Are unmarried women natural extortionists or easily influenced by their education?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (36)
sorted by:
Women will conform to their provider, so women married to the state conform to state. That is the reason feminism is pushed by the regime.
This is the most rational answer! - why didn’t I think of that
Correct. This is a lesson all men need to learn. Women literally don't have beliefs. Schopenhauer was right, women's only interest is men, all other interests are feigned for that purpose.
Family, not just men.
Lesson learned, abolish welfare.
No, abolish universal suffrage.
Women can't be trusted to vote for the interest of society or the species, only their own interests. Allowing them to vote for the ability to marry the state leads invariably to collapse.
It shouldn't be universal period. men or women.
Landownership, military service-- some kind of tasking that results in investment and stake in the future of the country
Any kind of dangerous service, starship troopers style. No paralegals in uniform or inherited land votes - put your own life at risk for it, that is the single best way to weed out the globalists and the gimmedats.
Both sounds good to me.
Unmarried women are beholden to a self-destructive lifestyle. They chase dopamine minute to minute because their life is a desert which contains no real meaning, and the government is a surrogate husband which celebrates and enables that lifestyle.
Why does the government encourage this hollow and spiteful materialism?
Because that hollow modern lifestyle is beneficial to the government. It convinces people that their duty is to employers and invisible subjective movements instead of their family, and persuades them to replace meaning in their life with consumerism. Even religion is replaced by the new priests of our society; experts.
The government wants natural instincts and human nature crushed, they want to turn people into slaves who will endlessly service "The Society" in exchange for a quick dopamine hit and some opiates and trinkets. They want to elicit shame and helplessness from people, because when people are guilty and weak they feel obligated to make amends by prostrating themselves and working harder for the caste above them. Today the caste above them is "the society," and especially the professional and political classes.
When people are proud and strong they have no obligations and cant be arm-twisted to serve to the point of self harm and humiliation. Naturally the government doesnt want people proud and strong, that would undermine the subjugation and unravel our economy and war machine, which all depend on fearful bugmen.
Women always prioritize what their husband prioritizes. Its just that some women are married to men and other women are married to the government.
They deny that the government is their surrogate husband, but the truth leaks through even in their lies. Yesterday on Reddit this came up. A man said single women vote for big government because it replaces their husband.
The woman's response? To deny the claim outright, say she was happy and whole single, and then try to shame men for running out and not paying child support, so therefore the welfare is deserved.
The fact that she invoked deadbeat dads in an argument about government welfare, the fact that she posited welfare and government protection as an opposite alternative to a man, actually betrays the fact that single women secretly see the government as a husband/father. She accidentally proved her opponent's point and betrayed herself.
Of course, being a mental goldfish she didnt realize it. And being mentally cuckolded and blind to their own intuition, men on r conservative didnt realize it either, and just kept on arguing down a tangent about whether people deserve welfare. The feminist "won" the argument even though she's an alcoholic with no family who lives for her job.
This is why we lose. Even conservative men are so blinded and confused by the unnatural way we all live that they can no longer perceive of obvious wrongness right in front of them. They squabble over whether some group or another deserves a larger or smaller share of the resources, ignoring the fact that we all live under an anti-human regime which actively seeks to crush our soul and the natural order.
Which slaves the "New Gods tm" favor this month doesnt matter because we are all being ground down and used up.
And Im aware this sounds like communist bullshit at times. But communists are reacting to the same unnatural world order that we are. Its the wrongness of everything which makes them so crazy and stupid and degenerate. But because they are all ironically the purest products of this corrupt system, and the most ardent consumerists, they think they can fix the problem just by giving themselves a bigger slice of the pie. Out of anyone, they are the least capable of looking outside the system.
Even if they succeeded, the madness and degeneracy, depression and hatred which permeates society now, breaking the bonds between mother and son, husband and wife, humanity, god, and nature would still grow stronger.
Well said. I don't see any way back from this level of pervasive decay honestly.
This is absolutely true but it is soul crushing.
that was really well put.
They're whores. They live for letting dead beats raw dog them and using abortion as birth control. We're never going win these whores over. Better to repeal the 19th. Actually I have an even better idea but I'm not allowed to say it. Ever since the "election" I've been feeling like Imp when it comes to this particular subset of women.
Women are easily persuaded by false consensus via media bombardment.
In other words: the goal should not be something retardedly impossible like the disenfranchisement of women. The goal should be destruction of mainstream media. As always.
It's not so much a goal as a fantasy. I don't think our problems are solvable. We'll just have to try again after the collapse. The destruction of the mainstream media is a laudable goal regardless.
Are you saying you want to maximize their share of the population?
I'm not allowed to say what I want to do to them, but my answer to your question is no. I'm a MGTOW myself but I favor a more traditional socio-legal system that doesn't make MGTOW the only safe option for men. That would reduce their share of the population, not increase it. The thing is even if we could wave a magic wand and have that system appear tomorrow we would still have millions of evil whores destroying the country and they would still be completely unmarriageable. I should state that the subset I'm talking about is "Democrat women". It's just that there's a huge overlap with "unmarried women". Male Democrats aren't any less evil than the female ones. They're just far less privileged and their evil manifests itself in different ways.
I'm mostly just clowning on him for being anti-marriage while pointing out how bad the effects of unmarried women are on politic. Unlike you, he doesn't want marriage reformed.
He can't even formulate a plan in which we don't go extinct. Everything that even remotely involves children is just powerplays for women or tradcucks.
Marriage reformation is way too high level for him.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/16ZDvBmodd/x/c/4TnPeVIbZfa
He’s literally talked about artificial wombs multiple times in the past, people just forget because he says so much other stuff too.
That's not a solution anymore than porn was a solution to simping. There will never be a time in which the wombs are sufficient replacements for reality.
Its the "utopia is possible if we just equally distribute money!" of gender politics.
That’s because he thinks it’s gonna be possible to have robo-waifus with artificial wombs within our lifetimes. Do I think it’ll happen eventually? Hell yeah. Within 100 years? I doubt it.
Yes.
Repeal the 19th.
In past generations, unmarried women were pushed into the convent or working for other families.
Natural extortionists.
Married women are too, but they want to protect the assets of the person they're leeching off.
Woman A: I strongly believe ABC
Woman B: but I strongly believe DEF
Woman A: I believe in DEF
The state is their husband, if you tell her "Vote for me or else your thousand dollars per crotch spawn dries up", well.
Womens rights were a mistake.
A lot of this is also age. Younger means unmarried. Younger are simps for democrats
women are children.