.....and mentally weak women................
I can bench press 183% of my body weight. Although I know I can go higher if I train seriously.
Same thing with masculine women.
Related:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3555559/posts
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weak-men-more-likely-to-be-socialists-study-claims-rsnc3l8mk
Not surprised. I don’t tend to believe “studies”, but this sure makes sense, doesn’t it.
About a million years back, I dated a young lady whose father always ask about my politics.
I told him I was an anarchist.
He did not miss a beat,in telling me that was OK for the young, but once past physical prime, it goes downhill fast.
I believe he was correct.
All women are predisposed to socialism because its group herd mentality and conformity for group harmony. And given we have let women kick most of the real men out of education as teachers in formative k-12 years, and easily get rid of dad but still take his money in no-fault divorce where everything is stacked against him, far to many boys grow up to be men that are taught this is great, and go along with this weak crap.
New Study Finds Wimpy Guys Are More Likely To Be Socialists
MRC TV ^ | May 25, 2017 | Brittany M. Hughes
Posted on 5/26/2017, 11:05:46 AM by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It’s now been scientifically proven that the wimpier the guy, the more likely he is to be a socialist. No kidding.
According to a new study, physically weaker men are more prone to support socialism, a trend psychologists say may be because they feel they can’t compete against stronger men and are therefore consider inequality more threatening.
According to the Times, U.K., Brunel University ran a study on 171 men, measuring everything from their strength, height, weight and even bicep circumference. What the university found was that the physically inferior men tended to be the ones who said they supported the redistribution of wealth.
The physically stronger men, on the other hand, were a lot more prone to backing capitalism, and said they supported the idea of naturally dominant social groups.
“This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” explained the university’s own Michael Price. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”
“Of course this isn’t rational in modern environments, where your ability to win might have more to do with where you went to university,” he added. “Lots of guys who are phenomenally successful in modern societies would probably be nowhere near as successful in hunter gatherer societies.”
Still, Price says, it’s pretty amazing to see how natural dominant instinct plays out in today’s society, where weaker guys appear to find a lot more value in others being forced to share the wealth.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3555559/posts
Wasn’t it Rush Limbaugh who said that feminism was a way for ugly women to get power?
Well, socialism is a way for pajama boys to get power too.
Yeah. We had 8 years to figure that out.
"Ohh, these 5 pounders are HARD!"
Does being a Socialist lead to being a wussy or is it the other way around?
There. Fixed it.
Maggot = Faggot = Democrat
"Get outta my way you girlyman Socialist tool..."
There is actually a very good explanation for this. I am not kidding.
Joh Haidt did extensive research into this.
He found there are 2 different types of people regardless of society, place, time, ect.
It is based on the priorities they give certain moral foundations.
Here is his Ted Talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind
Consider that progressive system says that if you make more you should contribute more to the General public “pool” for the poor
But What it does is encourages people to not work and not create excess for the poor...but to take from the general public pool for the poor (rob from the general fund for true needed poor) instead of contribute ...
I say that because I'm physically handicapped yet I Would-be loathe to take from the public fund because I know there's people that are far more disadvantaged then me
I am capable of generating a 6 figure income and be self supporting....and by doing that I'm contributing and not taking from the poor/ public pool.
This was the old mind set...People wanted to help the poor but detested the the idea of being on charity ig they could work...Charity was reserved for the truly in need
The left has taught the opposite ...basically trained people to see what goverment entitlement they can get...what they could take from the system ...The left trains people to be “Anti-progressive”...to be taker from the poor not giver to the poor