There are differences mentioned in the study, like willingness to take risk and confidence but for the equity part the study admits that they are not sure how much of the difference is because women profit from the redistribution.
The study is not bad but I can see it used to further women in positions of power.
And as far as I'm concerned it's good enough evidence that they should NOT be given more positions of governance. There should be some kind of anti-socialist litmus test before letting them in.
The paper is good but they admit that they are unsure how much of the difference is do to women benefiting from the redistribution.
There was a post way back about Sweden taking down quotas in school admissions as soon as it started helping men.
I do not want to sound like theimposible1 but women have gone tribal and will vote accordingly.
There is a gem in there, it mentions that Norwegian companies that were mandated to have 40% women on the board of directors had a decline in profits. I found that to be funny.
Women have an in-group preference and will vote for policies and welfare that benefit them. The exception is married women, who recognize said gibsmedats take money directly out of their paypigs husbands in the form of taxes.
Women act like children. When the man works the money he beings in is "their" money and how dare he try to claim it for himself.
When she gets a part time job that's "her" money and anyone suggesting it be spent on anything but her is immediately attacked.
When I was a kid I would do chores to earn a pittance allowance. It was far easier to get my mother to agree to it than my father, sure. The difference is that when my father did it I kept the money. When my mother did it she'd come into my room and take the money back when I wasn't there. I'm not kidding, I'd go to buy something with it and it was no longer there and there'd be some hand waving excuses from my mother about how she took it for my own benefit.
When my mother did it she'd come into my room and take the money back when I wasn't there.
... and here I was, thinking only my mom was like that. My earliest memory of being in public with her is of her throwing a tantrum because I wouldn't give her my allowance, under the guise of paying for my food...
Women have always and will always depend on men to survive. They know this on an instinctual level. This means that they have no need what so ever for Freedom. Freedom means taking responsibility for your decisions and your life. This means death to a woman. They will always vote for more control, more female power (direct benefit), and more redistribution of wealth (to those that do not earn, like women).
This is why we created patriarchy. To allow men to live as free lives as practical, but for women to be protected and provided for as well. It was a compromise to minimize suffering.
But women are the majority in all wealthy nations. It's the safety they enjoy while men die in wars and dangerous jobs. It's enough of a majority to fully control politics and society in a system that uses universal voting. They can just vote and tell you what to do, make you do it. Why wouldn't they? Women in general really don't care for men as a group, other than what they can provide for them.
I'm not a Nietzsche expert, but he basically viewed feminism as anti-masculinity, and he viewed Christianity as a feminized or feminizing religion:
(Ok, so I stole this quote from Wikipedia.)
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-" (The Will to Power - 864, Second German edition of 1906)
Being loving, being humble, he who is last shall be first.
In other words, my response to this is, "no shit."
There are differences mentioned in the study, like willingness to take risk and confidence but for the equity part the study admits that they are not sure how much of the difference is because women profit from the redistribution.
The study is not bad but I can see it used to further women in positions of power.
Is that the Brave guy?
And as far as I'm concerned it's good enough evidence that they should NOT be given more positions of governance. There should be some kind of anti-socialist litmus test before letting them in.
They’re more willing to share your wealth.
It would be fun to see some kind of study on how much women donate to charity compared to men. (and obviously not with their husband's money)
And don't count any that are women's charities and activist groups.
The paper is good but they admit that they are unsure how much of the difference is do to women benefiting from the redistribution.
There was a post way back about Sweden taking down quotas in school admissions as soon as it started helping men.
I do not want to sound like theimposible1 but women have gone tribal and will vote accordingly.
There is a gem in there, it mentions that Norwegian companies that were mandated to have 40% women on the board of directors had a decline in profits. I found that to be funny.
Women have an in-group preference and will vote for policies and welfare that benefit them. The exception is married women, who recognize said gibsmedats take money directly out of their
paypigshusbands in the form of taxes.Imp1 alt account confirmed?!?!
This was an early red pill concept.
Women act like children. When the man works the money he beings in is "their" money and how dare he try to claim it for himself.
When she gets a part time job that's "her" money and anyone suggesting it be spent on anything but her is immediately attacked.
When I was a kid I would do chores to earn a pittance allowance. It was far easier to get my mother to agree to it than my father, sure. The difference is that when my father did it I kept the money. When my mother did it she'd come into my room and take the money back when I wasn't there. I'm not kidding, I'd go to buy something with it and it was no longer there and there'd be some hand waving excuses from my mother about how she took it for my own benefit.
... and here I was, thinking only my mom was like that. My earliest memory of being in public with her is of her throwing a tantrum because I wouldn't give her my allowance, under the guise of paying for my food...
*other people's wealth
Uh yeah, no shit. This is one of the reasons why women have absolutely no business in politics. They will destroy entire economies if you let them.
Women have always and will always depend on men to survive. They know this on an instinctual level. This means that they have no need what so ever for Freedom. Freedom means taking responsibility for your decisions and your life. This means death to a woman. They will always vote for more control, more female power (direct benefit), and more redistribution of wealth (to those that do not earn, like women).
This is why we created patriarchy. To allow men to live as free lives as practical, but for women to be protected and provided for as well. It was a compromise to minimize suffering.
But women are the majority in all wealthy nations. It's the safety they enjoy while men die in wars and dangerous jobs. It's enough of a majority to fully control politics and society in a system that uses universal voting. They can just vote and tell you what to do, make you do it. Why wouldn't they? Women in general really don't care for men as a group, other than what they can provide for them.
if this comes as a surprise to anyone they just haven't been paying attention.
Which is great!
... when you are discussing resource distribution among a tight-knit, homogeneous community. Something like an extended family living together.
When you start to include people who's interests contradict your own, you're going to have a bad time.
reposted to Gab
I'm not a Nietzsche expert, but he basically viewed feminism as anti-masculinity, and he viewed Christianity as a feminized or feminizing religion:
(Ok, so I stole this quote from Wikipedia.)
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-" (The Will to Power - 864, Second German edition of 1906)
Being loving, being humble, he who is last shall be first.
In other words, my response to this is, "no shit."