~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
thatzombieoverthere
[+][deleted] 7 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 68 points69 points70 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
I’m honestly very torn on this subject lol
The 19th amendment was a mistake.
[–]groverthebread38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
This country's biggest after not picking our own cotton. A close third would be allowing anchor babies. And a not too distant fourth would be allowing the military to be misused as an instrument of social policy.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Anything past the 10th amendmemt was a mistake.
[–]teslaistheshit2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Eh I'm down with adding the 28th amendment: https://www.apnews.com/62a8b65326e2434c91e605c1fa983875
Stated simply, the 28th Amendment would not allow Congress to make any laws that apply to American citizens that don’t apply equally to the members of Congress.
That *might* offset the effect of lobbying.
[–]robharv21 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
13th?
[–]GnuYOW3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This country's biggest after not picking our own cotton.
I've seen this a lot, thought about it quite a bit and agree wholeheartedly, but possibly from a different perspective than some. If blacks were not born into and constantly bombarded with shame (by other blacks) about the slavery of their race, I fully believe the black community would not have the issues it does and their level of success would be just like any other race. The blacks who are in this country would have come here of their own volition just as most others did, ready to make their own destiny, and they would have a different historical, collective understanding about this country. There would be generations of blacks taught that while not everyone starts out with equal chances, hard work and discipline generally lead to success.
But instead every black child is taught that his family was ripped from their homeland by the evil whites, that the whites alive today are just as guilty of this as their ancestors (notwithstanding the fact that actual descendants of slave owners are fairly scarce), and that they will never have a fair chance in racist America. They have an easy excuse (racism) for every little thing that does not go their way, which just further convinces them that the whole country is racist, and they pass that idea on to every future generation. So they give up, live off government benefits or hustle, or think the only success they can achieve is becoming a pro basketball star or rapper with a record deal.
[+][deleted] 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Careful_Description37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
This will change your mind.
Read it all of it. If you can't do that read my summary:
There are two things:
The Vote
Original voters were men but effectively on behalf of the family. Thus the Nation had one vote per family. This worked well because the smallest unit of a Nation is the family and not the individual (uses analogy of molecule as the smallest unit representing a substance).
Feminism gave women the right to vote, thus the vote was split and so was the smallest unit of the Nation. This in turn leads to a split of Men vs Women on the individual level and leaves more avenues for exploitationand abuse.
The Work
Feminism is economically a bad deal. By allowing women to work wherever woman wanted, they just did the modern day equivalent of grabbing 300 million (or insert population of a Nation of your choice) random foreigners and threw them into the field of work. Now there are twice the amount of job seekers yet the number of jobs did not change. BUT they have to hire those foreigners too, so now all those jobs are half the value. Cost of living sky rockets.
Ironically, Feminism wanted this so women can be free to choose to do whatever they want. But now that everything is worse, women are forced to work. Congratulations, you got your 2% affirmative action CEOs but now 80% are slaving away.
[–]RealBiggly15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
There's never been much restriction against women working, more a case of them not needing to. At most they were pushed away from some professions, primarily to protect them, not to hold them back.
In simple homesteading times women had little choice but to work alongside the men.
The really big difference was the industrial revolution, which started in the UK. This created a situation where muscle and size were not relevant for earning a day's wages. And remember this was at a time when most poor people didn't earn ANY wage and at best worked for 'bed and board' (food and housing).
Few realize just how poor the average peasant was before this time.
Suddenly there was nothing stopping a woman from going to work in a factory and earning the same as a man. Indeed even kids could earn actual money.
This created social pressure on women to woman-up and go earn some money. Take a look at pre-civilization societies and you'll see the women do most of the work, not the men, so this was a natural development (and as I'm forever reminding people, civilization is not natural).
As such early feminism was quite the opposite, pushing for women to be spared such indignity, with claims of how they were needed in the 'home sphere' and how the 'work sphere' should be for men.
And yes, even then they demanded that women should be able to work if they wanted to, they just shouldn't be expected to, unlike men whose choices were were full time work or full time work or full time work.
It was only when American socialists offered American women the vote did they suddenly decide they were full-blown communists and were being oppressed by not working in the factories.
They really are their own worst enemy lol.
[–]Teflon081916 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And the perfect candidates to be used as useful idiots.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Excellent read, I will share it with the sub in just a moment.
[–]ScoutSteiner14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My grandmother would often rail against women's suffrage. She said "A woman's right to vote extends to what to make her husband for dinner"
lol, love you gram.
Women like that hardly exist anymore. They built this country. Or at least made it much, much easier for men to build it.
[–]malerevolution6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Women don't operate with sane rational, logical rules, to me it almost seems random what they do. I guess saying they work entirely on emotion is a good way to describe it.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
AFAIK it's their estrogen which heightens emotions.
Our testosterone blunts emotions.
[–]NeverNeverLandIsNow1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank god it does too or we probably would not have survived as a species.
[–]surfingjesus0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Our testosterone blunts emotions
No the fuck it doesn't. Anger is an emotion. Ever wonder why men are more prone to violence? Ever heard of roid rage? The bro science crap on these subs is out of control.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You may want to visit these sites then.
Testosterone affects our ability to connect with other's emotions: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.iflscience.com/brain/testosterone-decreases-ability-feel-empathy-interrupting-brain-networks/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306453016300671
Testosterone affects the way feel about danger: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/biology/how-testosterone-affects-risk-taking-behaviour
Testosterone affects our ability for compassion, tenderness, and love:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/200905/the-testosterone-curse-part-2%3famp
My assertions aren't baseless.
[–]surfingjesus1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
First, psychology is not even a hard science. Second, You are limiting the application of the word “emotion” and stereotypically apply it to what is perceived to be feminine.
Emotion can be all those things plus anger, ambitiousness, despair, impulsiveness, shame/guilt and a range of others testosterone affects, expressed in different ways than women. Instead of a shopping addiction (impulsiveness), a man might choose to gamble. Ambitious men create and explore. Without emotion we are no different than reptiles.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well I'll give you that. Good job.
But I don't think you're disputing risk-taking and numbing of emotional connection as caused by testosterone.
In many ways what I said was incorrect on some points, but not in all. Testosterone affects our response to risks and danger, as well as our ability to empathize with people.
This in many ways enlightens us about of that aspect of male behavior which is ruthless, logical, ambitious, and daring.
Non Google Amp link 1: here
I am a bot. Please send me a message if I am acting up. Click here to read more about why this bot exists.
[–]ver0cious4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's only in modern times that there are no longer requirements for being allowed to vote.
[+]BrewtalDoom-6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fucking hell, you've gone full retard there, son!
[+]Disposable__Male-7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
I know "wahmen shouldn't vote" is one of those stereotypical bigoted things, but it's kind of where I'm at too. I posted on social media about how fucked up it was to use the private vote to undermine your husband but they made me out like I'm the asshole.
Complete disenfranchisement seems extreme. Is there any form of political power we could give them in exchange? Women are susceptible to status signals and representation, so they might take the bait if we proposed a system where only women could run for elected office, but only men could elect them. That way women would get to speak their mind and make decisions, but only the women that the men allow to speak for them.
[–]Hypnotix000014 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Making women the sole political body is worse, way worse. The 19th is like shooting your foot; making only women politicians is like shooting your foot then diving into a shark feeding frenzy.
It's unfortunate but women are incapable of making real productive, proactive choices, everything is about them and things they want. Imagine women like AOC being the only voice in the political spectrum, horrifying right? Now imagine there's no one to stop them.
[–]Disposable__Male-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
If you check my post history you can see how libtarded I am, so the thought of a slippery slope towards multiple firebrands like AOC makes my dick a little hard.
I'm going to go ahead and ask you to qualify what differentiates a "real productive, proactive choice" from the 70+% of shopping decisions women make. While I would agree that women in general tend not to take their own emotional biases into account in discussion, there are women who are capable of good decisionmaking, despite their rarity.
Imagine if Elizabeth Warren hadn't had Steve Daines and Mitch McConnell to stop her from reading Coretta Scott King's letter about Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III before Jeff Merkley finished the mission. God forbid.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Purple pill man here.
A woman must individually prove herself to be capable to exercising sound long term decision-making. Even us men have to do this from time to time, so women should not be exempted.
I agree that decision-making has no gender, but in my observation and reinforced by the input of other accounts, most women take decision-making power for granted. They do not exercise forethought when it comes to decision-making and refuse to recognize their own emotional bias with regards to their decisions. They also do not recognize accountability and responsibility for their decisions.
AFAIK estrogen has something to do with this kind of decision-making as it heightens emotions. This is in opposite to testosterone which blunts emotions.
[–]Disposable__Male-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Thanks, Purple pill man! DJT supposedly said that a good woman is worth ten good men, though a good woman is harder to find than a good man, but that's why we would need to vet them though the democratic process.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I disagree that a good woman is worth ten good men.
That's just misandry for me. It's down to the individual whether they are worth more than others.
[–]gtowerthrowaway9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
No, that's a rotten idea.
How about we don't limit the franchise to men, but to net taxpayers? Get welfare, no vote.
[–]Disposable__Male-2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
... And disenfranchise poor males. Rich men already run the game thanks to citizen's united, so I'm unconvinced that I should break gender solidarity along class lines.
[–]gtowerthrowaway6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
Poor people will always vote themselves more gibbs. Unfortunate but true. You can't keep a healthy society running where a large cohort only think in the short term. If some poor men are excluded, so be it.
[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Rich people also vote themselves gibbs through regulatory capture.
Why can't a society run if people aren't thinking long term? Do we not have a society chock full of people living paycheck to paycheck?
Tu quoque. Short term, control goes to the competent, sure. Long term you're going to have protests if employers try to decide who votes by increasing income inequality through excess productivity and job cuts until they can vote themselves dictator.
Please don't fuck with the plebs.
[–]Carnosauria4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
You need responsible people to decide the fate of a country. net-taxpayers are people who work to earn a living, and contribute something back to the system, and not just anything either. Tax dollars are earned via self control and work ethic, so net taxpayers are generally more responsible and hard working than others.
Plus, net-taxpayers are plebs too. The majority of men are net-taxpayers, as well as a minority of women. There's quite a big difference between your average working man and the wealthy elite.
[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
I don't care how you slice it, disenfranchising 43% of the population for the same reasons they can't afford to fill their gastank is likely to result in hot class warfare.
[–]Carnosauria2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link
It's either that, or the entire country suffers. Would you rather a few people make a (small) sacrifice in giving up voting, or would you want everyone, common man and all, to suffer as the country collapses from irresponsible voting choices (the way we're headed now)? Do you believe everyone should be given political power, no matter how responsible/irresponsible, or moral/immoral they are?
Besides, we used to have a system like this. Before the civil war, only land owners and military servicemen could vote. Plus, if only net-taxpayers can vote, they'll vote for lowering welfare programs - which will drive welfare dependants to get jobs, increasing the percentage of net-taxpayers and citizen enfranchisement.
[–]Disposable__Male1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Small sacrifice my hide! You're making molehills out of mountains.
You and I both know that ghettos exist, and if an entire county couldn't pay taxes, they would have to wait for a kindly lord to gentrify their town. How the fuck is flint going to vote themselves clean drinking water?
[–]ShearStressin4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Jesus fuck! Have you learned nothing from being on here!?!? AWALT motherfucker!
Sry being such harsh words, but I would have back handed you in person.
[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Got it, even a pure male selection can't find a good woman to serve as a publican.
Apology accepted. You could try, and maybe succeed if my autism was acting up s.t. I broke eye contact.
[–]Teflon081912 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
a system where only women could run for elected office, but only men could elect them.
Am I the only one who believes this would lead to what we see with Twitch thots...but in all levels of government?
shudder
Men are generally rational creatures, but when it comes to women I can absolutely see guys electing government officials based on how much cleavage she shows.
As opposed to the taller candidate receiving the popular vote 67% of the time in presidential elections.
We already vote with our chimpminds, but this was the first way I could think of to disenfranchise women from the vote without excluding them from power altogether.
There are so many better sociological critiques of my facetious argument than "AWALT, THOT BEGONE"! For instance, a better objection might be that female leaders tend to be more hawkish or that women like women more than men so they may be prejudicial due to in-group bias.
[–]TheRealEyesWideOpen15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I’m for Meritocracy. In order to have a vote one of the following conditions need to be met.
1.) Served in the armed forces for >15 years with distinction.
Or
2.) Own property.
3.) Be a senior (>65) and worked and contributed to society for more than 25 years or was married to a spouse where the marriage ended in death were the above condition was met. (TradCon clause for successful marriage - essentially the stay at home spouse inherits the voting right of the long term contributing husband)
All these people (male and female) have a vested interest in a functioning society or paid their dues and hence get a say.
[+][deleted] 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]gtowerthrowaway13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A good first step would be just to exclude people on welfare. I think everyone can agree that their only motivation would be to add more benefits, even at the cost of sound policy.
[–]teslaistheshit0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I got a little dumber reading this.
[–]Sir_Koopaman10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Repeal the 19th in 2019
[–]thesupergeek429 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Voting wouldn't matter so much if the government didn't have as much power over our every day lives as it currently does.
[–]teslaistheshit1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Voting would matter more if gerrymandering wasn't a thing and Ranked Choice Voting was instituted https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used
[–]fat_lesbians_lul6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
voting is to be reserved for people who try and make a change and contribute to society. if thats some women cool, if its not all men, aight
dorsnt matter what gender you ate but rather what your purpose is
[–]Darkster20-4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
It absolutely matter what gender you are, as it shows your motivations and interest, the WHO is just as important as the WHAT, and WHY
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
That's quite a stretch.
Some males for instance, are pro-feminism while some females are for traditional ways of life.
Granted that there's an average, but the cookie cutter doesn't choose the dough.
[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
When you look at the average person and he starts talking about any given subject, do you not take account a persons background and identity to determine the valdity and the motives?
Because i do, and its the smart thing to do.
If you wish to be this "non" judging person go ahead you can be as naive as you want to.
If an FBI agent start telling you about how the russians did 9/11 would you start questioning his motives?
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link
The problem with your assumption is that is assumes people's motivations are solely determined by ascribed statuses in society.
It's not naivete; it's actually a much broader and deeper system of judging people as I include more data about the person and use such to determine my judgements.
Based on your example I would question everything. For example, why is this FBI agent telling me potentially confident State info which I have no official privy to?
[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It doesn't. You are just arguing nothing here. I have not once said it's purely based on your status whatever that means. It's based in your identity If a jew with dual citizenship tells me white people shouldn't have children I would never trust him. If a communist starts telling me about how well socialist policy works I wouldn't trust him.
If an FBI agent that has no connection to you comes and tells you this if you believe him then you are a useful idiot.
potentially confident State info which I have no official privy to
That's exactly the point if he tells you something secret the only reason he would ever do that is to use you. Of course there is a small chance he is honest but if you take that chance you have alot more to lose then to gain.
That's why your Individualism is a joke, because you don't play the odds. You let people deceive you and you always lose.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Then you don't know what ascribed status is.
Ascribed status is what we are given irrespective of our choices. No one, for instance, chose to be born in a black neighborhood. No one chose to be born rich. We didn't choose our initial backgrounds are part of our childhood.
We get to choose who we are eventually, but not initially.
And also, who are you to tell me that I let people deceive me? And who are you to tell me I am arguing over nothing?
From what you say, it's clear you don't understand the relationship between status and identity.
For one, status is part of identity, and identity is part of status. They are not the same, but they aren't divisible. Ascribed statuses in many ways determine a lot of our initial identities.
You are way over your head.
Coming from your replies I can see that I'm not the joke.
[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
No one, for instance, chose to be born in a black neighborhood. No one chose to be born rich. We didn't choose our initial backgrounds are part of our childhood. And also, who are you to tell me that I let people deceive me? And who are you to tell me I am arguing over nothing?
No one, for instance, chose to be born in a black neighborhood. No one chose to be born rich. We didn't choose our initial backgrounds are part of our childhood.
I never said you do, my fucking god. i said your the behaviour that you are promoting causes you to easily be deceived because you dont have preconceived notions of motives based on identity. I am telling you, you are arguing over nothing because you are simply naive, you can have your fantasy feel good invidiualism but it simply doesnt work hence this argument is pointless.
Ascribed status is what we are given irrespective of our choices. No one, for instance, chose to be born in a black neighborhood. No one chose to be born rich. We didn't choose our initial backgrounds are part of our childhood. We get to choose who we are eventually, but not initially
We get to choose who we are eventually, but not initially
Now you are playing semantic games, i missed the ascribed part of your comment, but it is irrelevant to my point, i dont care wheter you got to chose your identity or not, it affects you all the same.
From what you say, it's clear you don't understand the relationship between status and identity. For one, status is part of identity, and identity is part of status. They are not the same, but they aren't divisible. Ascribed statuses in many ways determine a lot of our initial identities.
More semantics, i dont care wheter you call it status or identity i care what the persons background is and how it affects their motives when speaking to me.
You are way over your head. Coming from your replies I can see that I'm not the joke.
Coming from a guy arguing semantics
If an fbi agent told you russia is behind 9/11 would you trust him? now if julian assange said the same thing, who would you trust more?
If a woman tells me how much she loves me and wants to stay with me forever i simply wouldnt trust her because she is a woman and enganges in a pattern of behaviour that is common to women. The same reason i wouldnt let them vote.
Because females are females and even the "smart ones" will intrinsicly vote with their emotions because thats simply their biological imperative.
If there is like 0.01% of woman that can vote smartly there is literally no reason to give them the vote, and i could never truly know wheter that small percentage would even vote differently or they would still fall victim to the same emotion decisions.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That's exactly what you said. And then you reply with:
I never said you do, my fucking god. i said your the behaviour that you are promoting causes you to easily be deceive because you dont have preconceived notions of motives based on identity.
As you've misread my initial post, I think you've misread or failed to read the part that I do judge people. The only difference is my method of judgment is broader and with more depth.
And for you to assume that I'm a feel-good naive individualist is a long stretch; the academe and education fields have some of the most cynical and guarded individuals out there.
Just because I'm listening doesn't mean I'm believing what is being said. It comes with the practice of academics and being a frequent thesis panelist.
That said, I can't blame you for judging me as a bleeding heart leftist, as I infer from your post. But I'm not.
[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's why your Individualism is a joke, because you don't play the odds. You let people deceive you and you always lose. That's exactly what you said. And then you reply with: I never said you do, my fucking god. i said your the behaviour that you are promoting causes you to easily be deceive because you dont have preconceived notions of motives based on identity.
The first parst is reffering to general individualistic behaviour, its a refrence to INDIVIDUALISM not exactly your behaviour, if it doesnt apply to you then fine.
As you've misread my initial post, I think you've misread or failed to read the part that I do judge people. The only difference is my method of judgment is broader and with more depth
More depth? do you think i advocate for only judging people only on their identity? I said in general terms, if i meet a black guy i will have assumptions about him, for example him being for more likely to shoot me or rob, that doesnt mean every single black guy i meet i will treat like a criminal.
But when making policy i argue in generalities because you are dealing with huge populations, individualism at home, collectivism in the outside world.
End universal franchise!
[–]Demilich6633 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Women make up the majority of voters now. They vote off emotions, and vote for initiatives that sound caring warm and fuzzy. Hence, now you see the media pushing most of their terrible agendas by hiding behind children. Give up your gun rights because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", open up our border because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", let's go to war with Syria because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", let's legislate "hate speech" laws because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" (we're punching Nazis, and fighting racism LOL). Let's convert our country to socialism because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", let's expand the welfare state because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", etc. etc. THEN, they turn on their heel and fight to the death for their right to abort fetuses any time they want for any reason because "MY BODY MY CHOICE". The mask slips when they say 'fuck that clump of cells. it's not a child until I say it's a child!" Women vote to take men's rights away, and my rights away EVERY SINGLE DAY. So yeah, I'm not a fan of women's suffrage, after I see their gender-specific pathological voting tendencies. Women vote to erode and destroy the country, and beg for a dictatorship that will take our rights away.
[–]Blazelini2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Women don’t even paying attentions to politics...I have never had a political convo with any women....
I doubt solely women are responsible for that.
[–]loss-jpg0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Dude all the women I know care about politics, but I know plenty of guys who say they don’t care about politics or don’t have an opinion on it
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Do you care about politics or do you just want abortions and mens money? Are any of the politics you participate in separate from acquiring more rights and priveleges for yourself?
[–]loss-jpg-2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
So you think women are genuinely that simple, huh. We only care about abortions and taking men’s money? Really dude? Ever thought for a second that women might be People who care about a lot of the same shit y’all do?
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Really? So where are the women fighting against all the injustices facing men? You probably wouldn’t even acknowledge they exist
[–]loss-jpg0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They exist. However I think it’s quite humorous how you’re saying men face all these injustices when you’re literally a member of a subreddit that has ended up being mostly just for hating women and talking about how we deserve to be beaten for the shit we do or saying awful shit like that.
[–]Blazelini0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
They only care about issues that concern them...they don’t care if it hurt men or women in
[–]loss-jpg1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Plenty of men only care about politics that concern them. And yet I don’t see anyone chatting shit about that.
[–]RixDixRox0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nice.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Theory: Biological imperatives mean men prefer freedom and women prefer security. Data: Pew research Apr 11, 2019 says 58% of women would rather have bigger gov't, more services while 59% of men prefer smaller gov't, fewer services.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/11/gender-gap-widens-in-views-of-governments-role-and-of-trump/
Makes sense to me. Still boggles my mind why women overwhelmingly vote for open borders though.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah. I think it has to do with the feelings associated with maternity and the positive intentions associated with helping third parties at another's expense. It bypasses logic and reason/review because sophistry.
[–]devok10 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
women cant take responsability of their own emotions and were letting them be the majority of voters?
Voting should be exclusive to those who own property. 1 Acre or $200,000 value and up, whichever comes first.
[–]r80010 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not exactly on topic, but I walked home yesterday and there was a girl trying to make me vote for a woman, I said "sorry, I don't vote for women".
Begone concern troll.
[–]Dariego-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But I'm not a troll mannnnnn that's the problem -_- shit like this brings the trolls
Nobody cares.
Now fuck off.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[+][deleted] (60 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 68 points69 points70 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]groverthebread38 points39 points40 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]teslaistheshit2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]robharv21 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GnuYOW3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]Careful_Description37 points38 points39 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]RealBiggly15 points16 points17 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Teflon081916 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ScoutSteiner14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]malerevolution6 points7 points8 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]NeverNeverLandIsNow1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]surfingjesus0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]surfingjesus1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ver0cious4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]BrewtalDoom-6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Disposable__Male-7 points-6 points-5 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hypnotix000014 points15 points16 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Disposable__Male-1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Disposable__Male-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gtowerthrowaway9 points10 points11 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]Disposable__Male-2 points-1 points0 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]gtowerthrowaway6 points7 points8 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]Carnosauria4 points5 points6 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]Carnosauria2 points3 points4 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Disposable__Male1 point2 points3 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]ShearStressin4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Teflon081912 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Disposable__Male0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheRealEyesWideOpen15 points16 points17 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]gtowerthrowaway13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]teslaistheshit0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sir_Koopaman10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thesupergeek429 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]teslaistheshit1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fat_lesbians_lul6 points7 points8 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Darkster20-4 points-3 points-2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Darkster200 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demilich6633 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blazelini2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]loss-jpg0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]loss-jpg-2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]loss-jpg0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blazelini0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]loss-jpg1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RixDixRox0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]devok10 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]r80010 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dariego-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link