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?
I resemble your post.
Neither the Bible nor Jesus esteemed the idea of allowing women into leadership or decision making bodies. Occasional selected women, yes, women in general, no.
What the current culture has done, is free women's desire to chase after "Alpha males", the small percentage of sexually-desirable men. In the current environment, such men can juggle multiple women (think of sports stars and gang leaders who have multiple illegitimate kids by multiple women). Meanwhile, non-Alphas are not getting much female attention.
This tends to change when the women get into their 30s, the Alphas have moved on to younger women, and the women start looking for some chump to "settle" for.
because their husbands gave into their emotional roller coasters for so long, women now are used to bossing men around so why stop there??
This is a very easy one.
Women are more security conscious then men. There is a reason men engage in risky activities in far greater numbers than women, from skydiving to motorcycling to shooting sports. Most women value security over liberty while most men value liberty over security. Most men are willing to risk some to be left alone to do their thing. Most women are willing to give up some freedom if it means they reduce or eliminate their risks.
Communism/socililism promises that people will be free from risk since the government promises to take care of you in every way. It is a lie, but many people fall for it. Women, being more risk averse, fall for it in greater numbers.
It is human nature. It has always been this way. Women have always been willing to give up some liberty for security. The thing that changed is, when women were prohibited from voting, men called the shots. Now that more women vote than men, they are in control. So voters tend to go in big for security, even if it means some loss of freedom.
The GOP loses the gender gap in almost every elections. There just aren’t near enough Freeper women out there to make up the difference.
https://www.nbcnews.com/know-your-value/feature/how-women-voters-decided-2020-election-ncna1247746
“Early exit polls show President-elect Biden winning the votes of 57 percent of women, compared to 45 percent of men. In comparison, President Trump won 42 percent of women’s votes and 53 percent of men’s votes.”
If women, especially single women, were excluded from the vote, the socialist Democrats would never win another election.
Word. Repeal the 19th...
LOL, that video is funny. And the method of presentation is even better.
Penis envy.
Women over 30 mostly have no problem attracting men, especially if they are enjoyable company. What they have trouble with is (A) attracting men interested in marrying them, and (B) attracting men who can get dates with women under 30.
They are mad at God because they have to squat to urinate.
The 16th and 17th were just as destructive.
I’ve been saying that since the 1992 elections.
Go Asian young man.
Because women, in a solid bloc, would vote against it, plus men who are fathers of daughters.
It used to be, in many states, that you could not sue a man for child support for an out-of-wedlock kid. Women then had a big incentive to marry a guy before getting pregnant by him.
The problem with the world is that 50% of the population owns 100% of the p-—y.
I just mean voting wise...the subject of thread. We’d very likely still be a superpower if we had stuck to the old rules of voting.
One at a time. Be patient.
Very eloquent. A+. Take the rest of the thread off.
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.