Naisten äänioikeus

Jaahas. Linkissä ollut teksti on näköjään poistettu. Laitan siis kirjoituksen tänne S24 foorumille:
1/2
Why women can't be trusted with voting, free speech, national budgets, or power
There are two ways of dealing with uncomfortable information. One is the resilient, fundamentally masculine method of engaging with information that conflicts with your feelings and adapting your viewpoint to accommodate that conflicting data. The other is to get upset or attempt to ignore upsetting data that conflicts with your bias. This is the fundamentally feminine method. Men argue or accommodate
information they don't like, women stifle upsetting discussion with emotional tyranny and censorship, or simply bury their heads in the sand.

There are exceptions. The exceptions prove the rule. There are weak liberal men who throw tantrums when they are offended and strong women who see things as they are. Usually the latter type involves trauma.

The problem is that since women have achieved the right to vote, power has shifted from the masculine to the feminine, and thus, from logic to tantrums, from debate to censorship. This is not a product of liberalism, but feminine power. Universities are now majority female. It is not a coincidence that the most challenging academic disciplines and hazardous jobs are male dominated. Women are psychologically, not just physically, weaker than men. They choose the easy road in everything. They censor rather than debate honestly in women's studies departments. They chose easy majors that pay less. They chose easy low paying jobs rather than dangerous/difficult high paying ones. They lie about wage gaps rather than take responsibility and do difficult work. They believe that regret constitutes rape when they could instead take responsibility for their sexual choices. They screw up classified emails rather than do a minimum of ass-covering. They hate white men who they disagree with rather than Muslims who rape them.

Whenever a female is given a choice, she will choose the cowardly, dishonest, low agency method rather than the courageous, honest, high agency masculine method. She would rather have handouts than balanced budgets for her children's futures. She would rather censor than be upset. She would rather falsely accuse men of rape than take responsibility for her sexual choices when drunk. She would rather get divorced than work through the rough patches. She would rather vote stupidly for Bernie than understand economics. She would rather have a 15 dollar minimum wage than a job. She would rather vote for the wage increase than study the issues. She would rather have alimony and child-support than a lasting marriage. If there was a voting ballot with this on it:

Option 1: the stupid, low agency, free money, national-debt option.
Option 2: the smart, wise, high agency investment that requires hard work and pays better in the long-run.

She will always choose option 1, or at least an overwhelming majority of her sex will. As I have said in other places, democracy is the ethnic form of government of white males. It is designed for high agency individuals of relatively equal capacity and relatively high intelligence. It simply does not work for low agency people. On top of all of this women have completely different incentives than men.

2/2
To a male the state is a series of threats, to a female a series of benefits. Women cannot be drafted (yet), they are arrested at much lower rates, and given shorter sentences for the same crimes. Despite men being victims of domestic violence, only women have state-supported domestic violence shelters. Only men can be successfully prosecuted for raping women, despite the fact that women also rape men. Women get preferential treatment and custody in family courts. Men are essentially guilty until proven innocent in affirmative consent states. Men are taxed at higher rates. Women receive benefits that men don't. Since only women get custody, only women qualify for welfare. Even WIC means Women Infant Children program. The state treats males as disposable in war, letting them die homeless on the streets while paying females with five baby daddies to get pregnant at the taxpayer expense and receive food stamps. It attacks marriage and men with alimony and child-support. The state is nothing but threats for men and benefits for women.

This is why women cannot be trusted with national budgets. Even if a woman possesses the courage to engage with uncomfortable facts she still has a disincentive to defend her national interest. Combine with low agency she works to destroy her society, letting in rapugees, voting for handouts, creating guilty until innocent rape laws, censoring males in the workplace, filing bogus sexual harassment charges, and on and on. Here, low agency and incentives make her nothing but a threat to civilization. Her right to vote is a right to destroy other's rights with redistribution, censorship, and false rape accusations, to bring in hostile raping refugees while attacking the conservative men who defend her as racists, even though Islam is not a race!.

"Toxic masculinity." "Constructed gender." "Equal pay" lie -- attack, attack, attack.

She will get a Muslim America in the bargain for her efforts. Women will never take equal responsibility, have equal agency, or be equally courageous. Strip them of power before they destroy civilization.

backup1 kirjoitti:

2/2
To a male the state is a series of threats, to a female a series of benefits. Women cannot be drafted (yet), they are arrested at much lower rates, and given shorter sentences for the same crimes. Despite men being victims of domestic violence, only women have state-supported domestic violence shelters. Only men can be successfully prosecuted for raping women, despite the fact that women also rape men. Women get preferential treatment and custody in family courts. Men are essentially guilty until proven innocent in affirmative consent states. Men are taxed at higher rates. Women receive benefits that men don't. Since only women get custody, only women qualify for welfare. Even WIC means Women Infant Children program. The state treats males as disposable in war, letting them die homeless on the streets while paying females with five baby daddies to get pregnant at the taxpayer expense and receive food stamps. It attacks marriage and men with alimony and child-support. The state is nothing but threats for men and benefits for women.

This is why women cannot be trusted with national budgets. Even if a woman possesses the courage to engage with uncomfortable facts she still has a disincentive to defend her national interest. Combine with low agency she works to destroy her society, letting in rapugees, voting for handouts, creating guilty until innocent rape laws, censoring males in the workplace, filing bogus sexual harassment charges, and on and on. Here, low agency and incentives make her nothing but a threat to civilization. Her right to vote is a right to destroy other's rights with redistribution, censorship, and false rape accusations, to bring in hostile raping refugees while attacking the conservative men who defend her as racists, even though Islam is not a race!.

"Toxic masculinity." "Constructed gender." "Equal pay" lie -- attack, attack, attack.

She will get a Muslim America in the bargain for her efforts. Women will never take equal responsibility, have equal agency, or be equally courageous. Strip them of power before they destroy civilization.

Lue lisää

Ehkä vähän pitkä kirjoitus ja vieraalla kielellä vielä. :)

antipathos kirjoitti:

Ehkä vähän pitkä kirjoitus ja vieraalla kielellä vielä. :)

No onpa hauska kommentti.

"Kuulisin mielelläni esimerkkejä tilanteista, joissa naispuolinen poliitikko on tehnyt tunnepohjaisen päätöksen, ja jonka voidaan sanoa perustuvan täysin hänen sukupuoleensa liittyviin ominaisuuksiin."

No, kuinkas Halosen kovasti haluama Ottawan-sopimuksen ratifiointi, jolla saatiin halvat ja tehokkaat jalkaväkimiinat poistettua Suomen puolustusvoimilta? Perusteena oli se, kun muualla maailmassa siviiliväestö kävelee niihin. Huomaa, ettei kyseisen henkilön ole tarvinnut armeijaa käydä. Suomen armeija tekee sodan aikana käyttämistään miinoista tarkan miinakartan, jonka avulla miinat käydään sodan jälkeen poistamassa. Tällä ei ole mitään tekemistä muiden maiden armeijojen, taikka rosvojoukkojen kylvämien miinojen kanssa. Tätä yritettiin selventää ja takuulla Halonenkin kuuli näitä juttuja, mutta piti päänsä. Tätä ei voi perustella millään muulla kuin naisen tunteisiin perustuvalla ja typerällä päätöksenteolla, johon ei faktat pure.

Tätä tukee vielä se järjettömyys, että jalkaväkimiinojen korvikkeeksi keksittiin sitten ottaa rypälepommeja, jotka ovat ensinnäkin helvetin paljon kalliimpia, ja toisekseen juuri niitä, joina Halonen jalkaväkimiinoja piti.

Rypälepommi siis poksahtaa ilmassa ja tämän seurauksena sinkoaa tytärpommeja, eli niitä varsinaisia räjähteitä, ympäriinsä. Näillä pommeilla on taipumus monesti jäädä räjähtämättä, ja koska nämä tosiaan sinkoutuu minne sattuu, ei niistä voi tehdä minkäänlaista kartoitusta. Näin niitä voi jäädä lojumaan ihan minne tahansa, ja räjähtää sitten kun joku sellaiseen törmää. Nämä käyttäytyvät siis juuri sillä tavalla, joka on omaan vahingoittamaan siviiliväestöä. Sellaista ongelmaa ei jalkaväkimiinojen kanssa olisi ollut.

Sanni Grahn-Laasonen löysi kaiken kiristämisen, supistamisen ja leikkaamisen jälkeen turvapaikanhakijoiden viriketoimintaan miljoona euroa. Samaan aikaan opiskelijat protestoivat opintotukien leikkauksia, ja vanhukset makaavat omissa paskoissaan laitoksissa. Sannin mielestä on kiva hyysätä kivoja tummia pojuja, jotka ovat muka hengenhädässä hakeutuneet turvaan Lähi-idästä Pohjoismaihin. Nämä ihmiset eivät siis olleet vielä saaneet oleskelulupaakaan ja Sanni halusi syytää tuostakin summasta 200 000 heikäläisten sirkustouhuiluun. Onhan se toki tärkeämpää kuin hoitaa koko ikänsä veroja maksaneita suomalaisia vanhuksia. Sitä samaa ajattelevat ilmeisesti myös ne vapaaehtoiset ämmät, jotka hakeutuivat vokkeihin hyysäämään, sen sijaan, että olisivat menneet vapaaehtoisina auttamaan niitä vanhuksia.

Afrikka ja lähi-itä on siis sivistyksen asuinsija!

Eikös vasurit ole porvareita? Niidenhän pitäisi edustaa työväenluokkaa, mutta kaikkihan ne ovat rikkaiden perheiden kakaroita, joiden ei ole koskaan tarvinnut tehdä "oikeita" töitä. Ei niillä ole mitään tuntumaa tavallisen kansan elämään, ja sehän näkyykin näiden sekopäisissä ja utopistisissa agendoissaan.