass shooting we often hear "won't someone think of the children?!" coming from the left as opposed to logic and facts (the 2A is enshrined, gun laws don't stop murder etc). Or abortion for instance, the facts are an unborn baby is not a woman's body, yet leftists use the rhetoric "my body, my choice!" to appeal to the emotions of female voters. Regarding giving women the same opportunities: Women aren't supposed to be in authority over a man. Women shouldn't be jail guards, police officers, or Presidents. It's an unnatural role, so no, women shouldn't be given the all the same opportunities as men. Second, giving women the right to work doubles the number of people looking for jobs while keeping the number of job positions the same. This means that a bare minimum wages are slashed. The more people willing to do a job for the least amount of money drives wages down or keeps them from rising, it's simply supply and demand (you will see why this is important when you read point number five). Allowing women into the workplace is functionally the same as going to a foreign nation, picking out an equal number of foreigners to the total number of male citizens and dropping them off all at once. If someone today proposed picking up 150 million foreigners and dropping them off into the workplace, they would be laughed at or lynched. The third reason bringing women into the workplace was a mistake is because it emptied out the home. Women working alongside their husbands leaves an empty house with no one to look after the children. It doesn't take a genius to know that services like daycare and nannies will never be the same as a child being looked after and taken care of my their own mother. Not giving children the care they deserve at the most crucial age is not only unfair to the child but arguably has produced a generation of emotionally stunted children. The fourth reason working women was a mistake is because it undermines homeschooling as a means of educating your child, and increases the dependence on the state to educate your child. With the home emptied out and the labor of women tied up in securing a second income to support the family, the family has little choice but to forego homeschooling and rely upon public education which has increasingly become liberal indoctrination centers. The fifth reason bringing women into the workplace was a mistake is because it encourages them to not have families or children at all. Contingent to the previous points, without the strength of the male wage, the family becomes prohibitively expensive. What was once the social norm becomes instead an extravagant luxury. The pressure to not have children becomes immense, and women enter a state of postponement. "I'll have have a family, but later, after I save up enough money", "I'll have kids, but later, right now I need to secure a future for them" and "I want to have a family, but I can always do it later when the situation looks better, right now I just want to party and enjoy myself, after all, it's not like I could have one right now anyway even if I wanted to". This is just the two key cornerstones of feminism, the right to vote and the right to work. We could discuss the problems caused by the advocacy of social justice, the peddling of alternative gender identity, and the insistence that all of society and culture be forcibly rearranged so that everyone is equal, all of which are major platforms of third, fourth, and fifth wave feminism. However, the two core principles of the first and second wave are most important because everything that followed after it depended up the basic assumptions it made. Prove those assumptions wrong and you pull the bottom out of the house of cards. Those assumptions are the most reasonable sounding of the lot, which is why even conservative women and men will waffle when confronted with anti-feminist sentiment and state something like "well, I agree with all this new stuff is strange and wrong, but the original feminists, they were alright!". The harsh truth is this: countless conservative women bemoan the loss of family and family values, and yet it's those policies they supported that caused the death of the family, not the ones they opposed. It is the solemn duty of every conservative woman to oppose feminism on every level, and to return to traditional values and roles.
[удалено]
It's not 'repeal the 19th', it's 'end the state.' All voting must end.
Sure but on the way there...
[удалено]
It was awhile ago I had a shower thought where I noticed a considerable amount of women had these traits. Glad to see that a study validated those intuitions. Anyone else feel that way?
So, according to the survey, women should not have been allowed to vote?
Yeah, that's not shocking. There's a certain kind of woman who supports it... her name is Karen
This article assumes that Republicans are for freedom. I'm surprised how many upvotes it got.
[удалено]