Single women: highest rate of mental illness, highest rate of obesity, highest rate of government gibs, highest rate of children committing violent crimes, highest democrat voting block. These aren’t coincidental
Seldom have I seen someone, even you, contradict himself over the course of two sentences.
Either they're voting themselves money out of other people's wallets, or it is spite. In the former case their motivation is economic self-interest and not 'spite'.
That's untrue. You can do something out of spite that still benefits you. For example, "Jessica tripped on John's garden hose. She didn't like John. She didn't get injured when she tripped, but sued him anyway out of spite." See. Not mutually exclusive. Spite can be boiled down to "because fuck you, that's why". It doesn't mean there can be other benefits.
Quite simply, women should not be allowed to vote. Even if we say "unmarried women" should not be able to vote, the fact a married couple has two votes is redundant, since the woman should be voting the same way as her husband. What makes the most sense is simply not allowing women to vote.
Then give married men two votes. I don't think it though because women are ultimately in control of relationships not men. Most men would settle down if the right woman would have them. Modern data on this tells us all we need to know. As women gained economic power, relationships tanked yet when women actually cost men money to support, the number of single men was minimal.
I don't think you should give married men two votes. I think of democracy as a decision making mechanism. Married men aren't twice as good of decision makers as single men. As you pointed out, if other things were going well, most men would be married eventually, so you're talking about polling the same men -- just at different phases of life. And I don't see any reason to overweight the old.
A real traditionalist would say that women shouldn't have a vote because a couple should be of one mind and thus one vote and her opinion and thought will be reflected in her husband's joint vote the two of them
I mean yeah, we should have a dictatorship run by men and women should all be shackled and chained to the bedposts. All votes are fake. The two parties are the same. Women control everything. Sure whatever but in this context, women shouldn't be allowed to vote and that's a good thing. I can't imagine what warped world you live in where you say you're anti-gynocracy and think women should be allowed to vote.
You should know by now that I don't advocate for them to be chained to the bedpost. That's still too good for them.
Such a shame that a thoroughly hateful person is upset at the election results.
And you should know that they literally blew people up for their vote.
How come Roman women never used violence to get their vote?
It's not as simple as telling them no, they're violent, sadistic and already consider us less than human. If we give them the excuse to kill, a lot of lives could be lost.
Actually, the thoroughly hateful people are happy Fetterwoman won.
Now, in this case you will have actual cause to label him a puppet, because he cannot think or talk or do anything.
No idea.
Should you not wonder how come that after 250,000 years of human existence, this sort of thing arose around 1900?
You laugh, but physical strength only works when you know the attack is coming. Poisoning doesn't care how strong you are.
Has there been a raft of poisoning by the womens? You play both sides of the physical strength game. When defending men's higher murder rates, you say it's because women lack the physical strength to kill. And now this.
Wait, so married women (whom you bash) are more based than unmarried men (when you are one)?
I bet many married women vote the way their husbands want them to vote. I know my girlfriend sits down with me when we vote by mail and I just hand her my ballot and she copies it.
Not really. I wrote this part specifically to counter what you're saying.
More unsubstantiated blather. Impressive.
We're being dragged down by the products of women's school system. Gen Z, from what I've heard, was bad. Really bad. I need to get the figures, but I'm barely functioning.
percent of population doesn't matter, percent of unmarried women is what matters. I don't know the exact percent but it is probably north of 25% [about double their 13% share of the female population]
so if 25% of your sample votes ~95% democrat, that's going to explain a significant part of the 37 point skew.
Older women being less liberal is still evidence against your essentialist takes on women's voting. It suggests that it is product of recent conditions rather than eternal, immutable characteristics. The median age of people at the time of their first marriage, while older than it used to be, is still only 30-31 for men and 28-29 for women.
It's not like boomers are the only married people around.
Younger generations are less white. Unmarried women skew black as well (lowest female marriage rate) so some of this stat even comes from race, contrary to your counter-narratives.
When do you ever see a married couple that lasts that's under that?
Why are you soliciting for anecdotes instead of real evidence?
Is it? You can keep looking back if you want, but the future is very dark.
Yes. What a stupid question
The rate of marriage has dropped so much that the average age of marriage now could be 18 and I'd still bet the average age of married people is over 40.
Do you not realize how old Americans are? The average age is nearly 39 so you're basically arguing that married people are pretty average in age.
Unmarried men also presumably skew black for the same reason, yet they are still majority R.
But far more Dem than married men do. Also, while black women have the lowest SMV among women, it's Asians who have the lower SMV among men so you don't get quite the same effect.
Also also, I've always, always said that women are more liberal than men and never otherwise. Where you go wrong is severely overstating the difference while downplaying racial differences. You add qualifiers like "college educated" and "unmarried" to present the maximum sex divide. Meanwhile, you ignore or downplay blacks voting ~90% Dem. That's without any other qualifiers.
Also also also, white women are the second most right-wing demo behind white men.
I'd still bet the average age of married people is over 40.
Putting forth this assertion as some sort of persuasive "wow!" statistic really makes me question your ability to meaningfully interpret any statistic.
Despite Impy's best effort, this is actually a hyper important point.
Marriage is one of the single largest factors in determining whether a woman is left or right. The statistic I saw once was:
Unmarried women: Staunch Left
Married women: Moderate Right
Divorced women: Moderate Left
2nd Marriage women: Lean Right
2nd Divorced women: Lean Left
3rd Married women: Right of Center
3rd Divorce women: Lean Left
4th Married women: Right of Center
I'm going to try and explain this in as short and simple a manner as I can:
This is the result of the state using hypergamy and dependency systems as a way of destroying the family, and fundamentally emasculating men. Women need men to protect and provide for them. When they are with a man, they can influence him, and they support governance that reinforces his ability to be a provider and protector (never full-throat libertarian independent, because that actually conflicts with the average woman's sensibility towards care). When they don't have a man, they turn to the state to take his place as protector and provider; and the state is only happy to provide.
The state (indeed all authoritarians) seek to cuck men of their women as a way of securing their own power and status. If the population of men under the rule of the authoritarian are independent, stoic, and self-providing; their utility for women is vastly more accessible outside the hypergamic harem of the authoritarian. Emasculating men keeps women coming back to the government, and women who feel vulnerable without a man seek the government's protection as a supplement.
an ungrateful parasite who thinks they are superior.
Stop dating leftists, impy.
But they don't. They are capable of work. They just don't want to do anything because they are lazy and self-obsessed, believing everything should be handed to them.
You're getting every part of this confused. Women do need men as provider and protector. A good man is like a literal walking super-soldier to women. His agency is his value. A woman can protect herself (but not as well as a man can). A woman can provide for herself (but not as well as a man can).
In order to keep a man, a woman has additional responsibilities that do not involve being a pretty sex doll; but involve what used to be called "women's work". Building and maintaining the aesthetics of a home, building a family, building a community. Doing most of the social navigating and construction. The responsibility of a woman is for her to heal and inspire him into doing all that providing and protecting.
Now I grant you that none of our "I'm the table" modern women fall into that, but that is because of the prevalence of Leftism in our degenerated society.
we all have to chained to them to prevent 1984, but that's a life of misery nobody wants
Lots of men want women. Particularly good women that we have a shortage of, and what I described is what a ton of men want.
so we are left in a perpetual war that nobody is willing to escalate beyond vague comments to actually calling them out publicly.
Well since you're being intentionally obtuse, I'll put it this way. The answer is a hard core patriarchal society where women have no part in governance and serve traditional gender roles, including marriage and motherhood. With men unquestionably leading both the society and the household. And have this enforced by state power.
The entire point of that is that it wouldn't matter if they "lash out", because in such a society the sole thing they'd able to do about it is kill themselves.
Hardly a bad thing, particularly given that anyone who did wasn't mother material to begin with.
Artificial wombs are a fantasy(not to mention an ungodly abomination), and fail to address the reality of right now or of the immediate future. Not to mention that the vast majority of men wouldn't adopt your state enforced celibacy.
Women's influence on society is solely based on adherence to non violence. When that rope snaps feminism dies with it.
Okay so the crazy ones might kill somebody. Publicly execute them and make the rest watch.
They're only valued because of adherence to non violence. When they didn't have a choice in the matter, such as when their value to the continuance of the species wasn't ignorantly seen as owned only by them, then any literal value becomes irrelevant. Your assumptions are flatly incorrect.
I'd invent AI application which can feel genuine emotions and give affection and encouragement (for companionship). Bonus points if she can talk dirty and mean it.
Then for kids, heterosexuals guys can get married to form a dual income family, then rent the wombs of some women is South East Asia. There is a thriving industry of surrogacy tourism from Laos, Thailand etc.
Think about it. A dual income household. Friendship and support from your 'husband', the itch for relationships scratched by a string of code that you own. It would work. We can do almost all of that today.
He's right. You might be able to find sources if you search for the age breakdowns of marriages. The younger you go the less prevelence marriage is and the older you go the more prevelant it is.
But he keeps making the assertion that married women are "all above 50" (not what he said here, but what he has said in the past) without a shred of evidence.
Are you trying to be technical? Like it's not all because exceptions exist so technically he should say most? No one really cares.
His point is valid though. Suggesting women aren't a problem because look married women vote the way we want isn't the right way to look at it anyway. He's saying the correlation isn't marriage but it's age and though he presents no evidence, knowing what we know about marriage demographics and age, his assertion is most likely correct. We actually don't need evidence to draw that conclusion either. To truly have evidence we'd need breakdowns of ages and marriage status of women but we don't likely have this. That doesn't mean he's wrong or that someone should require evidence. Given what we do know his conclusion is the most reasonable.
If only we could get Ye on the anti-feminism train. He seems to be on the Jews are the reason women are fucked train. Will he make the full progression and realize it's women's nature that is the problem?
Single women: highest rate of mental illness, highest rate of obesity, highest rate of government gibs, highest rate of children committing violent crimes, highest democrat voting block. These aren’t coincidental
Except for the part where men are still paying for these useless lumps of flesh
Well. Some men
Mostly nigs.
Seldom have I seen someone, even you, contradict himself over the course of two sentences.
Either they're voting themselves money out of other people's wallets, or it is spite. In the former case their motivation is economic self-interest and not 'spite'.
Perhaps, more accurately, it would be Malice - not spite.
You can certainly vote for economic reasons and couple them with a little malice on the side.
You think women are more likely to vote for Democrats because of "malice"?
No, I was just suggesting that the original poster probably meant "malice" and not "spite"
Ah. Well, he does love the word 'spite' - whether used accurately or not.
Confession through projection.
Can you explain why you think those two things are mutually exclusive?
Because it's not a 'spite vote' when it benefits you economically, as you also claim.
You mean the terrible economic policy that you are pushing for. After all, single men voted more Democratic than married women. So zip it, boy.
That's untrue. You can do something out of spite that still benefits you. For example, "Jessica tripped on John's garden hose. She didn't like John. She didn't get injured when she tripped, but sued him anyway out of spite." See. Not mutually exclusive. Spite can be boiled down to "because fuck you, that's why". It doesn't mean there can be other benefits.
Quite simply, women should not be allowed to vote. Even if we say "unmarried women" should not be able to vote, the fact a married couple has two votes is redundant, since the woman should be voting the same way as her husband. What makes the most sense is simply not allowing women to vote.
Then give married men two votes. I don't think it though because women are ultimately in control of relationships not men. Most men would settle down if the right woman would have them. Modern data on this tells us all we need to know. As women gained economic power, relationships tanked yet when women actually cost men money to support, the number of single men was minimal.
Women pre suffrage already had a big influence of voting. Now the ones in relationships with weak men get 2 votes
Yup
I don't think you should give married men two votes. I think of democracy as a decision making mechanism. Married men aren't twice as good of decision makers as single men. As you pointed out, if other things were going well, most men would be married eventually, so you're talking about polling the same men -- just at different phases of life. And I don't see any reason to overweight the old.
A real traditionalist would say that women shouldn't have a vote because a couple should be of one mind and thus one vote and her opinion and thought will be reflected in her husband's joint vote the two of them
I mean yeah, we should have a dictatorship run by men and women should all be shackled and chained to the bedposts. All votes are fake. The two parties are the same. Women control everything. Sure whatever but in this context, women shouldn't be allowed to vote and that's a good thing. I can't imagine what warped world you live in where you say you're anti-gynocracy and think women should be allowed to vote.
Troll or psycho?
Such a shame that a thoroughly hateful person is upset at the election results.
How come Roman women never used violence to get their vote?
Literally cowering in fear from... WOMEN.
Now, in this case you will have actual cause to label him a puppet, because he cannot think or talk or do anything.
Should you not wonder how come that after 250,000 years of human existence, this sort of thing arose around 1900?
Has there been a raft of poisoning by the womens? You play both sides of the physical strength game. When defending men's higher murder rates, you say it's because women lack the physical strength to kill. And now this.
Wait, so married women (whom you bash) are more based than unmarried men (when you are one)?
I bet many married women vote the way their husbands want them to vote. I know my girlfriend sits down with me when we vote by mail and I just hand her my ballot and she copies it.
Yeah with mail-in ballots there's a lot of men and also women that force their partner to vote a certain way.
That's one of the many reasons against mail-in is there's no secret ballot from your family or boss or whoever wants to coerce your vote.
Yeah, I doubt that.
More unsubstantiated blather. Impressive.
So the usual?
Black women are far less likely to be married, and vote 90%+ democrat, so that contributes.
6.5% of the population, though, so they can't move the needle that much compared to white/hispanic.
percent of population doesn't matter, percent of unmarried women is what matters. I don't know the exact percent but it is probably north of 25% [about double their 13% share of the female population]
so if 25% of your sample votes ~95% democrat, that's going to explain a significant part of the 37 point skew.
Why do you want their to be more unmarried women then?
Older women being less liberal is still evidence against your essentialist takes on women's voting. It suggests that it is product of recent conditions rather than eternal, immutable characteristics. The median age of people at the time of their first marriage, while older than it used to be, is still only 30-31 for men and 28-29 for women.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/371933/median-age-of-us-americans-at-their-first-wedding/
It's not like boomers are the only married people around.
Younger generations are less white. Unmarried women skew black as well (lowest female marriage rate) so some of this stat even comes from race, contrary to your counter-narratives.
Why are you soliciting for anecdotes instead of real evidence?
Yes. What a stupid question
Do you not realize how old Americans are? The average age is nearly 39 so you're basically arguing that married people are pretty average in age.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/population-estimates-characteristics.html
But far more Dem than married men do. Also, while black women have the lowest SMV among women, it's Asians who have the lower SMV among men so you don't get quite the same effect.
Also also, I've always, always said that women are more liberal than men and never otherwise. Where you go wrong is severely overstating the difference while downplaying racial differences. You add qualifiers like "college educated" and "unmarried" to present the maximum sex divide. Meanwhile, you ignore or downplay blacks voting ~90% Dem. That's without any other qualifiers.
Also also also, white women are the second most right-wing demo behind white men.
Putting forth this assertion as some sort of persuasive "wow!" statistic really makes me question your ability to meaningfully interpret any statistic.
Repeal the 19th.
Despite Impy's best effort, this is actually a hyper important point.
Marriage is one of the single largest factors in determining whether a woman is left or right. The statistic I saw once was:
I'm going to try and explain this in as short and simple a manner as I can:
This is the result of the state using hypergamy and dependency systems as a way of destroying the family, and fundamentally emasculating men. Women need men to protect and provide for them. When they are with a man, they can influence him, and they support governance that reinforces his ability to be a provider and protector (never full-throat libertarian independent, because that actually conflicts with the average woman's sensibility towards care). When they don't have a man, they turn to the state to take his place as protector and provider; and the state is only happy to provide.
The state (indeed all authoritarians) seek to cuck men of their women as a way of securing their own power and status. If the population of men under the rule of the authoritarian are independent, stoic, and self-providing; their utility for women is vastly more accessible outside the hypergamic harem of the authoritarian. Emasculating men keeps women coming back to the government, and women who feel vulnerable without a man seek the government's protection as a supplement.
Stop dating leftists, impy.
You're getting every part of this confused. Women do need men as provider and protector. A good man is like a literal walking super-soldier to women. His agency is his value. A woman can protect herself (but not as well as a man can). A woman can provide for herself (but not as well as a man can).
In order to keep a man, a woman has additional responsibilities that do not involve being a pretty sex doll; but involve what used to be called "women's work". Building and maintaining the aesthetics of a home, building a family, building a community. Doing most of the social navigating and construction. The responsibility of a woman is for her to heal and inspire him into doing all that providing and protecting.
Now I grant you that none of our "I'm the table" modern women fall into that, but that is because of the prevalence of Leftism in our degenerated society.
Lots of men want women. Particularly good women that we have a shortage of, and what I described is what a ton of men want.
That's Feminist rhetoric and you know it.
Whores will always lead-follow the downfall of society
Almost like the breakup of the nuclear family works in their favor. Every single time.
im still not marrying a roastie
Otherwise known as the 19th amendment.
The infanticide vote.
Post Reported for: Max Posts (x2)
Impy, no more than 5 per 24 hour period.
Bucks broke by a white top in a leather harness by 15 whips.
Yeah no shit. But the answer is Gilead, not men "going their own way".
Well since you're being intentionally obtuse, I'll put it this way. The answer is a hard core patriarchal society where women have no part in governance and serve traditional gender roles, including marriage and motherhood. With men unquestionably leading both the society and the household. And have this enforced by state power.
The entire point of that is that it wouldn't matter if they "lash out", because in such a society the sole thing they'd able to do about it is kill themselves.
Hardly a bad thing, particularly given that anyone who did wasn't mother material to begin with.
Artificial wombs are a fantasy(not to mention an ungodly abomination), and fail to address the reality of right now or of the immediate future. Not to mention that the vast majority of men wouldn't adopt your state enforced celibacy.
Women's influence on society is solely based on adherence to non violence. When that rope snaps feminism dies with it.
Okay so the crazy ones might kill somebody. Publicly execute them and make the rest watch.
They're only valued because of adherence to non violence. When they didn't have a choice in the matter, such as when their value to the continuance of the species wasn't ignorantly seen as owned only by them, then any literal value becomes irrelevant. Your assumptions are flatly incorrect.
Gynoids and surrogate mothers would do it.
I'd invent AI application which can feel genuine emotions and give affection and encouragement (for companionship). Bonus points if she can talk dirty and mean it.
Then for kids, heterosexuals guys can get married to form a dual income family, then rent the wombs of some women is South East Asia. There is a thriving industry of surrogacy tourism from Laos, Thailand etc.
Think about it. A dual income household. Friendship and support from your 'husband', the itch for relationships scratched by a string of code that you own. It would work. We can do almost all of that today.
Can you actually back this up, or is it more of your usual?
He's right. You might be able to find sources if you search for the age breakdowns of marriages. The younger you go the less prevelence marriage is and the older you go the more prevelant it is.
But he keeps making the assertion that married women are "all above 50" (not what he said here, but what he has said in the past) without a shred of evidence.
Are you trying to be technical? Like it's not all because exceptions exist so technically he should say most? No one really cares.
His point is valid though. Suggesting women aren't a problem because look married women vote the way we want isn't the right way to look at it anyway. He's saying the correlation isn't marriage but it's age and though he presents no evidence, knowing what we know about marriage demographics and age, his assertion is most likely correct. We actually don't need evidence to draw that conclusion either. To truly have evidence we'd need breakdowns of ages and marriage status of women but we don't likely have this. That doesn't mean he's wrong or that someone should require evidence. Given what we do know his conclusion is the most reasonable.
If only we could get Ye on the anti-feminism train. He seems to be on the Jews are the reason women are fucked train. Will he make the full progression and realize it's women's nature that is the problem?