Posted on 09/02/2021 7:16:46 PM PDT by SteveH
why are so many women evolutionarily inclined to be liberal/socialist/communist/fascist?
my observation is that many more women than men seem to fit these categories, which imho differ only in degree.
my own conjecture:
women have been evolved to submit to the force and power of authority. in prehistory, women, having generally less strength and less weight than men, have taken follower social status as the primary way in which both they and their offspring maximize their survival and reproduction chances.
the us constitution upholds minimal government. minimal government is antithetical to maximum force and maximum power.
thus, the us constitution is often belittled as "unimportant" "irrelevant" "wrong" or "patriarchical" by many women.
many ancient cultures apparently implicitly understood this and thus usually did not give women any chance to assume a position of ruling a group.
one of the few ancient cultures that survives is islam. islam does not seem to offer women any leadership roles or any rights equal to those of males. yet, many women support islam, even while asserting feminist ideology.
the evolutionary attraction of women to force and power is the only explanation that i can come up with that resolves the dichotomy of women supporting a culture which denies womens' rights.
by allowing women equal or better political power, therefore, it could be construed as opening the gates of modern civilization to the islamic, socialist, or communist strains of cultural barbarianism.
i am not certain whether a solution exists, but perhaps someone should find a solution quickly, before modern civilization is overrun.
before the 19th amendment passed, the destructive effect of women on modern civilization was not a significant problem.
what am i missing?
As opposed to men who don’t want to control anything?
And yet we’re on a thread where men are lamenting the fact that they cannot control women’s ability to vote.
And you whine about women being controllers?
Look in the mirror.
And who are the commies leading the way?
Overwhelmingly men.
ok... although some people and perhaps some feminists among them might claim that many if not most prehistoric states were in fact matriarchies. if true, then would it not make women the ultimate progenitors of all the evils of modern mechanized state sponsored genocide?
So many women prefer security over liberty. They want government to take care of them.
I rest my case.
If men did it instead, instead of abdicating their God given roles, then women wouldn’t be looking elsewhere for it.
You got it. And when men got tired of hearing how everything in the world was their fault they it the off switch, variously known as the fu-ck you button, the Bon voyage button, get outa my life lever. You name it, it’s all the same.
The last one went yada, yada, yada in my ears twenty years ago. I hit the the quit switch on her and never looked back. I can hunt, I can fish, ride my motor. If I want a double shot of rum in my coffee at 10 AM, I’ve got it. Now, if I want one to spend the night it can happen. Mostly I like my company just fine for breakfast. Besides there is all that stuff, car, truck, motorcycle, boat, house, dock, woods, and guns to look after. TV quit working two years ago - ain’t missed it. I still have a computer online but use it less and less. I’ve grown into being one of those people I never liked - a cantankerous old man. I just as soon shoot your ass as look at you. Most of my (few) friends are pretty much the same. Yep, we pretty much screwed up the world. You go sort it out. Somehow it suits me fine.
Plus one
Freepers are clueless about this
Cogent
If men did it instead, instead of abdicating their God given roles, then women wouldn’t be looking elsewhere for it.
***Uhh, Eve took a bite out of the apple FIRST, when it was a perfect environment. Women WOULD be looking elsewhere even under the most optimum conditions.
According to these MGTOW guys as well, your conclusion is completely bogus.
https://www.goingyourownway.com/mgtow-mgtow/
Well As for Islam if you ever knew what their women are like behind closed doors it’s no wonder they keep them in the home. Actually heard a wife yelling at her husband during an interview ,who was running for office, and no man would put up with that unless he kept them in the home!...while he entertained himself outside the home. It was God awful I’ll tell you.
> While Eve was “deceived” Adam was the one given the command not to eat of the apple....so he was actually first to break the commandment outright.......also interesting is after Eve ate she simply turned and gave it to Adam...so what was he doing all the time this dialogue between eve and the serpent was going on?????? Just watching?
Hmmm. I am certainly no bible expert. However, I read that Genesis 3:2-3 states:
(2) The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, (3) but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
So I infer that Eve has admitted, at least according to this source, awareness of God’s law forbidding not just Adam but also Eve from eating fruit from the tree of knowledge. If we choose not to believe this then we might be allowed to pick and choose which parts of the bible we believe and which parts of the bible we do not believe, and that is conventionally regarded as heretical. I’m not sure where Adam was while Eve was talking to the serpent, but maybe you were not so serious about the first part, since the refutation seems so easy (or else I am missing something obvious, which is always possible also). If Adam was not around during the hatching of the alleged conspiracy between Eve and the serpent, then Eve is guilty IMHO of entrapment. In Genesis it is portrayed as a bad thing since both Adam and Eve are allegedly feeling ashamed of their naked selves immediately after both ate from the apple. Guilty, and guilty! Next!
> Also scripture tells men to ‘love’ their wives where it encourages women to’ respect’ their husbands. There is a distinction because a woman will find it hard to love a man she cannot respect.
Hmm... I see that, although I am not certain what to conclude from it... maybe that it is late where I am and i need sleep...
> Additionally ....after they sinned one of the consequences for Eve was, (and conveniently often overlooked by pastors),.. “And your desire will be to your husband and he shall ‘rule’ over you”......Woman have been kicking against that since the fall as it was then women lost their equality so to speak....recalling that she enticed Adam to eat and woman can and do that even to this day.
Hmmm... well... ouch, that sucks(?)... i need more sleep(?)...
> BTW...Woman regained their equality in Christ....thus Christian women often are quite satisfied with Gods purposes both for man and woman....and understand such.
aha, yah. how come if Christianity is so patriarchal throughout time up to and including the present, women vastly seem to outnumber men in the pews? Usually pastors are (ugh) men. So why should women have to sit and listen to anything these men claim to be able to interpret correctly? says who? other men? and what about canon? why cannot women be pastors? or bishops, or whatever?
If I were a woman, I would be constantly asking these questions and constantly re-examining the answers that I as a woman would come up with from my own bible reading. Alas, I am not a woman, and being a not-a-woman has given me as much challenge as i feel capable of handling with any degree of style.
I find canon interesting. Who decides what goes into the New Testament, and when, and what remains outside the New Testament? And for that matter, the Old Testament? Are women represented in the decisions? If not, why not? Most importantly, were the decisions that were made morally correct or incorrect?
sometimes, when cornered, a woman will say, it’s not what you say, but how you say it that i object to.
this is often followed by, your argument is too (insert arbitrary adjective here).
choices include:
too long
too short
too complex
too simple
too difficult to understand
too simplistic
this is like Goldilocks and the three bears, but without the just right resolution. Sometimes the argument is simply that it is not quite right in some sense, while not in fact bothering to nail down quite what property is being called for, how much in quantity, and why that property and that exact quantity is necessary as well as sufficient to be granted respectability. When I hear this argument I feel a need to control the urge to tell the woman who uses this argument to go make me a sandwich and get me a beer while they are at it. LOL
so, you can come up with the most logical reasoning in the world, but it fails to convince a woman because it is too long and her mind wandered, and you should never argue so long that a woman’s mind is left to wander.
if however you cut your argument by dropping some of the more obvious logic (the type of reasoning that typically puts most people to sleep), a woman can then say that your argument makes no sense because it does not logically progress when presented from beginning to end. Thus your argument is too short.
So you start again, aiming for a supposedly happy medium, by which time some women are likely to stomp away in a huff. Too long! Too short! You’ve wasted too much of my time with your reasoning which is either too long or too short! Either you leave or I do!
(note: some examples of this behavior can be found on this thread.)
You could start right here using the ‘canon’ keyword on Free Republic. Just ignore the threads about the camera with the same brand...
https://freerepublic.com/tag/canon/index?tab=articles
And Adam, who was with her, stood by and watched the whole thing and didn’t stop her.
And it wasn’t until Adam ate that sin entered the world.
God lays the blame for the fall at Adam’s feet. Sin entered the world through Adam, the first man.
Read Romans 5.
I may be wrong according to the reasoning of embittered men, but not according to Scripture.
Sounds like evert other godless environment.
Did I hit the hot button...
I am a female.
I was not on a thread on women voting.
I have 4 sons and 4 daughters in law.
Today’s women are not what used to be
if you are under age of 50, you maybe heard of such but did not live it.
And I don’t want to argue.
Usually.. women working in offices or such, would rather work with men than women.
Women are moody and can be catty.
And women on the job control also.
Women today can be frivolous and major on the minor.
In all my years, I have 1 friend since 3rd grade.,1.
As a teacher used to say..
Boys have a disagreement, they have a tussle and friends again.
Girls have a disagreement, it lasts and they fight all day.
I could go on.. but you’d just get angry...
I speak as a senior and I know things are not what they used to be.
I know what you are saying is true. I am not under 50. That ship sailed long ago.
I spent a few years with a female boss and she was horrible. I could do nothing to please her. She clearly thought she needed to prove herself and deserved the recognition and attention she thought she was due.
Yes, men are easier to work with and for.
A man cannot be a politician and be ethical. An ethical man in politics will not last. Look at what happened to POTUS Trump.
You are so right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.